1301. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198534 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 24, 2008 at 8:12 am

al on the subject of East Timor, here's a good commentary on the subject of Islam in Indonesia:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015505.php

Punkt aus basta, as we say in the fatherland.

When looking at the Tanakh and Qu'ran I see few differences save choice of wording

Except for the minor fact that the Tankh doesn't have fourteen hundred years of aggressive warfare and genocide and slavery and degradation to its name. That might suggest that there's a few differences.

Seriously. Read the Qur'an. Yes, I know it's a wrist-slittingly boring book, but the N.J. Dagwood translation is as readable as possible. And also read some of the Hadith and commentaries on it. Here's a good place to get started:

http://jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

A blog of the Qur'an, surah by surah, by an expert in the subject, with reference to the Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir that explain everything. Seriously. Take a look. This is very, very different from any other religion.

As regards Israel, I've made my position clear time and time again, and have little else to add. The bottom line is this: Israel is definitely one of us. It's a portion of Western civilization and it's on the front lines of the Jihad. We could learn alot from them. It deserves to be backed to the hilt.

Here's a good article I stumbled across on the subject:

http://jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

Money quote:

Look: Possibly there would be some abstract justice in closing down the settlements, I don't know. I don't see it myself, I must admit. Why should Jews not live among Arabs? Lots of Arabs live in Israel, and do very well there. There are rich Israeli Arabs; there are Israeli-Arab pop stars and comedians; there are Israeli-Arab intellectuals, teachers, writers, businessmen, athletes. Why, when the whole thing gets sorted out, should there not be Jews living in Arab territory �" as there were for centuries past? What, exactly, is wrong with the settlements? I don't see it.

But, okay, let's suppose there is some valid moral objection to the existence of the settlements; and let's suppose my reader's plan were to be carried out, and all the settlements were removed, their populations transferred back to metropolitan Israel, their buildings razed, their fields ploughed with salt. Does anybody think it would make a damn bit of difference? There was no such thing as settlements, no such thing as "occupied territories," before the 1967 war. There were no such things in 1960, for example, when Adolf Eichmann was abducted from his hiding-hole in Buenos Aires by Israeli secret agents, an event recorded by Saudi Arabia's principal government-controlled newspaper as: "ARREST OF EICHMANN, WHO HAD THE HONOR OF KILLING 6 MILLION JEWS".

The problem of the Middle East is not the settlements. It is not this piece of land or that piece. It is not the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem or Temple Mount. It is not oil, or land, or water, or history, or geography, or metaphysics. The problem is in plain sight. You know what the problem is, and so do I. The problem is that the Middle East hates the Jews.

1302. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198492 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 24, 2008 at 6:25 am

Had your "nation" not instigated most if not all of what it is currently getting I'd say by all means fight back. But given the circumstances the only amount of compassion I can muster for you people is, you've made your bed now lay down in it.

It's hard to make out what the heck this guy is on about, but it sounds suspiciously like 'Islamic jihad is a response to American foreign policy'. If so *flexes muscles and extends claws*

What did the two million non-Muslims of the Sudan have to do with American foreign policy to deserve murder?

What about the Hindus in the subcontinent? And what about the sixty to seventy million that were killed during the Mughal rule?

What about the violence being directed towards Hindus, Sikhs and Jews by Muslims right here in Europe?

What about the genocide in East Timor?

How is the islamic practice of child rape caused by American foreign policy? Or the 75% of women in Pakistan's jail who are there because they were raped? And what, pray, do the slaves in Khartoum and throughout the dar al-Islam have to do with American foreign policy?

No. The problem is Islam, and Islam only. Period.

1303. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198445 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 24, 2008 at 1:27 am

I'd like to add one other thing. There's no easy or soon answer to this. There's no way this will be settled in a few years, or even a few decades. This war will continue to rage for the rest of our lives.

Better get used to it. Better get ready to man the barricades and watch the sky. Hugh FitzGerald has a good article on the subject:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019411.php

And, NC, if you want to see where muslim immigration is taking us, read the following short story:
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm

Read the follow-up message to. It will make your hair stand on end.

1304. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198444 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 24, 2008 at 1:20 am

NakedCelt you still haven't addressed the point that Muslim immigration is pushing our societies towards extinction. I'm sorry, but our first duty must be to hold the line. If we keep letting Muslims into our nations, we may as well just cut our own throats.

Increasing numbers of Muslims in our societies means increasing levels of gang-rape, increasing weakness on the part of our politicos to deal with this problem, increasing abuse of women, increasing intimidation - no. This has got to stop, and it has got to stop right now.

You called me naive once for implying that Muslims might convert out of sheer appreciation of the benefits of the West.

This isn't just through sheer appreciation. This is a situation where those who were deceiving us would be forced to hide their faith and keep it under wraps. No Da'wa, no preaching, no nothing. Seems like a win-win to me.

You can't destroy one culture and replace it with another without gigantic misery

Even if this were true, my response is: So goddamn what? My country was bombed flat, with entire cities full of civilians consumed by phosphorus incindaries, in order to rid it of the demented culture that was causing trouble. Japan wouldn't turn away from its ideology of conquest and tyranny until two of its cities were destroyed by nukes.

I'm not advocating either, merely a continual barrage against this madness. It has worked before, it can work again.

Marx wasn't wrong about everything, you know.

I'm not going to get into this. His writings caused over one hundred million deaths, and enslaved a third of the planet in the most lifehating hell imaginable. Discussion closed.

Unfortunately many of those women will themselves be "supporters" of shariah, in that they'll teach their families to abide by it, out of sheer concern for their safety if nothing else.

In which case they need to be expelled. Period. I don't care why someone supports Shariah, they get to renounce it or get out. If we have strong protection systems in place for apostates, then more of them would be willing to abandon this view. If they don't, they need to get out and stay out.

Like I said, we need to help people over that difficult first step of confronting their own beliefs.

Which is why I advocate a continuous program of cultural imperialism.

1305. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198230 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 23, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Remove from Islam typical religious topics of a god and mystical aspects (Allah, jinns, angels, satan, houri, miracles, heaven, and hell) and there is a lot remaining.

I'm afraid that's simply not true. Two thirds of the Koran is about the pefidity of the unbelievers (honestly the way that thing goes on. Fifty verses about how unbelievers, suck, a few wierd dietary prohibitions, "but NOW - why unbelievers suck so much!") Much of the rest is explicitly political. Remove that and you will have reformed Islam. You will also have destroyed it. In fact, even removing one verse from the Koran would destroy Islam, as its entire claim to fame, its whole selling point is this view that, unlike Christianity or Judaism, is that it's the final, perfect revelation. Subtract anything from that and Islam falls.

Further, while Muhammad was just an irritating preacher, he barely made fifteen converts. Islam only started to spread when he became a warrior. This is an utterly unreformable religion. We shouldn't even try.

1306. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198196 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 23, 2008 at 10:54 am

It wasn't a criticism of you, it was one of Irshad.

As regards the whole spiritual thing, the problem is that you can never be sure when, whether it's under the influence of the right Imam or just spontaneously, it goes horribly not-spiritual.

1307. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198192 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 23, 2008 at 10:42 am

"Islamism" means the belief that political sovereignty belongs to God, that the Shari'ah equates to state law, and that it is a religious duty on all Muslims to create a political entity that reflects the above.

And this is different from standard, orthodox Islam - how, exactly?

Sorry, I'm really not trying to pick a fight or anything, it's just that this needs to be understood. Islam is first and foremost a political project, then a system of spirituality.

Anyway, as regard Ijtihad, Irshad Manji's full of it about it.

1308. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198087 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 23, 2008 at 7:20 am

Who's that then? I thought that McEwan was part of that "elite".

Where do you want me to start? The BBC? The Guardian? Tony Blair? Take a look at the BBC interview with Geert Wilders; it'll make your blood boil.

How many newspapers acknowledge the extent of the problem? Which ones are willing to mention words like 'taqqiya' or 'hudna', all of which are essential to understanding Islamic tactics? Where is the outrage over the stuff found in the documentary 'undercover Mosque'?

This isn't 'conspiracy theory'; it's understanding the power of ideas. The mush-pot ideas of multiculturalism and relativism have largely poisoned any serious debate about other cultures.

1309. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198084 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 23, 2008 at 7:11 am

completely agree with regards to "our" political strategy. Hanging racists out to dry is purely a personal strategy for individuals who wish to distance themselves from distasteful others. And "hanging them out to dry" means calling them for what they are not stifling them.

Oh, it's a very necessary activity. Our polico-media elite insists on trying to smear and silence anyone who speaks up about Islam as racists, and we can't afford to give them any more ammo. Anyway, one of the main weapons in this fight, as I've said before, is pointing out that Islam is always a vessel of Arab surpremacism.

I remember wondering if the BBC had asked Nick Griffin for a comment!

Tell me if you find out, would you? I'd like to know, given that Griffin's main selling point is being tough on Islam.

1310. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198072 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 23, 2008 at 6:45 am

I can, however, imagine certain very nasty groups in the UK such as the BNP trying to become "fellow travellers".

It's worth remembering that the really nasty elements, the white supremacists, are figuring out that it's the 'supremacist' and not the 'white' bit they like. Yestreday there was a BBC report on a former BNP activist who converted to Islam while in the slammer and now was recruiting for Al Qaeda.

There's precedent for this. The Pashtun of Afghanistan are one of the most vicious and intractable tribal peoples in the world; even Alexander the Great had serious troubles with them. They were never conquered, but adopted Islam because it was such a robust warrior religion. The Mongols were the same, though under Ghengiz they massacred entire cities of Muslims. The Kaiser and Adolf Hitler both admired Islam intensely, the latter remarking that he wished Germany was imbued with its 'warrior spirit'. And the Arab tribes converted to Islam not so much because they believed in it, but because they were impressed with Muhammad's military victories.

Umberto Eco gave a speech at Columbia University listing fourteen features of what he called "Ur-fascism". Ibn Warraq notes that all fourteen are represented in Islam par excellence. In other words Islam is the Ur-Fascism, the oldest, toughest, and most deadly form of the Cult of Ruthlessness. It's also incredibly difficult to eradicate.

You can find that article here:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3766&sec_id=3766

1311. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198062 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 23, 2008 at 6:24 am

A problem with your plan. The Harbis and others practicing this form of taqiyya would simply pretend to be apostates in order to gain swift access to western countries. You would be creating a pipeline for the most hardcore Islamists (potentially).

al I'm aware of that, and that is why I specified that anyone supposed apostate found to be practicing Islam later on would promptly loose his citizenship one the grounds of having lied on his application.

"Who are these funny brown-skinned people with their different food, behaviour and clothes? I don't like change, so I don't like them. I can't use words like "Paki" anymore. I'll use "Muslim" instead."

Of course there will be some like this. But unless we take steps, they will be alot stronger, and alot more dangerous.

And frankly I am more worried about Islam than I am about the few residual racists that have not been stamped out.

1312. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197981 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 23, 2008 at 2:59 am

I'm afraid this will be directly counter-productive. Given the hostility of Islam to apostates, I'd guess there are a lot of Muslims �" women especially �" who secretly see the irrationality of the whole thing but don't dare admit that to themselves, much less anyone else, out of a very realistic fear of severe consequences. We don't want to slam the door that represents their only hope in their faces. We want them �" no, we need them to know that if they do decide to walk out in courage, we'll support them every step of the way.

Then they need protection. Is that really so hard? One apostate is easy to persecute. Ten thousand, not so much. Six million a year? Not a chance. Any Muslim apostate should qualify for automatic protection, both police and in the media and by public figures. Anyone inciting murder should be charged and prosecuted. We already have groups like the Ex-Muslim councils of Britain and Germany. They deserve to be backed to the hilt.

As regards apostates from within Muslim nations, we should always offer them asylum. Adbul Rahman was spirited out of Afghanistan, and we should make it clear that anyone abandoning Islam is more than welcome in the West - as long as they're sincere. Any case of taqiyya should be dealt with. That is, if a supposed apostate is found in the West running a Mosque or even going to one, they'll be sent back poste haste and it will be made clear that they'll never get a second chance. If the Dutch can kick out Ayaan Hirsi Ali for lying about her last name, we can damn well kick those out who lie about their allegiance.

This will have the beneficial effects that even those who do engage in taqqiya and secretly remain Muslims will need to keep it under wraps. And seeing the benefits of the West, they may start to question themselves, and become apostates in truth.

But ending Muslim immigration is vital. This is driving our civilization to the brink of extinction. Even the 'moderate Muslims' inflate the power of the radicals by just being here, by increasing the numbers they claim to represent.

Our top priority is our survival, the survival of our civilization and our way of life. That's it. If we succeed with that, then, as a consequence, we will vastly improve the lot of hundreds of millions, if not a billion or two, people worldwide. But make no mistake, this is about our very survival, and that takes precedence over all other concerns. This suicidal permitting of Muslim immigration has got to stop.

There's some indication that even our pinhead overlords are getting this. Angela Merkel in Germany has offered refuge for Iraqi refugees - as long as they're not Muslims, thank you. Good for her.

I have to query this. Unless the attacks are extremely effective and at the same time entirely and transparently just, I fear the main effect will be to select for the more virulent strains of Islamic belief (those that advocate jihad by the sword rather than the pen).

Are you so sure? When it becomes clear that there are very real, very grave consequences for preaching this evil, how many will be willing to go along? Won't we rather be creating the opposite of the kind of support the radicals enjoy now? Won't there be those who think 'yeah, I support Shariah, but maybe I'll keep quiet about it, just for the moment...'?

Islam is something of an opportunistic infection. It smells weakness at the heart of Western civilization. More than anything else, that needs to be disproved. We need to show them that we're not willing to yield an inch of our civilization without a fight.

No argument there �" except to note that walling off the dar al-Islam completely has the opposite effect (consolidating and strengthening it).

Again, how sure are you? Would it really make it stronger? If there was an independent Kurdistan, and the Berbers of North Africa were pushing for independence from Arab rule, and the blacks in Darfur had their own state? If the Arab Muslims saw their dominion shrinking day by day? If the continual warfare between Sunni and Shia made starkly clear the price that Islam exacts? And how safe would the Mullahs in Tehran be, when their people know just how much money they have received unearned from their oil wealth, and how little they have helped their own people with it?

Nor would this walling off mean they would not have contact with the West. As I have said, we should be waging an aggressive campaign of cultural imperialism. How strong would they be, if on the television, on the airwaves, on the internet, on flyers distributed and dropped, if everywhere they turn they'd see time and time again how the misery, pointlessness and stagnation they suffer is the exact logical consequence of Islam? If there was a continual trickle, perhaps even a stream or flood, of Muslims who decide to throw in the towel, decide their faith isn't worth this misery, become apostates and flee to the West? If they could hear from those apostates who had gone through similar experiences?

No. Once they are unable to send their culture over here, but must face the full power of the ideas of the Enlightenment in a divided, broken, weak dar al-Islam, we will see some titanic levels of apostasy.

Here's a very good article on what's already going on in the Muslim world, even without such an aggressive campaign:

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=818

I'd agree reservedly with this, but I'm not sure about "cultural imperialism" to describe it. Ideas, not customs, are the battleground.

Poh-tay-toe, poh-TAH-toh. Of course ideas are our battleground but let's be clear: they wish to destroy our culture, and replace it with theirs. We should try to destroy their culture and replace it with ours. I have no qualms about stating that clearly. Of course, I don't mean that they should start listening to pop or watching Hollywood or whatever. But the core values of our society - Reason as the highest court of appeal, Scientific progress, the equality of men and women, the equality of all people, the vision of Man as an independent being free to live his own life - should come to supplant their values of Faith, Stagnation, Tradition, Misogyny, Abasement, Racism, and Hatred.

There is no one alternative to oil; we need lots of them

Well, if you are right, and there is no other way, we should seize and hold those oil fields in perpetuity. They only ever managed to get their wealth by stealing the products of Western companies who discovered, developed and exploited those resources - and, having stole them, couldn't even manage to run them without Infidel technicians, managers and scientists.

As regards your 'Marxist' comments, there's nothing marxist in having such a system. The fact is that the 'greedy oil barons' just can't get away with the kind of upmarking that these Saudi princes insist on making. They'd be immediately undercut. It's the fact that Saudi Arabia has a quasi-monopoly, guaranteed by force, that makes it possible. I'm not interested in the various utopian socialist visions, but putting the cash-squeeze on every mohammedan bigshot would provide all sorts of benefits for us.

Much as I see the horror of the burqa, for instance, I don't think forcing Islamic women to choose between staying at home in their shariah communities (because they can't wear the veil to work or school) and running the risk of being killed for their family's honour (because they took the veil off) helps anybody.

This is why they need protection, and all supporters of Shariah should be expelled. We need to make it possible for the veil to be taken off.

As for the Christian missionaries �" I have noted this elsewhere �" their primary weapons are hospitality, generosity, and acceptance. If you're suggesting adopting those weapons, I'm all for it. But I think they might be a little inconsistent with your ideas (1) and (3).

I don't see why. We can empower apostates here to help others make the same journey they did. Ali Sina's faithfreedom.org already does this. Of course we can debate as to what kind of appeal would work the best, but we won't really know until we try. What's indisputable is that it needs to be done.

"The West" has a record of supporting regimes and other groups worldwide for short term gains who later turn out to be part of the problem, especially once we have armed them.

Barry Pearson don't I know it. During the cold war, all that people needed to know was that Islam was anti-Communism and therefore A Good Thing. The cretinous inability to learn anything about the nature of Islam, which is a collectivist ideology far more virulent and longlived than Communism, is part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

If the striped pants at the US state department understood the texts and tenets of Islam, would they have armed and trained the Taliban?

This is yet another reason why education of Infidels is a top priority.

1313. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197734 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Getting this thread back to the question of what can be done, I have three simple things that you, yes, you, sitting infront of your computer screen, can do to stop the Jihad.

1. Read. Learn about Islam. Read the Qur'an (preferably the penguin N.J. Dagwood translation as this is at least not as wrist-slittingly boring as the other translations). Read sites like jihadwatch.org and faithfreedom.org and thereligionofpeace.com that document the activities of the jihad. Make sure you know what you're talking about, which brings me to point 2:

2. Talk. Speak out on any scale you can. Personally, I've brought this subject up in the lab, on the bus, at parties, to feminists, to gays, to Christians, to atheists, to anime geeks, to gliders, to coursemates, to everyone I've come into contact with. Write on forums, write letters to editors, mention it to people at your sports club, whatever, wherever, whenever. You can never know in what mind what connections will be made. The more people who know, the safer we'll be.
Don't let anyone get away with ignorance. If they drag up the whole 'If you kill an innocent person, it's like killing the whole world' point out that that verse goes on to recommend crucifixion and hacking off the hands and feet of the unbelievers. If they say 'racism', point out that many Hindu and Sikh immigrants are just as worried about this problem, and that the ignoring of it is allowing genuine racists to climb on the bandwagon. If they say 'tiny minority of extremists' ask them how they know, and bring up the opinion polls. If they say 'religion of peace', point out that pious muslims call Muhammad the Prophet of the Sword. Mention little Aisha. Mention the 90% of Pakistani women who report abuse. Even if people get angry now, they may come to a day when they hear the latest atrocity and think 'that person might have been onto something. Maybe I should do some research.'

3. Pay the anti-Zakat. That is, set a little aside - it doesn't matter how much, a little is fine, though more is better of course - of your monthly salary to support anti-Jihadist causes, such as the aforementioned websites, such as the Iranian dissidents, such as the Ayaan Hirsi Ali fund. I've been contributing to that since it started, even when I was flat broke and out of a job. It's the best damn money I ever spent.

My motto is: Pay the anti-Zakat today, or pay the Jiyzah tomorrow

So, for the moment, good night and good luck.

1314. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197637 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Does anyone know what the definition of a hate crime is in the UK?

It's this: Even hinting you might say a small amount of the truth about Islam. That's it. If inciting hatred against groups was a punishable crime 85% of the imams in this country would be behind bars.

1315. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197630 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 11:59 am

Oh yeah felandath I don't know whether you have registered in the forum, but if so, I sent a couple of messages to you.

1316. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197623 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 11:43 am

We need to get that list of yours publicized. It won't get much attention as a comment.

*laughs* Ahm workin' on't, girl, Ahm workin' on't. Although I have to say that these ideas are largely not my own, but mainly come from Hugh FitzGerald of JihadWatch, an excellent site that I urge everyone to read.

1317. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197612 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 11:27 am

felandath, I'll take this as a great compliment:

Fanusi, I assume that you too were born into the Islamic faith

The reason I take it as a great compliment is that Islamic apostates usually are people of the first rank, the kind of human being it makes you proud to share a species with: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Magdi Allam... I wish I could add my name to that exalted list, but I'm afraid I can't. I only know what I know from three years of intensive study of Islam and the beliefs of Muslims worldwide.

The points you have suggested are drastic, but most of it actually does make sense.

But why are they so drastic? Only because they are never discussed. And what I am really frightened of is that, if measures like this aren't taken, far uglier ones will, especially if we see catastrophic CBN terror. The rise of Milosevic started because Muslim groups wanted to institute a Shariah state in the Balkans. If I sound drastic or harsh now, it's because I think that this is the only way to prevent the unthinkable later.

You and I need to find a way we can talk one on one with our moderate brethren first. Would love to hear your ideas on this. I take it that u have been thru the same struggle that I am currently going thru.

I'm not sure that's really necessary. Think about it: Ayaan Hirsi Ali used to support murdering Salman Rushdie. Walid Shoebat was once a PLO terrorist. The only real difference I see between the moderates, or the Muslim-for-identification-purpose-only Muslims is that they will be much easier to win over.

1318. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197605 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 11:20 am

What is needed is criticism from the inside if that's at all possible in this case.

I'm sorry, Tera but it's not. Islam is unreformable. All reformists have invariably been branded heretics and if they haven't been killed, their followers have been hunted to this day. Witness the Ahmadiyya. But let me take you up on this:

Criticizing from the outside only strengthens a stance.

Not necessarily. When you have six million Muslims a year in Africa alone taking their lives in their hands to leave Islam, you have a good reason to hope. Getting people to accept a tortured contradiction is far harder than getting them to make a clean break.

I wonder how Winston Churchill, if he was alive today, would describe the cancer of aggressive fundamentalism Islam?

Vaal we already know. Here's what he said:

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. The effects are apparent in many countries. 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 ... 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 proselytizing 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. [The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pp. 248-50.]

Also, when he read Mein Kampf he called it:

the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message

1319. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197595 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 11:07 am

It sounds like you are saying that the only way to beat Islam is with an outright war that would result in the deaths of thousands. I hope I misunderstood you

I hate to be the wet blanket, but far, far more than mere thousands have died in the millenial conflict with Islam. And even today far more have already died in conflicts between Muslims and infidels and between Muslims. The Sunni/Shia fratricide is just one example.

But you are basically right. Military warfare isn't going to save us, and is probably the least of the methods we need to use. Here are my suggestions:

1. We place a moratorium on Muslim immigration, halting it for at least twenty years, if not indefinetly, until we've sorted out the problems with the ones we already have. We should try, as much as possible, to reverse this immigration. One thing we can do is to make it plain that all Muslims need to choose between the constitution of the country they inhabit and the Shariah, and any Shariah supporters will loose their citizenship and be sent to a Muslim country of their choice.

2. We need to take away the money weapon, by any means necessary. One thing that's essential is a Manhatten-style energy project to get us off oil. We should also put the cash squeeze on Muslim bigshots whenever possible. "So Prince Adbul Yermami, you charge us a hundred and fifty times what it costs to produce that oil? Fine. When you need medical treatment in a Western hospital, we'll charge you the same markup. Same if you want to send your kids to Western Unis, which could do with the money. Oh, and you want to buy another private jet? They just got very expensive." And also make it very clear that, just as the allies seized German property during the second world war, anyone of these well-heeled sheiks found in bed with the jihadis will very rapidly loose his california mansion, his switzerland estate etc.
Of course, another part of that is explaining to nations like Pakistan and Egypt that if they don't knock it off with allowing Jihad and Islamic supremacism to be preached in their mosques and madrassahs then they won't recieve a penny of Infidel aid (just a disguised version of Jizyah anyway).

3. Many countries already have laws that allow for the confiscation of property used to deal drugs. We should use this as a model and seize and tear down any Mosque or Madrassah that advocates Jihad or Shariah supremacism.

4. We need to support non-Muslim minorities in Muslim states. For example, ignoring the plight of Iraq's Christians and Yezidi (and the couple of Jews still left) is a disgrace.

5. Conversely, we should help those non-Arab Muslims that are suffering because of the Arab supremacism that is part and parcel of Islam (google 'Islam as a vessel of Arab supremacism' - it'll make your hair stand on end). For example, we can push for an independent Kurdistan, as long as it guarantees the freedom of non-Muslim minorities (see point 4). We can help out the black Muslims of the Sudan, and the Berbers, and every similar group while making it plain that what they suffer is all a result of this Arab Supremacism (we wouldn't even need to do that much there. The blacks of the Sudan are so fed up with the Arabs that they've dropped their arabic names for ones like "Colin Powell" and "George Bush". I'm not kidding). The rule of thumb should be: anything that breaks up and weakens the dar al-Islam is a good thing.

6. Similarly we should protect those dissidents fighting against Islam. It's another disgrace that we can find trillions to pour down the sinkhole of Iraqi democracy while not being able to spare the cash for some really tough guys to guard Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan etc. Also, we should support the Iranian diaspora that has very heavily renounced Islam, and is fighting against it.

7. Above all, what we need is an aggressive and continuous campaign of cultural imperialism, to firstly discredit Islam, and secondly to wake Infidels up to its nature. One great example would be heavily subsidizing the printing of books by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, Bat Ye'or, Ali Sina etc. Spread 'em around, give 'em away free. The more people know, the safer we'll be. Organize something like 'Radio Free Europe' where the truth about Islam is continuosly told. Get versions in Arabic, Urdu and Farsee, and target Muslim states. Christian missionaries are already having a huge impact in Africa and even, via radio and internet, in Iran where the penalty for apostasy is death. Why should the Christians be alone in this? Why shouldn't atheists get onboard?

The key point to remember is that noone is as much a victim of Islam as the Muslims themselves, who have had their right to happiness and a good life robbed from them by a demented doctrine from a seventh century warlord. Helping them break out of their mental prison is right, just and proper.

1320. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197553 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 10:18 am

BorderCollie here's an excellent lecture on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKWf7iX6ru0&feature=related

Sargeist, three words: Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

1321. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197534 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 9:51 am

Welcome aboard, zoltix.

The fascist parties have made gains by attacking Islam on the grounds that muslims are foreigners.

This is exactly what I have been worried about for a long, long time. If this problem isn't addressed by the mainstream political parties, it will be addressed by far nastier individuals.

1322. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197522 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 9:35 am

Sure thing, Sargeic. Here it is in finnish:

http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Internet-kirjoittelu vie tamperelaismiehen vankilaan/1135236788703

And here's a translation:

http://vasarahammer.blogspot.com/2008/06/finnish-blogger-sentenced-for-two-years.html

1323. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197508 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 9:13 am

Professor Dawkins, may I respectfully suggest that you pen a letter of solidarity for this man? Your name means alot and they wouldn't dare pull this stuff on you.

The really frightening thing is that this is hardly the first such case. A finish blogger was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for, quote "insulting Islam", close quote. We have all these campaigns assuring us that Islam is peaceful, and we have these EU directives and so on.

Our elites seem to be falling over themselves in a haste to surrender.

And what's really wierd is that he used this term 'Islamism'. There's no such thing. Osama bin Laden doesn't call himself an Islamist. Neither does Ahmadinedjad, or Nassan Hasrallah, or any of the others. They call themselves Muslims, and they have added nothing to Islam. They're just following the words in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira.

A good definition of the dividing line between freedom and tyranny is when the government prohibits free speech. I wonder when it will be time, if it's not time already, to begin thinking of us as under Islamic occupation.

This has got to stop, and has got to stop right now, before the Jihad becomes impossible to resist.

1324. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197436 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 3:31 am

The problem is, isn't it, that there are lots of people who think that there are certain things we shouldn't do, regardless of the benefits to mankind?

I've answered this. They're wrong. They want to sacrifice human lives to animal. I defy them to try and explain their position to, say, parents whose daughter is riven with cancer. I know at least one person like that.

I'm just hoping for the day when we can grow babies entirely outside the womb, when we know how to fiddle with the genetic code with precision, and hence when we can just grow replacement body parts and organs by cloning brain-free versions of ourselves

So do I, but it won't be here any time soon. In the meantime ending animal testing means killing humans. Not on my watch, boyo, not on my watch.

1325. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197418 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 2:32 am

I meant to get back to this:

Why not use human synthesized flesh and body parts instead of those poor animals? It would be better for us and better for them.

I'm sorry Tera, I don't like pulling rank on anyone, but I'm a molecular biologist and what you are suggesting can't be done. Period. There is no substitute for using animal models to test medication, and there is no substitute for ape and monkey models in order to test neurological treatments. This is the only way.

My second year neuroscience textbook noted that lab rats have saved way more people than 911. THey're right.

1326. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197383 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 12:06 am

markg I know the apologetics. But you don't cite enough from that article:

However, the fact that DDT is not formally banned in developing nations does not necessarily mean that those nations have the option to use it. Developing nations are typically heavily dependent on aid from agencies that made the aid contingent upon non-usage of DDT. The British Medical Journal of March 11, 2000, reports that the use of DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT."[113] Many African nations have been dissuaded from to using DDT in part because the European Union has said that their agricultural exports may not be accepted if spraying was "widespread."[114]

and

There are claims that restrictions on the use of DDT in vector control have resulted in substantial numbers of unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Estimates for the number of deaths that have been caused by an alleged lack of availability of DDT range from hundreds of thousands, according to Nicholas Kristof,[105] to much higher figures. Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007 that "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children."[106] Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death,[107] argues that the epidemic of malaria in Africa not only takes the lives of 2 million people a year, but leaves those who survive malaria unable to contribute to the economy while sick and more vulnerable to subsequent diseases that might kill them.

And here is the apologetics from USAID:

Contrary to popular belief, USAID does not "ban" the use of DDT in its malaria control programs. From a purely technical point of view in terms of effective methods of addressing malaria, USAID and others have not seen DDT as a high priority component of malaria programs for practical reasons. In many cases, indoor residual spraying of DDT, or any other insecticide, is not cost-effective and is very difficult to maintain

This is a naked, goddamn lie. The inventor of DDT was awarded the Nobel Prize for saving a minimum of fifty million lives by eradicating typhus. The National Academy of Sciences said 'to few chemicals in the world does man owe such a dept as to DDT'. You need to spray about twice a year to protect a house, and you can engage in large scale spraying to utterly eradicate mosquitoes.

Further the environmentalist movement has been against draining swamps as another way of fighting this scourge. It is true that some of these poor souls would still have died, simply because they are unreachable, but even one life sacrificed on the green alter is too much.

Here is what Carson brought to our world:

http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html

And this is a disgrace:

Reference is also often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT.

Really. Here's what the wiki on Carson says:

Carson's main argument is that pesticides have detrimental effects on the environment; they are more properly termed "biocides", she argues, because their effects are rarely limited to the target pests. DDT is a prime example, but other synthetic pesticides come under scrutiny as well�quot;many of which are subject to bioaccumulation.

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: Oops, got that figure wrong. They didn't say fifty million saved - they said five hundred million saved/

1327. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197286 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 21, 2008 at 3:16 pm

And that comment abut the Nazi's to rationalize being a meat eater (I know it wasn't you), was way out of line.

I'm guessing you mean me. My point was that just refusing to eat meat is no sign whatsoever of compassion. My own reasons for not giving a hoot about eating meat were established earlier in that post.

My central point was that the kind of vegan who affects this insufferable moral superiority about their veganness is suspiciously like the kind of person who stymies medical research, or denies DDT to malaria infested third world hellholes.

1328. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #197282 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 21, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Tera I'm afraid that's not so. From what the hadith say, Muhammad was a monster even by the standards of seventh century Arabia. For example, he recieved a 'revelation' just in time to say that fighting during Ramadan - the sacred month - was okay, to soothe the outrage of the pagan Arabs. Another example is his doctrine of female subjugation. You see pagan Arabia was a very harsh place, but women had a certain status. He came up with certain 'revaltions' in order to keep Aisha and his other wives quiet about the fact they caught him with the maid.

I'm afraid that the books of the Horsemen are poor for understanding Islam. Sam Harris's is the best, but it still isn't as good as some proper books on the subjects. Could I recommend the following:

Why I am not a Muslim, by Ibn Warraq
The Truth about Muhammad, by Robert Spencer
Understanding Muhammad, by Ali Sina
Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman, by Andre Servier; out of print but released online:
http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/

Two of these - Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina - are apostates, and the others are harsh critics of Islam. Nonetheless they say nothing that is incorrect or not based on the canonical sources. Yet if you want to see an example from the other side, read the _Sirat Rasul Allah_, the oldest known biography by a pious Muslim, Ibn Ishaq.

1329. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197198 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 21, 2008 at 10:24 am

Believe me, grievances isn't what I'd like to flood the OIC with...

1330. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #197191 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 21, 2008 at 10:15 am

1. Let's have the actual words from the Koran and not your interpretations.

Actually, quite a bit of that's from the Hadith, but the Hadith are at least as important if not more so in terms of Islamic practice. But can do:

Aisha:

Book 008, Number 3309:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

- Muslim.

Beheading:

008.012 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Slavery:

024.032
Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among yourselves, male or female: if they are in poverty, Allah will give them means out of His grace: for Allah encompasseth all, and he knoweth all things.

Qur'anYusuf Ali translation


Wife-beating

Sura (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Rape of captive women:

"Abu Sai'd al-Khudri said : The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur'anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.(1479)" Abu Dawud vol.2 no.2150 p.577

Etc. I trust that this proves the point that I can establish every one of those points, and more besides. I just don't want a twenty-page post.

I'll admit that I never read the Koran, I think I should now, but I know people who have read it objectively and claim it depends on how you interpret the words.

May I suggest you do? And not just read it, but also read some of the Hadith and commentaries on it. Look at the verse on raping captives; it's sinister nature doesn't come out without knowing the Hadith.
A very good place to start is with these Qur'an translations. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
And it's even better to read the following:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

The blog covers Surah-by-surah the Qur'an including the relevant bits from the Hadith, the Sira, and the Tafsir, the classic commentaries on the Qur'an.

I'm afraid that your friends haven't told you the truth. They may be unaware, or they may be engaging in Islamic apologetics, or straightforward taqiyya the islamic practice of lying to the Infidel to decieve them to advance the faith. The Qur'an isn't the Bbile, a vast and vague book compiled over a thousand years by forty authors. The Qur'an was written by one, extremely unpleasant, man. Any interpretation of it was completed long ago, the gates of Ijtihad were permanently shut. What I am relating is straightforward, orthodox Islamic teachings, believed by hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide.

Please don't take my word for it. Don't even take these sites word for it. Just read the material yourself, think about it, and ask your friends how this is interpreted away. For example, how can one ignore the example of Muhammad when he is considered uswa hasan, al insan al kamil, the perfect man, the excellent example?

Not all religious people are fundamentalists. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between the two. That is my problem with your way of thinking.

Oh, not all religious people are fundamentalists. But what is a fundamentalist? Someone who believes that their holy book is absolutely, literally correct, unalterable and eternal. I'm sorry to say it, but that applies to almost all Muslims. A Muslim who doubted the absolute truth of the Qur'an would be like a Christian who doubted the divinity of Jesus - an apostate. This isn't just my view. Islam: a very short introduction which is unctuously apologetic makes the same point: just about all Muslims are fundamentalists, in that sense.

I wrote this to you before: there's not such thing as a moderate Muslim. There's only the kaffirized Muslim, the Muslim whose Islam has been tempered by contact with the ideas of the kaffirs. Hindus, Jews, Christians, Atheists - it doesn't matter. To the extent that a Muslim's Islam has been tempered, has been driven out by non-Muslim ideas, he becomes a civilised human. To the extent that he follows Muhammad, he becomes a monster.

You may be wondering about the term kaffir. It doesn't mean 'black', but infidel. Unbeliever. Two-thirds of the Qur'an is about the evil and perfidit of the kaffir. It's the most hateful book in the world. For comparisons sake, 6.7% of Mein Kampf is antisemitic. 11.8% of the Qur'an is antisemitic.

1331. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #197149 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 21, 2008 at 8:19 am

There is nothing "immoral" about the ten commandments or the teachings of Jesus or Muhammed

*distant roar as my inner Saint-Just arrives, riding on a Balrog*

Muhammad's teachings moral? Okay, which teachings are you talking about?
The one where he rapes a nine-year old girl and says this is a good practice? (Muslim, 008:3309)

The one where he praises beheading? (Qur'an 8:12)

Where he said that you should crucify your enemies? (5:33)

Where he condones slavery? (Qur'an 24:32, and god knows how many other places)

Or how about when he recommends wife-beating? (Qur'an 4:34)

Or murdered the Banu Qurayzah? (Abu-Dawud, 38:4390)

Support suicide murder? (Qur'an (9:111)

Kill apostates? (Bukhari 52:260)

Kill 13-year old boys? (Abu Dawud, 38:4390) Stones adulteresses? (Bukhari 6:60:79)

Torture a man to find his treaures? (Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah)

Where he praises theft? (Qur'an 33:27)

Says raping infidel women is okay? (Qur'an 33:50, and Abu Dawud, vol.2 no.2150 p.577)


Oh, there's more, believe me there's more: from rape to theft to lying to thuggery to genocide to slavery to sloth to murder to forced conversion to paedophilia to every perversion and degredation known to man, all of them are praised and sanctioned and extolled by this detestable man. And don't think that those example verses I gave you are the only ones; oh no, it goes on and on in sanctioning and singing the praises of these acts.

Muhammad was quite possibly the most evil man who has ever lived. A great pity he wasn't strangled with his own umbilical cord.

1332. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197075 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 21, 2008 at 3:22 am

No problem at all Sargeist, this was dying down, given that Vin seems to have headed for the hills.

The question about the 'morality' of taking life, any kind of life, is an interesting one. It begs the question of the standard of morality in question.

The idea that 'all life is sacred' sounds very nice, but it ignores that life is, always and invariably, in a state of perpetual war with other life. This includes plants, who will drive out their competitors, conduct chemical warfare against each other and their grazers etc. Darwin said that the easiest thing to accept, and the hardest thing to remember, was the universal struggle for life.

Hence I have no qualms about eating meat, consuming animal life. Or plant life for that matter. Yet there is a standard of morality, and that standard is human life. Which is to say the life of the individual.

When we just look at, say, social systems, we can objectively say that certain systems are evil, which is to say, profoundly destructive towards human life and happiness: Communism, Fascism, Islam... And there appears to be only one virtuous system, one that in fact and in reality provides humans with a chance at prosperity and freedom: liberal democracy and capitalism.

Now, on an individual scale, we can judge qualities of character in the same way. These qualities, these virtues, are acquired and learned habits - automatic ways of dealing with a certain type of situation. Since we can never really process each case on a case by case basis, starting our reasoning from scratch in each instance, we need these 'rules of thumb' to guide us. Now some of these virtues are profoundly beneficial to human life: Reason, Justice, Honesty, Courage etc. And some are profoundly destructive: Faith, Pragmatism, Sloth etc.

The key point is that these virtues are not social constructs or 'true for me', but true for all humans, in all times, everywhere. And they are so because of the nature of humanity and its relation to the world around it.

This brings me back whole circle to the question of eating meat and 'valuing all life'. Whenever I say that human life is the standard of morality and that's it, the asinine word 'speciest' comes up. The implication is that someone who extends the morality beyond his species is morally superior to one who confines it.

But there's a problem here. Values are hierarchial; you value some things more than others. If you value a new book, say, over a pack of cigarrettes, you will be drawn to skip the cigs to buy the book. Minor example. You sacrifice the items lower on your hierarchy to those higher.

Here's where this get's sinister. If you place a value, any value, higher than human life and wellbeing, you will, invariably and absolutely, be drawn to sacrificing human life to that value. This is why we have horrible stories about vegan parents giving their kids rickets by not feeding them right. This is why we have eighty million dead from malaria thanks to that narcissistic whore Rachel Carson and the DDT ban. This is why we have animal rights protestors who stymie research efforts thus ensuring that cures for horrible diseases will be delayed, and during that delay, people will die.

There's a tendency to think of these guys as fluffly and harmless. Not so. It's worth remembering that the SS practiced a respect for animal life that was nearly buddhist. The reason for this is that they believed in 'blood-and-soil', the mystic union of a people and their Land, rather similar to what alot of these ghastly hippies believe.

A rather roundabout comment, but I hope it's helpful.

1333. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197040 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 21, 2008 at 12:57 am

No euphemism, but that doesn't mean child-rape isn't a huge part of this. No, they steal young boys for jokeys in the camel races, a hideously dangerous sport for children.

Destroying Islam will be a service to humanity.

1334. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197026 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 21, 2008 at 12:26 am

I can lecture you on the signs of psychotic derangement,

Oh, I know that, whenever you look in the mirror you must see a splendid example.


Returning to the rather more real issue, I have listed eight different sources on the practice of slavery, two of which show actual footage of the slave-children in question. Of the others, they included CASMAS, the organisation devoted to putting a stop to this, articles from the BBC, to the International Criminal Court, and even some Arab newssheets.

Al also weighed in with four more sources.

I am honestly finding this creepy that you can't confront the plain truth.

Here are some further sources:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/this-man-thinks-he-is-handing-over-50-to-free-a-slave-but-like-thousands-of-americans-a-band-of-pop-stars-and-a-british-baroness-is-he-being-conned-661920.html

While nongovernmental organizations argue over how to end slavery, few deny the existence of the practice. ...[E]stimates of the number of blacks now enslaved in Sudan vary from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands (not counting those sold as forced labor in Libya)...

Here's the Human Rights Watch report on the subject: http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/sudan1.htm

The Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/11/19/the_modern_face_of_slavery/

And so on. All of this is instantly available with five seconds of googling. What is so difficult about accepting that a) the Sudan takes slaves, b) the Arabs buy slaves, particularly young boys for camel racing, and c) they buy these slaves from Asia and Africa, and with Khartoum having a thriving trade, quite a few come from there.

What is so difficult about this? If you are going to keep up this act of not believing in what's going on, you have to explain what those photos and videos were, and how on earth everyone from the Al-Aram to the Boston Globe to the International Criminal Court and Human Rights Watch agrees on this.

1335. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196833 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 1:21 pm

It looks to me more like the description of a new-age jackass than that of a typical liberal, at least by European stereotypes.

The European intellectuals are usually much more sympathetic towards the American liberal than the conservative.

I agree that not all liberals are 'like that'. Look at Sam Harris. But the tinfoil hat types, and the other, more sophisticated types (Bill Maher springs to mind) who do not want to see reality at any price, dominate today. The liberals who do see the world as it is, and do recognise Islam for what it is, are deserting and coming over to my camp.

1336. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196800 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 12:56 pm

al gotcha. I wasn't following Tera too closely.

1337. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196777 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 12:33 pm

al again, I agree with you. But I also agree that our dependence on Saudi oil is a lethal weakness. We need to get off it, never mind how. If it's alternative energy, great. If it means seizing and holding those oil fields (which the desert Arabs could never have developed and exploited without the work of Western companies and Western technology) then so be it. The money weapon needs to be defeated.

1338. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196766 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 12:20 pm

WAY ahead of you Tera. Here's the commentary par excellence on this lunatic:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006850.php

Money quote:

I have been watching someone on television positively hallucinating about "winning" some "war on terror" by sticking it out in a country called "Iraq" where there are citizens who think of themselves as "Iraqis" and who are eager to put into place what sounds amazingly like the American Bill of Rights, after decades of enduring terrible misrule at the hands of some strange regime apparently totally unconnected to the behavior of the gentle Iraqis themselves -- possibly these mis-rulers arrived from outer space.

1339. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196709 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 11:09 am

It's interesting. When I first signed up here, the tinfoil-hat leftists were stacked three deep. Now the most egregious irritants seem to have scurried away - xenocratic, brianclough etc.

1340. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196689 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 10:39 am

al it's because of the Qur'an going on and on about 'young boys, chaste as scattered pearls' that you find in paradise.

1341. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196687 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 10:37 am

And now, for my own perverse enjoyment: Deconstructing Vin!

head-fucked rabids

Hmmm... Might there be a little projection going on here? I mean just look at the number of exclamation marks.

Have you booked your flight to Khartoum yet? !!!!

Hey, got your time machine ready for a trip to Germany, 1939? Or how else are you going to prove this 'holocaust' thing ever took place?

Seriously though, this is a little creepy. The material I posted isn't just articles or comments - it's also photographs and videos of some of these slaves. This is like someone refusing to look at the footage from Pol Pot's killing fields, or from Birkenau, and claiming none of that happened.

Vin in a spirit of Christian charity, let me tell you that there's still hope, if you haven't been on the loony left for too long. There are ways to find your way back to sanity. There are books you can read and courses you can take.

1342. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196624 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 8:46 am

Vinelectric

You have been presented with facts and you have answered with insults and by avoiding the issues. This is abundantly clear to all, here

*takes a bow* My work here is done.

1343. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196620 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 8:38 am

Any proof, Vin, any at all? Cute the way I have to buy a plane ticket to one of the most dangerous places in the world to check up on your claims. 'Fascist' - that's sweet, coming from someone who claims to be from the Sudan but says that there's NO WAY slavery is practiced here.

After the Reich was smashed, people travelled from one corner to the next and never met anyone, anyone at all, who knew anything about what the KZ's were really for.

1344. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196616 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 8:29 am

Steve I rest my case.

In a PM our fine friend over here said there's no such thing as slaves being taken from the Sudan - and elsewhere in Africa - and sold in the Arab world, including Dubai, and that things like this don't happen:

http://www.camelraces.com/
http://www.ansarburney.org/videolinks/childcameljockeys_afterban.html

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/07/sinister_paradise.html

Key quotes of that last bit:

Paradise, however, has even darker corners than the indentured-labor camps. The Russian girls at the elegant hotel bar are but the glamorous facade of a sinister sex trade built on kidnapping, slavery, and sadistic violence. Dubai -- any of the hipper guidebooks will advise -- is the "Bangkok of the Middle East," populated with thousands of Russian, Armenian, Indian, and Iranian prostitutes controlled by various transnational gangs and mafias. (The city, conveniently, is also a world center for money laundering, with an estimated 10% of real estate changing hands in cash-only transactions.)

...

Sheikh Mo and his thoroughly modern regime, of course, disavow any connection to this burgeoning red-light industry, although insiders know that the whores are essential to keeping all those five-star hotels full of European and Arab businessmen. But the Sheikh himself has been personally linked to Dubai's most scandalous vice: child slavery.

Camel racing is a local passion in the Emirates, and in June 2004, Anti-Slavery International released photos of pre-school-age child jockeys in Dubai. HBO Real Sports simultaneously reported that the jockeys, "some as young as three -- are kidnapped or sold into slavery, starved, beaten and raped." Some of the tiny jockeys were shown at a Dubai camel track owned by the al-Maktoums.

And this article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dubai-princes-accused-of-masterminding-trade-in-jockey-slaves-416101.html

According to the suit, as many as 30,000 boys from South Asia and Africa could have been victimised in what it calls "one of the greatest humanitarian crimes of the last 50 years".

"Because camel racing is extremely dangerous and arduous, especially for children," the suit says, "the Arab sheikhs would not make their own children jockeys and trainers. The sheikhs instead bought boys who had been abducted and trafficked across international boundaries and enslaved as young as two years old...

"The defendants robbed parents of their children and boys of their childhoods, their futures and sometimes their lives, for the craven purposes of entertainment and financial gain."

Anyway, back to our friend Vin who knows this is all false. Want to know how he knows? Because he lives there!

Which leaves two interesting conclusions. One is that he's being poetic with the truth, and I would like to see some proof that he's from that part of the world.

And the other possibility is that's he's on the level. In which case I am reminded of the end of Downfall the film about the fall of the Third Reich which closes with the Fuerer's personal secretary saying she was shocked, shocked, about what was going on at Ausschwitz and Dachau, and how she should have known about it.

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.


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

EDIT: Steve you see what I mean about the inability to convince someone like Vin? I cited four sources showing slavery being practiced in the Sudan, have just added another four, and al has been so good as to join in. This is an atrocity beyond belief and Vin doesn't give a fig. His response also includes, basically, "But, but, but... what about those evil ZIONIST'S?"

For the record, Vin the reason I cite the Arab media in cases like this is somewhat like something Hitchens said that if the Pope said he'd started doubting in the existence of God, you'd think he might be onto something. Same thing: if the Arab press runs the umpteenth article on how the jews use the blood of goyim for passover, it's the same old nonsense. If they start running ones about Islamic atrocities, you get the feeling they might be onto something.

1345. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196605 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 8:01 am

e forced the indigenous populations into many "treaties" and then broke every single one of them, while watching 90-120 million of them die off.

A few points:

1. Could I see a source for those numbers? Because I have trouble believing that a tribal system could have supported anything like that number of people

2. Whenever I hear this complaint, I have these flashbacks to my history lessons in Africa where you'd have the Zulus complaining about the 'vicious imperialism of the British' and how it was completely unacceptable. Behind them you'd find the Basotho saying 'nice of you to notice'. And behind them you'd find the Khoikhoi and San saying "Indeed".
C.F. the Inca and Aztec track records.

3.... Actually, I can't remember 3, but I'm sure it will come to me.

1346. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196596 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 7:38 am

Okay, Father escaped from the USSR, worked in Africa, where I was born, and moved around ALOT. A truly discreditable amount.

I wasn't really ticked, it's just that bar-room brawls are kinda gauche.

1347. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196594 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 7:37 am

Actually, this site is remarkably civil, all things considered, especially given the nature of internet discussions generally.

*grins* Kick 'em when they're down, ah say!

1348. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196584 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 7:26 am

Very droll al-rawandi for the record, I grew up in Africa and have been trained in Tae Kwan Do, Kung Fu, Karate...

Steve, there is not much chance of convincing Vin, at least not anytime soon. If he was going to be convinced, he'd get convinced by those links I sent. And that goes for anyone who happens to read this exchange.

EDIT: Theme song for Vin: "When facts raised their ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Brave, brave, brave..."

1349. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196572 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 7:13 am

Steve, I don't know if this is a misunderstanding, but my ire was exclusively directed at Vin. And come on - we stand on the verge of a bloody global conflict and very possible extinction at the hands of Islam. Can't I just enjoy my vice of blasting the self-righteous?

1350. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196566 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 7:03 am

Maybe it is just me, but I find snide little digs like this quite irritating. If we are going to debate, let's do it on the basis of facts and reason.

Steve Zara, I did. I cited four sources on the practice of slavery, sanctioned and demanded by Islam, in the Sudan. You may have noticed Vin's tone beforehand, his outrage at the very suggestion that Muslims might be behaving Islamically. Notice also that he's scurried off, but no doubt will be back to tell us how Islam's Problems Are All The West's Fault.

You see in his little blinkered universe, that's the way things are. Those Christians, those Jews, those Americans, those Westerners generally, why, we know we can't trust them, it would be ridiculous to do so, those fiends who wage War For Oil, and Practice Imperialism Even Without Tribute-Paying Colonies.

But Muslims? Why they're swell in Vin's world, can do no wrong, and when they do do wrong, It's All Due Root Causes Created By The West, and Anyway, What About The Crusades And Colonialism? No, no, there's no way that they could ever be in the wrong, ever be in thrall to a fascist ideology, the ur-fascism of Islam, that they could be, dare I say it, evil?

Well, I'm sorry if it irritates you Steve, but I won't be talked to in that tone of voice. Especially not when I can blast his arguments out of the water after five seconds of googling.