Freedom and religion - debate Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » NEW - Peoples Forums - 2006 - 2008 (closed) » Freedom and religion - debate « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 11:26 pm:   

FREEDOM AND ISLAM

Is Islam compatible with Freedom? Here is what Dr. T. O. Shanavas, M.D., says in his article: "In Muslim-majority nations, people are forced to confess Islamic faith and behave in one voice in religion; but they forget that the rulers cannot fill the heart with genuine faith. I believe that faith chosen freely at the individual level without coercion and without forced conformity is the genuine faith. In a world where the hearts with freely chosen faith, not by forced compliance, pervade, the true religious spirit come alive to establish an ideal society by free choice of the people." So it is a "personal" faith, to be a true faith.

Meditating on this over the past days, it seems to me that there is a natural polarization between Islam and Freedom, as many posters had pointed out, that Islam is anti-freedom. I do not necessarily subscribe to the idea that Islam cannot mean Freedom, though at present this too eludes me. So it may be worthwhile to continue our discussions (soon to be closed) "Islam of Peace?" and its predecessor "Dialogue with a Muslim" to seek out pathways that may clear the way for Islam being compatible with our human freedoms and human rights. This should be all inclusive of what our freedoms in the West represent and what freedom represents to Islam, where it exists or does not exist. Women's rights, equal rights for all religions, tolerance for diverse ideas, freedom of belief, all protected by law, but also (by law) equal before the law for everyone. What can Islam do to bring itself more in line with the sentiments of progressive developments in human rights and freedom for humanity? This is futurism, because I also think that Islam is as of now ill prepared to handle this change. It is taking this discussion on Islam, with all due respect, to the next level, which could be a very important step in bringing enlightenment and freedom to all humanity.

I do not wish to make this into "Islam bashing" which is too common. Rather, I would like this discussion to show how more elevated Islam can be. What makes any religion valid, and first class, is that it is a personal faith helping each human being reach for their greater selves in God. By contrast, what makes a religion a cult is when this reaching for God is subordinated to its political ambitions, and repressions of human beings, by coercing them into belief. One teaches and nurtures, while the other punishes and frightens, in my opinion.

If I may define the intent of this discussion, this goal should be kept in focus:

How can traditional Islam be guided towards being better adapted for its followers into integrating their personal beliefs with the developments of the modern world, as these address personal freedoms, rule of secular law, and equal human rights for all human beings, no matter their sex, race, economic status, or religious orientation?


This new thread begins with a reference to "Freedom and Islam", which titles it, though your discussions are not limited and I only use this to launch it. Is an internal faith not what distinguishes religion from politics? Is Islam missing this one very important point? No matter what we may think of the past, or present, the future is now. It is up to us.

As always, all ideas are welcome. By Humancafe forum rules, ideas may be challenged or supported, and personal character attacks, or proselytizing are discouraged. This discussion is welcoming to both Muslims and non-Muslims. No one should feel intimidated by these ideas, or discussions, as they are meant to be non-coercive and non-invasive to others. Please speak freely and with respect for your listeners.


Thank you.

Ivan (& editors of Humancafe)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 10:42 pm:   

Here is an argument – not necessarily accepted by me – that Islam and Freedom is incompatible. I give it just to show one way of looking at the issue. Please see:
http://www.jusonenews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3507
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 01:48 am:   

FREEDOM OF JOY - and other questions of the "Islamic" mind as so different from all of us, those who love freedom.

To think all Muslims hate freedom is like saying that all Germanic people love Nazism, or all Sicilians are Mafia supporters, or all Russians are Communists. Clearly this cannot be true. Then it should also not be true that all Islamists are sympathizers of Jihad and terrorism. Some will be anti-freedom and resent the freedoms gained in our more modern societies, but they must be treated as the deviants within Islam, and not its mainstream, a kind of damaged warpage that does not reflect their true humanity. Unless the mainstream Muslims commits himself or herself to such deviant Jihadic behaviors, they must be accorded the same values and human sentiments the rest of the world enjoys, thus making them "innocent until proven guilty." The difference, I suspect, is that aside from the teachings of their Prophet Mohammed, which within the Quran and Hadiths may at times be directly in contradiction to themselves, there is a cultural bias that runs through Muslims, worldwide, where certain freedoms we have come to accept and enjoy are odious to them. This is the purpose of this examination, to explore which freedoms are objectionable to Islam, and perhaps why this is so.

I would like to list them into seven categories of Freedoms that Islam finds culturally uncomfortable, and then an addition three non-Freedoms that seem to have attached themselves to our common perception of the Arabic culture. This is not a commentary on the religion, and thus not "book and verse" referenced, but an observational commentary on how I suspect the world sees Islam through the "cultural lens" of freedom, or non-freedom. Now I will drop the word "Muslim" from this discourse, as it implicitly implies the religion, which I wish to avoid, and will use the word "Arab" instead, as this implies the culture. The reason i choose Arab is because, though Islam stretches from North Africa to the South Pacific, its cultural makeup is largely Arabic, in that the people of the Ummah, except for the Arabian Peninsula, are of many cultural backgrounds, such as Persian, Berber, Turkmen, Indian, Malay, etc., which were in effect conquered by the Arabic religion, often forced into joining it against their will. Now, centuries later, their descendants had largely dropped their own indigenous culture in exchange for the Arabic culture, which is what here will be mainly addressed. The modern day Muslim is in effect an Arabic, due to these conquests of body and mind. This is not a commentary on the religion of Islam, which is subject to interpretation by all free peoples of the world, but a commentary on the Arab mindset, that today gives the religion is peculiar flavor.

Here are some freedoms that we enjoy, but which make the Arab mind uncomfortable:

I. FREEDOM OF JOY: Our expressions of joy are so natural and universal for us that we do not even think of them. Watch children at play, of any culture, and they are freely joyful beyond question. Yet as adults, this joy is repressed in some cultures, both historically, such as the Puritanical religions of past centuries, or the conservative Victorianism and fundamentalism of more recent times. Joy was frowned upon, and once a person reached the age majority, in such cultures, they were expected to restrain it. This is no longer true in the modern world. However, it is often too true in the Arabic world. In the military, a soldier is supposed to "buck up" and refrain from such joy while on duty, understandably, because theirs is a serious business. But in the Arab world, joy is forbidden to everyone, sometimes under threats of punishment. So is too much laughter, or merriment, which may not be expressed by ordinary people. This has the negative effect of making a people dour, and perhaps psychologically unbalanced. Joking is not acceptable, humor of any kind looked down upon, and play for its own sake is dismissed as unnecessary. The joy of singing is forbidden, as is music, and certainly dancing, except in some sects for Dervish twirling. All these things are fully natural for human beings, and no doubt were universal to all the cultures which had fallen under the Arab control, but now they are severely repressed. The fear of Satan, and Hell, dominates where once there was Joy. You cannot let "yourself go" in that Arab mindset. You must remain always under control, more befitting a warrior mentality than ordinary human beings, who are naturally joyful. What suffers is theater, joke telling, music, and happiness. How happy can a people be who are forbidden joy? There is little happiness there. It is psychologically unnatural and unhealthy. Be joyful, find the joy in you, and laugh!

II. FREEDOM OF BEAUTY: What human being cannot wonder at all the beauty of nature? Both physical beauty but also musical beauty. Harmonics are as much a part of how the universe is built as the scales of notes, right down to the electron shells that power all atoms. It is all harmonic. Bells are naturally harmonic. I have a Buddhist meditation bell that gives off the most beautiful sound. I often write to music, as now. The Universe is built of music, the harmony of the spheres. Music, beauty of form, harmony of motion, are all natural things. Such musical harmony is the voice of God. Yet, in the Arab mind, they are somehow evil, somehow to be feared as a temptation of the Devil. Why such fear? Why fear the beauty of the human body, something glorified in Classical times, and glorified again today. Human beings are beautiful creations. Why is the sound of music to be feared? Its harmonics are as natural to the human ear as is the beauty of a sunset, or the stars in the sky, or the green hills, or the stark mountain peaks. Beauty is everywhere all around us, freely a creation of our Universe, or of God if preferred, and it should not be shunned. Yet, to the Arab mind this is hateful, to be restrained and forbidden. How can a people enjoy the beauties and wonderful things of God if the very essence of God is forbidden? Beauty is what we are, in the melody of our voice, in the joy on our faces, in the wit of our minds, in the creations of our arts. We are beautiful beings. When free, this is who we are. So why is art forbidden in the Arab world? Why are statues broken, destroyed if beautiful? Why is painting forbidden? Why no music? Why is it a sin to make beauty? What happened to the great architectures of the conquered people who fell under the Arab sword? They are vestigial only, a thing of the past. This is a tragedy that had befallen the people who succumbed to Arabia's thinking, in that they surrendered their natural beauty to the Arab mindset, to their loss. The Arab world, and I have seen it, is devoid of beauty, and rather drab. The great cathedrals of Europe do not exist there, except where they had been conquered and converted to their own religious use. Their great cities are teeming with humanity, but mostly they are drab and unclean, not the beautiful shining cities of the modern world. Why? Why fear beauty? Such fear comes at a great cost to the human beings who must live under this fear. In beauty, we are so much more.

III. FREEDOM OF SPIRITUALITY: Children believe naturally. Sometimes silly things like in Santa Claus, but it is in our human nature to believe. We all wonder at the beauty and wonderfulness of reality, of being, of ourselves as living and thinking human beings. It is natural to be spiritual. I often think along spiritual lines, how things work together in such beauty and harmony that they must be spiritual, as I can imagine no other explanation for it. I believe that there is a finer and greater order of things, that somehow God, or the Universe, had ordered all this way in advance, and we are mere witnesses, and barely able at that. That order, the unfolding of events, of our lives, that we survived at all, is to me all spiritual. To be spiritual is to allow for something so much greater than our simple minds can imagine into our lives. We trust in the spirit because it was there before we were born, and will be there after we die. Spirituality is as natural for us as breathing. Yet, in the cultures of the Arab dominated world, it is suppressed. There, spirituality is jinns, inspired by Satan, and feared, because to let go and feel the universe in ourselves and all around us will land us in Hell. In the place of our natural spirituality is recitation of words. Prayer replaced spirituality, not the kind of prayer that opens us for the greatest wonder of the universe, where we place ourselves in the center of all Creation, but rather a prayer of repetition, of bowing and supplicating to a strict code of what we are allowed to believe. There is none of the freedom of a God given spirituality, but one defined by man, and a stern definition of what one may even entertain as spiritual. There is no freedom of spirituality in the Arab mind, because that is forbidden. Only strict obedience is allowed, so whatever ties our being into the being of the universe, our spiritual selves, are forbidden, severely restricted, so that we are not allowed to be ourselves. Once you are not allowed to be yourself, you suffer. That is the universe, how we are within it. To suffer now, in the Arab's belief, is to spare you the horror of damnation in Hell for eternity. But what does this do to human beings? It makes them unhappy, joyless, and dour. They stop smiling. Such an existence is against God and nature, and it is horribly unhealthy psychologically to live a life not free to be who we are. We gravitate towards the spirit like flowers to sunlight. It is in us, find it and cherish it.

IV. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: We need to express ourselves, to speak, to sing, to write, to make our world beautiful, because that is speech from deep within our soul. We need the freedom to express ourselves if we are to live as true and beautiful human beings. This is so important an element of our existence that to restrain it is to cast us into a deep pit of depression. During the Soviet era, where this freedom was restricted for social realism, artists and musicians, and writers, would do it in secret, to no audience, just to preserve their souls. But in the Arab world, this may not even be done in secret without punishment. Freedom of expression is so subordinated to obedience, that is ceases to exist. One can only say and do, never create, by the strict codes imposed by the Arab mindset. Freedom of expression is expressly forbidden. If you cannot let yourself go, then you cannot be true to yourself. If you are forbidden from speaking truthfully, then sincerity suffers, and your are forced into deceit. What is lost, with your freedom of expression restricted, is the right to be who you are as a natural human being, as God made you, as you are in your soul. Suppress the soul, and you suppress the individual, so what remains is a shell of a person, obedient but not true. This is a great tragedy for all the humanity that had their soul so repressed that it was taken away. A great tragedy, and it shows in all they do, because they are not free to be who they are. Freedom of expression is so necessary for the well being of any person that to trespass on it is uncategorically a major crime against humanity. Such repression makes the person into an artifice, not true to themselves, nor to God, but to the commands of those who master over them: they become slaves. Where your soul is not free, your expression is lowered to that of a joyless, spiritless slave. As a slave, your world suffers from this lack, and your world becomes drab, unhappy, and unhealthy. Without this freedom, we are held silent within the confines of our unhappiness. God help us then, because that is where is born cruelty, deceit, and violence. Though we may not be aware of what we do, our natural spirit rebels within, if not free to express Who we are. You must let a person talk, freely, and sincerely, or you can never know that person's truth.

V. FREEDOM OF EXPLORATION: How can we get to the truth if we cannot explore? Once Arab traders were great explorers, traveling to foreign lands. After the conquests, something changed, and today Arabia is not known for its great discoveries, neither in science, nor industry, nor geographically. The world ceased to interest them, and they turned entirely inward into their scriptural text, where everything became explainable within their context. How small a world that became, so the great creations of humankind skipped over Arabia. Their world once had great scholars and scientists. What happened to them? Their freedom to explore was taken away from them, and social advancement, such as witnessed in the rest of the world in these past centuries, failed there. The arts never developed. Scientific curiosity was never encouraged, nor curiosity in thoughts. Debates were only within the context of their scriptures, as the whole universe was now defined. But reality is a hard taskmaster, and does not bow to our scriptural reference, as it demands to be understood on its own terms. The universe is a very big place, with great wonders yet to be discovered, but those discoveries will go to the free people who have the courage and curiosity to explore. If the freedom to explore is negated by repetitious insistence upon leaving it to "God's will" or what was written, the outside world is closed off. Intellect atrophies with time if not used. This is another great tragedy of Arabia, that it produces no great thinkers and discovers, except within the small closed off universe of their own written texts. God is bigger, and wants to be discovered!

VI. FREEDOM OF LOVE AND COMPASSION: What you see are damaged goods. Sometimes it is due to accident, or genetic fault, so a deformity remains, not of our doing. We are all damaged goods in one way or another, and thus fail to reach our fullest potential. Consequently we do stupid and evil things, to our selves, and to each other. But if you could look into a person's soul, you would find in its pure form absolute beauty. It would be so beautiful that your eyes would involuntarily fill with tears. Yet, how is it that we are so blind to this beauty? To see the beauty in another is to love them, unconditionally, because you see before you God's creation, in the image of God. With this love, you cannot help but have compassion, as you stand before the soul of another being, whether man or woman. But we are damaged, so often this beauty fails, it is hidden underneath all the troubles we had gone through, or had given to others. We become mean. That is where the compassion is so needed, because underneath that mean person is a beauty that we cannot yet imagine. Each one of us a beautiful soul, no matter how damaged on the outside. Find that beauty in the other, focus on that exclusively, and within the safety limits of your freedom, love them, even be compassionate to their faults. They are not what they appear. Inside is a great and truly God given soul of a human being. Why does the Arab mind negate this with strict rules and punishments, with separation of men and women, when instead their equal beauty should be glorified with love and compassion? We are so much more. Be more, loving and compassionate, and be a whole human being.

VII. FREEDOM OF VISION: Have the courage to trust, to believe, to find the finest things before God, and to love being alive. Have a vision, something that is truly yours, your dream, your inner identity of who You are, and live that vision. Why is it that this is not allowed within the Arab mindset? People, men and women, are never encouraged to reach for their very best. Rather, they are forced or encouraged to reach for their lowest level, that of pure obedience. Is this not contrary to Life and what God created for us in All the Beauty of existence? How did the vision fail, become so un-free? At what point in history was the most natural inclination of humanity to progress and grow stopped? Instead, we got regressive tendencies destroying our humanity, where our vision was blinded. We could no longer see ourselves, as to how we really are, a creation of God. What living thing would suppress itself in life to such a dismal end that it would kill itself? That is unnatural, to all life forms. Yet, within the Arab world, it had become glorified. Love became something other than freedom. Once you force your love on another, that is rape. How did the vision become so dark? Who said you may rape another in the name of love, or God? It is wrong. See instead yourselves as great and glorious beings, free beings who have the freedom of that vision, and grow into it. Dream a greater dream. Become more empowered by your dream, and reach for all the most beautiful and fine things life and the universe have to offer. It is all yours, you have a right to your vision. And it is free. Stop looking over your shoulder, there is no one following you, no jinn, no Devil. Nor are the Christians or Jews after you. Rather, they pity you because you had been left so much in the darkness, and your vision was so obscured. Stop being pathetic, so others can respect you, and trust you. Reach out, touch the world with beauty and love, and have the courage of your vision. Miracles will happen. You are a child of God, and it is guaranteed by God, as your soul is made in God's image: Be Who you are!


But there is also a dark side to freedom, where the un-freedom rules, and that is tragic. I will mention only three:

A. UN-FREEDOM OF EVIL: Evil will rob you of your soul. It is not some mysterious force in the universe, something intangible out there. No, evil is what we do to ourselves and each other. Evil is willed by us, whether consciously or unconsciously, in all that we do. Once you take away a person's freedom, you do evil to them. Once they take away your freedom, they do evil to you. You become damaged, like damaged goods. It is that simple: Evil is un-freedom.

B. UN-FREEDOM OF FEAR: Fear will rob you of your soul, of who you are. It acts like a drug to which you are addicted, and it takes over all your thoughts. Freedom is to be free from this drug of fear. Once fear possesses your soul, you see Satan and jinns everywhere. They are not there. Instead, they are all in your head, in your fear, in that part of your soul damaged by this fear. Do not let fear take your soul. Have the courage to be free of fear.

C. UN-FREEDOM OF VIOLENCE AND COERCION: This is the most sinister un-freedom, because it will parade itself as being just, that you must do violence and coercions to others for good reasons. There are no good reasons, except to stop this violence and coercion. Un-freedom of coercion will try to make itself look like freedom, but it is a disguise, meant to trap you into doing harm to yourself and others. Once coerced, you are damaged, and once your freedom is taken from you, you are no longer the being you were born to be. Guard against this sinister of thieves, the un-freedom of violence and coercion, because it more than anything keeps you away from God. Remember that no one can power over you unless you grant them that power. You are a powerful being, and live that power, as a free being. Watch over yourself, and do not give away your true freedoms, or then you are lost, your soul is lost, and you become damaged in ways that cannot be saved in this life. Guard against violence, because it is meant to steal your soul. That, violence, is the worst of thieves of souls. Do not empower it. Stop the coercions against you, and find the courage to love, to be, to be truthful and trusting, to have faith in God, to be beautiful. This is Who you are.


For those who had not thought this through in any depth, I will leave this:

WHAT FREEDOM DOES NOT ALLOW is for your freedoms to trespass on the freedoms of others. This is a cardinal rule, that your freedom ends where another's freedom begins. You may not force another against their freedom, except in a just sense to stop someone from trespassing on that freedom. This is very important, something lost on the Arab mind, where freedom is not allowed right off, except in the form of obedience, which is not freedom. You may not force yourself on another, for that is coercion. Coercion may only be used to stop coercion, and under no other conditions, without violating a person's freedom. Seek whatever conditions of agreement with others you wish, but it must be in agreement from the other, or else it is coercive to impose yourself on the other. This is why Freedom ends where another's Freedom begins. Mark this as a universal law of being human: you may not coerce another against their agreement, if they themselves are guiltless of coercion. Then it is "hands off."

I do not know why the great people of Arabia, descendants of the great civilization of Babylon, or the great Egypt of ancient times, should have allowed themselves to become so dominated by such a restrictive and oppressive ideology's belief-system, as is the now interpreted Islam. It is beyond my imagination that such a thing could have happened, where the natural freedoms of humanity are so repressed that this same humanity can no longer recognize them as their own. Perhaps this writer can explain it better than I can, because for me it is truly a great mystery: Allah does not like any challenges

Restraint, be mindful, and have the courage to be who you are. Do not empower those lesser than you. Do not bow to fear. As a child of God, you are far more than you had made yourselvers. You are a far greater being than you can imagine. Be Who you are as the great of humanity. You are Free.

I leave off this discourse here, for future thoughts, for I am tired.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 06:30 am:   

Perhaps this writer can explain it better than I can, because for me it is truly a great mystery: Allah does not like any challenges
Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 10:48 pm: Ivan


The link http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=213 poses the challenges in the reverse order: produce a single Sura; produce ten Suras; produce a book.

This URL http://www.irib.ir/worldservice/Etrat/English/Nabi/Besat/sealL13.htm gives it in the right order: produce a book; produce ten chapters; at least produce one chapter.

As a Muslim, we take the second URL to be closer to truth.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 06:41 am:   

Now I will drop the word "Muslim" from this discourse, as it implicitly implies the religion, which I wish to avoid, and will use the word "Arab" instead, as this implies the culture.
Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 10:48 pm: Ivan


I am not an Arab by birth or by culture. I do not believe Islamic culture is Arabic culture: in an earlier thread, I had shown that the woman is free to dress as close to the Hijab as her safety permits. This relaxation is well within Islam. This relaxation might be resented by Arabs. Thus, to me Islamic culture is different from Arabic culture.

Still, I plan to sit on the sidelines and monitor the discussion on this thread. If and when the discussion reverts to ‘Islamic Culture’ I might give my opinion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 11:04 am:   

RE "I do not believe Islamic culture is Arabic culture:"

Mohideen, I quote from your second link, just the first lines:


quote:

The Noble Quran was revealed in the Arabic language, one of the richest languages in the world from the point of view of firmness of structure and abundance of vocabulary. It descended like a flash of lightning in the darkness of the Age of Ignorance, and in the manner in which it conveyed various types of subject matter in the most concise of sentences it had nothing in common with the conventional language of the Arabs.
At the time that the Quran was revealed, the literary talent and eloquence of the Arabs was at its peak. Works created by poets and orators commanded the attention and admiration of everyone, and literature constituted the only art cultivated by the Arab elite.



How can you think that Islam is not inherently Arabic? Are not true prayers in Arabic? Is the Prophet not an Arab? This is why I chose to drop the word "muslim" from my above and substitute the word "arab" as a matter of semantics. I think this clarifies more than confuses the real issues, as it comes to freedom, a universal human value of liberty but alien to the Arab.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 12:52 pm:   

Is the Prophet not an Arab?
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 08:04 am: Ivan


Indeed Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was an Arab. However, as the final Prophet he was sent for all mankind and jinn-kind. He did not endorse the Arabic way of life; he changed that. He recommended austere living; in contrast we see opulence and avoidable luxury in Arab lands now. There were days when none of his wives had anything other than a few dried date fruits and water to survive; today such a life is defined to be under the ‘poverty-line’ and the World Bank is striving to eliminate poverty!

If we have to discuss about Arabic Culture we need to look at the current Arabic population. Then the discussion centers on history.

I do not believe in history. History is written by the victor apportioning all blame on the loser. One example of such reporting is the epic Ramayana popular in India. The North Indians burn the effigy of Ravenna, the king of Sri Lanka every year. In contrast, some members of the Tamil population revere Ravenna for his valor and his fighting Ram and dying in the battlefield. Some of us think that the Ramayana criticizes the ethnic Tamil population. So, I like to avoid history.

If the discussion is about Islamic Culture, the discussion centers on the scriptures; and I believe I could read the scriptures and discuss.

I express my inability to discuss Arabic Culture; not that it cannot be discussed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 01:19 pm:   

Mohideen, with due respect, this is what happened when your people were Arabized: http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/03/3571.shtml

Weep and ponder this, do not be ignorant of your history.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 04:51 pm:   

Weep and ponder this, do not be ignorant of your history.
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 10:19 am: Anonymous


Please see http://www.indianmuslims.info/book/print/2 from which I quote below:
===
There was a Muslim community in Malabar, southwest India as early as 618 C.E. as a result of King Chakrawati Farmas accepting Islam at the hands of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Muslim presence as rulers in India dates from 711 C.E.

India's first Masjid is believed to be built in 628 AD at the behest of legendary ruler Cheraman Perumal, who died in Arabia after embracing Islam.
Legend has it that before he died, Cheraman Perumal sent an emissary to Kodungalloor to seek the help of his descendant there to propagate Islam along the Kerala coast.
===

I belong to a region in India where the Muslims and non-Muslims lived in peace. I have nothing to weep and ponder over.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 07:49 pm:   

"Guard against violence, because it is meant to steal your soul." Ivan

The Stockhom Syndrom is best evidence of this: http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=469

Sick!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 07:54 pm:   

Kerala Muslims were Arabicized early!

http://www.ananthapuri.com/kerala-history.asp?page=muslim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 01:18 pm:   

It is possible that a religion originated from a particular cultural background can later acquire a more universal appeal and favour, for examples, Christianity and Buddhism. But it is not the case with Islam.

It began as a cover for Arab imperialism and still remains that way. The way black muslims are treated as second class in the "Ummah" is well known and well documented.I heard that in one event a black female Islamic scholar was jeered by Arabic muslim students in a lecture. She was so enraged that she told them," yes, I am a niggger, do you have a problem with that?"

Arabic fetishism is common among many msulim community, for example, it is common for South Asian muslims to dress themselves like desert Arabs. Arabic culture is hopelessly interwined with Islam. This no doubt is related to Muslim's idolatory of Mohammad.

There are exceptions. But mainstream Islam is an Arabic faith. Even in Malaysia and Indonesia there is a resurgence of a more intolerent, coercive and fundamentalist brand of Islam due to the influx of Saudi trained Imams and literature.

For a faith to become universal it has to have a theology which allows the possibilities of reinterpretations and adaptations to changing reality.

Islam is the religion for the demaged psyche.

Islam has a shallow theology. Its delusion of "perefection",--the Quran is perfect, it is the last word of God, must be followed to the letter; Mohammad is the last prophet, etc,--does not allow any room for spiritual growth or universal appeal.

Aside from cultural reasons, Islam gets new converts mainly among the disaffected. Its theology of hate, anger and vengence provides a false and perverted emotional outlet for the victims of injustice and people with an inflationary sense of entitlement.

Islam is not a living faith, but a relic of the 7th centry, carefully preserved through cult like practises such as mindless rituals; meticulously laid down rules of dos and don'ts and recitations of mantra. Islam can only preserve itself by systematically turning muslims into Zombies, for only zombies would worship a mumified "God".


Respectfully,
Arnold
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 01:28 pm:   

"Indeed Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was an Arab. However, as the final Prophet he was sent for all mankind and jinn-kind. He did not endorse the Arabic way of life; he changed that. He recommended austere living; in contrast we see opulence and avoidable luxury in Arab lands now. There were days when none of his wives had anything other than a few dried date fruits and water to survive; today such a life is defined to be under the ‘poverty-line’ and the World Bank is striving to eliminate poverty! "

Mohideen, do you really believe in this?

First of all, Mohammad taught that a man should not have more than one wife unless he could afford them. If Mohammad was so poor how come he could afford 28 wives and concubines??(more than the 4 allowed for other muslims)

Everytime after a conquest or a raid,--there were many,-- Mohammad took a personal cut of the loot, in addition a portion was reserved for "Allah". Of course Allah didn't exist and had no need for money and property. It doesn't take a particular cynical person to figure out the custodian of the invisible Allah's wealth would in fact be the keeper of it.

Keep in mind the deeds of Mohammad were recorded by official muslim scribes. They were not a disinterested party.

Arnold
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 01:48 pm:   

ON TOLERANCE in Islam

I came across this interesting article, which is in response to emails sent against the author who wrote an earlier piece on Tolerance. Again, the terms "Muslim" shows up in these texts without distinction from Islamic fundamentalism as it grew out of Arabian norms. Not separating "Muslim" from "Arab" has given the world a stilted view of what the aggressiveness of Islam is all about, which confuses the issues, and does injustice to all the conquered peoples of the planet who after many generations do not even know who they are anymore, Arab-Muslim or Muslims, as they were stripped of their indigenous cultures. I found these lines telling:

"The reputation of Muslims and of Islam has been tarnished throughout the world, and especially the West. The former Prime Minister of Italy said, ‘Islam is unable to become a part of the modern age.’ A French journalist wrote, ‘Islamic fundamentalism has become the main threat to world peace and security. It is similar to the threat that was posed by the Nazis and the Fascists in the 1930s and by the Communists in the 1950s. There is no room for freedom in the social and moral realms that are based on Islamic Shari’a law. This can be seen in the fact there is not one democratic regime throughout the entire Muslim world.’ Also, the former Archbishop of Canterbury leveled sharp criticism of Islam and Muslims for the politicization of Islam, and for the terrorist acts perpetrated by the radicals. He referred to the lack of democracy in the Muslim world blaming moderate Muslims for their reluctance to condemn the Irhabis and suicide bombers. He went on to comment on the absence of Islamic participation in enriching world culture during the last several centuries."

And earlier this line: "In my first article, I thought that the meaning of “tolerance” was clear. However, the responses I received indicated it was otherwise. I never meant by “tolerance,” that we should pardon criminals, or be lenient with the enemy, or anyone who breaks the law. What I meant was that tolerance implied the right to differ, and to co-exist with the one who holds a different opinion, or religion, or political beliefs. In brief, by using that word I meant a willingness to practice pluralism and peaceful coexistence. The basic problem with Muslims is their refusal to accept the “Other.” They claim sole ownership of the truth; and that their religion should rule the entire world. And in order to accomplish that goal, they should carry on their global jihad.'

As the author points out, once Islamic norms are instituted there is no turning back to our freedoms now enjoyed. If Jihad wins, it would be as if Hitler were allowed to win, both raw aggressions against humanity's freedoms. The Arab mind does not love freedoms, and therefore, their creation of their Allah also does not love freedoms. In freedom's place they value slavish submission instead. Therefore, tolerance is unknown, only surrender is acceptable to them. So if Sharia comes, goodbye freedom. Jihad is the world conquest ambition to take all our freedoms away, to impose Arab rule on the world.

This again brings home the point: "“The absence of freedom in the Islamic world is related to their religion. For example, Sheikh Tabtaba’i, the imam of the Kadhimain mosque in Baghdad said recently, ‘The West calls for freedom and liberation. Islam rejects this freedom. True freedom is obeying Allah.’ The Islamist author of ‘The Future of Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula’ attacked secularism and democracy, ‘One of the worst by-products of secularism is democracy, because it nullifies the rule of Shari’ah in society, both in form and substance. As the Exalted One says, ‘Government belongs to Allah;’ while democracy declares that government belongs to the majority of the people.’ Do we need any more proof that Islamists are against progress, and do not want to participate in the world’s civilization?"

Note with great intensity this part especially: ‘The West calls for freedom and liberation. Islam rejects this freedom. True freedom is obeying Allah.’ This is where tolerance ends and Islamic oppression begins. Once the Jihad Arabs take over, expect destruction of all your literature, your arts, your beautiful churches and cathedrals, your temples to art and beauty, your rights as a human being, your constitution of governments of law, your democracies, your tolerance and multiculturalism, your respect and love of life, your technological and scientific advancements, your civilization as a whole, your right to your thoughts, the right to love for men and women equally, and your happiness as free human beings... all gone.

The author concludes in his remarks: "I cannot but applaud the great zeal and courage shown by this Arab intellectual in stating bluntly that unfortunately, and in fact, Islam is not a tolerant faith." I too admire and applaud the courageous Arab intellectuals for stating this bluntly: Islam is not for freedom. This is far worse than when Christians had to throw off the yoke of religious fundamentalism in Europe's Middle Ages. That was where they threw off their own, but this time it will be to throw off a foreign invader. Do not give them an inch.


Ivan

Ps: Arnold, I totally concur with your assessment of Arab imperialism through their Islamic Jihad, that "Islam has a shallow theology. Its delusion of "perefection",--the Quran is perfect, it is the last word of God, must be followed to the letter; Mohammad is the last prophet, etc,--does not allow any room for spiritual growth or universal appeal." It is pure self delusion and does not fit in today's world, and I am surprised that intelligent people like our Mohideen here defend it. How out of step with reality can anyone be? Maybe if Islam reforms, becomes tolerant and inclusive of all beliefs, where we are all free to worship at whatever church or temple we wish, including mosques and the Dome on the Rock, without prejudice and harrashment, then there is hope. Otherwise, it is hopeless and pointless to even discuss it in the same breath as human freedom.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 02:46 pm:   

Maybe if Islam reforms, becomes tolerant and inclusive of all beliefs, where we are all free to worship at whatever church or temple we wish, including mosques and the Dome on the Rock, without prejudice and harrashment, then there is hope.
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 10:48 am: Ivan


I would appreciate a clarification regarding worship at mosques including the Dome of the Rock. What is the worship alluded to: worship as Muslims worship or worship as Christians worship or worship as Jews worship or what else?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 03:28 pm:   


quote:

I would appreciate a clarification regarding worship at mosques including the Dome of the Rock. What is the worship alluded to: worship as Muslims worship or worship as Christians worship or worship as Jews worship or what else?



Mohideen, worship is worship, respectful of the local culture, of the local beliefs, of the people present. If there is a certain ritual performed, then the worshiper performs it, like wearing a sarong to visit certain temples, covering the arms, covering one's head, or washing one's feet. Respect for the local culture, the right to be present in the spiritual atmosphere of the believers, without feeling harrassed or intimidated in any way. That is what I mean by "free to worship."

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 04:30 pm:   

Welcome to Sharia Law!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012163.php
Put away those musical instruments or face a good beating... peace be upon you... ha ha!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 04:31 pm:   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213240?thread=3224094

British Muslims are still in denial over 7/7. It was Iraq, it was Afghanistan, it was Blair, it was Bush, it was Israel..but never Islam.

Most ridiculous and bizzare was a guest(a non Muslim) who attributed Islamic radicalism to "alienation" Hello? A lot of young people feel alienated but they don't beome terrorists. Only muslisms do.Why?

When you listen to the so called "moderates" you know how far gone the British muslim community is.

Arnold
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 04:36 pm:   

The Stockhom Syndrom is best evidence of this:
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 04:49 pm: Anonymous


The link http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=469 has:
===
Try telling a new Marine that since he or she has survived boot camp, they should now enroll in the National Guard!
===

So being a Marine is worse than being a National Guard!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 05:14 pm:   

"Welcome to Sharia Law!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012163.php
Put away those musical instruments or face a good beating... peace be upon you... ha ha!"
Anonymous

It is simplistic to see only "Islam" in Somalia, as the ideologues from Jihadwatch and the U.S government incline to do.

Like in most local conflicts it is the intersection of many factors that brought about the Islamic court regime.

In Somalia, U.S backed "secularism" does not represent freedom and liberation.

The defeated "secular warlords" were a bunch of thugs who looted, murdered and raped at will. Between the harsh discipline of the Islamists and the arbitrary barberity of the warlords, the people chose the former, percieved as the lesser evil.

This was the same dynamics that brought the Talibans to power in Afghanistan. It was not necessarily a ringing endorsement of Islam.

As usual the U.S backed the wrong people. It once again lived up to its reputation as the oppressor of third world people.There are good reasons why the U.S is not seen as a great liberator in the third world in the way that many Americans assume.

Arnold
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 05:34 pm:   

Respect for the local culture, the right to be present in the spiritual atmosphere of the believers, without feeling harrassed or intimidated in any way.
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 12:28 pm: Ivan


There are no guards in Masjids checking the IDs to verify whether a worshipper has become a Muslim. As long as you are like the others, you do the physical rituals the others do; you can visit any Masjid and mingle with the other members there. Trouble might arise if you desire to declare that you are not a Muslim and still participate in Muslim prayer. I said “might” because I need to study the scriptures to verify whether a non-Muslim can participate in prayers on a trial basis.

I used to give a link to http://www.searchtruth.com/ after performing a search. I used to add search terms until the search result gives exactly what I desired to convey. Unfortunately they have modified their software and it does not work with multiple terms. I had sent them a mail. I hope they correct the errors in their software. Until then, in order to convey, I might please be permitted to quote from the Holy Quran and the Traditions.

The following Tradition establishes that a non-Muslim could enter the Masjid. However, since the person who entered as a non-Muslim became a Muslim, I could not assert that a non-Muslim could participate in Muslim prayers. The Tradition is:
===
Abu Rifa'a reported: I came to the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) when he was delivering the sermon, and I said: Messenger of Allah, here is a stranger and he wants to learn about this religion and he does not know what this religion is. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) looked at me and left his sermon till he came to me, and he was given a chair and I thought that its legs were made of iron. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sat in it and he began to teach me what Allah had taught him. He then came (to the pulpit) for his sermon and completed it to the end. (Book #004, Hadith #1904) (Sahih Muslim)
===

On the basis of Verse 6 of Chapter 9 of the Holy Quran found in http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=9&from_verse=6&to_ver se=6&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shak ir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1 we assert that visitor’s galleries in Masjids to allow non-Muslims to listen and observe the Muslim prayer is permitted. In the translation of this Verse, Abdullah Yusuf Ali had commented as below:
===
Even among the enemies of Islam, actively fighting against Islam, there may be individuals who may be in a position to require protection. Full asylum is to be given to them, and opportunities provided for hearing the Word of Allah. If they accept the Word, they become Muslims and brethren, and no further question arises. If they do not see their way to accept Islam, they will require double protection: (1) from the Islamic forces openly fighting against their people, and (2) from their own people, as they detached themselves from them. Both kinds of protection should be ensured for them, and they should be safely escorted to a place where they can be safe. Such persons only err through ignorance, and there may be much good in them.
===
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 05:56 pm:   

Mohideen, your post above about the Stockholm syndrome is incomplete. Here is what the full quote says:

quote:

Studies tell us we are more loyal and committed to something that is difficult, uncomfortable, and even humiliating. The initiation rituals of college fraternities, Marine boot camp, and graduate school all produce loyal and committed individuals. Almost any ordeal creates a bonding experience. Every couple, no matter how mismatched, falls in love in the movies after going through a terrorist takeover, being stalked by a killer, being stranded on an island, or being involved in an alien abduction. Investment and an ordeal are ingredients for a strong bonding – even if the bonding is unhealthy. No one bonds or falls in love by being a member of the Automobile Club or a music CD club. Struggling to survive on a deserted island – you bet!
Abusive relationships produce a great amount on unhealthy investment in both parties. In many cases we tend to remain and support the abusive relationship due to our investment in the relationship. Try telling a new Marine that since he or she has survived boot camp, they should now enroll in the National Guard! ...



The point is that abusive relationships cause this odd syndrome, not that Marines or National Guards are in some form of competition. That is wholy irrelevant. Nor is the comment that people at AAA clubs, et al, do not fall in love, just nonsense and a stupid comment. My original point was that violence steals your soul, which is also what this commentator says, though in a more clinical psychological context. ... Just in case you missed my point.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 07:13 pm:   


quote:

There are no guards in Masjids checking the IDs to verify whether a worshipper has become a Muslim. As long as you are like the others, you do the physical rituals the others do; you can visit any Masjid and mingle with the other members there. Trouble might arise if you desire to declare that you are not a Muslim and still participate in Muslim prayer. I said “might” because I need to study the scriptures to verify whether a non-Muslim can participate in prayers on a trial basis.



Thanks for this info, Mohideen, as I was always curious to visit a mosque during their prayers. I had in my travels been to many temples, always felt warmly welcome in them. I even visited the ancient synagogue at Ft. Cochin on the Malabar coast, which dates back to the middle ages. Only two mosques had my presence, neither one during time pf prayer: The Great Mosque in Old Delhi and the lovely complex made of adobe in Abiquiu, New Mexico, which upon my last visit was nearly abandoned, though great Saudi wealth was spent on building it. The place had a great view of distant mountains and the Rio Grande valley. When at Madras, since I was staying at a charming old hotel overlooking the mosque grounds, I asked if I could attend prayers, which I could plainly see from my balcony. But I was told that since I am not Muslim, I would not be welcome. I suspect the same would be true if I tried visiting the great Dome on the Rock in Jerusalem. My regrets.

I must admit I would be reticent to visit a mosque today, now that hostilities seem to have been ignited by Jihadis. Back then, in my travels, I was less informed, and only knew the Koran from an old copy I had, which I had read here and there. Today, I know a great deal more. Likely, until Islam reforms such that I am made to feel welcome, and all peoples of all religions made welcome to visit and pray, I probably will not visit your prayers. I would have recited the prayers and made the bows as required, though I do not believe as you do, out of respect for those who do. Am I further from God for failing to do so? I suspect not. I don't think God discriminates that way, as the Arab version of their "god" does. I always feel welcome in the presence of God, unconditionally, as a free human being before God.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 07:31 pm:   


quote:

It is simplistic to see only "Islam" in Somalia, as the ideologues from Jihadwatch and the U.S government incline to do.



Arnold, I don't know about the US government on this, since they seem rather bumbling in their strategic planning regarding Islamic militancy. I did notice that Jihadwatch participants are "bare knuckles" and hold no punches on the matter. This is not where I want to go, since I would rather better understand where are the problems with Islamic ideology, and how can it be rectified. In Iraq I think we are fighting a war of liberation, though at this point it is far from clear if this is worthwhile, since the people there seem bent on self destruction. The only benefit I can see from all this is establishing military bases on the Iranian border, within Kurd territories, and using them in the future should hostilities with Iran ignite. The Kurds would then gain their homeland. I know this is harsh, but it is realistic to preserve the world from further Jihadic aggressions. Otherwise, I do not care for the knee jerk war mongering responses of Jihadwatch, which does not further our understanding of the enemy, though I can't fault them either. They are often telling the truth, and the truth hurts. I think the enemy is real, not just some dissaffected youth, and that the Arab dream of a world dominated Dar al-Islam is a serious threat. My strategy is not to attack Islam but to address the people of Islam. That is where the hope of change can happen, since the texts themselves can never be changed, forever. And since I don't buy into the "second coming" nonsense, the only hope I can see is for the people themselves to take matters into their own hands and stick it to the evil mullahs who incite them to riot after Friday prayers. That means it will be a very long ideological fight. Somalia is but one small insignificant front in this war. Again, my regrets.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Humancafe
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 08:00 pm:   

Lest we forget...

From Faith Freedom page: http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=237

quote:

Armstrong whines about how the Muslim community is feeling "strain" at the moment. But where does her rose-tinted view of Islam accommodate the following Koranic texts:
"Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them. - Sura 9, verse 5.
"Strike off disbelievers heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes." - Surah 8, verse 12.
"And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression," - Surah 2, verse 193
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you," - Surah 2, verse 216
"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah" - Surah 3, verse 28
"Then fight in Allah's cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the Unbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment," - Surah 4, verse 84

The Hadiths are far worse, and the historic examples of the spread of Islam via the sword convey a message of war against the infidel, and an agenda of global domination.



In memory of the victims and bereaved of 7/7. See the links in above to the 52 victims.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 09:50 pm:   

When at Madras, since I was staying at a charming old hotel overlooking the mosque grounds, I asked if I could attend prayers, which I could plainly see from my balcony. But I was told that since I am not Muslim, I would not be welcome.
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 04:13 pm: Ivan


I feel very sad that you were denied your first request to join our prayers that too in my city. My father-in-law lived in a place called Shenoynagar, a part of Madras. Sometime during 1984 – 1991, I reached the Shenoynagar Masjid late for the Friday noon prayers. The Imam had started the sermon. We are advised to offer two units of prayer before sitting in a Masjid. I offered two units and sat down. After the prayer was over, someone accused me of showing disrespect to the Imam by offering the prayers while he was giving the sermon. That person asserted that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, had stated that we should not offer any prayer but listen to the sermon. This statement was directly against the actual statement. I had in mind the first Tradition displayed in http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=13&translator=1&start=51&number =51
I challenged the other person to show the Tradition and informed him the actual Tradition. A crowd had gathered around us. Someone said that I should be given a few blows. Another intervened and I was spared. When I went to the same Masjid during my next vacation, I found that many who entered the Masjid after the Imam had started his sermon offered the two units of prayer before sitting down.

I pray to God Almighty that a sincere desire from a non-Muslim to join the Muslims in prayer be allowed in future. It is unfortunate that at this point in time I could not establish the permissibility of such an action on the basis of my insufficient knowledge of the Muslim scriptures.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 11:22 pm:   

My original point was that violence steals your soul, which is also what this commentator says, though in a more clinical psychological context.
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 02:56 pm: Ivan


My post regarding the Stockholm syndrome was in response to the anonymous poster as I felt there was no immediate relevance to the link given and your opinion that was quoted.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 12:42 am:   

Yes, I suppose I see your point, Mohideen. Thanks to the Anon poster from bringing up the illustration, but not too relevant either way. Still, violence is a bad, in that it robs you of your self. Of course, the solution is then to fight back, to regain your self. This is what usually happens, and then it escalates and escalates. That is the human tragedy of our still 'unconscious' planet. I believe we are meant to do better.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 12:33 pm:   

Kerala Muslims were Arabicized early!
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 04:54 pm: Anonymous


The link http://www.ananthapuri.com/kerala-history.asp?page=muslim has:
===
Labbas are traders. They live in Kerala as well as Tamil Nadu. Labbas are of Arabic extraction.
===

Thanks for the above information.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 09:11 pm:   

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT ENDANGERED BY ARAB JIHAD.

Here is another author who thinks Arab Jihad is a threat to our freedoms. The historical evidence is overwhelming in Andrew G. Bostom's new book "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims" where he was the editor of numerous sources. The book review in this article "Going Medieval" shows how current Jihad has medieval roots going back to 13th-century scholars led by Ibn Taymiyah, a Damascus Muslim scholar, born is what is now Turkey. His idea of "jihad" was then largely in answer to the Tataar threats to Arab rule. Once they were defeated, "jihad" then turned in on the Arab world internally, to defeat separatist heretical sects, including the Sufis, and any and all non-Muslim religions such as Christianity and Judaism. But here was the real problem, quoted from the Wikipedia reference above:
"In the wake of crusaders, some Christians were emboldened to censure Islam and criticize the Prophet in their speeches and writings. In the intellectual circles of the Muslims there was stagnation and rigidity in their theological disputations and in their approach to the re-interpretation of the Sharee'ah. There was continuous polemical wrangling between the 'Asharites and Hanbaliyyah (Hanbali School of fiqh). Finally, some of the philosophers, influenced by the theories of Plato and Aristotle, began to spread their agnostic ideas and concepts in total disregard to the teachings of Islam."
And it is here that the Arabic "anti-freedom" campaign found its footing, since now the Arab ideology was being threatened by a new freedom of ideas. That was anathema to them, as it would imply their loss of control over their conquered peoples, if everyone started to think for themselves freely. Today, this same Arab mentality is manifest in the current Jihad. Arab control over its dominions from North Africa to the South Pacific is being threatened by the advances of modernity, the western ideals of democracy and liberty, of human rights and equality, and of economic well being. This is a direct threat to Arabia's control over these peoples, especially now with improved communications, jet travel, and the internet spreading ideas worldwide. No wonder they suddenly woke up, frantically initiated Jihad, even suicidal Jihad, like the world had never known before. The Arabs are about to lose control over their dominions. Surprisingly, they found support from all their conquered peoples as well, in Indonesia, Pakistan (India), and all of northern Africa from Sudan and Somalia to Morocco and Algeria, as well as Turkey (Anatolian Greeks) and Persia, and the Turkic peoples of the Caucasus. Combined with being emboldened by the vast numbers of Muslims now living inside the European west, the Arab conquerers raised their sights to control all Europeans with their dreams (nightmare for Europeans) of Sharia Law throughout Europe. This would complete their conquests of long ago, from which they were pushed back by the courageous fighters of medieval Europe, and try once again to dominate in a land they feel (erroneously) as rightly theirs. Of course, once Europe is under their domination, then the Arabs dream of conquest extends all the way over to the Americas, and the rest of the world with their Jihad. This is a serious threat to all our peoples' freedoms planet-wide. No wonder the Arab Jihad is suicidally violent, as this conquest is a serious business for them, to preserve their domination on the lands already gained, with dreams of expanding them world-wide.

Bostom's book shows historically what happens once the Arabs take over. It is not a pretty story. Arabic Islam's Jihad is a terrible evil that must be fought by all intelligent human beings of the planet. If not, freedom is lost, and all the great achievements of humanity are then lost with it. Freedom of thought would cease to exist, and the world cast back into a primitive medievalism. Once your freedom of thought is gone, your reason will be degraded to the closed circle of Islamic thought, with no possibility of innovation, and your world regresses to that of the Arab world. Europe, England, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, all of eastern Europe, are all at risk as this is their first target. They had better wake up. America and Australia are not far behind in these Jihad conquest ambitions. China and Russia will be left for last, maybe along with Japan. This is a world war of the modern-world of democratic ideals of freedom, our advanced modern civilization, against the primitive and pure coercions of Arab-ideology. Do not let it happen, or your children and grandchildren, and their grandchildren will live as Arab slaves. Once freedom is lost, it is very difficult to regain. The conscious mind is an infinitely precious commodity, so do not surrender it to the zombie mind. Do not take the virtues of your freedoms lightly, or you will witness Hell on Earth.

Ivan

Read some customer book reviews on "The Legacy of Jihad" here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:04 pm:   

Combined with being emboldened by the vast numbers of Muslims now living inside the European west, the Arab conquerers raised their sights to control all Europeans with their dreams (nightmare for Europeans) of Sharia Law throughout Europe.
Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 06:11 pm: Ivan


Arabs? Arabs are about to conquer Europe? Please see:
http://www.afpc.org/esw/esw90.shtml
===
Eurasia Security Watch No. 90, June 15, 2005

According to regional officials, GCC countries have substantially altered the topics taught in their schools, and have imposed new measures removing anti-Western and anti-Christian references from textbooks as part of an effort “to meet the challenges of the new world order.”
===

Looks to me the Arabs are running scared. These scared souls to overtake Europe? Incidentally, I am an Indian.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 12:20 am:   


quote:

According to regional officials, GCC countries have substantially altered the topics taught in their schools, and have imposed new measures removing anti-Western and anti-Christian references from textbooks as part of an effort “to meet the challenges of the new world order.”



That is a positive development which will bear watching. The above write up on the book "The Legacy of Jihad" was not against Muslim states, nor against Arabs in common, but against "Arab Jihad". That Jihad is something different, which even the Arab states are confronted with. The people of Arabia also have to the right to progressive ideas and human freedoms. The Jihadists do not see it this way. They want to institute the Caliphate of Medieval lore, which is against human freedoms. This is why I titled the above "Freedom of Though Endangered by Arab Jihad." Islam per se is not at fault here, but only a narrow interpretation of Islam stemming out of Arab Jihad ideology, which poisons young minds, in whatever countries they operate, and tries to change legal proceedure in favor of Sharia, both within Islamic states and European states. That poison is the challenge, the enemy of freedom, and what must be understood and stopped. Jihadists are like thieves in the night, more like spies than soldiers, since they wear no uniforms nor insignia. The law should treat them as such, as "enemy spies" undermining our national security, which does not afford them the same protections under the law as enjoyed by all other citizens of the nation. Jihad is a latter middle ages invention, not true Islam, in my opinion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 01:36 am:   

Mohideen wrote:

"According to regional officials, GCC countries have substantially altered the topics taught in their schools, and have imposed new measures removing anti-Western and anti-Christian references from textbooks as part of an effort “to meet the challenges of the new world order.”"

This is what the new textbooks look like, AFTER
"intolrence have been removed"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769_ pf.html

Some highlights of what Saudi Children are learning in the current academic year, enjoy:

["FIRST GRADE

" Every religion other than Islam is false."

"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."
FOURTH GRADE

"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."
FIFTH GRADE

"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."

"It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."

"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."
SIXTH GRADE

"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."
EIGHTH GRADE

"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

"God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did."

"They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]."

"Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God."

"Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels."
NINTH GRADE

"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."

"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."

"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him."
TENTH GRADE

The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Muslim male." Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim's heirs for murder or injury:

"Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).

"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel."
ELEVENTH GRADE

"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others."

"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims."

"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."
TWELFTH GRADE

"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God." ]

Respectfully,

Arnold
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 02:21 am:   

TRUE ISLAM

What is true Islam? I think it is embodied in Quran 2:256:


quote:

Yusuf Ali 256: 
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.



This is the religion of God demanding adherence to this basic principle, that we do not force another in doing God's will. Only as a pure and free human being can you do God's will, because that is how you were designed by God, your soul in the image of God, as the representation of divinity on Earth. All else are social laws, rules made by men to control men's behaviors. In the case of Islam, there are separate social laws to control the behavior of women. But these are peripheral to the truth of God, only man made laws. The use of coercions or punishments to make human beings adhere to these laws then becomes a matter of voluntary accepting these laws, that each one chooses freely to either believe in such laws or reject them, and obey such laws or not. There can be no compulsion in this. Those who do force these laws on us are evil promoters of a Jihad of conquest, and that is not from God, but from men. Islam means submission to God, as a free human being who does not coerce another is submissive to God, because he or she then no longer forces themselves on another. Violence and conquest is diametrically opposed to God's law. There is only one law: Coercion may only be used to stop coercion, and never for any other purpose, if Quran 2:256 is to be made whole. Then, Islam becomes a religion of peace.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 04:22 am:   

This is what the new textbooks look like, AFTER
"intolrence have been removed"
Arnold
Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:36 pm: Anonymous


Any expert in Software Engineering knows that it is virtually impossible to remove all mistakes from software within a fixed period. The Saudi authorities possibly had some six months to revise the texts. It would be instructive to compare the texts used in 2005 and see whether the inciting statements have reduced or not.

In all fairness now that Washington Post has indicated the offending statements, the textbooks for the academic year 2007 should be studied for inciting statements. When a person is trying to change her / his behavior it is a good policy to encourage by gently pointing out further improvements rather than criticizing the incomplete recovery.

I for one commend the Arabs for attempting the revision.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 05:15 am:   

There is only one law: Coercion may only be used to stop coercion, and never for any other purpose, if Quran 2:256 is to be made whole.
Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:21 pm: Ivan


I agree; we have work to do in establishing that 2:256 is indeed whole. By the grace of God Almighty a miniscule progress has been made in that direction.

Please see – 6. A test of our understanding of Islam – in http://deentech.spaces.msn.com/PersonalSpace.aspx
May God Almighty forgive me if exceed my brief: if the Jihad of conquest is based on interpretations of the Holy Quran by some earlier thinkers, we believe the analyses of such thinkers were wrong.

In – 16. Verses 9:29 and 2:256 and the Arabian Peninsula – in the blog cited above we have established the following:
1. No war but to establish the purity of faith in the Arabian Peninsula.
2. No Jizya anywhere. That is no dhimmitude.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 07:55 pm:   

WAS MOHAMMED A TRUE MESSENGER OF GOD?

This question had been on my mind a long while, and since it will not leave me until I answer it, I must ask it: Was Mohammed a true messenger of God?

I think Mohammed knew he was touched by God, whom he called Allah, and there is no question of that in my mind. I think anyone touched by God is so overwhelmed by the experience that for most of us it is an unsupportable condition, so powerful that it could drive a man, or woman, mad. Mohammed knew this from deep inside himself with utmost humility, that he was chosen for a very important work as messenger, to deliver to his people, in his time, a very special message from the most Supreme Being of the universe. And to this he was as true as he could be, within the limits of his knowledge and capacity, as a divine inspired being. But he was also a human being, communicating God's word to other human beings, so the message handed down to him may not have been the same exact message other human beings picked up from him. His purity is not questioned, as God chose him for this work, and the love all felt towards him, as they still do today, is proof of that. It is the message delivered that is in question, as what was picked up by men, and written down by men, men who had their own agendas, and egos. Remember those were violent times. And same as no two translation of the Quran use the same words, so no two men taking down the message from Mohammed would find the same words. In that are the seeds of error, to where God's message to humankind may become corrupted somehow, and its pure message garbled by the time it reaches us. Ego drives men into fear, and adrenal fear is what drives men in battle. So they kill. How can this be in the spirit of peace, as Islam commands?

Mohammed was a messenger of God. The mandatory condition for receive this message, for any of the great prophets of history, is that they accept it with pure humility. I believe Mohammed knew this, same as Jesus knew this, and Moses before him. These great men are obligated by their mission to maintain pure humility before God, and much of same humility before men. We stand naked before God, in that God knows all, and there is no hiding from it. But at the same time, we are mortal humans who forget, we forget that our soul was designed by God, and so we drift from our purity. Mohammed was a man also, so though he stood naked before God in all his humility, there was a time somewhere along his mission where this purity was tempted. Remember Jesus had his moment in the desert, where he felt satan challenging and taunting him. But this was merely his own ego challenging him, to accept the mantle of greatness. He knew that if he accepted this taunting, his mission would fail, because then he would violate a cardinal rule of being God's messenger, that it must be done in complete humility. Did Jesus say to satan "love thy neighbor?" No, that was the message from God to men. He said instead "Satan, get thee behind me." And thus he maintained this humility until the bitter end, when he was crucified, "God they know not what they do." The temptation of taking that mantle of power onto ourselves, to our egos, is nearly irresistable, an incredible pressure, which a messenger must resist. I think Mohammed knew this too. If I were to look into his soul, I could see the trials and frustrations that assaulted him, as those men around him taunted him to glorify in his power. He refused, and thus he refused to do what all political leaders drive to do, then and now, to have their image posted in as many places as they can, on statuary, on coins, in great images carved into the peoples minds. Mohammed said, no, he would have no brazen image displayed of himself. This to me is proof that he understood his cardinal rule of prophethood, that he could not succumb to vanity and ego. Yet, once he gained power, and was lauded for it, at some point in his history something changed. This change, some think, is evident in the difference in the teachings between the Meccan and Medina periods. Perhaps, but it is not for me to judge. But somewhere, that message was damaged, not by Mohammed, but by men.

To not give in to power is an incredible challenge for a man who is surrounded by power, as this power is handed to him by his own fellow men. To maintain a strict adherence to the humility God demands is a true test. Few can resist. Mohammed knew this, so he was doing his work as demanded by God, in humility. But somewhere he succumbed to the callings of men, and courted the same power they handed him. This was grave, because now the message from God is not as clear and pure as it would have been if he strictly maintained his purity and humility. Power, or wealth, or fame, can only come to a man of God if it is truly from God, and not from men, or their egos, or else it becomes subject to corruption. These cannot be sought. This was the message God gave Mohammed, in his teachings calling for purity of spirit. So it is clear he knew, as God told him. But later, when men took their message with them, that purity was given over to lust for power. This is what they ran with as they ventured out to spread the word. But the word was not spread through purity and love, as it should have been, but they spread God's word through the sword. A grievous error. Those conquests are drenched in the blood of the martyrs, of all innocent men, women and children slain, in the name of the message. There is the error, and it was made by men. Humility was lost, and God's message was garbled as they grabbed for all the things power delivers, in a coercively violent way. This is not Mohammed's fault, but the fault of men, of his time, who were doing what they had always done, plunder. Conquest was not God's message, but the horrors that followed from this mis- interpretation of God's message became the bloody history of Islam. It was done, then as now, by men.

If Mohammed had a fault, it was that he succumbed to the needs of men and their egos, and thus his teachings began to drift from the pure message of humility towards greater coercions. We can see it in the writings. Doing God's will is an intensely humbling experience, because it means to sacrifice one's ego for a higher cause. But doing God's will with the ego, by coercing others into submission to your power, is a direct contradiction of God's message. With regrets, this happened, and is still happening. The only salvation, to turn this grievous error around, is to once again be true to the word of God, not men's words, but God's words. And we know them by accepting them in total humility, as they then jump out of the pages at you. You know God's word almost naturally and instinctively, because it is the truth. It talks right into your soul. Mohammed knew this, and he taught this to others, but the others heard something else, and they succumbed to power, the ego, so they damaged the message. Mohammed's message, like Jesus's message before him, was sublime as the word of God. If from God, it should have been pure Love. But what men did with it was to profane it, and we are still paying for it to this day with the horrors committed in Islam's name. I do not understand this, nor do I fault Mohammed, for he was indeed a true messenger of God. I fault the egos of men. By their violent actions, they are degrading God's message and insulting their Prophet Mohammed.

We cannot judge men's action in the past with the modern values of today. Times were different then. Men were naturally violent. Women were commodities. Blind belief bordering on superstition was normal. Scientific explanations for reality were unknown. God's message was delivered in the vocabulary of what men understood then. It had to be, for if it were delivered in today's terminology, it would have sounded nonsense. We cannot fault Mohammed as a messenger of God, for he did not fail humanity at that time. What failed, as I see it, is that the message over the centuries, like its many lingual translations, faltered. We can, as conscious and free human beings with a mind, correct it back to what Mohammed heard from God. It was a message of love, of purity, and of utmost humility before all Creation. I truly believe this. If we do this of our own free will, then we are doing God's will as Mohammed, and Jesus, and Moses, taught us. It is that simple: take away the coercions, and you have God's word.

I offer this in all humility, not to offend anyone, but to relay what had long been on my mind. I hope and pray I spoke with the truth.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 08:16 pm:   

I believe I had identified a set of conditions to be satisfied by a true religion. As a Muslim, I know that Islam as defined by the Scriptures satisfies all the conditions even today. Please check article – 18. A Sufficient Condition for Salvation – and educate me about other religions satisfying the conditions listed. See the article in my blog http://deentech.spaces.msn.com/PersonalSpace.aspx

Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 09:12 pm:   

Mohammad was no "prophet" of any God. He was part crazy and part cynical. He was hearing voices perhaps because he was suffering from some kind mental disorder. Soon he used that in a self serving way. One can only marvel at how conveniently some of these "revealations" arrived. To a degree Mohammad probably genuinely believed in whatever dark delusions he had was from God, that is common with egomanics. No doubt Hitler thought he had a noble historical mission.

Arnold
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 09:15 pm:   

Mohideen wrote:

"Any expert in Software Engineering knows that it is virtually impossible to remove all mistakes from software within a fixed period. The Saudi authorities possibly had some six months to revise the texts. It would be instructive to compare the texts used in 2005 and see whether the inciting statements have reduced or not."

I don't believe the offending material in the Saudi text books are just innocent oversights. They occur rather systematically.

Arnold
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 09:42 pm:   


quote:

I don't believe the offending material in the Saudi text books are just innocent oversights. They occur rather systematically.


Arnold, I have to agree, they are truly gross "oversights". The message is still clear from the Saudi children's texts: Hate the "other."

So much for Islamic tolerance, not an Arab thing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 09:56 pm:   

Mohideen, on your "Sufficient condition for Salvation" post in your blog link, you summarize:

quote:

What are the supplications by the successful group?
1. Glorified be God.
2. Exalted be God.
3. There is only one God.
4. Praised be God.
5. Favors are from God.

And what are the demands on God?
1. Admit to Paradise.
2. Protect from Hell.
3. Grant Forgiveness.

Please observe that Islam contains all the above. Islam might not necessarily be the only religion containing all the above. (I do not know all religions.) Every religion that induces its followers to do the above is a successful religion.



Numbers # 1, 2, and 4, sound strange to my ears, that God is so needy that he needs a constant reminder of how "great" he is. Or is this to remind people that God is great, and we are supposed to keep repeating it to ourselves? Then saying it once is enough, don't need to keep repeating it three times. On # 5, I do not understand what that means, "favors"? What favors are we talking about? If God gave you a will and reason, and the ability to choose and take action, what is this favors all about? Absolutely everything is from God, or the order of the Universe, or the great game set up by the Supreme Being. So why curry favors, as if asking for a special treatment? This is more conducive to a lowly slave begging his master, or a cowardly underling begging his lord for a favor, than to glorify your existence in God. I would rewrite #1 as "Glorify in God's presence" and #4 as "Praise be from God upon all humanity" and #5 as "God is equal for All". The last includes all the billions of inhabitted worlds throughout the universe. There are about 200 billion suns in our galaxy alone, so at least some of them must have beings capable of God consciousness.

The last three are alien to me. I don't believe in Hell, not sure what you think is Paradise, and Forgiveness is a given anyway. Sorry if I make it sound trite, but I expect more from God and man than what you wrote.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:00 am:   

What failed, as I see it, is that the message over the centuries, like its many lingual translations, faltered.
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 04:55 pm: Ivan


Please see article – 13. Allah exists – A proof – in my blog http://deentech.spaces.msn.com/PersonalSpace.aspx that proves the divinity of the Message. The Message is retained without any corruption whatsoever. The translations are approximate. That is why the Muslims insist on reading, understanding, and reciting the Holy Quran in Arabic and Arabic only.

Let me repeat the Holy Quran as it is found with the Muslims today is the original uncorrupted version. The divinity of the Message proves that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, indeed received the Holy Quran through revelation only.

If there are groups that claim the Holy Quran advocates violence, it is their misunderstanding of the Holy Quran and nothing else.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 06:06 am:   

God is so needy that he needs a constant reminder of how "great" he is.
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 06:56 pm: Ivan


Please read article – 19. Need of God Almighty – None! – in my blog http://deentech.spaces.msn.com/PersonalSpace.aspx
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 10:16 am:   

RE "What failed, as I see it, is that the message over the centuries, like its many lingual translations, faltered." Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 04:55 pm: Ivan

Let me repeat the Holy Quran as it is found with the Muslims today is the original uncorrupted version. The divinity of the Message proves that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, indeed received the Holy Quran through revelation only. --Mohideen


Mohideen, please be mindful of the full context of this quote, which is this:

quote:

Mohammed knew this from deep inside himself with utmost humility, that he was chosen for a very important work as messenger, to deliver to his people, in his time, a very special message from the most Supreme Being of the universe. And to this he was as true as he could be, within the limits of his knowledge and capacity, as a divine inspired being. But he was also a human being, communicating God's word to other human beings, so the message handed down to him may not have been the same exact message other human beings picked up from him... And same as no two translation of the Quran use the same words, so no two men taking down the message from Mohammed would find the same words. In that are the seeds of error, to where God's message to humankind may become corrupted somehow, and its pure message garbled by the time it reaches us....
... What failed, as I see it, is that the message over the centuries, like its many lingual translations, faltered.


This is the whole context of this thought. By picking up only on the last of it, you failed to mention its entirety as it is contextual to a full idea. The errors arise from what men understood, or did not understand, rather than what God said to Mohammed. I want this to be clear to the reader. The corruption is NOT God's word, but what men heard of that word. There is a great difference between the two.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 01:02 pm:   

The corruption is NOT God's word, but what men heard of that word. There is a great difference between the two.
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 07:16 am: Ivan


Please see all the 5 Traditions in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=collect+lips&translator=1&se arch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
As per these Traditions God Almighty has assured that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, would repeat exactly the words he was given.

Do we agree that the angels do not commit any mistake? The Tradition in the URL http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Ramadan+twice&translator=1&s earch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all suffers a typing mistake. The last line must be “but in the year of his death, he stayed in I’tikaf for twenty days” instead of just “but.” The Holy Quran was not only collected divinely but it was also verified every year by the angel.

The Holy Quran was indeed written with no errors. There is no need to correct the Holy Quran; we need to understand it correctly.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 06:43 pm:   

Mumbai terrorist attack: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/5171500.stm

Where is the outrage from the Muslim population on this? Where are the riots? Where is soul searching for why this happened to innocent civilians going home from work? Why? Why no voice from the people who riot at the drop of a hat?

Maybe it is time for India to start shutting down mosques. Time for Europe to stop construction of new mosques on their land. Maybe it is time for the world to wake up. Islam is not a religion of peace. The people of Islam said so, with their silence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 06:48 pm:   

"Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them. - Sura 9, verse 5.
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 05:00 pm: Humancafe


Please see article – 20. Interpretation of Verse 5 of Chapter 9 of the Holy Quran – in my blog http://deentech.spaces.msn.com/PersonalSpace.aspx Both Verses 4 and 5 of Chapter 9 combined offer peace for 4 months even for those war mongers who had violated the peace treaty!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 07:15 pm:   

Where is the outrage from the Muslim population on this? … Maybe it is time for India to start shutting down mosques.
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 03:43 pm: Anonymous


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5173646.stm
===
The government says there are so far no leads, and it has avoided naming any particular groups as suspects.

Two Islamic militant groups fighting Indian rule in Kashmir have denied any involvement in the attacks.

Correspondents say the government has publicly adopted a cautious approach, saying only that "terrorists" are to blame.

"I urge each one of you to remain calm," the prime minister said. "Do not be provoked by rumours. Do not let anyone divide us. Our strength lies in our unity."

… Correspondents also report long lines of Mumbai's minority Muslims queuing to donate blood to some of the 714 wounded in the blasts.
===

Why these hate mongering? Without any evidence, why blame the Muslims? Is not donating blood to save the struggling lives better than demonstrations on the streets?

Whoever is the master-mind behind these attacks deserves severe punishment. If these attacks are meant to insert a wedge between the Muslims and non-Muslims of India, our prayers that the communities bond stronger than before.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 07:34 pm:   


quote:

The Holy Quran was indeed written with no errors. There is no need to correct the Holy Quran; we need to understand it correctly.


Mohideen, your response to this is predictable, because you will never admit anything is wrong with your religion, and thus equally meaningless.


quote:

Please see article – 20. Interpretation of Verse 5 of Chapter 9 of the Holy Quran – in my blog http://deentech.spaces.msn.com/PersonalSpace.aspx Both Verses 4 and 5 of Chapter 9 combined offer peace for 4 months even for those war mongers who had violated the peace treaty!


When Muslims attacks, there is no "peace treaty", because they are guilty of aggression. There is only one response to aggression, to fight it. Your Jihad will be fought, I can well assure you. Islamic ambitions of world domination will not happen, mark my word.


quote:

Why these hate mongering? Without any evidence, why blame the Muslims? Is not donating blood to save the struggling lives better than demonstrations on the streets?


The (anon) poster's point is that there is not a peep out of Muslims, no outrage, no vocal call for Jihad to stop... NOT EVEN FROM YOU. Whether or not the bombs on the trains are Muslim terrorist bombs, there is little doubt. The pattern is the same worldwide. In fact, I am not so sure the Chicago subway fire was not a Muslim terrorist act. Time will tell with further investigation.

Do not hold us to a higher standard of truth than you can deliver yourselves, and if there must be collateral damage from retaliation against wrong accusations against Islamic violence, it will have to be acceptable. Islam brought this violence on itself. This is not "war mongering" as you call it, but addressing a great evil perpetrated in the name of your religion. Why is Islam so silent on Jihad against non-Muslim peoples throughout the world? The burden of proof that you are not guilty now rests on you.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 09:42 pm:   

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1742854.cms

Mumbai train terror smells like jihad and saudi money... islam.

it stinks!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 10:34 pm:   

WAR-MONGERING, from the Islamic 'prophethood' (rhymes with 'brotherhood')


quote:

Transliteration 5: 
Faitha insalakha alashhuru alhurumu faoqtuloo almushrikeena haythu wajadtumoohum wakhuthoohum waohsuroohum waoqAAudoo lahum kulla marsadin fain taboo waaqamoo alssalata waatawoo alzzakata fakhalloo sabeelahum inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun
Yusuf Ali 5: 
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Shakir 5: 
So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Pickthal 5: 
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
M. Khan 5: 
Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


Mohideen, I copied this from your blog reference #20 above. Thanks for this 'enlightening' piece on Arab "war mongering."

It seems Arab-Allah is only 'merciful and forgiving' to his own Arabs... then for all others it's kill kill kill! :-(

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 02:18 am:   

We had all been here before. Life is a giant circle. Last time human beings were faced with a strong regressive trait, they solved it. This was about 30,000 years ago. The Neanderthals were a benign presence in Europe, until Cro-Magnon outcompeted them for food. Neanderthals, who were a cannibalistic people, then turned on the newer arrivals for food, with disastrous consequences, where today they no longer exist. Which way will it go this time? Will the regressive trait win? Or will it be erradicated once again? You choose.

Those who advocate barbarism regtression will be sought after and hunted down. Last time it was a physiological war. This time it will be ideological. We had done all this before, maybe even the same players. Do not underestimate our ability to unite and elliminate a threat once it is identified. The physiological differences could not be rectified. The ideological differences can. It is a matter of survival of the fittest. And so far, the free modern values of humanity far outdistanced the primitive superstitious values. You have a choice. But choose badly, and you will be in your last days.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 05:16 am:   

Mohideen, I copied this from your blog reference #20 above.
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 07:34 pm: Ivan


It is unfortunate that the quote is partial. Verses 4 and 5 of Chapter 9 are to be considered together. Considering Verse 5 alone is wrong. Please see Verse 4 of Chapter 9 of the Holy Quran from the following URL.

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=9&from_verse=4&to_ver se=4&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shak ir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1

Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 05:21 am:   

Those who advocate barbarism regtression will be sought after and hunted down.
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:18 pm: Anonymous


True. We must banish barbarism. Islam does not tolerate barbarism; it fosters peace.

Some war mongers knowing that Islam would block their attempt to usher in world dictatorship have resorted to maligning Islam. In due course the right way of life – Islam – would triumph for the benefit of all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 05:44 am:   

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1742854.cms

Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 06:42 pm: Anonymous


From the link, we have:
===
A former activist of the Students' Movement of India (SIMI) said that since LeT is not able to find recruits in Gujarat, it has brainwashed former activists of SIMI and new recruits in Maharashtra.

"Funds are available for the asking for LeT not only from Pakistan, but also from Wahabi fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and the UAE," the ex-activist stated.
===

This is trial by media. Who is this so called ex-activist who does not even know the correct expansion of SIMI? Students’ Movement of India is SMI and not SIMI.

It is unfortunate that some reporters fan hatred by reporting statements that border on rumor.

From http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/13/stories/2006071302081100.htm
===
… South Asia observers on Wednesday voiced concern over the future of India-Pakistan relations as a result of Tuesday's attacks.
The blasts were widely seen here as an attempt to destabilise the peace process …
… In an editorial, under the heading "Murder in Mumbai," the paper however warned against jumping to "any conclusions" and said it would be "wrong for hotheads to mount reprisals that would play into the hands of hate-mongering fanatics."
===

Incidentally the Times of India is published from North India while the Hindu is published from South India. During the partition just after Independence, the South was peaceful while there was bloodshed in the North.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 05:56 am:   

Islamic ambitions of world domination will not happen, mark my word.
Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 04:34 pm: Ivan


I am with you. There could be no domination. All that the Muslims are allowed by Islam is to purify the religion inside the Arabian Peninsula as explained in article – 16. Verses 9:29 and 2:256 and the Arabian Peninsula – in my blog http://deentech.spaces.msn.com/PersonalSpace.aspx

It is my understanding that the architects of NWO having understood that Islam would oppose them are engineering this current wave of hatred against Islam and Muslims. They would be defeated, God Almighty willing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 09:57 am:   


quote:

It is my understanding that the architects of NWO having understood that Islam would oppose them are engineering this current wave of hatred against Islam and Muslims. They would be defeated, God Almighty willing.



I beg to differ, Mohideen. Current hatreds against Islam and Muslims are caused by Arab Jihad against all the free peoples of the West and other free societies. No other religion on Earth has so much hatred and killing written in to its 'sacred' texts as does Islam, with its goals of world domination over the free peoples of the planet. In fact, as per your post above about 'barbarism' the present Jihad IS barbarism. We know from its own admissions that Islamic is against freedom.

Remember the London riots "Freedom go to Hell"?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 03:02 pm:   

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_re_as/india_bombings
===
The government's Anti-Terror Squad released photos of two young, bearded men it identified as Sayyad Zabiuddin and Zulfeqar Fayyaz. Their nationalities were not provided.
===

The actions of the above two mentioned persons deserve to be condemned in no uncertain terms. No Jihad in India which has allowed the Muslims to practice their religion freely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 05:53 pm:   

At the present time the Middle east is on the edge of a firestorm.

Two competing views of Islamic World Views are waging a war in the Shaddows using the tactics of terrorism.

One vision that of Osama, and the factions that embrace it, wage a global Jihad to impose a warped view of a Caliphate on Humanity.

The other vision held by the leader of Iran, backed by the military forces of Iran, fights to set the conditions for the return of the Mahdi as prophecised. Both views are/were backed by the power that control of Nation States accords its rulers. In the case of Osama that nation state, Afghanistan, was neutralized but not before it was able to provide the support and infa-structure necessary for Osama to bring about 9/11.

In the case of Iran, that state remains under the control of a extreme militant Islamic visionary who longs for the day of the return of the Mahdi. A man that would do anything to bring that return to pass.

This conflict of Fundamentalist world views is being fought out accross the globe and the Middle East.

It is also tearing Iraq appart and is one of the reasons that we are slow to see any progress there.

In our haste to bring democracy to the Middle East we stepped into a conflict we knew little about.

One thing is certain, however, as the Middle East teetors on the bring of war, these factions will continue to wage war in the shaddows and seek to drag the entire world into their conflict.

Against this danger the vast majority of Muslims remain silent.

When will they speak and take action to bring this maddness to an end?

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 07:43 pm:   

TALKING ABOUT PEACE?

Ed, the world is closer now to a real world war than since when Hitler attacked Poland. Today it is the Islamist Jihadists who are the new "Hitlers" to force their evil interpretation of Islam upon the world. As you mentioned in yours:

quote:

At the present time the Middle east is on the edge of a firestorm.

Two competing views of Islamic World Views are waging a war in the Shaddows using the tactics of terrorism.


There are two Islams at work here, one is peaceful and sublime, the reaching for God's purity with true humility in order for each human, man and woman, doing God's will on Earth. The other is evil, forcing their evil interpretations of the holy scriptures upon an unwilling humanity who will no longer be enslaved. The latter is imposed slavery.

There is a simple solution to this problem, a solution that should be demanded by the world unanimously, whether Muslim or non-Muslim:
First, reject Jihad as practiced by the Arabs, and imposed upon all their conquered peoples, now and forever. You cannot gain converts to do God's will if they are converted by force. We all know this, because if not done voluntarily but under duress of threats and killings, it is not a true belief.

Second, have the captured Israeli soldiers released unharmed. There can be no bargaining on this, for as German Chancelor Merkel reminded the world, the first European to speak out with a firm voice:
"We call on the powers in the region to seek to bring about a de-escalation of the situation. We cannot confuse cause and effect. The starting point is the capture of the Israeli soldiers.
It is important that the government in Lebanon, which is on a peaceful path, should be strengthened, but it must be made clear that the capture [of the soldiers] cannot be tolerated. The attacks did not start from the Israeli side, but from Hezbollah's side.."
We cannot ignore that these attacks did not start from the Israeli side. Rather, Israel is building itself a great wall to keep the Arab Jihadis out.

Third, quickly round up all "enemy alien spies" within Europe and other Western leaning countries, try them summarily, and expel them. They are a danger to our security, if they are here in our midst, and in any way associated with Jihad. It is better to return them to the governments of their homelands than to imprison them. They can do with them what they will.

Fourth, restrict immigration of Muslims to non-Muslim countries. Monitor their mosques and imams for seditious activities. Restrict seceding any more non-Muslim lands for the purpose of building Islamic Masjids. That land can never be surrendered to a conquering foe with world conquest ambitions.

Fifth, demand an apology for the thousands of innocent people killed in their Jihad, since 911, and perhaps also an extreme apology for the hundreds of millions killed over the past 1400 years in their violent conquests from Spain to Indonesia. If Islam is a "religion of peace" then it is about time they apologize sincerely for all their horrific unpeaceful activities.

Once Jihad is stopped, then we can talk peace. Until then, without apology, it is war.

There can be no peace with violent aggression until that Jihadic aggression is renounced. That renunciation should come with a loud and clear voice from all Islamic peoples worldwide. Muslims can no longer afford to remain silent, or their silence will isolate them as pariah on world civilization. The world is owed an apology for present and historic aggressions by Islamic Jihad.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 10:10 pm:   

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT - On Tolerance


quote:

A freethinker is not against people’s beliefs no matter how different those beliefs are from his. He is against intolerance. I do not have to believe in Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism or any other religion. As long as these religions are tolerant of people with views contrary to theirs I consider their followers my allies. The reason I am fighting against Islam is not because it is false but because it is intolerant." - Ali Sina



I think this statement by Ali Sina is as close to my philosophy as anyone gets. I am not fighting against Islam per se but against the intolerant form of Islam being revived today, after decades of being dormant under the mat of socio-theological secularism, under social laws and systems of government that value the individual more than anyone's dogma or creed. This was the free world of tolerance. And this is the world we cannot afford to lose in the world conquest ambitions of totalitarian ideas like Communism, or Fascism, or Islam, or any personality cult, whether it be to Marx, or Hitler, or Mao. What distinguishes a philosophical freedom of religious tolerance from religious totalitarianism is that the form of government safeguarding this freedom through its institutions and laws does not impose its belief system on anyone, but is to PREVENT the imposition of anyone's belief system on anyone. Tolerance is to prevent intolerance, in the same way freedom is to prevent unfreedom. The ideologues, whether Marxists or Muslim, cannot make that distinction, as they are blind to it. By contrast, a freethinker knows this almost instinctively, and can consciously articulate it.

Ali further says, same paragraph:

quote:

Truth is often in the eye of the beholder. If we had to oppose anyone who disagreed with our understanding of the truth, every human being must be at war with everyone else. We are not here to impose our version of the truth on others but to create a society in which people with all sorts of beliefs and convictions can live together in peace.



Hear hear!

Read it all:A Response to a Backstabbing Commie Attacking Oriana Fallaci by Ali Sina.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 06:49 am:   

There can be no peace with violent aggression until that Jihadic aggression is renounced. That renunciation should come with a loud and clear voice from all Islamic peoples worldwide.
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 04:43 pm: Ivan


I have clearly renounced the jihad of conquest. I had given arguments in article – 16. Verses 9:29 and 2:256 and the Arabian Peninsula – in my blog http://deentech.spaces.msn.com/PersonalSpace.aspx . Am I qualified to give my analysis when I am told great writers had stated that Jihad of conquest is allowed? I believe that I have such permission on the basis of the two Traditions found in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=silent+comprehend&translator =1&search=1&book=&start=0

As regards it coming loud and clear from all Islamic peoples worldwide, I have no means of even communicating my analysis to all of mankind. Those who have access to the minds of most of mankind through newspapers, radio talks, and video in the form of TV and movies seem to have some other agenda.

All I could do is pray: Oh God Almighty! Please establish the peace of Islam!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 08:34 am:   

That renunciation should come with a loud and clear voice from all Islamic peoples worldwide. Muslims can no longer afford to remain silent, or their silence will isolate them as pariah on world civilization.
Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 04:43 pm: Ivan


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5179390.stm
===
US President George W Bush has arrived in Russia ahead of a G8 summit in St Petersburg at the weekend.
===

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456974/html/nn1page1.stm
It is the poorest among the richest leading the G8 now. How interesting! Another thought: 1991 was the year the USSR disintegrated; and 2001 was the year that the US was humiliated! Is there a connection? Is it possible that Russia had a hand in the 9/11?

I agree with Ivan that Muslims can no longer afford to be silent. How do the Muslims convey their opinion? If only there was a Caliph, one could expect him to speak on behalf of the Muslims. Alas, there is no Caliph now!

If Islam is in power, the poor would be respected as indicated by the Tradition found in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=poor+rich+marriage&translato r=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all

Today it is the rich who rule the world. Are we demanding the rich Muslims to denunciate Jihad loud and clear? Are we asking the League of Muslim nations? Aren’t they the servants of the rich?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 09:16 am:   

Its clear the desire to establish a caliphate resonates within the Muslim world. Opressed poor Muslims seek the return of Mahdi or the Caliph because their systems of government have failed to provide for the common man and woman where they hold sway.

This is evidenced by the slums of Egypt and throughout the Muslim world were the restive poor live in filth and despair.

Into these fertile breeding grounds comes Iran, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda with their tapes, agents, propaganda and front organizations.

Recruiting fighters and suicide bombers from these masses in their rage against the developed economies. They rage against the west partly out of the fact that the west has education systems, social programs and jobs that help better the lives of the millions of displaced Muslims seeking a better life that they can never match.

Chavez in Venezuela does the same thing under the guise of resetablishing a sort of divine rule of a benevolent dictator backed by oil wealth. Like the Islamic militants Chavez uses oil wealth and the power that control of a nation state gives him to back a strategy of inciting class tensions and warfare in order to spread his influence and control.

Christianity is no more immune to the desire for the appearance of a qausi religous/military leader to lead them to a better life than the Muslims. The difference between Christianity and Islam is that we christians long ago recognized the dangers that such leaders pose when given near absolute power and fought and died to establish our great secular demoncracies that embrace and revere the seperation of church and state and act as a check on the power of the rulers and the wealthy.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 09:21 am:   

We are told Islam is coercive just because it is said God threatens the sinner with Hell-Fire. The Verse 53 of Chapter 39 of the Holy Quran found in http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=39&from_verse=53&to_v erse=53&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_s hakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1 ensures that there is no coercion whatsoever in Islam.

The worst sin in Islam is to associate any with God Almighty. Even that sin is forgiven. Unfortunately as the collection by Tirmidhi is not yet available on the Internet, I am constrained to quote it here. This quote might be allowed. Quoting Tradition number 752 of Al-Tirmidhi from ALIM CD, we have:
===
Narrated Thawban
Thawban heard Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) say, "I would not give this verse for the whole world, 'My servants who have transgressed against their souls, do not despair....'" A man asked whether that included those who had associated partners with
Allah, and after remaining silent for a time the Prophet said three times, "Yes, it includes even those who have associated partners with Allah'"
Ahmad transmitted it.
===

We have already established that each and every Verse of the Holy Quran is active. On the basis of Verse 53 of Chapter 39 of the Holy Quran, it is clear that there is absolutely no coercion in Islam.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 09:41 am:   


quote:

I agree with Ivan that Muslims can no longer afford to be silent. How do the Muslims convey their opinion? If only there was a Caliph, one could expect him to speak on behalf of the Muslims. Alas, there is no Caliph now!



It does not require the Caliph to have Muslims join hands in public demonstrations against Jihad violence. They had demonstrated they know how to riot for stupid things like the Danish cartoons. Now they must demonstrrate they can have the same passions for peace.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:02 am:   

"Chavez in Venezuela does the same thing under the guise of resetablishing a sort of divine rule of a benevolent dictator backed by oil wealth. Like the Islamic militants Chavez uses oil wealth and the power that control of a nation state gives him to back a strategy of inciting class tensions and warfare in order to spread his influence and control."

Chavez is at least using the oil wealth to improve the lives of the ordinary people, including investing in education.

I am sick of this American hypocrisy. How come there was no righteous outrage when U.S backed oligarchs squander all the wealth and keep the people in poverty? That is the U.S's idea of "democarcy"?

Arnold
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:56 am:   

They had demonstrated they know how to riot for stupid things like the Danish cartoons.
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 06:41 am: Ivan


As I understand Islam protests are not part of our culture. Our culture is indicated by Verse 83 of Chapter 4 of the Holy Quran found in http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4&from_verse=83&to_ve rse=83&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_sh akir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1

There were very few protest marches in the Middle East even then. The protests were in countries like Pakistan which have experimented with democracy.

The initial publication of the cartoons resulted in a peaceful demonstration as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_c ontroversy
===
The cartoons were first published by Jyllands-Posten in late September 2005; approximately two weeks later, nearly 3,500 people demonstrated peacefully in Copenhagen.
===

In all fairness if the cartoons were not republished by main stream media in a number of countries, the issue would have died its natural death after the peaceful demonstration. It was not to be. Some group must malign Islam. So the cartoons were published and republished until there were street protests. In my opinion the street protests were engineered.

The latest development is interesting. Quoting from http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/11/news/danes.php we have:
===
"Danes have been the first to reflect on their own values and what's negotiable and what's not negotiable in our society," Rose said. "Now a lot of people in Denmark recognize that freedom comes with a price."
===

I do hope that others follow the Danes: freedom of expression should not be misused to wantonly hurt any person. Then that act is an act of coercion!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:49 pm:   

I am sick of this American hypocrisy. How come there was no righteous outrage when U.S backed oligarchs squander all the wealth and keep the people in poverty? That is the U.S's idea of "democarcy"?

A very good question Arnold,

But that is why we have a democratic political process. It is also why the seperation of Church and state is one of the keys to the success of western democracies. With the Churches being able to mobilize the people against the oligarchs like during the great civil rights movement of the 1960's when the system became out of balance due the actions of the entrenched southern oligarchs who held power since the end of the civil war.

In Nigeria the born again evangelical christian president has driven the country to the brink of an internal crisis due to corruption and greed on the part of Nigeria's entrenched oligarchs that syphon the countries oil wealth off to line their own pockets.

This has led to deep class divisions and an increase in Islamic militancy.

The Christian Church leaders in Nigeria have taken a stand against the current leader of the country because they see the danger that this type of behavior poses to the maintencance of a civil society, however, the United States and other Western corporate interests in the Country don't want to see the current system changed as they have learned to work within its framework and profit by it.

Its very much like the Iraq oil for food program at the United Nations that was exploited by the Europeans for profit.

America is not alone in hypocracy, we have just evolved, like the Europeans, a system that has checks and balances that from time to time becomes out of balance. When it does the system corrects itself unlike the Islamic model.

As to Chavez, if we had not got bogged down in Iraq, I would have supported an effort to remove him from power via the appropriate application of military power. He is a danger to the stability of the region and is doing nothing to grow the middle class which is perhaps the most essential part in ensuring the stability of a modern nation state.

The economic power of the middle class of the United States outways by orders of magnitude the wealth of the rest of American Society. It is the heart of the economic engine that drives our society and is the envy of the world.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 01:20 pm:   

One has to note Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and Chavez all run education and health programs under the guise of aiding the poor.

If I was poor and had to choose one of those programs over the other I'd think I would rather choose the ones run by the American's or Europeans if I could.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 02:15 pm:   

"As to Chavez, if we had not got bogged down in Iraq, I would have supported an effort to remove him from power via the appropriate application of military power. He is a danger to the stability of the region and is doing nothing to grow the middle class which is perhaps the most essential part in ensuring the stability of a modern nation state."
What are you smoking Ed?

Do you even appreciate the irony? The U.S would "remove" Chavez, a democratically elected president of a soverign nation, becuase he is a danger to "stability" in the region.

What a strange way to "stablize" a region, by creating intsability. Throughout the 80s the U.S "stabilized" the region by CIA sponsored coups, death squads and remote control despots. Whose "stability"?

The arrogance of American rightwingers is breathtaking.

"The economic power of the middle class of the United States outways by orders of magnitude the wealth of the rest of American Society. It is the heart of the economic engine that drives our society and is the envy of the world. "

There is no subtantial "middle class" in Venezuala under the Oligarchs. You have a small number of extermely wealthy and a large number of very poor.
This is pretty much the configuration in all Latin American countries which implement U.S approved "democracy".

Under this form of "democracy" you can go through the formal exercise of voting to choose between candidate coke and candidate Pepsy, but you do not have a say on any subtsantial policy that has an impact of your life. Why am I not surprised that a lot of people in the third world are not very enthusiastic in "democracy"


Arnold.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 02:26 pm:   

Ed it is amazing that you denounce Islamic jihad in one breath and championing American styled "Jihad" in the next. All Jihadist ideologies stem from some kinds of fundamentalist cult. It is the pot calling the kettle black for devout followers of the American patriotic/free market cult to point finger at the Islamic cult.

Objectively, American Jihads kill far more people than OBL can even dream of.

Arnold
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 06:43 pm:   

Redistribution of land, wealth and associated other slogans have long played to the wishes of the poor.

I am hardly an advocate of the oligarchs, however, neither am I an advocate of class warefare as formulated by various types such as Osama, Chavez, Castro, Marx and the like. Some of the current ones wrap themselves in either the cloth of socialism or in religion.

South America has long been dominated by oligarchs, and is currently, in my opinion, in the beginning stages of a revolt against them. of which Chavez is but a symbol of.

This outcome was projected in a CIA study a couple of decades ago which looked at economic, demongraphic, envirnomental and political trends facing the world. The study was performed as a collaberative effort by scholars in Universities, Economists, Scientists and CIA analysts.

It projected the rise of quasi religous/military/political leaders in areas affected by economic/poltical/social inequality, and by environmental degredation. These leaders were viewed as being mostly potentially hostile to American and allied interests.

Against this backdrop, under Clinton, the United States made a concerted effort to promote democracy, human rights, security and industrialized development thru free trade polices as part of an effort to head off potential conflicts based on class.

Unfortunately little effort was made, for a number of reasons, to address the root issues of social inequalities within the nations that became our trading partners.


The end result of this lack of effort has been the rise of figures such as Osama, Chavez and the others of their ilk.

While I concur with the assessment the United States has become dominated to a large extent by a religous oriented Oligarch, I would harldy say that we are engaged in a jihad. Iraq in my opinion was a mistake and has clearly proven to be detrimental to the well being of the United States. A fact that most American recognize.

In terms of return on investment I would say we would have been much better off in expending our time and resources into dealing with other issues than Iraq, such as Chavez, and putting in place policies that promoted the develoment of the middle class, a human rights culture and the respect for the rule of law in those countries which have become our major trading partners.

Unfortunatley we are faced with what we are faced with and it highly likely that we will be required to engage in future military operations in order to secure resources vital to our strategic interests. Even if it means over throwing Chavez and hunting down every member of Al Qaeda and their allied groups in order to ensure continued economic stability and quality of life in the among the developed encomies of the world.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 07:36 pm:   

Interesting information:
From http://www.321gold.com/editorials/gnazzo/gnazzo071006.html
===
JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1816
According to the detailed listing of the several non-legal forms of currency, by process of elimination, one is left with silver and gold coin as the only candidates left standing: a most powerful declaration and testimony to Honest Money.
When viewed fully in the light, the monetary policy of the United States, including silver and gold certificates, is seen for what it is - a slowly devolving travesty of monetary destruction that allows the wealth of the nation to be siphoned off by the elite few who control the monetary and financial systems of the New World Order.
===

Dinar was the gold coin; Dirham was the silver coin introduced by the Muslims at the time of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. By moving away from the precious metals, the wealth of nations were siphoned off by ???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 09:09 pm:   

Press * if you want to repeat this message...

image01.jpg

Press '2' if you want to hear an instant prayer to "Aallaaah!"

Press '3' if you want to join cartoon riot in your zip code.

Press '4' if you want to donate Zakat to your local mosque.

Press '5' if you want latest pre-recorded message on Jewish conspiraciy.

Press '6' if you want the latest message of hate.

Press '7' if you hate America, and or democracy.

Press '8' if you feel you been offended living in the land of the free.

Press '9' if you want to call your US Congressman.. or hang up.

Press * if you want to repeat this message.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:21 pm:   

Press * if you want to repeat this message...
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 06:09 pm: Le Chef


Press # if you want to laugh with Le Chef!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:27 pm:   

Malaysia drive to deport migrants
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5182294.stm

If they can do it, why can't we? Undocumented workers in Malaysia, or undocumented non-workers in Europe, go.

"Crackdown needed

He said that if the authorities did not act from time to time, illegal migrants would feel able to do as they wished."


Maybe France can be first with all its illegals, Muslims at the front of the queue. Same for England, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Belgium, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Austria...

salaaaaaam aleiiiikom!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 04:16 am:   

Malaysia drive to deport migrants
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5182294.stm
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 08:27 pm: Anonymous


From the given link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5182294.stm
===
Human rights groups in Malaysia are likely to be alarmed by the news that volunteer reservists will once again play the key role in any anti-migrant operation.

The force, known as RELA, has been linked to a number of raids in which migrants died or suffered abuse.
===

Europe ready for human rights abuse?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 04:48 am:   

Now they must demonstrrate they can have the same passions for peace.
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 06:41 am: Ivan


True. There must be demonstrations for peace based on the development listed below:
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2006%20News%20Archives/July/14%20n/US %20veto%20in%20the%20UN%20Security%20Council%20authorizes%20Israel%20to%20contin ue%20killing.htm
===
The spokesman said, in a written statement issued today, that: “The Arab draft resolution gained a majority of votes; this constitutes in itself a strong condemnation for the Israeli aggression despite the American veto”.
“The veto does not serve the peace process at the time when all the international community voices its fury over the atrocity of the Israeli military attacks against the Palestinian civilians and their economic and humanitarian institutions,” he said.
===

Peace? Peace?? Where are you???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:00 am:   

AWAKE

I woke up with a clear thought this morning:

"God offers guidance, men make laws."

It was strange to wake up like this. The feeling that came with this thought was that for men to write laws and enforce them in the name of God is to override God's guidance. We overreach because then we presume to act for God when God only offered us a guidance to what these laws are supposed to be, not to act on God's behalf. For men to act on God's behalf is a sin, and wrong. We are allowed to take care of our affairs through this guidance, but not to act for God in this guidance. We take care of our laws. God takes care of the rest.

The sun is shining and it is a beautiful day. :-) I feel awake with a peace and serenity inside.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:48 am:   

Stopping the violence in Lebanon.

President Bush said at the G8 summit meeting in St. Petersburg this morning:


quote:

"In my judgement, the best way to stop the violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," he said.

"And that's because Hezbollah has been launching rocket attacks out of Lebanon into Israel and because Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers."

"The best way to stop the violence is for Hezbollah to lay down its arms and to stop attacking."



I must agree with President Bush's statement. Mr. Putin's message of "balanced" use of force by Israel to address Hezbollah violence is less clear. I do not know what he means by this. Fighting force with force is what is needed to stop coercions, especially violent coercions. Except (using coercion) to stop coercion, stopping coercion is the only natural law. "Balance" in this fight may only aid the enemy, not in the interest of stopping coercions. As a "foreign" fighting force within Lebanon, it is right for Hezbollah to "lay down its arms." All international pressure must bear on this.

Read article on BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5182730.stm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 12:15 pm:   

Yes Ivan,

I concur as well. However latest reporting indicates that the Iranian Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops controled by the Religious leader of Iran were inolved in the firing of the Iranian missile against the Isreali patrol boat.

We need a complete standdown and withdrawls from the Southern Border of Lebenon all Hezbolla forces and Iranian advisors and complete disarming of those forces if peace is to be given a chance in the region.

I expect that Isreal has intelligence that additional weapons and more capable missiles could be enroute via Syria or other nations to Lebenon hence the Isreali blockage of the country.

This use of anti-ship missile is a dangerous escalation of the war. The Isreali Navy did not have its anti-missile technology active at the time of the attack due to lack of intelligence on the anti-ship missiles being present and operational in Lebenon.

I suspected that when I saw the missile flight data and results of the hit on the Isreali warship.

Bottom line we now have confirmation that Iranian forces equiped with the latest Chinese technology are fighting along side Hezbolla in Lebenon.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 01:08 pm:   

Bottom line we now have confirmation that Iranian forces equiped with the latest Chinese technology are fighting along side Hezbolla in Lebenon.
Ed Chesky
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 09:15 am: Anonymous


Ed, it is really unfortunate that you had just given the justification to attack Iran. Truly unfortunate!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 01:37 pm:   

Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil, that was a declaration of war.

But what justification is there for Israel to bomb civilian infrastructures such as bridges, airport and electric plants deep in Lebanon? The Hezbollah does not represent the Lebanese government.

It is like bombing London for IRA terrorism!

The Hezbollah fighters are concentrated in the South, Israel could have sent land troops to battle them there.

Arnold
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 03:49 pm:   

No its like bombing Dublin or Belfast for the acts of terrorism comitted by the IRA.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 04:23 pm:   

Mohideen Ibramsha

I am well aquainted with Iranian operations from the old days of the Cold War and the type of man that is currently leading that nation as he attempts to merges state and fundamentalist religion into a coherent entity that is striving to bring about a vision of the future it would impose on the region. This vision includes the destruction of the State of Israel.

I am also well aware of what hand Iran had in a number of other operations.

Much on PANAM 103 was left out of the trial for political reasons. Libya was not the only nation to have a hand in that act.

A closure of sorts was brought to PANAM 103 but not all the ones that had a hand it have been identified.

Iran, the Palestinians, Lybians and a few other players have been documented to have likely had a hand in that act.

Iran has long supported terrorism and I vowed to ong ago to find the rest of those behind PANAM 103. I and a number of other ex-intelligence officials in the MOSSAD, CIA, and a few other intelligence services have studied Iran and a few other groups closely for years.

For political reasons the story of PANAM 103 was closed officially with the end of the trial. That did not end it for a number of us intelligence officials.

Iran's current actions in Lebanon mirror those it has conducted in the past under a guise of cutouts and plausable denial.

This time in Lebanon they have been caught manning an anti-ship missile system that has no right to be in the possession of a terrorist group.

It also begs the questions of what else has been supplied by Iran to terrorist groups.

As I sit here crippled from neuro-toxin, I have vowed to find the men responsible for it even if the data search leads me to the heart of Iran and Gaza, to Moscow and Beijing.

When I posted my assessment of the Missile Data on the missile that hit the Israeli ship, a Senior Israeli intelligence officer subsequently confirmed it in the press. It was subsequently confirmed on International Media by a retired senior military officer that Iran is behind much of the weapons capability that Hezbolla has in Lebanon via Syrian cutouts and shipments into Lebanon's ports that the current government turns a blind eye to. The intelligence corps takes care of its own that have served it well. Which is why some very fit and dark Israeli men occasionally show up while I travel and say shalome from time to time.

As to peace, one analyst I know said it best. When the Muslims learn to adhere to the rule of law and take responsibilty for rooting out the corruption in their nations, then and only then will they be ready for Democracy.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 04:31 pm:   

FREEDOM-TO AND FREEDOM-FROM

The word "freedom" is ill defined when used in the common language. There are two different semantic aspects of the same word. The word "freedom-to" is the freedom to express yourself in your words and deeds, your thoughts, to materialize in your reality the being Who you are. This happens naturally because of how the universe is constructed, and because of the nature of your physical existence with a mind. The "freedom-from" is what checks the "freedom-to" naturally, because the universe imposes restrictions on what you may or may not do. Freedom-from being killed is a necessity, if the freedom-to is to find expression, for example. Freedom-from hunger, or exposure to damaging conditions, such as starvation or freezing to death, or disease, enables our freedom-to continuing its survival. The same freedom-from coercions enables us to express our freedom-to, so that we materialize our true existence, our being and mind, without interference from outside agents that prevent such existence. What manifests in response to our freedom-to then colors what will be our reality while alive in our body, checked by the restrictions freedom-from might impose on us. If one does something that will damage his or her existence, such as putting themselves in peril stupidly, then nature and reality impose what that person's freedom-to is allowed to do, or not allowed. But when men impose that restriction, then it is an artificial imposition on our freedom-to, and it is this human imposition that we need a freedom-from, if it is not to be coercive to our freedom-to. We are obligated to respect our freedom-from such coercions, or else we are unable to manifest our true selves, as the universe designed us to be within our body and mind. Conversely, if another's coercive actions prevents our freedom-to from acting, meaning we are not freedom-from protected by such coercions, then the principle of freedom-to is checked by the actions of another, which enslaves us to the other. Therefore, for this natural state of affairs regarding humans manifesting their reality, in terms of Who they are, necessitates that their freedom-to is safeguarded in their freedom-from by both not coercing another and being safe from coercions.

The reason I bring this up on this thread is that there is little if any evidence of this freedom-consciousness within the annals and theories of Islam. Rather, Islam had tried to impose itself on others by restricting their freedom-to with a myriad of things that are forbidden. They are forbidden, ostensibly, because they are supposed to protect the persons with freedom-from some mythical Hell. There is the problem. Thus, the person living within these restrictions, unless they are acceptable to that person of their own free will, is consequently constantly assaulted in his or her right to be Who they are. So freedom-from such perennial prohibitions is not a part of Islam, while prohibitions on our freedom-to define what Islam is all about. In this way, we can see where Islam consciousness cannot address our human needs to be Who we are within the natural structure of the universe. This is a serious obstacle to human consciousness. Islam really needs to look at this, and perhaps reform to accommodate this freedom-duality, or else it will continue to restrict the mind from manifesting in reality Who it really is.

On the global scale, our freedom-from is assaulted by Islamic fundamentalist Jihad violence. The attacks on our freedoms stem from Islam's inability to address this freedom-to cum freedom-from duality of freedom, which is a natural state of our conscious existence. If we did not have a conscious mind, then it would never arise as an issue, since then only freedom-from would become manifest, such as hunger or death, but never freedom-to because it would not be required. We would simply be as we are told to be. But as conscious human beings, we have a need, a mandatory requirement, that our freedom-to is allowed expression, within the parameters of not trespassing on that freedom in others, so they are protected by freedom-from this trespass. For example, the west is now dependent on middle eastern oil. But a freedom-from this dependence can happen very quickly and naturally, if our technology to limit oil consumptions is implemented, such as wind and solar energy. (I drive a hybrid automobile, and my gas and electric bills are typically under $15/month due to conscious conservation; I refuse to be an energy pig, so no air-conditioner and no giant fridge.) Western Canada is rich in oil deposits, mainly as tar sands and oil shale. It is estimated that at $40/bbl oil tar sands are economic, while at $60/bbl so is oil shale economic. We are there now, with oil at $78/bbl, and it would not take much effort to put us online with production from Canada, which they had expressed agreement, to make the USA freedom-from dependent on middle eastern oil; 5 million barrels per day will do it, well within Canada's capacity. This would be dangerous for the well being of middle eastern economies, as then they would only have Europe and the Far East as markets for their oil. The newly opened Ceyhan pipeline is another million barrels per day to meet Europe's needs. Currently, both China and Japan are importing oil from western Canada, but this could be diverted south of the border, if freedom-from mid-east oil is necessary. Freedom-to agree on this state of conditions between the US and Canada already exist, which would cut off funding from Islamic Jihadist ambitions, given they had now violently exposed their antipathy to our freedom-to exist as free nations.

If Islam was to address this issue in their holy text "interpretations" then it could safeguarded from this sudden change of events, where the Americas and Europe would become less dependent on their oil. Without oil funding, Jihad becomes bankrupt and ceases to exist as a meaningful threat to our freedoms. So it is imperative that the minds of Islam, those conscious of the difference between freedom-to and freedom-from, to address this internal issue of their faith, or they risk losing it all. If they lose it, and the world rejects their coercive advances on establishing a Sharia-like-law throughout their lands, they then face oblivion. In time, Islam would go the way of ancient mythology. So it is imperative for the west to understand this distinction between freedom-to and freedom-from, something already embodied in their legal forms of democratic and constitutional government, while it is something yet to be understood by the peoples of the east, who had not been exposed to this freedom-duality because their ideology never addressed it. In that ideology, the freedom-to never exists, only the freedom-from doing anything in violation of their myriad restrictions was addressed. This is why someone like Mahmoud, the current Iranian president, can say that "Islam is freedom," because what he is referring to is the "freedom" to not err against these myriad prohibitions. Of course, to do that, unless the person voluntarily agrees with these restrictions (in his or her freedom-to whatever is promised in the hereafter), it means that the person's freedom-to in this reality of life is violated. This in itself is the prime dichotomy between the free west and un-free east. This is why the two world cannot see eye to eye, because they disagree on "freedom." To be Who we are is a God given right to each human being on the planet. There is no way around this, except to return to a world of slavery, which no one really wants. So for Islam to mature into the modern world of personal freedoms, it must address these freedoms within the contexts of its teachings, or else it will be relegated to the past, as myth. Once again humanity, within the structure of the universe and our God consciousness on Earth, is presented with a choice. The west made their choice, and grew and prospered spectacularly, while the east was oblivious to this choice, and thus was left spectacularly behind. How will the east choose? That is left up to God, and to them. If they choose rightly, then it will be world peace.

I know this is difficult, but the semantic definition is mandatory, if freedom is to be understood.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:16 pm:   

What is Israel doing in Lebanon?

I think Israel's strategy is transparent in this middle east war. They are moving pieces on the chess board. Look at what they had done in the past days: 1. knock out roads and bridges leading to Hezbollah controlled parts of Lebanon; 2. quarantined port access, so supplies cannot get to Hezbollah; 3. bombed the airport in Beirut, which Hezbollah used as a transit point for its weapons shipments. That's it. Israel basically put Hezbollah out of business. Now, whatever fighting will take place will be on Israel's terms, and not Hezbollah's. Hence, unless they are truly suicidal, which they may be, they have no choice but to lay down their arms and return their prisoners. In effect, the war is over. Lebanon is now wrapped up, except for destroying some Hezbollah missile positions.

I don't think either Syria or Iran will get involved in the end. It is not in Israel's interests to attack Syria, nor Syrian interest to attack Israel. Iran is doing what this current regime always does, it's posturing. They were hopeful to move their pieces on the board, using Hezbollah as their proxy, but Israel made that impossible. In effect, Syria's and Iran's strategies had been taken out by Israeli actions, strategically.

That said, I do not for one second believe Iran is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. You'd have to be a fool and idiot to believe they are not after nuclear weapons. But that is another story, for another ugly time.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 07:57 am:   

As to peace, one analyst I know said it best. When the Muslims learn to adhere to the rule of law and take responsibilty for rooting out the corruption in their nations, then and only then will they be ready for Democracy.
Ed Chesky
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 01:23 pm: Anonymous


I believe that Muslims do adhere to the law: the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions. As regards rooting out corruption is concerned it is not possible as long as there are nation-states claiming independence from each other. It would, God Almighty willing, be possible with the creation of the Caliphate.

Incidentally we do not want the democracy currently practiced where the power-monger becomes the ruler: where elections are held. We hope the real democracy - in which the leader would be selected - would emerge.

The number 3 raised to the power 21 is 10,460,353,203. This number is more the current population of the earth. We suggest every 3 select one of them as their leader as is expected of due to Tradition in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=best+versed&translator=2&sea rch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all

The selection is a 21 stage process. It would take time. However, no power monger would get selected. It is possible that there could be three members in a group who are equally qualified. In such a group a lot is drawn to select the leader of the group. That kind of democracy is indeed Islamic democracy!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 12:38 pm:   

Real democracy in Islam?


quote:

I believe that Muslims do adhere to the law: the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions. As regards rooting out corruption is concerned it is not possible as long as there are nation-states claiming independence from each other. It would, God Almighty willing, be possible with the creation of the Caliphate.



Mohideen, do you really believe, realistically, that if Islamic nations cannot clean house of corruption at their local level, this corruption would somehow disappear 'magically' at a world dictatorship level of a world Caliphate? Are your dreaming or smoking? How would a world wide undemocratic theocratic state, where individual rights no longer exist, improve on the failures of Islamic governments? Remember, they migrate this way, not the other way.

About democracy in democratic states, note that there is a rule of law, a constitutional government, a respect for human rights, freedom of speech, due process; and a state of affairs where refugee immigrants are flocking to democratic states rather than to Islamic states. How do you justify your "the power-monger becomes the ruler" coming to power in democratic states when instead we see this exact thing happening in Islamic ruled states? Iran comes to mind, so does the emerging Sharia state of Somalia. How free of corruption are states like Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Nigeria, Sudan, and the whole Arab peninsula? Why do you blame democratic states for all the ills of Islamic society, when those ills are internally generated? Why is God NEVER on your side, if the conditions of Islamic states are such glaring societal failures, since migrants are leaving? Is this why Islamics play the perpetual 'poor me' victim game, because they're failures? Note that people are not migrating to your Islamic utopian countries but exactly the other way, from Islamic states to the Western democraticies. Your ideology is naive and childish, and given sufficient weapons, it is dangerous and deadly. It's like giving an eight year bombs and guns. Would God guide that eight year old to not blow himself up or kill another? Islam is naive and dangerous. Why would you think that it would be different if your ideology triumphed on the world stage, since now it is failing? So in yours: "We hope the real democracy - in which the leader would be selected - would emerge." What exactly do you mean by "real democracy"? All I see in the countries ruled by Islamic ideology is just the opposite!

Do you know why democracies work in the West? It is simple, because once the rights of the individual are guaranteed, these individuals act as a brake on governmental corruption. Maybe not perfectly, but it does brake it. (Freedom of the press plays an important role, something absent in Islamic states.) If you have no rights before the law, why would the dictator or "power monger" ruler of an Islamic state ever be challenged? Try challenging this dictator, and you are tortured in jail. Your theocratic-democracy is dangerous and demonic. Without freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, your individuals are not free to express their disapproval of your theocracy-democracies, so they are powerless. The only right of 'assembly' allowed them are cartoon riots, or to burn American flags and hang our president in effigy. Pretty poor sort of showing, wouldn't your agree?

RE your link: (1) Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When there are three persons, one of them should lead them. The one among them most worthy to act as Imam is one who is best versed in the Qur'an.  (Book #004, Hadith #1417)

Your "one in three" rule of democracy appears truly naive to me. What would prevent them from picking the most brutal, most bullying, most intimidating meanest of the three? Looks most naive to me. This is in fact what actually happens in Islamic so-called democracies: the opposition is eliminated, like happened in Iran, through purges and brutal repression. What happened to the 1500 Tehran university students who demonstrated for democracy? How is your "Islamic-democracy" different from Stalinist 'democracy' - where all the people were required to vote, just like in Saddam's Iraq? I just can't wait to see how Afghani or Iraqi constitutional-Sharia- democracies work. Will public stonings for homosexuality or victims of rape still be practiced?

Let me ask you a simple question, a "yes or no". Do you support Hezbollah's success in Lebanon? Mind, you represent the Islamic way of thought here (here present is also a representative secular Jew, a Celtic Christian, and an ecumenical secular 'me' who believes in all religions, plus some 'anon' unknowns) as we look at these issues in a holistic way. Do you wish Hezbollah success in its campaign against Israel? A yes or no is sufficient.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 11:38 pm:   

Do you wish Hezbollah success in its campaign against Israel? A yes or no is sufficient.
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 09:38 am: Ivan


Actions of a Muslim or a group of Muslims do not define Islam; only the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions define Islam.

Today the news is not really news but views. I do not know what really happens in the Middle East. On the basis of imperfect data, analysis should not be conducted. Hence, there would be no reply.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 01:11 am:   

"If you have no rights before the law, why would the dictator or "power monger" ruler of an Islamic state ever be challenged? Try challenging this dictator, and you are tortured in jail. Your theocratic-democracy is dangerous and demonic. Without freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, your individuals are not free to express their disapproval of your theocracy-democracies, so they are powerless. The only right of 'assembly' allowed them are cartoon riots, or to burn American flags and hang our president in effigy." - Ivan
--------------------------------------------------------

You can't expect Muslims to think like western people do. It is the same with Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, nomads of Siberian steppes, Quechua of the Andes, they all think differently. This is why the "politically correct" Left is so easy on Islam, because they understand that Islam is a simple religion for a simple people, they feel sorry for them. Take away Islam's oil revenue and you have a simple primitive people trying to make it in an advanced civilization. They can't. So like other native peoples they will in time be subdued, a sad prospects for them. The Hezbollas and Hamases of the world are their last stand. Faced against superior power of advanced civilization, it will end badly for them. Feel pity.

Not excusing, but sympathetic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 05:36 am:   

So like other native peoples they will in time be subdued, a sad prospects for them.
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 10:11 pm: Anonymous


Please see http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=adultery+asses&translator=2& search=1&book=&start=0

The Muslims shall perish; however that is the last symbol of the approach of the Day of Judgment. If I were a non-Muslim I would hope that at least one Muslim lives somewhere in the world so that this life does not come to an end.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 07:39 am:   

If one does something that will damage his or her existence, such as putting themselves in peril stupidly, then nature and reality impose what that person's freedom-to is allowed to do, or not allowed.
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 01:31 pm: Ivan


With mankind assuming powers to control the environment, is there anything natural? Are we classifying the actions of other human beings performed in secret as nature-imposed restrictions on freedom-to? See the documentary given in http://www.cheniere.org/misc/brightskies.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 09:55 am:   


quote:

The Muslims shall perish; however that is the last symbol of the approach of the Day of Judgment. If I were a non-Muslim I would hope that at least one Muslim lives somewhere in the world so that this life does not come to an end.


Well Mohideen, this reminds me of those doomsdayers carrying signs saying "The World Ends Tomorrow!" Of course, the world didn't end, so they come back again the next day, with the same sign. It's all in what you want to believe. :-)

I should hope that Islam never perishes from the Earth, but rather becomes one with the Earth, as one of its many religions and beliefs seeking God. Religion is an intensely, deeply personal thing, and that's how it should be. It should never be pushed on anyone else. Even Islam can learn this, as Christianity did, and drop off its antiquated (politically incorrect) Jihad, so that it can once again gain world respect and admiration.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:19 pm:   

Your "one in three" rule of democracy appears truly naive to me. What would prevent them from picking the most brutal, most bullying, most intimidating meanest of the three?
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 09:38 am: Ivan


A believer is afraid of no mortal. Thus in the presence of a believer and a non-believing bully, at least one vote is against the bully. So a bully would be selected only if two out of three are bullies. By the scheme suggested by me a bad person would become a leader only if the bad persons are in majority.

The scheme suggested by me has no single way in which the outcome could be influenced. By the democratic process followed in USA, those who practice ‘perception management’ could swing the outcome of the elections. Even though one might question it, the following quote does indicate the possibility of using popular TV to manage perceptions.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2000/us_elections/election_news/923 335.stm
===
Although it is not strictly illegal, in 1974 the FCC adopted a policy saying that subliminal advertising was contrary to the public interest.
===
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:26 pm:   

Mohideen, do you really believe, realistically, that if Islamic nations cannot clean house of corruption at their local level, this corruption would somehow disappear 'magically' at a world dictatorship level of a world Caliphate?
Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 09:38 am: Ivan


Aren’t most of the Muslim rulers ‘US-friendly’? Is not the Muslim street angry because of the corruption of these ‘US-friendly’ rulers? When there is a world government there would be no US and there would be no ‘US-friendly’ rulers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:47 pm:   

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003124741_webeumideast13.html
===
BRUSSELS, Belgium – The European Union today criticized Israel for using "disproportionate" force in its attacks on Lebanon following the cross-border raid by Hezbollah guerillas who captured two Israeli soldiers.
===

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060710/g8_template_060710/ 20060717?hub=Canada
===
Russian President Vladimir Putin, on the eve of the summit, said "Israel's use of force is disproportionate," while U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair defended Israel's right to defend itself.
===

Why this disproportionate response from Israel? Is Judaism the cause? From http://www.sas.upenn.edu/penncip/lustick/preface.html
===
It does not explain how a rabbi speaking at Goldstein's funeral could be applauded for declaring that "one million Arabs aren't worth one Jewish fingernail." Nor can it explain why so many hundreds and even thousands of heavily armed settlers with similar beliefs are living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and why they have as much influence as they do over Israeli politics. The answers to these questions lie in the ideological and cultural cocoon surrounding activist Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. This protective, animating web of unquestioned beliefs-about Jews, gentiles, history, redemption, and the Land of Israel-is the product of Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, the single most successful extra-parliamentary movement in the country's history. The beliefs, objectives, and influence of its adherents are the subject of this book.

Fundamentalism, of course, is not the same thing as piety. The overwhelming majority of pious Muslims and Jews do not feel their beliefs impelling them toward ruthless and radical political change.
===

I know Judaism is not the cause. I have posed the question just to show the unfairness of the demand that Islam reform just because some Muslims are fundamentalists.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 02:33 pm:   

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13901209/?GT1=8307
===
“See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it’s over,” Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.
===

Interesting indeed!!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 05:31 pm:   

http://www.jusonenews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4449
===
NOAM CHOMSKY
Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately.
===

Who is the aggressor? Israel or Hamas? Clearly Israel is the aggressor; the complicity of the MSN (Main Stream News) has given the impression as though the Hamas is the aggressor!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 06:13 pm:   

Politically incorrect reverse Dawa? No takkiyya here, Europe shot itself in the foot, and now must dance to the tune "Don't cry for me Eurab-tina.."! http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2006jun24_i.html

What a deal!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 07:20 pm:   


quote:

Aren’t most of the Muslim rulers ‘US-friendly’? Is not the Muslim street angry because of the corruption of these ‘US-friendly’ rulers? When there is a world government there would be no US and there would be no ‘US-friendly’ rulers.



Is this the old "don't blame us, it's them" game? Always finding somebody else to blame rather than something is "rotten in Denmark" with Islam... tsk tsk, Mohideen. I'm sure the Danes think so, especially after those cartoon riots. :-)


quote:

Who is the aggressor? Israel or Hamas? Clearly Israel is the aggressor; the complicity of the MSN (Main Stream News) has given the impression as though the Hamas is the aggressor!



Of course, you can resort to this sort of reasoning, denial that Hebollah cum Hamas did anything wrong, and put the blame back on Israel for starting the war.. tsk tsk, Mohideen. Up to your usual Islamic tricks? Denial, conspiracies, shifting blame, projection, takiyya, victimhood, while all the while claiming Quran is perfect? Ha! How immature. Give me a break!

You know you've got a rotten out of date religion, as it now stands with your mullahs (who always have a hand out for social benefits "mullah" from the west) and your Islamic apologist pundits. Come on, Mohideen, why don't you give us all a break and 'fess up, Islam's gone bad, like rotten eggs. I appreciate your persistence, but... How much more of your b*llsh*t can anybody take? :-) You just gotta laugh! No matter what nice spin you try to put on it, your violently murderous religion stinks. Jihad stinks even more.

Time to secularize Islam and bring it up to modern snuff of standards in civilization. That's bottom line, at minimum. Where's that good ol' American 'can do' attitude? You did choose to live here, didn't you? Come on, you can do it, Mohideen! Go for it! Modernize Islam! Come on, just one more teensy weensy try... one more spoonful... do it for Mama. We're trying to help you... Do it for Freedom!

:-) Ha!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 08:07 pm:   

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4076.shtml
===
That strategy is mapped out in The Management of Savagery, a 268-page document written by al-Qaeda insider Abu Bakr Naji and recently published in an English translation by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. … “The point is to make [the U.S.] come in” as invaders, where the Muslims who fight our troops will “be seen as fighting the crusaders directly so you’ll win over the public.... That’s the way they want to get to the U.S.”
===

If the above is true, the spreaders of democracy are in a catch 22 situation: withdraw with humiliation or continue with loss of face!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 08:16 pm:   

The Hump-Eurabia-back of Notre Dame. :-)

nz006.jpg

Europe, learn to live with that whale on your back! You did it, it now swims in your pond. Learn to multi-culturally love it!

I got an idea! How about sharing Notre Dame with five calls to prayer daily? I'm sure an immam can be found to accommodate, or use a pre-recorded message. :-) "Allaaaahhhh"!!!!!!! :-) I can hear that sweet sound from Notre Dame already... How do you say Allah in French? Allainh?

Good joke? :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 08:45 pm:   

Mohideen, from your source, quote:

quote:

Naji doesn’t support further 9/11-style attacks on the U.S. “because right now he feels al-Qaeda has the upper hand in the public relations battle” in the Muslim world.



Interesting perspective, though al-Qaeda paid a heavy price, as did Taleban, and as now are paying Iraqi people killing each other, Sunni and Shia, Muslims killing each other with abandon. We're not impressed. What glory will al-Qaeda reap from this? Bin Laden is already dead. Zarqawi is dead. Others are being hunted like animals. The only people who can be impressed with this are the 'brain dead' Islamists who support violent murder Jihad in the name of their 'religion of peace.' Get real.

There is no al-Qaeda, just a bunch of wanabees. Now Hezbollah is being dismantled. It's over.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 09:41 pm:   

Up to your usual Islamic tricks?
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 04:20 pm: Ivan


When did Prof. Noam Chomsky become a Muslim? I quoted him!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 09:46 pm:   

But YOU quoted him, used his 'misguided' message to prove your point. Did you not? Or should we blame this on Chomsky too? :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 09:55 pm:   

Time to secularize Islam … do it for Mama … Do it for Freedom!
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 04:20 pm: Ivan


Oh Mama dear Mama
Your son did that
Did that last business day

Isn’t freedom from coercion
Secular? Secu u u lar?

Did the work and
Put it by pillow
For you to see
Before you sleep
Linked by this thread
At 6:21 am Friday!

Oh Mama dear Mama
Your son did that
Did that last business day!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 09:57 pm:   

Ivan,

You are running into a wall of self denial. A characteristic that is tied to the Islamic concept of pride and saving face. Even in defeat they must blame the other and prove that in reality they won when in fact they lost.

I have looked at the pictures of the missile the Isrealies took out in Lebanon before it could be fired. It is a long range Iranian varient of the old V2 german rocket from WWII. It uses Rusian, Chinese and North Korean technology.

Its range was sufficient to hit Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. I suspect it was intended to be fired as of a show of strength to prove that Hezbolla could strike the heart of Isreal.

It is one of the things I was afraid that the Iranians and Syrians had passed to Hezbolla. I suspected that Isreali intelligence was monitoring the transfer of these weapons and watching Hezbolla build a deep strike capability against it.

Hence the attacks by Israel.

The question is do you wait for the hammer to fall when faced by a madman or do you defend yourself.

It becomes a matter of trust and whether you could trust Hezbolla to act rationally. I suspect the Isrealies said no to that question and in their place I would probably say the same thing.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:51 pm:   


quote:

Oh Mama dear Mama
Your son did that
Did that last business day

Isn’t freedom from coercion
Secular? Secu u u lar? ...Mohideen, Monday, July 17, 2006 - 06:55 pm



That's really good, Mohideen! I love it, you have a sense of play. :-)

"We have already established that each and every Verse of the Holy Quran is active. On the basis of Verse 53 of Chapter 39 of the Holy Quran, it is clear that there is absolutely no coercion in Islam."

I wish it were so, not merely in words, but also in deeds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:08 pm:   

Ed, in yours:

quote:

It becomes a matter of trust and whether you could trust Hezbolla to act rationally. I suspect the Isrealies said no to that question and in their place I would probably say the same thing.


I suspect the same, they knew what was being readied for them, and were just looking for an excuse. When the Hezbollas captured those two soldiers, that did it, no more discussion. They acted, brutally against Hezbollah control centers, hideouts, communications, transportation, and missile capabilities. This last may go on for sometime more, until they know their strike capabilities are decommissioned. I also think the Israelis have no interest in bringing infantry to southern Lebanon, but would rather see the Lebanese army go in and take care of what needs doing there. Otherwise, what good is having an army if it can't even control enemy within its own borders? The UN idea to bring in 'peacekeepers' in my opinion would be a mistake. This is a Lebanon responsibility, and now is the time for them to act on it. Will they? How good are they? Will they need assistance? These are all still unknowns. But they must try, and the world is watching.

On the greater world picture, Iran's and Syria's proxies are being taken out. Now watch them sit quiet like mice. The only peace in the Middle East I envision is a strong awareness of when these 'coercions' start to surface, and then knock them down good. Such are the fortunes of war when you are dealing with an irrational backwards people. Too bad, but they don't respond to reason, only force. So... give them force, lots of it... and then you have a shot at peace. Weird, isn't it? But if the enemy is stupid, and missed the cue when Israel pulled out of Gaza to start nation building, then this is what they get. Not Israel's fault, they came half way. The other side didn't appreciate it. It's ugly, but that's how it is. What will happen to Hamas now? That depends upon whether or not they can continue to get funding from their sponsors... Stay tuned.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 05:34 am:   

Europe shot itself in the foot, and now must dance to the tune "Don't cry for me Eurab-tina.."! http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2006jun24_i.html
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 03:13 pm: Anonymous


Thanks for the link. What a great future for Muslims to become secular! From the link above, we have:
===
Bat Ye'or summarises the Foundation's design as "nothing less than complete Euro-Arab integration under its guidance, with control over European intellectual life and education".
===

Really? From http://www.euromedalex.org/En/Barcelona_Process.htm we have:
===
The latest EU enlargement, in May 2004, has brought ten new member states into the European Union (EU), including two new Mediterranean Partners, Cyprus and Malta. The Euromed Partnership thus comprises 25 EU Member States and 10 Partners of the Southern Mediterranean ( Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey). Libya, Mauritania and Sudan have observer status.
===

Come again. Israel is a signatory! With Israel as a signatory how could it be Euro-Arab integration? Does Bat Ye’or count Israel as an Arab country?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 05:38 am:   

I wish it were so, not merely in words, but also in deeds.
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 07:51 pm: Ivan


True. The word when popularized and understood would eventually lead to the deed. How about popularizing that post of mine?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 05:44 am:   

The question is do you wait for the hammer to fall when faced by a madman or do you defend yourself.
Ed Chesky
Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 06:57 pm: Anonymous


Now I see the greatest benefit of 9/11 for USA and Israel. 9/11 helped USA establish the legitimacy [?] of the ‘Principle of pre-emptive action.’ Now Israel employs that ‘Principle of pre-emptive action’ against Lebanon today. Tomorrow???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 07:06 am:   

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/07/17/the-2006-arab-israeli-war/
===
Syrian policy on Israel is to fight Israel to the last Palestinian and Lebanese and Iranian policy is to fight Israel to the last Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian.
===

What is Israel’s policy on the Middle East? To fight to the last American???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 09:42 am:   

Islam had tried to impose itself on others by restricting their freedom-to with a myriad of things that are forbidden. They are forbidden, ostensibly, because they are supposed to protect the persons with freedom-from some mythical Hell. There is the problem.
Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 01:31 pm: Ivan


Every religion that seems to protect from the mythical Hell suffers as Islam suffers. Is Islam alone in the concept of Hell?

http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa051401c.htm
===
One endued with righteousness would attain that high end which is constituted by heaven. If endued with unrighteousness, he goes to hell.
===

http://www.jainworld.com/education/juniors/junles09.htm
===
Jainism explains that in a very simple and sound logical way based on the karma theory. … Those who do excessive violence, lying, stealing, and enjoy sensual pleasure or are too possessive, angry, egoistic, greedy, deceptive, or intensely attached to the worldly life are likely to be re-born as infernal beings in the hell.
===

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_heavenhell.htm
===
I've often wondered what Judaism has to say about hell?...

Rather, the soul is shown two videotapes. The first video is called "This is Your Life!" …
The second video depicts how a person's life "could have been..." … The pain creates regret which removes the barriers and enables the soul to completely connect to G-d.

Not all souls merit Gehenom. It is for people who have done good but need to be purified. A handful of people are too evil for Gehenom, and they are punished eternally. Pharaoh is one example.
===

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm
This URL gives a full range of views from rejecting the concept of Hell to affirming the existence of a permanent Hell. Thus, we quote the statistics. The statistics do indicate that many Christians believe in Hell. Quoting, we have:
===
According to a 2004 Gallup Poll, 70% of Americans believe in hell. Belief in hell is highest among regular churchgoers: 92% of those who attend church weekly believe in hell, as do 74% of those who attend nearly weekly.
===

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_realms
===
The Naraka realm, or "hell realm" is based on hatred.
The Buddhist view of the Naraka realm differs significantly from that of most monotheistic religions in that those being punished in this realm are not trapped permanently. Rather, they remain there until their negative karma is used up, at which point they are reborn into another realm.
===

Ivan, from the above do I understand that you are referring to the belief of that 8% of the regular churchgoers when you advocate the absence of a mythical Hell? I do concede that the percentage of Christians who reject Hell increases as their piety decreases.

If piety is taken as a parameter, I believe most Muslims also may not even understand that Islam speaks of Hell. I did not know anything of Islam until I started reading the translations of the Holy Quran in 1963 at an age of 18.

I try to expound as the scripture states rather than as a Muslim perceives. Can you clarify your stand in view of the details provided now? Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 08:23 pm:   

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1150886032979&pagename=JPost% 2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
===
The IDF, it is understood, believes it needs at least another week or so to achieve its military goals in terms of removing Hizbullah's capacity to threaten Israel.
===
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 10:08 pm:   

ON HELL


quote:

Ivan, from the above do I understand that you are referring to the belief of that 8% of the regular churchgoers when you advocate the absence of a mythical Hell? I do concede that the percentage of Christians who reject Hell increases as their piety decreases.

If piety is taken as a parameter, I believe most Muslims also may not even understand that Islam speaks of Hell. I did not know anything of Islam until I started reading the translations of the Holy Quran in 1963 at an age of 18.

I try to expound as the scripture states rather than as a Muslim perceives. Can you clarify your stand in view of the details provided now? Thanks.



Mohideen, I thank you for the numerous reference links above, had not yet looked at them, but most interesting. I think we create "Hell" ourselves, because we witness evil events. Our imagination then invents some evil force, and the extension of the force, by our simple thought process, creates the most horrible version of that evil as a place, Hell, or as a super evil soul, the Devil, or evil spirits, etc. I think the hell we create on Earth of our own doing is far more powerful then anything we will experience in the afterlife. In fact, in my imagination, the afterlife is a rather benign place, where souls are allowed to recoup from their Earthly existence within the presence of an all forgiving and merciful Deity (or Universe), that lovingly makes us face ourselves to the utmost. I actually believe this! But I do not endorse this kind of "Hell" done by human beings to human beings in this world: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.main/index.html

I hope with planetary evolution and social maturity we will in the future do and be better. No Hell on Earth, and likely not anywhere in our Universe either. I hope I'm right! :-) As to what most people believe? Who cares. It does not make them right or wrong, though it might affect their choices in life, and actions. Wisdom is knowing that we really know very little, and thus remain humbled by it.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 12:35 am:   

By__invitation__only_!

A Postcard from Hell

nz015.jpg

Yeah? Did you get one? :-)

Did anybody get a postcard from the otherside?

Ever? Never? Maybe an instant message? No?

:-(
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 02:24 am:   

That's very good, Le Chef! :-)

Of course, I can't help but wonder what's on the other side of the card... Text?

"Dear Ahmmed, don't come here, it is very hot. No virgins.

Signed, Abdullah"


Or maybe something like:

"Dear Fatima, where are the women here? I think they went to the other place, having suffered so much all their lives under those steaming hot burkhas. I miss them, too late.

your brother Mohammed."



Or make up your own!

Very cute indeed. I guess what happens on that 'other side' is something of a secret. Can anybody falsifiable refute the proposition? :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 10:16 am:   

The postcard is a transparency!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 10:28 am:   

But I do not endorse this kind of "Hell" done by human beings to human beings in this world: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.main/index.html
Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 07:08 pm: Ivan


Any individual caught in a cross fire lives in hell. One example is the doting husband caught between his mother and his wife testing to find out whom he loves most! I do not know about USA, but this is very common in India.

As long as the occupying army attempts to claim that the occupation is good for the Iraqi civilian because the occupier has developed infrastructure, it is imperative on the resistance to impede the development of infrastructure. Once the occupier leaves, Iraqis are sure to rebuild their infrastructure in no time. They did it after the first Gulf war!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 03:36 pm:   

http://www.icssa.org/afterfascism_intro.html
===
The human rights of the ruling class were important, but the ruling class did not value the human rights of their subjects.
===

Do we behave like the above in Afghanistan, and Iraq?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

IVAN
Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 07:12 pm:   

Islamo-Fascism , etc.

After Fascism: Muslims and the struggle for self-determination

quote:

The much-vaunted liberal democracy and the civil and human rights leaders are gradually caving in to the extremism of our age. This response is due to the nature of fascism. Those individuals who are for peace and the equal treatment of Muslims have started using terminology that even the fascists of the past did not use to belittle and demonize their enemies. Many self-proclaimed liberals are coming out of their closets and expressing views that are hardly different from the views on the extreme right. For example, articles of Thomas Friedman, published in the New York Times soon after the July 7, 2005, bombing in London, openly threatened Muslims and cursed Islam without pausing for the dust to settle and to see if his conclusions were correct.



What this pro-fascist Islamic author is appealing to is the soft-hearted enemy who will feel pity for the victim-Muslim, as he is waiting for a weakness to present itself, and then hit with full Jihad. This simple ploy of deception, and takiyya, may have worked on the simple primitive peoples of the past, but it won't work with an educated and self-aware populations, who are deeply conscious of why it has its freedoms enshrined in its governance and constitution. Fascism is control, but democracy under constitutional law guaranteeing individual rights, is just the opposite. Under Islam, fascism is inevitable, as its conquering Jihad angles to impose its illiberal, and politically incorrect, repressive laws on the victims who are to be subdued. Free people will not tolerate this. So it will not work this time, as we are now waking up to a better understanding of Islam's fascistic intentions, to take away our freedoms. The strange part of all this is that everything gets twisted around in Islam, so that free people are enslaved by their freedom, and unfree slaves of Islam are most free. It does not work anymore. We are not primitives who can be swayed by such foolishly immature, ignorant arguments. Stop believing your incredibly stupid conspiracy theories, that are insulting to our intelligence, that 911, or 7/7 or 3/11 or 711, are all our doing, especially when Islamic Jihadists take the credit for their evil doings. Your presenting this on this Humancafe forum is an insult, really annoying, so stop it. Aside from Islam apologists, the modern world is not falling for your stupid little tricks.

So to claim that Islam is somehow under attack after it attacked the free peoples of the modern democratic free world is absurd, and a fascist deceptive ploy. All must guard against this evil intent. Mohideen, I am surprised you keep surfacing with these absurd ideas, ideas no intelligent rational person would accept. But, having followed your posts, I can see clearly that once again you play the victim, and thus project your victimhood on the rest of Islam. At the moment, there is little hope for Islam, unless it is able to pick itself up and modernize. Otherwise, it's the "end of times." You know it. Islam knows it. Hezbollah knows it. And even your chief sponsors of medieval Islamic terror know it. Muslims can't get their act together, their societies are a mess, and they can't face up to their litany of failures. Self determination is what nations do, Islamic or not, but your Sharia nations are pathetic, so your people escape to us. (I wish they wouldn't do us any favors) Get over it, grow up, and accept that the old ways are over. Stop blaming the countries you attack for all your societal dysfunctions. We didn't do it to you, you attacked us, and now is your dawning of reality: your are doing it to yourseves. As much as you avoid it, you must face reality, that Islam has been fascism all along. And like our wars against fascism in the past, we will do what needs to be done to preserve our freedoms. Stop posting nonsense, for God's sake!

Ivan


Ps: why is it that the blog-spam never hits this thread? curious about that, so I only leave three discussions open at a time, to monitor this stupidity.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 08:05 pm:   

"You are running into a wall of self denial. A characteristic that is tied to the Islamic concept of pride and saving face. Even in defeat they must blame the other and prove that in reality they won when in fact they lost."

Such is the world of Islam. When they hit the Israeli Warship they proclaimed it as a great victory. Yet the ship lost only 4 crewman and will be returned to service.

The concept of counting coup is not unknown to western society, where a warrior tags a bear or sneaks in to an enemy encampment to prove his bravery and manhood.

Across the televison audiences in the Islamic World that single strike on an Israeli warship is proclaimed as the greatest of victories. To a people that have no hope of victory they leap upon such things and over blow them to prove that to themselves that they have the strength to defeat the enemy.

Rational proffesional military men and women know better and view the strike as what it is, a feeble blow by a desparate people. One being used to build support for continued warfare.

During Operation Desert Storm we told the retreating Iraqi army to put down its weapons and surrender. They fired at us and continued to leave to reconstitute and fight another day. We warned them many times to stop via leaflets, broadcasts and by warning shots. They disgregarded and in the end faced the full fury of a modern army armed with the latest technology brought to bear by the finest and most proffesional soldiers this nation has ever fielded.

The remains of that carbonized army now lay along the highway of death. That battle and the results trouble me to this day and I can still smell the fires and ashes of it.

Following an insane leader Hezbolla has marched down the same path as that army on the highway of death and dragged Lebanon down the path with it.

Pride, hate, insanity and a warped view of religion have dragged the Middle east to the brink of regional war. Even the Saudi's see it along with the Egyptions for what it is and have used the strongest language ever used by members of the Arab League to condem Hezbolla for forcing the Israeli hand.

As I look at Lebanon I think back to the highway of death and another Islamic Army.

There is an old saying that pride goeth before the fall. We have yet to fully mobalize the United States economy on a war footing. God help the people of Islam if a nuclear weapon is ever used against the West, for the retribution will be something never seen before on the face of this earth.

Mohideen Ibramsha raised a issue regarding the concept and idea of hell. For me I know it well for I helped, as part of a military machine, to send a Muslem army of 20,000 to it in fires so hot that they were turned into carbon statues. Whose faces were lined with unimmaginable pain.

I once help produce plans that would have turned much of eastern Europe into atomic ashes and know what we would do in retaliation for an atomic attack. Now think about what Israel would do after the Holocost during World War Two if a weapon of mass destruction is used against it.

For the sake of the innocent I would urge Hezbolla to lay down its arms, for if they do not in the end they will drag Lebanon down the same path the Army I helped destroy took on the Highway of Death

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 08:16 pm:   

BBC REPORTS ON LEBANON WAR

Lebanon 'has been torn to shreds'

How about Lebanon controlling its internal misfit Hezbollah?

Egypt protest indicates Arab mood

How about Egypt help to disarm Hezbollah, per UN 1559, instead of worshipping what's his name?

Fear and stoicism in Haifa

Those intrepid Bahais make their pilgrimage to their temple despite bombs, God bless them. How about they offer to mediate peace?


What the world needs is a dose of reality and some backbone, all seriously lacking when it comes to addressing Arab Jihad in the middle east. Israel is fighting for its survival for 50 years. But what about the rest of the 'civilized' world? Where are the protests against Jihad war? Why aren't Muslims in arms about this, protesting for Hezbollah to stop lobbing missiles at civilians? They should be protesting to stop the carnage, not Israel's precision targeting, but the Hezbollahs hiding their weapons in civilian quarters, and then sending 'unguided' missiles willy nillly on Israeli civilians. Or is this some sort of 'conspiracy' too by the West, to make them look bad? Get a dose of reality folks, but it was they who captured the Israeli soldiers, not the other way around. Twisting devious deceit will not work. Truth is always more powerful, and wins.

Sorry if this sounds 'warmongering' but I am tired of the lies coming out of Islamic apologists, including our own press.

Ed, I know you know what I'm talking about. We can't stop the hate if the other side hates itself as much as they hate us. We really don't care about them, it's their problem. But their attacks, kidnappings, tortures, rapes, these are forbidden by our God, or else ...

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 08:25 pm:   


quote:

Such is the world of Islam. When they hit the Israeli Warship they proclaimed it as a great victory. Yet the ship lost only 4 crewman and will be returned to service. --Ed



This stupidity was surpassed when the Hellbollahs were firing guns in the air because they saw an 'Israeli' plane going down in flames. Now we know that was one of their own missiles taken out by the Isarelis as it was leaving the gantry. How pathetically stupid. They can save face only by laying down their arms and return their kidnapped Israeli soldiers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 09:53 pm:   

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5194068.stm
===
"I think in a few days it will be quieter and then afterwards I'm going on vacation."
===

True; once the current stock of rockets with the Hezbollah get exhausted, there would be relief in Haifa. Is Hezbollah firing away the rockets without any precision as an act of offense or are they simply throwing them away so that the rockets do not explode under Israeli attack amidst them? Put another way, is it possible Hezbollah would hand over the rockets to an international body if there is a negotiated suspension of attack?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Humancafe
Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 01:07 am:   

FREEDOM FROM COERCION

As the Humancafe forums are experiencing blog-spam-jamming, this discussion will now be closed. Any future correspondence can be addressed to Ivan at humancafe@aol.com

The forces of evil are strong. This site is dedicated to the free discussions on the awareness and enlightenment of conscious human beings. In these discussions are enshrined the sanctity of human beings in their freedoms to be Who they are. It is only as free human beings that we can truly do God's will, or be as the universe designed us to be, free of coercions. All else is slavery. Those who are offended by this freedom hate it wrongly, but they saw fit to attack our free discussion, to silence us. The slaves attacked. We will not be silenced, and anyone who can make it past the jamming is welcome to read all that had been said in these pages. The antithesis of freedom is coercion, and the jamming experienced only proves the point, that those who cannot tolerate free ideas in others will coerce them. That coercion is evil, whether it is from conquest Jihad, or demonic cultism, or satanism, it is all the same coercive evil. Freedom will not bow to evil but will conquer it. That is the promised future of humanity on Earth, that coercive evils will cease to exist, and become extinct, God willing. Then we will be free from coercions.

My regrets to all those who wanted to post more of their ideas, but the forces of evil are strong, so posting will be suspended temporarily, until the jamming problem is solved.


Ivan D. Alexander, Author Humancafe.com

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration