1151. Breeding for God

Comment #221855 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 30, 2008 at 8:12 am

They are genuinely trying to increase science education. There is a little history there, but yes there are many theology graduates.

*very bitterly* This is something of great personal resentment to me. In Cambridge they're preparing to help build a Molecular Biology lab in Saudi Arabia. Do you care to guess what that knowledge will be used for?

Have we completely lost our minds? This is a stain that can't be erased. The scientist who puts his work at the service of brute force is the longest-range killer on earth.

1152. Breeding for God

Comment #221848 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 30, 2008 at 7:59 am

*gloomily* Ishrul better come quick, while there's still a UK left. I can't get away from the conclusion that things are going to get very, very ugly before they get better - if they ever do.

-------

Old Sarum yeah, you better run.

Official smackdown of the 'Islam is Peace' campaign:
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018352.php
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/03/new-jihad-watch-the-orwellian-islam-is-peace-campaign/

Put briefly, the campaign is nothing more or less than an attempt to pull the wool over the Infidels' eyes. It does nothing whatsoever to challenge the Jihadis or the Shariah supporters.

1153. Breeding for God

Comment #221811 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 30, 2008 at 6:56 am

Muslims came and made new cities.

True, but they sure as hell didn't build the first cities. If it weren't for infidel ingenuity, these guys would be hard pressed to invent the wheel.

1154. Breeding for God

Comment #221804 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 30, 2008 at 6:36 am

*claws out*

You can find the definition of Xenophobia here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Xenophobia

Xenophobia is often (in fact, usually) selective in ways convenient to the sufferer.

Well, lookee here. Our fine friend Old Sarum has found out that you can be a Xenophobe without irrationally hating foreigners. In other words, you can be a Xenophobe without actually being xenophobic! Who knew?

Well, if that's the way we're playing the game, I'm saying that Sarum's a car thief and slave trader. Of course, I don't think he's ever stolen a car and I know he lacks the guts for slave-raids, but if I can be a xenophobe without xenophobia, then he can be a car thief and slave trader without stealing cars or trading slaves.

*wipes claws*

ou see, your intolerance includes refusing to recognise that muslims have contributed much to human civilization & its magnificent achievements (& their ancestors in Mesopotamia, Egypt etc actually inaugurated much of what we call civilization - the first cities, first written languages, architecture etc)

Er, wrong. The first cities long predate Islam. Honestly, can you be this ignorant? Islam comes from the seventh century. Written language is far older, not to mention cities. The inhabitants of Persia and Mesopotamia have nothing in common with those ancient civilizations that were exterminated by Islam.

The true ancestors of the people now in Mesopotamia are the ancient tribes of the Arab peninsula, a place to all intents and purposes Hell on earth, a place that has never produced civilization and never will.

Are you, perhaps, referring to the mythical Islamic Golden Age? Well, it's exactly that: mythical. There never was one. There was only the achievements of heretics, and non-Muslims, and first-generational converts who still were, essentially, un-Islamic in their thinking. Men such as Averroes, Avicenna, Omar Khayyam...

Another way that the Muslim 'achievements' have been falsely inflated is from the fact that Arab Christian scientists have arab names and knuckleheads think that makes them Muslim.

I've torn this inanity apart in the 'venomous snakes' thread; you'll find my extensive commentary on that there.

If anyone wants to read a criticism and disproof of this myth, let me recommend Servier's Islam and the psychology of the Musulman You can find it here:
http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/

Some quotations:

"It is difficult to understand how a civilization so noble, so brilliant, whose manifestations have never lost their charm, and which in times past had so remarkable a power of expansion, seems to have lost its virtue in these latter days. It is one of the sorrows and mysteries of history."


As the observation of a subtle mind, accustomed never to accept blindly current opinions as such, this is perfectly justified. For if we admit all the qualities that are habitually attributed to Arab civilization, if we are ready to bow in pious awe before the fascinating splendour with which poets and historians have adorned it, then it is indeed difficult to explain how the Empire of the Caliphs can have fallen into the state of decrepitude in which we see it today, dragging downward in its fall nations who, under other governance, had shown unquestionable aptitudes for civilization.

How is it that the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Berbers, as soon as they became Islamized, lost the energy, the intelligence and the spirit of initiative they exhibited under the domination of Greece and Rome?
..

...these foreign ornaments have been attacked with savage violence by the authorized representatives of Islamic dogma, and since the second century of the Hegira the Caliphs have decided, so as to avoid any variation of the religious dogma, to lay down exactly the spirit and the letter in the works of four orthodox doctors. It is forbidden to make any interpretation of the sacred texts not sanctioned by these works, which have fixed the dogma beyond all possibility of change, and by the same stroke have killed the spirit of initiative and of intelligent criticism among all Muslim peoples, who have thus become, as it were, mumified to such an extent that they have stayed fixed like rocks in the rushing torrent that is bearing the rest of humanity onward towards progress.

*spots a second target*

If Islam is an idea, defeat the parts of the idea that are "wrong". If Islam is a set of attributes foreign to oneself, then the idea will never be defeated because the problem is inside yoursel

Excuse me, would you try and fight against the parts of the idea of Nazism that were wrong - or would you fight against Nazism? And, yes, the parallel is exact. I have observed this before: Hitler was only the Muhammad who failed.

No one can give me one reason why my fear of Islam is irrational, or why my hatred of it is unjust. Islam seeks to enslave the world and destroy everything of value and drag us back to the Dark Ages. Why should I not hate it?

Most Muslims in the UK are very likely not Arabs.

True. And that is why I make no distinctions based on ethnicity or race - anyone who advocates Shariah law here should get out and stay out.

What have Muslims contributed en-masse to human civilization in (say) the last 5 centuries?

It's easy to find out. I read about them on the back of a matchbox.

Ethnic/cultural cleansing, no matter how you want to repackage and no matter who is doing it is abhorrent

Well, yes. Ethnic cleansing is defined as genocide. Is anyone suggesting that? I am suggesting expulsion of those who don't want democracy, don't like it, and whose aims are explicitly genocidal (as has been witnessed in Lebanon, in Nigeria and all the other places where too-generous Infidels let Muslims settle in their lands).

You completely missed the point, of course.

Serdan, you actually are missing it, because he isn't missing it, he's deliberately avoiding it. You think this guy doesn't get it? Or that he's only trying to deceive others? No, the truth is worse - he's trying to deceive himself, to cheat himself of his own consciousness. A truly vile form of self-abasement.

1155. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221721 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 30, 2008 at 3:18 am

Except, stephenray there is a minor problem. If you can get statistics to say anything, how come there is not one statistic that is encouraging? And there are dozens (by now) of studies all of which show that Islam is a serious and real problem?

The woman seems to understand what's what, and has a good idea about the situation we're stuck in.

No doubt views such as that will be denounced as Islamophobic bigotry. No doubt some will decry the CSC as neoconservative. It is true that in these sensitive matters it is both important and difficult to know who is who and why they might say what they do.

Of course. Anything to avoid reality and its unpleasant implications. Anything to maintain the narcissistic self-love that is the sine qua non of the good for many people. Anything to avoid fracturing that Selbstanshaung of the Tolerant.

But one can hardly doubt the findings of the YouGov survey, and the CSC report gives every appearance of carefully documented respectability. Everyone, particularly those Muslims of the moderate, tolerant majority, must be alarmed by this.

Again, correct. The facts are there, for anyone who cares to look. They have only one conclusion.

Islam is a threat. It has always been a threat. Now it is worse than before, ever since the dar al-Islam has regained some of its strength. And Muslim populations will never coexist peacefully with Infidel populations in any kind of a long-term.

Until Islam is destroyed, human civilization faces a terrible threat.

1156. Breeding for God

Comment #221706 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 30, 2008 at 2:44 am

moderate muslims in Western countries openly support diversity of religious belief, free speech, multiculturalism etc etc. But according to Fanusi, this makes them particularly dangerous & subversive.

Excuse me? Pay attention - what I have said is that moderate Muslims are completely ineffective because it is the radicals, the jihadis who are theologically in the right. They have chapter and verse of the Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir to back it up.

You haven't touched on my points about the views of huge numbers of Muslims in the West. Go figure.

Someone tell the author that you can be both secular and religious.

99.8% of the Turks claim to be Muslims, and it's a secular democracy.

Turkey became secular thanks to Attaturk going to war against Islam. He banned the headscarf, built up a secular military to defend a secular constitution, banned those who had attended religious schools from becoming high-level government types, screened any appointees for excess religiosity etc.

Democracy and Islam can only co-exist when Islam is beaten and contained. Remember that.

You seem to have missed the point that by the very extremism of his anti-muslim views, Fanusi has established his status as one of those highly intolerant people whose intolerance we should not be tolerating

Ah yes, I was wondering when someone would play the moral equivalence card. You see, I'm "intolerant" and Muslims are "intolerant"... What's the dif, really? *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*

This is the logical fallacy of defining by nonessentials.

When I'm intolerant, I say that pluralism requires intolerance of Islam. When Muslims are intolerant, they say that Islam requires the intolerance of pluralism and any religion not their specific version of Islam.

When I'm intolerant, I say that we should offer asylum to non-Muslim minorities. When Muslims are intolerant they say that these should be oppressed and exterminated.

When I'm intolerant, I say that Muslim immigration should be stopped and those who want to destroy freedom should be expelled. When Muslims are intolerant, they say that they should invade and destroy all freedoms everywhere.

When I'm intolerant, I say that women's rights need to be protected absolutely, and those who desire to violate them need to be punished harshly. When Muslims are intolerant, they force women into the veil, stone them to death for being raped, give the clitorectimonies, rape them etc.

When I'm intolerant, I say that freedom of speech is an absolute that cannot be violated. When Muslims are intolerant, they say that any speech that even in potentia insults or argues against Islam should be punishable by death.

When I'm intolerant, I say that we should fight against slavery, by purchase, embargo and war, when necessary. When Muslims are intolerant, they say they should take slaves, using war as their method.

When I'm intolerant, I say that we should launch a campaign of imperialism based on newspapers, flyers, television, radio and th internet. When Muslims are intolerant, they say they should have an imperialism based on suicide-bombs, nuclear weapons, machetes and old-fashioned clubs.

When I'm intolerant, I say that human civilization and its magnificent achievements needs to be protected no matter what the cost. When Muslims are intolerant, they say that civilization needs to be destroyed and humanity dragged into a new Dark Age, no matter what the cost.

But we're both intolerant! See how easy it is?

An obvious xenophobe

Ah yes, 'an odious xenophobe', that's me. Why shucky-darn, I hate them furrin' folks. Well, except my Hindu housemates, they're pretty cool. And those blacks I know from my long time in Africa. And my Christian Arab friends from Uni. Oh, and my chinese and japanese colleagues at work...
But, ah'm definately aginst immigrants! Well, except for those Hindu and Sikh immigrants from the subcontinent. Or the Christians, Yezidis, atheists etc. escaping the Arab world. Or the aformenetioned Chinese immigrants...
But the group I dislike so much is an immigrant one, yes? Well, except for the 11% (or thereabouts) of British Muslims who are converts (can't stand them). And, you know, it's wierd, but when some of these immigrants take their life in their hands and abandon their creed, my antipathy vanishes! Like magic! In fact, some of them turn out to be individuals I'm proud to share a species with (such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali).

Sorry, what was your point? Or is your ability limited to invective born of a narcissistic self-image that you will preserve no matter what the facts to the contrary?

That's one of the worrying things about this site

You mean, people can actually express opinions that are *GASP* not yours? Ones that you haven't heard before? And, and... THEY CAN BACK THESE OPINIONS UP? With facts and reason and logic and stuff? What is the world coming to? It's almost as though you might need to reexamine your point of view and see whether you might not be wrong about some of it. Disgraceful!

------------------------------

Serdan, decius thanks for the support. I appreciate it.

Steve Zara, thanks also. My points about Islam and expelling Shariah supporters apply just as much to David Myatt, now Abdul Aziz ibn Myat, formerly a neo-nazi who has now found Islam a better deal. Trust me, I have no qualms about giving that guy a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia.

As regards my views on the expulsion of Shariah supporters - the Czech's expulsion of the Sudeten Germans was carried out against a far less threatening and dangerous group, that were, nonetheless, a potential threat.

I really, really hate having come to these conclusions. It seems insane to live in a world where they're possible. But unlike certain people I am not going to shut down my mind and choke off my reason, just because I find certain conclusions troubling.

1157. Breeding for God

Comment #221627 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 29, 2008 at 11:30 pm

*counts the ostriches*

This is the basic problem. If things go on like this, Europe will become Eurabia and the oldest civilised nations in the world will vanish, forever.

Islamization is a process that is very, very difficult to reverse.

You people in the UK need to do something about this rise of Islam... and fast.

Way ahead of you.

I think some active efforts at integration are not too hard. Even at a personal level. If you start to treat people not as parasites, but guests, they'll be much more likely to assimilate. In other words make them comfortable but insist that they live by house rules.

Excuse me, Paine, not wishing to be the Grinch here, but is there any evidence - at all - that Muslim populations integrate peacefully in the long term, any evidence anywhere on earth?

The 'integration' nonsense is just seen as what it is by Islam: a sign of weakness. Can I refresh everyone's memories about what 30% of British Muslim students believe is acceptable?

They are using current trends to project how things will be in 2045? 38 years into the future? 38 years ago the year was 1970? How similar is the world of 1970 to the world of today? I was not there but people I know where and it is a lot different.

Correct. Which is one reason you can't dismiss the horrible scenario of Shariah by 2050 out of hand.

Besides religion itself is changing so rapidly, I am not sure what problems the christianity and islam of 2045 can pose. Maybe they won't exist, or if they do, only in a non-toxic form. I do not know.

*sighs* Except that we have been waiting for Islam to be tamed by exposure to modernity for over two hundred years. Got that? Two hundred years.

As long as Islam exists, it will be a danger and a threat.

Apathy,

Let's try beating them at their own game, even if we don't succeed, at least we'll have had fun failing

Won't work. Secular people in general have too few kinds, and you'll be hard pressed to convince them otherwise. Also, Muslims practice polygamy.

Indigo

Medical research in the field of stem cells could produce treatments to increase longevity and cure many currently fatal or debilitating illnesses.

I know a bit about this stuff myself, but that's a dead end. The key point is the number of young we have. The young are the most important section of society, especially when it comes to conflict and war.

If anyone want's any real suggestions on saving our necks, here's one: End all Muslim immigration, expel all Shariah supporters, and conduct an aggressive campaign to show Islam for what it is, driving the faithful toward apostasy.

Of course, I know that there are those who'd rather see the lights go out - forever - in Europe that do that, but - and I say this with all my heart - the hell with them.

1158. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221280 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm

So, there should be no state standards for certification? (GED, H.S. Diploma) No standardized testing? How would we ascertain who gains admitance to public universities

Certification is best handled privately. The value a certificate holds is derivative from the reputation of the body that awards it. This is why an M.Sc. from Oxford holds greater weight than one, say, from the University of South Dakota(just pulling a name out of the hat here).

A reputation worth spit is founded on the basis of continual, proven achievement. This is the way standards of quality were ensured before government certification. To earn a solid reputation in situation of free competition is difficult, and it is even more difficult to maintain it. Any institution - a corporation or a school or University - that intends to succeed in such a situation will have to ensure that it routinely provides first-rate service, and then protect that reputation by the same method.

Now placing certification in the hands of government replaces the judgement of millions of individuals with the judgement of some beaurocrat. And you wonder that public education has collapsed?

Public education is, in fact, a criminal waste of human talent and potential. Which can be blamed on the likes of John Dewey. Yes, private individuals can screw up and do so badly. But in a private system it is only the person himself and those who immediately deal with him who suffer. In a statist situation, when a beaurocrat screw up, everyon suffers.

1159. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220460 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 28, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Personally I didn't know that there were "right" or "wrong" political views or systems. That would depend on your goals, and aims.

*dryly* I would expect no less from someone whose avatar is based on the sequel to Kannazuki no Miko.

If happiness on this earth is a value, if freedom is a value, if life itself is a value - then is a political system that is right - Capitalism - and dozens that are wrong, are evil: Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Islam.

1160. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220307 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 28, 2008 at 9:37 am

Dr. Doctor I'm trying to work out what your point is.

Besides, I thought all the terrorist bombers involved in the 7/7 attacks and the later attempts all had jobs, but I admit I didn't keep up.

But I object to the "slacker/sponger/immigrant" to "terrorist" correlation.

Well, these don't necessarily correlate with each other, but they do correlate very well with Islam. The first bit results from the sense of jiyzah entitlement, and the second from the doctrines of Jihad.

Muslim populations in the dar al-Harb are a problem. No question about it.

1161. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220282 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

Al, sorry to butt in, but there's one big omission in your list:

The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany.

1162. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #220262 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 28, 2008 at 9:06 am

Nairb here are some of the figures:

http://www.indexmundi.com/netherlands/birth_rate.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

The point is that the average Muslim birth rate is around about 3.5 per couple, while the native dutch reproduce at about 1.64 per couple. Now, think about that. This means an inverted family tree. Four grandparents, two parents, one child. This is the exact opposite in the Muslim birthrates. It catches up quite quickly.

I've been out of it for some time, so sorry about the late response. I'll run the mathematical numbers when I get back home.

1163. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220249 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 28, 2008 at 8:50 am

But, but... Islam is a RELIGION of PEACE!

Some of us have been pointing this out for a long, long time. So much for the 'vast, overwhelming majority of moderates'.

This is straying into uncomfortable prejudice from you. Plenty of non-Muslims take this piss and live off the state as well. Believe me on that. I grew in a very white and bog-standard Christian part of Wales and saw it all around me.

True, true. However, you see comparatively less of this nonsense amongst Hindu and Sikh immigrants. Conversely, the Muslim population is disproportionately highly represented in the gang-rape statistics.

Notice, as always the revolting apologetics:

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, condemned the study. "This disgusting report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right-wing think tank â€" not the views of Muslim students across Britain," he said. "Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were wilfully misinterpreted."

Sure, it's just a 'right-wing thinktank' that's gulling the poor widdle muslims into saying that they support murder.

People like this should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

1164. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #217339 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 24, 2008 at 8:26 am

al there's a word for it: misandrism.

Nairb I can't verify those numbers at the moment, but if you could give me until I get back home. I'm not ducking this one, but if you can give me a moment, that would be good.

hawt4dawk,

On a related note, the animosity towards "feminists" in some of these threads disturbs me. Even though I found my own mom's brand of feminism disturbing and even destructive, I can see that feminism is not even remotely a monolith. There are lots of different types of feminism. Some feminist theories are valid and have inspired our culture to finally give women the vote by (no later than 1929!), and since then to break the kinds of repression that are not-so-distant cousins to the things we find abhorrent in Islam.

You already know why I loathe the modern feminist organizations, their complete gutlessness when it comes to Islam. The name for this is Justice. You can't admire the true heroes like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Irshad Manji (disagree hugely with her, but she is very brave), Wafa Sultan and Bat Ye'or, while not feeling loathing for the contemptible likes of Germaine Greer.


Of course, I feel admiration for the original feminists, the suffragettes who fought tooth-and-nail to get equal rights for women. That is yet another reason why I despise the modern corruption that calls itself 'feminism'.

Islam might be growing, but it is getting more marginalised in Europe. Yes, they are growing in number but how many are actually "Muslim"?
.

Goldy, a truly terrifying number. Once again, I mention that the lickspittle John Esposito admits that 93 million Muslims absolutely and without question support 9/11, and (this was a 1 to 5 questionair) and the same again pretty much support them, and another three hundred million think the attacks can be 'somehow justified'.

As regards the views of Muslims here in the West, why don't we just look at the statistics from the UK, just for starters? You can find the whole lot here:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist.html

There's alot there. Read it. Here are some choice pieces:

Find it acceptable "for religious or political groups to use violence for political ends": 4 percent.

Would not inform police if they suspected a fellow Muslim was planning a terror attack: 5 percent.

Back Shari`a courts to settle civil cases among Muslims, so long as penalties do not break the law: 61 percen

Agree that despite the right to free speech, in Britain, those who insult or criticise Islam should face criminal prosecution: 58 percent.

Support there being areas of Britain which are pre-dominantly Muslim and in which Sharia Law is introduced: 40 percent.

Would be proud if a family member decided to join al-Qaeda: 2 percent.

Would be indifferent if a family member decided to join al-Qaeda: 16 percent.

Wish to see Britain as an Islamic state: 28 percent

And so on and so forth. I truly hate these facts, but that doesn't change them.

1165. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #217214 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 24, 2008 at 3:49 am

Joe, cut the crap. The Babylonians viewed the world as arising from water long before Islam crawled out of Arabia to plague us. Does that prove the existence of Marduk? Certain Christian fundies say that the thorough ass-kicking of the Muslim Arab nations at the hands of Israel during the Six Day War and others is exactly foretold in the Bible. Prove Christianity to you?

For the matter, the Cthulhu Mythos postulates one, primal source of all live, in the form of primitive cells, and we know that these are the most primitive forms of life. Doesn't make my worship Cthulhu or wait for the end times (okay, except for that one time involving my college-neighbor and the absinthe...)

The point I am getting at is that none of these discoveries were made by Muslims. None. No, it was Western minds that understood the Universe, and then, parasites you are, you scrambled to try and hitch a ride for your Qur'an. Sorry, not going to fly. If it was in there, you should have known about it long ago. You didn't, so it wasn't.

You still cannot answer my point about the abject stagnation and mental paralysis that Islam has brought to this world. You cite 'great experts', but never what they say. Here is Servier, again:

In literature, as in science and philosophy, the Arab has been a compiler. His intellectual beggary shows itself in his religious conceptions. In pagan times, before Mohammad, the Arab gods had no history, no legend lends poetry to their existence, no symbolism beautifies their cult. They are mere names, borrowed in all probability from other peoples, but behind these names there is . . . nothing.

Islam itself is not an original doctrine; it is a compilation of Greco-Latin traditions, biblical and Christian; but in assimilating materials so diverse, the Arab mind has stripped them of all poetical adornment, of the symbolism and philosophy he did not understand, and from all this he has evolved a religious doctrine cold and rigid as a geometrical theorem: â€" God, The Prophet, Mankind.

This doctrine is sometimes adorned by the nations who have adopted it and who have not the barren brain of the Arab, with quite an efflorescence of poetry and legend. But these foreign ornaments have been attacked with savage violence by the authorized representatives of Islamic dogma, and since the second century of the Hegira the Caliphs have decided, so as to avoid any variation of the religious dogma, to lay down exactly the spirit and the letter in the works of four orthodox doctors. It is forbidden to make any interpretation of the sacred texts not sanctioned by these works, which have fixed the dogma beyond all possibility of change, and by the same stroke have killed the spirit of initiative and of intelligent criticism among all Muslim peoples, who have thus become, as it were, mumified to such an extent that they have stayed fixed like rocks in the rushing torrent that is bearing the rest of humanity onward towards progress.

From this time forward, the doctrine of Islam, reduced to the simplicity of Arab conception, has carried on its work of death with perfect efficiency inasmuch as it governs every act of the believer's life; it takes charge of him in his cradle, and leads him to the grave, through all the vicissitudes of life, never allowing him in any sphere of thought or activity the least vestige of liberty or initiative. It is a pillory that only allows a certain number of movements previously fixed upon.

To sum up: the Arab has borrowed everything from other nations, literature, art, science, and even his religious ideas. He has passed it all through the sieve of his own narrow mind, and being incapable of rising to high philosophic conceptions, he has distorted, mutilated and desiccated everything. This destructive influence explains the decadence of Muslim nations and their powerlessness to break away from barbarism.

Emphasis mine. "He has distorted, mutilated, and desiccated everything". Well, quite.

1166. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #217102 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 23, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Kill- to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay
Murder- the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson.

The typical distinction drawn is that murder is the taking of innocent life, or taking life unlawfully. That is, killing someone who has done no wrong, or killing soldiers who have surrendered, qualifies as murder.

Israel recently released some of these thugs that LGS so likes. Here's a little reminder of what they are, an eyewitness account of what they did:

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

Emphasis mine.

1167. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216786 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 23, 2008 at 2:12 pm

I share Fanusi's concerns on this deceptive and almost machiavellian face of Islam. I would say this face of Islam is more frightening than the one that preaches intolerance.

*nods* Exactly. The Muslim leaders of the Jihad know they can't bring the West down militarily. Not yet. What they are gambling on is to destroy it from within. A memorandum, recovered from the Muslim brotherhood in 1991 showed that this was all part of their plan to tear the West down from inside, through infiltration, through immigration, through deception - until they are strong enough to take over.

It's five minutes to midnight for us. The Dutch parliment said that Holland would become Muslim majority in one or two decades. But that's not the scary bit. The danger begins to hit us when our young men reach parity. Because young men are your fighting force. So, based on that prediction, by 2025 at the latest, this continent will see bloody upheaval of a scale not seen since the Dark Ages. Wars that will make WWII seem like a cakewalk.

Every time another credible poll is published showing evidence that a huge portion of mulims in muslim coutries support violence (even if they're just 20, 30 or 40%, that still makes them 100s of millions of people), our sycophants to the religion of moderacy ignore it, declare it false without providing better evidence, or even deny such data exists at all.
If I'm wrong on this, I'd admit it. I just haven't seen plausible evidence to the contrary.

blackwolf, you won't. When I first began to grasp the horror of this, I desperately searched for evidence to the contrary. I found none.

We are up against the oldest, most terrible form of Fascism in human history. The sooner people realise this, the better our chances are at survival.

For anyone who doubts the seriousness and gravity of the situation, watch the following film:

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc

1168. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216553 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 23, 2008 at 9:34 am

This is not a freedom of speech issue. No one suggests that Muslims should be hauled off to jail,--well maybe except for Fanusi,-- for practicing their religion or even proselytizing.

Excuse me, I have made my point of view quite clear. Any support of Shariah law should result in loss of citizenship, and any advocacy of Jihad - that is, advocating the random murder of innocent fellow citizens - should be prosecuted as incitement to murder and treason, both punishable by death.

Now this brings me to my next point:

I'm going to go to bed now, but i will think more on your points. But please think on mine and tell me why you think curtailing the right to express and defend your ideas can be justified

Well, as I have said, if the advocacy of Jihad and Shariah had harsh punishment then the ICNA wouldn't be in business. This sort of advocacy could go on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't express our disgust and loathing at it.

But this isn't happening; those who speak about the truth about Islam are not just under threat of death from the vile members of that religion, but are also marginalized, and spat on, and thrown out of their jobs, and out of their countries, and have legal charges brought to them. That is why my blood seethes at this nonsense.

1169. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216339 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 23, 2008 at 1:49 am

N.B.: Here is a speech by Ibn Warraq about the subject:

http://snaphanen.dk/2008/03/11/video-ibn-warraq´s-lecture-in-the-free-press-society-copenhagen-denmark/

1170. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216337 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 23, 2008 at 1:47 am

However that is off point. You are also denying them the freedom you say they would try to deny us (though to a much smaller degree, this is simply denying them a voice - though no one needs me to highlightwhy that is an issue).

I fail to see why. In Germany we have laws against Holocaust denial and fascist parties. Once again, I bring up the second world war: we'd have never tolerated Nazi or Japanese Imperial propaganda spread then, why should we tolerate Islamic propaganda now?

There's an idiotic word that's going around: Islamo-fascism. It's idiotic because it's redundant. He who says "Islam" says "Fascist", he who says "Fascist" says "like Islam".

And who is more likely to get into trouble trying to spread their views? The Muslims pushing their Mein Kampf? Or me who points out what is actually written in that book?

1171. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216296 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Felandath, good to see you again!

theantitheist I would have less of a problem if any attempt to tell the truth about Islam were not systematically stymied. Look at those countries that managed to survive, somewhat, Islam, like Turkey. They crack down heavily on public expressions of the faith, such as the veil, and they know it's necessary.

Lee Harris cites a parallel, I think it's with Locke, who when arguing for religions toleration meant tolerance amongst the Protestant sects but not the Catholics. The reason was simple: the Catholics were so strong that if they could set up shop, they'd wipe out the competing Protestant sects and any hope of religious plurarlism would come to an end. I submit the same applies to Islam.

UPDATE: felandath is entirely right. Here's the book:

Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman
http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/

It's a very important, very accurate book that's been driven out of print.

1172. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216281 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Bit pointless really, where do they come up with the money for all this?

Come on, sage, where do you think? Saudi Oil money, of course.

If they allow christian ads then they should also allow muslim ads. It's just fair and equally weird.

...

Thier selling a brand, whats the problem? (Apart from the obvious false advertising bit)

To Broicher, theantitheist & everyone else who might not know it, this is technically called Da'wa, the targeted attempt to convert others to Islam.

Now the problem arises because Islam is inherently fascistic and totalitarian. Imagine posters saying "Uncle Adolf Wants You!".

The sponsers behind this little escapade is the Islamic Circle of North America, the ICNA, which was listed in the famous 1981 memo by the Muslim Brotherhood as part of a Grand Jihad to undermine and destroy Western civilization from within. Various methods listed were targeted Da'wa, how to present Islam nicely, encourage Islamic immigration etc.

This is bad news. I think it's legit to say, "Oh, sure, you can have your posters - when we get Christian posters, and "Imagine no religion" in Ryadh".

UPDATE: Also, if somone were to run adds saying the truth about Islam, or quoting, say Winston Churchill on it, there'd be screams of 'Racist! Islamophobe!' and no way it would be allowed.

The Churchill quote I am thinking of is here:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property -- either as a child, a wife, or a concubine -- must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -- the science against which it had vainly struggled -- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

1173. Losing Sight of Progress

Comment #215528 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 3:58 am

Nice bitchslap of Ann Coulter by the Hitch *grins* Admitedly, this is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope, but it's still fun.

As regards evolutionary progress, I do agree with Richard Dawkins that there is a kind of progress, a tendency towards ever greater complexity, total. That is, once cyanobacteria produced Oxygen as a waste product, the basis for oxygen-breathers was laid. The deaths of plants created the topsoil from which new forms could grow. They also provide a new niche for grazers, who in turn provided a niche for predators, and all of them are niches for diseases and parasites, and these are food in turn - and so the structure schaukles upward.

1174. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215525 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 3:50 am

I think Christians can be barbarous as well when they want to be. Even secular ones. And I also believe this story should sound as a warning to any minority that becomes too "powerful". Those wanting an Islamic rise would do well to watch how we in the civilised west treat the Roma...

I have trouble seeing how this particular barbarism is indicative of a widespread ideological onslaught. Unless, of course, you mean - and I suspect that you do - that the West is so corrupt that it has no moral right to defend itself against Islam. In which case I just say 'Nuts to you'.

I also notice the bottom-feeding lgs has crawled out from under his rock to spit his venom and inanity.

(yes, that last word is correctly spelt).

1175. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #215483 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 2:12 am

just spotted this. I think this is usually the case but there are important exceptions.

As far as I can tell there wasn't any good economical reason for Genghis Khan to conquer half the world and then not knowing what to do with it.I am open to changing my mind on this, but based on all I know it the Mongolian conquest was simply an monumental act of vandalism fueled by vanity,

Also I cannot see what economical incentive Hitler might have for invading the U.S.S.R.

*nods* Exactly, Bonzai. This is the old, Marxist, materialist view of human history, and what it excludes is the fact that human beings have minds and the contents of those minds that guide them. Any model of human history that doesn't consider fanaticism, wide-scale, raw fanaticism, and the worship of power and war for their own sake, is doomed to fail.

The Jihadist mentality isn't limited to Islam. When Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, he did so because, in terms of his fantasy-ideology, he had to, he had to to prove, to others, but above all to himself, that he was recreating the Roman Empire. When Hitler spoke of the Thousand Year Reich, he was doing the same thing. Communism had a similar messianic vision, and thus desired to spread under the same method.

1176. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #215447 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 21, 2008 at 11:43 pm

*yawns and stretches* Work is really heating up so I just managed to get round to this.

Joe you have cited a huge number of people, but you've never given facts. Not one fact that these supposedly great minds have said, in response to my challenge about the stagnation and misery that your hellish creed brings.

I don't care for Fanusi's somewhat glowing endorsement of Christianity,

*dryly* That sound you hear is my Christian friends doubled over with laughter.

and I have expressed this to him on the "Blind Faiths" thread. I would concur that Christianity can be a threat to civilization. It is the intellectual stagnation that any religion

al I've been over this. I don't have a 'glowing endorsement of Christianity'. For the record, I have been more fiercely critical of its fundamentals, in some ways, than even the Horsemen (I don't believe that Christ's credo of self-sacrifice and turning the other cheek is moral, but is profoundly evil). What I have said is, firstly, that likening Christianity to Islam and its horrors, isn't just profoundly unjust, but actively insane, and secondly, that there are important Christian legacies that have made our civilization possible; that is, ones that make it uniquely open to reform.

And now, I fear, I must turn to NC:

You may argue that Graeco-Latin civilization spread northwest after the fall of the Empire, but in that case it is legitimate to ask -- why northwest and not northeast into Russia or south into Africa? The answer has to do mainly with food production. You can't have specialized scholars if everyone's living hand-to-mouth.

What I would - and did - argue is that Russia did recieve some of the Helenic strain, which is why it produced Dostoyevsky and Tesla (amongs others), but it was by far the weaker legacy. Now, there was a much stronger influx into England of these ideals. Why is a very good question, and one worth some debate. And, of course, the Helenic strain never descended in Africa because of the formidable natural barriers to it. Nevertheless, North Africa was completely Hellenized before Islam came.

You seem to have conceded by basic point, that it is the presence of the Helenic strain underneath Christianity that made the Enlightenment possible. You have relegated food production to 'sundry causes'.

I still would like to hear why, if it weren't for Islam, Byzantium would not have undergone the Enlightenment.

Despite your individualistic political leanings, you insist on discussing Muslims as a collective unit,

How, exactly, am I supposed to discuss the effects of Muslim immigration and their views in any other way? Noone seems to gripe about using that kind of language about any other group, say, when looking at the recent ghastly polls about the number of American Christians who reject evolution. And when you have one hundred and eighty-six million who support the 9/11 attacks, and another three hundred million who think they were 'somehow justified', then I believe this language may have something going for it.

It's also ironic, since I'm the one who advocates an appeal to individual Muslim minds to help break the hold of Islam on them.

1 down.

You poured scorn on Scott Atran for saying only a few thousand Muslims pursued jihad. By the Qur'an's definition of jihad, which includes preaching and propaganda, you'd be right. But Atran makes it quite clear that by "jihad" he means specifically violence, and in particular terrorism. You can argue with his choice of terms, but to claim that you have defeated his argument with this definition is to commit the logical fallacy of equivocation

So, you're conceding that he has no idea what he's talking about when he uses the term Jihad? Good to have that out in the open. And the 'few thousand' figure is still utter nonsense. You don't kill two million Christians and Animists in the Sudan, in what was, yes, called a Jihad with a few thousand.

2 down

I said all wars had economic causes; you called this "so ignorant it's unbelievable". I replied that, while individuals might go to war or even lead others to war for ideological reasons, war is both such a costly and such a risky business that any war effort lacking solid economic underpinnings would fail. Therefore, conflicts that do escalate into major wars always have an economic basis.

Sorry, I read that as saying that wars had to have an exclusively, or primarily economic basis. If you are now saying that people don't go to war when they are physically unable to do so - who can argue with that? But it's a pointless tautology. When the means are there, wars are very often driven by ideology which the whole history of the Twentieth Century proves.

3 down

You told me I couldn't know that unless I'd actually visited Camden itself.

I said no such thing. I asked you to provide evidence that the views in Camden were the result of racism and not of legitimate fears about Islam. Which you still have failed to do.

4 down.

You've repeatedly accused the Palestinians of "genocide" and said that Israel has to hit back or it will be destroyed. I pointed out that the comparative body counts on the respective sides are highly unbalanced, and in precisely the opposite sense from what you are suggesting. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for instance, the total Israeli death toll from Qassam rocket fire, ever, is 15 -- less than two days' worth of deaths on the Palestinian side from the retaliation.

What I have said is that the agenda of the Palestinians is explicitly genoidal, which is obvious to anyone who studies their propaganda in their television, radio, schoolbooks etc.. Israel is better armed than they, and a damn good thing too. If it weren't, it would have long since been wiped out by the Muslim Arabs.

5 down

I replied that this was only because no Christian country is currently suffering the same socioeconomic conditions as the Islamic world; and further predicted, in some detail, that when the economic effects of Peak Oil hit the United States we can expect to see what will be, effectively, a Christian Fascist explosion.

For the record, I have spoken - often - about this danger, but what would cause it is either catastrophic Islamic terror or the collapse of one of Europe's countries into civil war or Shariah. I keep pointing out that we deal with the problem now with harsh, but civilized measures, or face the unthinkable later.

6 down.

Before the Reformation, the Church was effectively a branch of the government in practically every European state -- "no bishop, no king". Why did the Reformation open the door to the Enlightenment when the Catholic/Orthodox split hadn't? Because the Reformation wasn't a geographical split. It created a situation where states could not favour one faith without falling prey to extremists from the other

"A branch" - hard to argue with that. But the Church and the Government were in perpetual conflict, and this opened the gap in which the Enlightenment could grow. This is because Christianity isn't a political doctrine in the way that Islam is.

Your comments that letting it into Western nations will make Islam less dangerous is refuted by the fact that there are preachers so radical in the UK that they would never be tolerated in, say, Iraq.

You are also ignoring that it took the slaughter of the 30 years war, not to mention all the other internecine fighting, to get people to realise that religious toleration was essential, as the alternative incurred simply too high a price. I think that the disillusionment we see with Islam in Iraq results from similar causes. But I don't want that experiment run in London and Berlin, thank you.

7 down.

You've repeatedly described the Crusades as a "defensive" conflict. If so, why did Crusaders kill Christians and Muslims alike in the countries they invaded

Because this is the Dark Ages we are talking about, when war wasn't a bowl of sugar pops. Get that straight. I've been harshly critical of that, especially the disastrous Fourth Crusade which weakened Byzantium fatally.

What I will not, however, hear is this nonsense that the poor widdle Muslims were just minding their own business and then those nasty European Christians waged war on them unprovoked. It's hogwash and mendacious hogwash at that.

8 down.

You say six million African Muslims convert to Christianity each year. I pointed out that Christian evangelists work by reaching out in hospitality to their target audience before -- take note of this, it's important -- before they declare any sympathy to Christianity or any dissatisfaction with their current belief. That is the key to the Christians' success. You clearly like the idea of adopting such a successful strategy, but you can't seem to bring yourself to commit to the central, indispensable, key tactic of it -- pre-emptive outreach.

Hmmm - didn't I say something about calling for a campaign of cultural Imperialism to break minds away from Islam? And that we should support those Muslims who have suffered from the Arab Supremacist ideology that is part and parcel of Islam, such as the blacks in the Sudan or the Kurds or the Berbers? Why, yes, yes I did.

9 down.

You want there to be "grave consequences" for publicly preaching jihad. How are you intending to prevent those who privately seek jihad from meeting secretly and plotting terror attacks?

Since we can't prevent the preaching entirely we should just roll over and demonstrate that we'll do nothing against those threatening our lives and our civilization? And that's going to dissuade the Muslims? Won't it rather show them that we're push-overs and unwilling to fight for our values, while dispiriting those who want to break free but are afraid to and see that if Westerners aren't willing to stand up against Islam, why should they?

10 down.

You think Muslims will spontaneously turn apostate from within the dar al-Islam -- I say apostasy is far more likely in contexts where there are genuine alternatives to Islam already in place to fit into. Blocking Muslim immigration would thus prevent many Muslims from apostasizing.

I've never said that. What I have said is that our first concern is our survival and separating ourselves from Islam and cordoning it off is essential to that. Breaking the hold of Islam on the minds of Muslims is a very long process and we can hardly do that when our own contries go under Shariah, now can we?

11 down.

Most cultures encompass multiple values and ideals, including freedom, justice, and decision-making by consent. An effective method of countering Islamic dominance would be to seek out social structures within the target cultures that embody those values, and enable and nurture those

Such as what, exactly? Those examples you cite are non-Islamic, a sign of its hold weakening. Well great. No problems there. Let's support that all the way. But seeking out 'moderate Islam', whatever the hell that is, is a waste of time.

12 down

Only... Milosevic was an Orthodox Christian Serb; the Bosnian Muslims were among his victims.

You have a magnificent ability to miss the point. Our first business is to survive. If someone is advocating Shariah, whether they believe it or are stupid or are doing it out of fear - what difference does that make? They're still a threat. And my point - for the millionth goddamn time, NC - is deal with the problem now or face far less pleasant solutions in the future.

14 down.

I provided an argument against Ayn Rand's central philosophical position. You said I was "taking refuge behind jargon", so I expanded it. I've presented that expansion twice now, on the Sharia Law and Ian McEwan threads, and I'm not going to do it a third time. Click the "Other comments by NakedCelt" link and you'll find it.

I don't have the time to go searching for it now; but the fact that you can't repeat it... You're track record with these points isn't too good so far, so let's leave that one as 'undecided.

Your proposition to halt immigration, not of brown people, nor of Arabs, nor of people who hold passports from Middle Eastern countries, but of people who believe one particular thing rather than another, would require border guards to become thought police. Basic political principle: when considering granting any government department new powers, always imagine first what a government with beliefs diametrically opposed to your own could do with them.

Er... During the Second World War, immigration from Germany was none too easy, and there was a sharp eye on sleepers. What, exactly, would the outcome have been if you had hundreds of thousands of Germans immigrating who openly declared their support for Nazism - or hundreds of thousands of Japanese who believed in the divinity of the Emperor?

15 down.

I compared the crime rate among Muslims in Europe to the crime rate among African Americans in the States. You said I was insulting African Americans. I said: check the statistics, then.

You are. You're drawing an equivalence between race and religion - the exact same equivalent you accuse me of, btw. So, are African Americans devoted largely to tyranny, do black churches routinely say rape and paedophilia is A.Ok? Do tell. I'd love to know the kind of sites you've been browsing.

16 down.

You have repeatedly asserted that they do, but never backed up the assertion, and as a large part of your case depends on it, I'd really like to see what your justification is.

*BEEP* The Third Reich, the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, the KKK, slavery, the Jihad of fourteen centuries, the routine practice of Islamic child rape justified by and with reference to Muhammad's example - sorry, do you really know that little about humanity and its history?

17 down

If police protection is provided for Muslims who apostasize, as you suggest, those who are still scared "are of no use" and "that's their problem and not ours", you say. Fanusi -- A is A. A is not not-A. If Islam is a problem for us, then people who remain Islamic are our problem and not just their own.

Sleight-of-hand. Of course they remain a problem for us, and that is solved by ending Mulsim immigration, expelling Shariah supporters, practicing a vigorous campaign to expose Islam for what it is. What I have said is that we have no obligation, none, to risk our necks for those who won't, for whatever reason, begin to think and learn and find the courage that brings. If they apostasize, great. Every free mind is a valuable addition. If they leave our countries, not so great, but it gets the sword off our necks.

18 down.

Final tally: 18 shot down in flames, and one undecided.

I may answer the rest later.

1177. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215223 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm

But, but... Islam is a religion of PEACE! And isn't it full of the rights of women? Don't nice, westenized converts keep telling us this?

*spits to get the taste out of his mouth*

You may also await the deafening silence of the Feminist organizations who, as per-fucking-usual, will say zip about this.

The expected result is that muslims will not grow to much more then 16%

Also be aware that the french have beeen having many babies since 2000. They now have the highest number of births per couple in Europe bar Ireland. The muslim population is contributing about 5% to this growth.

I hope you're right, Nairb. Because if not we'll be seeing this barbarity in Europe before long. Could you send me some sources on that?

Why is it always "sex offences"? Seems the only time we ever hear about vile religious dogma is when it involves sex. If it's not muslims stoning people to death because they have failed to be monogamous it's catholics and their condoms or anglicans getting in a flap about gay bishops

Just for the record, Cartomancer, however one may despise these views of the Christians, they are nothing in comparison with the abject barbarity of Islam.

Destroying Islam will be a service to humanity.

1178. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #212591 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 17, 2008 at 11:55 am

hawt4dawk thanks for replying.

As for our political differences Fanusi, I couldn't quite read the specifics of your meaning. Maybe you would elucidate in a pm.

Will do.

The true questions are presumably "What do the nice Muslims really think?" What did the Islamic moderates have to say to you Fanusi?

Only one group replied and they addressed not one of my points, but went off om some wierd tangent that blamed the whole thing on Israel. Go figure.

The point about Muslim moderates is that they are moderate. Now, ask yourself: in what revolution, in what grand struggle in human history have 'moderates' of any stripe been worth a damn? Which barricade was manned, and what man stood tall on it and said "Brothers, we shall not give an inch, we shall fight to the last - for moderation!"

In short, I think that the moderates will be no help whatsoever in this fight, that there are two kinds of Muslims, largely, those who support Shariah and Jihad and those who will do nothing to stop it.

There's a real confusion about the nature of evil and evil ideas. You know the saying 'For evil to triumph, it is enough for good men to do nothing'? Well, the trick of all evil in all times has been to get good men to the point when they do nothing.

If you imbide a toxic doctrine such as multiculturalism or relativism, it will do no immediate damage. No immediate damage. But there will come a point in your life when you need every scrap of your courage, every piece of your integrity to do the right thing - and that's when the booby trap in your brain will go off, providing you with countless reasons to keep your mouth shut and your head down.

And that's the first step into the darkness. The effect of Islam on moderates will firstly be to paralyse them in the face of the radicals - and then to slowly turn them into radicals themselves. Because cowardice is inherently unstable. It is very, very difficult to be able to say "I know this is wrong, I know I should speak up - but I'm just too damn scared", and effectively impossible. The temptation to think that maybe, just maybe, the evil ones have a point. Of course, not that you'd agree with everything, but...

And that's the formula of moral corruption. Look around the web, and you can see it happening. A moderate Muslim webzine, 'The American Muslim' had an article on 'Islamism as a viable political philosophy'. Who are they trying to convince? Themselves. They are trying to drown out their batter conscience with that kind of thing.

This is why we see former moderates become fully fledged fanatics.

It's also why those of us who speak and fight against evil ideas are often considered 'extremists'; the other side is talking about half-measures, compromises, little developments. But evil needs to be fought at the root.

They were very nice young medical students from Qatar, two men and two women. So I have had images of them swirling in my mind along with thoughts of this discussion, wondering where they are in the scheme of things. The young women were wearing hijab and green (the color of Islam, as I'm sure you know) smocks over their clothes, not burqas, and were studying medicine. Does this go against the law of Islam?

Oh, certainly. Women - women of the faith - seeking an independant mind and self-reliance? Al-Ghazali is rotating in his grave fast enough to generate hydro-electricity.

Returning to my previous point, imagine a situation where there are Muslim pogroms happening in your region, where you were afraid to go out of the house. How sure are you that those students would speak up on your behalf and of your family?

Your comments on what "a kafir woman like you could expect" were disturbing, of course.

The truth can be very disturbing. I'll be honest: when I realized the truth, there were moments I thought about killing myself, rather than witness the darkness to come. What stopped me is this: if I'm going to die, I may as well die fighting Islam and in defence of everything I love.

I found a news article on this same Australian Mufti you mentioned about him being so upset when his remarks about rape were misinterpreted in the press that he had to lay in bed all day breathing through an oxygen mask

Another little game Muslims play. Catch them with their pants down, so to speak, catch then being honest for once, and they say they were 'misrepresented'. Have you seen the documentary 'Undercover Mosque'? It's on youtube or good vid. Anyway, after showing, clearely, what was going on in these mosques, the Muslims cried that 'it was out of context', that there is some mystic 'context' that will make statements that the woman is inherently inferior, or that a forty year old man can have sex with a nine year old, perfectly acceptable.

Here are some of those statements by the Mufti and you can judge for yourself, just with your own mind, whether or not there's any 'context' that can make them acceptable:

"A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world . . .

"Strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature."

"Would you put this sheep that you adore in the middle of hungry wolves? No . . . It would be devoured. It's the same situation here. You're putting this precious girl in front of lustful, satanic eyes of hungry wolves. What is the consequence? Catastrophic devastation, sexual harassment, perversion, promiscuity."

You'll fidn the whole thing here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005868.php

I'd like to close with a quote from the film "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", which you can also find online.

"Ultimately, the price we're talking about, is the price of freedom. And in every generation, I think, at some point, we are called upon to stand up, for that ideal"

1179. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #212033 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Sciros that is beneath contempt.

1180. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #211997 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm

hawt4dawk, first of all, sorry for my somewhat sarcastic and short tones. It's just that I have heard this blank dismissal of facts and reason so often, with no other comment that 'it's just what the neocons say', with no proof, no argument, that I get a little bit prickly.

But you are obviously something that I'm sorry to say is rare today: honest in your desire to find out about this.

But I must say in 2003 I did see with my own eyes an outline on how best for the U.S. to rule the world on the website of a neo-conservative think-tank "Project for a New American Century

Oh dear, these guys. Don't get me started. Are they really so foolish as to think ruling the world is a matter of tanks and guns? No; what runs the world is ideas.

That's what's wrong with this Wilsonian nonsense in Iraq. It's a hang over from the materialist determinism of Marx. The belief that there is a defined progress of history.

Roughly speaking, they thought that, take out the tyrant Saddam and his thugs, and the Iraqis would find their way to a modern, industrialist democracy.

Not happening. Because you can't just graft an industrial superstructure on primitive barbarism. An industrial civilisation, with its pipelines, power plants, skyscrapers, aeroplanes - to be supported by the ravings of a seventh-century lunatic? No chance.

The Arab Muslims have taken ten trillion dollars in unearned wealth from beneath their sands. They haven't developed one step, and they won't do so, no matter how much they recieve unearned. They won't, because they can't. Our civilisation relies on one thing: the functioning human mind. And it is that above all that Islam tries to destroy.

So why not foment fear of Islam amongst liberal secular humanists and atheists as well? I still feel under-educated and I may sound naive, but I don't want to be credulous in the face of possible political manipulation.

Why not indeed? May I suggest something? When I first began to grasp the true horror of what's going on with Islam, I tried, desperately, to disprove those conclusions. I wrote to every 'moderate Muslim' organization I could find begging them to prove me wrong, and read all the stuff that might prove a counterargument. But I also read the arguments of the islamo-realist school. And I compared them, using only the judgement of my rational mind, and looked at who brought nothing but generalities and invective to the table, and those who brought facts, reason, and reality to it. That is what lead me to my current views, as much as I hate having to hold them.

Now, in terms of good resources, a good place to start is with Ibn Warraq's writings. If you have the chance to read Why I Am Not A Muslim, do so.

Then there are some good websites worth reading. JihadWatch is the resource par excellence on this phenomenon, and you can find it at http://www.jihadwatch.org/. The Qur'an blog is well worth the read, since Robert Spencer provides the essential context from the Hadith, Sira, Tafsir and so on, and shows how that books is still understood throughout the world. You can find it here: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/27/blogging-the-quran/

Then there is FaithFreedom, maintained by the former Muslim and fiery polemecist Ali Sina (http://www.faithfreedom.org/). thereligionofpeace.com keeps an ongoing tally of the horrors of Islam.

MEMRI provides translations of what exactly is getting broadcast in the Muslim world. And, if you like some classical scholarship of the dementia Islam inculcates, try "Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman" by Andre Servier, out of print now, but online at: http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/

That's more than enough to get anyone started. I'll just close with noting something. Take a moment to compare the measured scholarship of Ibn Warraw against drivel like Karen Armstrong's biography of Muhammad (a completely fraudulent account) or even Irshad Manji's "The Trouble with Islam Today". That'll tell you alot about who has the correct view of Islam.

I sure as hell don't want to go back to living as a woman from somewhere between the 7th and 14th centuries.

Oh, it's worse than you think. Everyone knows about the sufferings of Muslim women. But what isn't addressed is: if this is what the faithful women go through, what is the status of kafir women? The answer is simply this: rightless. I mean that literally. Under Islam, a kafir woman like you would have no rights whatsoever, being twice damned by not being a member of the faith and being a woman. For example, the Qur'an allows any Muslim man to rape an infidel woman with no consequence, and the hadith even encourage that. And this hasn't fallen into decay, like the Old Testament has. A year or so ago, the Head Mufti of Australia passed a fatwa saying that in 90% of the cases of rape, it's the woman's fault for provoking the man. This is probably why gang-rape in Western countries is predominantly a Muslim crime (and, yes, I have the statistics to back that up, if you want to know).

On the other hand, I don't want everything I know and love, including the unbelievably hard-won freedoms and knowledge brought on by the tempering of religious dominance and the flourishing of scientific inquiry, to be destroyed by any kind of totalitarianism (religious or otherwise).

Welcome aboard. Anyone, regardless of their background, who has a thinking mind is welcome.

Look, I suspect you have different political views to me, but what does that really matter? Pim Fortuyn was a gay, pro-drug legalization, pro-gay marriage, lefty, and he had the mind to understand what Islam is and the integrity to say so and say so loudly.

(N.B.: I actuall disagree with only two bits of Pim's characterisation that I listed above. Guess which.)

1181. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #211674 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 8:38 am

"We have lost sincerity, morals, fidelity and attachment to our religions and to humanity," Abdullah

Actually, Abdullah, it's your attachment to your religion that has cost you the rest. Sincerity? Does the word taqqiya ring a bell? Morals? I fail to see how the rape of nine-year old girls is moral. Humanity? You mean like when the mutaween barricaded those girls inside a burning building?

Some of us have read your damn book, Abdul, and we know that you consider us kafirs less than human.

Goldy that damn stupid book by Esposito has been thoroughly dismembered. The fact is that if you look at the raw numbers they received, before they cooked the books, you end up with nearly two hundred million supporters of 9/11.

Let me repeat that for emphasis:

nearly two hundred million supporters of 9/11.

Details here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/066chpzg.asp?pg=2

Willkommen zu der verruckten Zeit, indeed.

Bottom line, Esposito is a lying sack of shit.

Back to our fiends, er, friends, the Saudis, a buddy of mine put it best: "Saudi Arabia basically is Mordor".

More from Abdul

"If God wills it, we will then meet with our brothers from other religions, including those of the Torah and the Gospel... to come up with ways to safeguard humanity,"

Here's a simple way to safeguard humanity: erase Islam from existence, and problem solved.

The conference starts today. I wonder what the results will be.

Aztek I can tell you what they'll be. There will be talk of 'extremists on all sides', and much ruminations of 'Islam is peace', and how all religions 'deserve respect'. There will be words like 'compromise', and 'understand', and 'dialogue'.

What there will not be is anything that stops the advance of the Jihad. Because the Saudis are fine with that, and even if they weren't and did try to oppose it, they'd have their throats cut the next morning.

1182. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #211654 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 8:12 am

joe you have done no such thing. You have answered none of my points about the utter stagnation that Islam produces wherever this weed has sprouted. If there are all these 'scientific' discoveries in the Qur'an, why did Muslims have to wait for Westerners to discover these?

Because the truth is that there's nothing there. Western scientists and western minds unlocked the secrets of the Universe, and Islam hopes to parasitize them, to steal an unearned and undeserved ride. Not with me, bucko.

Come on. Go back to my original counterblast to you, if you have the guts. Read it and try and refute it. Come on.

Or is it that you know that you're wrong? That little voice in your consciousness that can't be silenced?

1183. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #211605 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 7:44 am

Noted, al but on anything like the scale that Islam does? Anything even remotely that terrible?

1184. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #211596 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 7:35 am

hawt4dawk I have to take strong exceptions to some of your writing:

Is it the same thing, how there are hideous things in the Old Testament and the New Testament that could be juxtaposed against ongoing news reports when, in fact, moderate Jews and Christians either don't know about them or simply ignore them, cherry-picking the lovely, inspiring golden bits for their focus?

No, it is not the same thing, not be long shot. The Qur'an is a very short book, less than the New Testament in length. And it wasn't composed by thirty authors - at least - scattered across a thousand years. There's no Prince of Peace to offset the horrors of the Old Testament. Imagine a religion based solely around Leviticus and Deuteronomy and you get some idea of what this is.

One of the games that Muslims and Islam-apologists play is to hack verses out of context. Take a classic one, "Whoever killed one innocent life, it would be the same as though they had murdered the whole world". Now just taking this statement, what the apologists never mention is that Islam considers any non-Muslim as having committed the worst sin imaginable, shirk, unbelief. So there is nothing here to encourage restraint. The verse then goes on to recommend that those who have made war against Allah and his Apostle should have be crucified or have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides.

There are some verses in the Qur'an that genuinely mandate tolerance. But there's a problem here, because Islam is processive. There's a clearly defined way of resolving the Qur'an's internal contradictions. It's called naskh, which means abrogation, and is mentioned in the second surah. What this means is that later verses take precedence over earlier ones.

And here's where it gets ugly. When Muhammad was just a ridiculous preacher in Mecca he only got about a hundred and fifty followers. When he went to Medina, however, and became a military leader, he succeeded in wiping out all competing religions in Arabia. You can guess what the later verses are like. They are unequivocally about war.

The Bible, to return to the point of contrast, is a vast and vague book. Any Christian can easily find messages of humanity and even argue that they take precedence over the nastier portions of it. You cannot do this with the Qur'an, not least because the central pillar of Islam is that the Qur'an is the literal word of God. Not the word of men inspired by God, but of God himself, as dictated to Muhammad. Two-thirds of the Qur'an are about the perfidity and evil of the unbelievers and how every believer must wage war against them. Take that out, and you will have reformed Islam. You will also have destroyed it.

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that Islam is 'just another religion'. This is exactly wrong. Islam is a Total System. It doesn't stop at the Mosque door, as any Muslim will tell you. It's how you dress. How you eat. How you get married. How you greet people. What kind of work you can do. Even down to how you wipe your ass.

Total System. Islam is a nation. It is first and foremost a political project, then a matter of personal spirituality. And the political project is fascistic, right to the core. Read Ibn Warraq's essay Islam, the Middle East, and Fascism. In it he shows that Islam expresses every one of the characteristics that Umberto Eco ascribes to Ur-Fascism.

This isn't a new war, and it isn't Islam against the West. It's Islam against the West. Islam hates anything that isn't Islam, and even hates deviations within it (see the long, bloody history of Sunni-Shia war).

. Those Christians, in truth, are no threat at all and yet they do not stand up in America, in particular, and loudly proclaim how aghast they are at abortion clinic bombers and people who shoot doctors.

Excuse me, I know a few fundies and they in fact do speak up about this. Question, how many abortion doctors have been shot? Seven? There have been over eleven thousand deadly terror attacks since 9/11. Just this week jihadists have killed two hundred and fifty-one people.

No. There is no parallel to this insanity outside of the Third Reich. A parallel, btw, noted by Winston Churchill who called Mein Kampf 'the new Koran'.

I'm just asking for some input on this, because I had some issues with what I read in The End of Faith. I even thought, "Forget being a stalking horse for mysticism, is he a stalking horse for the neocons?"

Ah yes, the only ones worried about Islam are us vile, subhuman neo-cons, with our evil, scheming eyes, who continually plot in smoke-filled backrooms over brandy on how to best rule the world.

Neocons with names like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Hugh FitzGerald, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders...

Study these names and you will find little ideological common ground. They span the spectrum from conservative to liberal, from atheist to Christian fundie, and the only thing they have in common is that they have taken a close look at Islam.

Drop this idea that it's only 'conservatives' who are worried about Islam. You can try telling it to the two million dead in Darfur. Or to the slaves being taken from Africa to be sold in Arab nations. Or to the seventy million Hindus massacred during Islam's rulership over the subcontinent. Etc.

There is a tendency in the West, it's true, for conservatives to be more clear eyed about Islam. But that implies nothing about Islam, and everything about what the left has become. Mark Steyn pointed out something that holds true for me "It should be the left's issue. I'm a 'social conservative'. When the Mullahs take over, I'll grow my beard out, get a few extra wives, and keep my head down. It's the gays and the feminists who'll have a rougher time of it."

Just drop this idea, okay? Conservative and liberal, right and left, believer and atheist - we're all in this together, we are all threatened by Islam.

1185. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #211372 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 11:04 pm

So what - western societies lived in some form of nirvana? Western societies didn't practice war?

Excuse me, don't think that I share your delusions about tribal life, but apply them to the West. But since you brought it up: As regards the major genocide - the Holocaust - in the West, I'm not sure I see how a regression to tribal beliefs and paganism is an expoenent of reason. Leaving that asie there was a study that I'm pretty sure was cited in the presentation "We few, we happy few..." that showed that if the levels of violence present in tribal societies were present in the twentieth century, even the history we have would be nothing in comparison, that there would have been two billion killed.

You also mentioned slavery. Tell me, which other civilization has abolished slavery - or fought a civil war to end it?

Those Maori you so admire routienly committed massacres and genocidal raids.

They are based on what you want to believe

Are you saying my statements about Islam are incorrect? Which statements? Can you provide some evidence to prove it?

No, I doubt you can. Just like joe, you are capable of hurling invective, but not actually bringing facts and reason to the table. Unsurprising, since given your comments that tribal life is better than modern day capitalism, your voice has become as much of the cave as his.

Come one, Goldy. Drop the invective, drop the abuse, and try to bring some actual facts.

And if I may ask, what is this business about my 'sense of humour'? Were you joking when you said that tribal societies are better than capitalist, industrial ones? If so, aren't you then conceding my point?

I have a sense of humour. I just see nothing funny about a long list of abuse with no rhyme or reason to it.

1186. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #211000 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 11:27 am

Surprise, surprise - we mention that kharzee being joe and he comes back to tell us it's not so.

I rest my case.

joe answer any of my points, or keep quiet.

1187. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210988 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 11:00 am

Remember the Buddhas of Bamiyan Your worship??? No? You just keep praising them and they will just keep destroying your culture, statues, liberties and then your lives.

Point.

1188. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210942 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 9:23 am

Thanks for the info, DavidJ but the same opinion was voiced in god is not Great, though I imagine that the Hitch would prefer prolonged dental surgery to following the Dalai's words.

1189. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210939 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15,