1400 years of Imperialism, Disambiguated Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » On the Failings of Reason (closed-archived) » 1400 years of Imperialism, Disambiguated « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
‘Lack of fairness’ as one of the causes of ‘failure to reason’Ivan, Eds.73 02-01-07  12:35 am
Emotion Versus Reasonanon10-26-06  09:15 pm
Can Modern Freedoms survive 'Political' Islam?Ivan, Eds.70 02-01-07  12:35 am
Moderate Muslims, Speak!free sprint ringtone03-03-07  09:19 pm
Are women equal to men?Ivan27 05-15-07  09:44 am
Fatawa Vs OrderIvan05-03-07  05:25 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

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

Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 12:33 am:   

1400 years of Imperialism: Disambiguated

There is no 'clash of civilizations' between the West and Islam. There is only a clash between a 7th century imperialism and modern global cultures based on secular human rights and freedoms. It is a mistake to attach religious significance to this imperialism spanning much of the globe and going back nearly 1400 years. Islam is merely a religion, which one may or may not adhere to, as one chooses, same as any religion. What we believe in our hearts is a private belief. Where the difference lies is in the use of this religion to promote Jihad as a tool of world conquest, which is not about religion, but about imperialism. As this article points out, "Jihad has demonstrated an astonishing adaptability to different historical and material conditions. Yet the secret of the success of the Arab bands lay less in their own warlike qualities than in the weakness and decadence of the empires they overthrew. […] The jihadists are not interested in winning in our sense of the word. They can succeed simply by making the present world order unworkable, by creating conditions in which politics-as-usual is no longer an option, forcing upon the West the option either of giving in to their demands or descending into anarchy and chaos." The goal of this ancient imperialism is to destabalize and insert itself as the ruling party in any society it touches. What suffers when this imperialism attaches itself to any society is the natural flow of civilization towards greater human progress of material achievements, knowledge and freedom of thought, which manifest as human well being and individual liberties. The clash is between imperialism and freedom, between power and human progress.

Civilizations had experienced imperialism in various forms. The military and commercial imperialism of Western powers over less developed parts of the world lasted some three centuries before being abandoned in the middle of the last century. Force was used to establish trading spheres of influence, sometimes to the detriment of local indigenous cultures. It ended when the people fallen under the influence of such force demanded their right to self determination, their freedom. In ancient history, imperialism was extended for material gain by many civilizations, from Egypt to Babylon to Persia, culminating in perhaps the greatest empire spanning centuries, as perfected by the Romans. Where Rome went its power exerted influence on local less developed cultures, by building infrastructure, temples of worship, water works and roads, and with it commercial success largely oriented towards providing tax revenue for Rome. But this too ended after some 700 years of successful conquest and rule, the Pax Romana, which then collapsed. In part to fill the power void, barbarian forces came in to fill the vacuum. It was not until the advancement of Islam and its unique form of religiously inspired conquest that the power vacuum was filled successfully, from the old Roman spheres of influence in Iberia, throughout North Africa, into the Middle Eastern lands of the Levant, and out through Central Asia all the way to India. New trade routes of empire were established, and in the process the local cultures, many of which had adhered to Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism, were subdued and conquered. That was the power which filled the void left when Roman law and power collapsed. So for the past nearly fourteen centuries, the lands conquered by Islamic imperialism flourished, some from Islam's unique ideology, but also mostly by adopting the knowledge and advancements of the conquered peoples as adapted for their own use. Empires thrive on commercial success, usually in the form of taxation, such as the jizya tax imposed upon the conquered peoples who refused conversion to Islam. Mostly, empires succeed through the subjugation of peoples to their own needs, where in time the population itself takes up the cause of empire as if it were their own. But this is ancient history, and most empires went with time. What makes the long lasting empire of Islam unique is that it still exists today. Still more intriguing is that after a lull during the European period of imperialism, long after Islamic imperialism was stopped at the gates Vienna, when the Turkish Ottoman Empire collapsed. The recent resurgence of Islamic ambitions to form a worldwide Caliphate, or Umma, has now once again begun to fill in for the perceived power vacuum left behind by a European guilt for having had imperial success in the past. European civilization, as least in terms of empire building, is now perceived as weakened by a self driven apology for past wrongs against the peoples of less developed nations. This power vacuum act like a magnet for those who would extend their own imperial ambitions, today fueled by Jihad to extend the 1400 year old empire into lands not yet conquered, or perhaps lands conquered but abandoned, such as much of southern regions of Europe from France to Ukraine. When Islam was turned away at the gates of Vienna, the old empire ambitions were temporarily checked. Today, they yearn to reestablish an imperialism that, at least some within Islam, feel is their rightful due.

The point to be made here is that it is not Islam that is at fault, because any religion for better or worse will yield comfort and guidance for its believers. However, any religious texts and teachings can be interpreted differently by different peoples. The Koranic texts gathered over a period of time, including the Hadithic texts, created a body of work which true believers take to heart. For some, these texts represent allegoric teachings, in much the same way most Christians view their Bible, but for others they represent the true immutable word of God, with which there is absolutely no reasonable argument. Worse, if one argues with such true believers over points of religion, they face not only condemnation of ignorance, but physical harm as well. So the point is not religion, but rather what are the imperial ambitions of those who use use religion, and the heartfelt sentiments of its true believers, to achieve power? This imperialism is first and foremost about power. And where perhaps the European world has chosen to shy away from raw aggression and power in modern times, rather comfortable with expanding their world through commercial and intellectual influence, the power structure of the 1400 year old imperialism of Islam confronts this weakness with raw power. So Europe is thus perceive weak, for being apologetic of its past imperialism, while the ancient Islamic imperialism is striking out to make itself once again dominant on a world stage. The real issue is one of power, not merely commercial power, but a raw power of force to subdue once again large portions of civilization to their control, as they had done successfully in the past. Once that is achieved, then the goal is to convince the newly subdued peoples that they too will gain power by putting their efforts behind those of the conquerers. Jihad feeds on this transference of desire for power from the weak, the subdued, and now the new powerful. But this is not a religious issue at all, but one of historic ambitions of power.

In discussing these issues of Jihad with my European friends, I realized something telling. They are not offended by any religious beliefs, and rather lean to an almost religious reverence for religious tolerance for all religions, including Islam. But what came out is that they are deeply offended by imperialism, including their own history when they dominated other cultures. This is offensive to them, in part because of some deep seated guilt, but also largely because it fits reasonably with their belief in religious freedoms. So the issue is never religion, but the issue is the power behind imperialism, of any kind. By and large they are well familiar with all the arguments against religious Jihad, know those elements of Koranic teachings that call for domination over the so-called infidels, rule by the sword, or all the points often made by critics of Islam. But these do not concern them, since religion is a private thing. What offends them is the indiscriminate use of power to dominate over others. It may be for this reason their perceived American cultural dominance of many things European, though they may in fact love the culture, as they confess readily, they are put off by American aggressiveness and power. When this discussion is instead turned to power, including imperialism on a scale the world had not known before, where this power was launched 1400 years ago to dominate others, then their resistance shows. Power is offensive, and I think this is the key, and why I bring up this discussion. It is not to criticize anyone's religion, since religion is a private matter between man and God, but to criticize power itself. I also think this is the key to dismantling 1400 years of Islamic imperialism, in that the criticism of power rather than religion is the key to dismantling the latest manifestations of this exercise of power over the so-called infidels. Power is the issue, and that is what this discussion should mostly focus on. How can we dismantle 1400 years of power used to subdue whole large sections of the world's population? If we avoid attacking those things of any religion that are offensive to our modern outlook, and our sensibilities of what it means to be free human beings protected from coercions by law, then we are forced to look directly into what it is that creates these coercions. Institutionalized coercions, such as represented by imperialism, are no longer acceptable. So this is the issue. How do we dismantle jihadic coercions with imperialistic ambitions of power? I also see Europe as more at risk from this imperialism than any other part of the world, largely because of massive population shifts. If Europe is to withstand the assaults on their modern freedoms, they cannot address the fundamental teachings of any religion attacking their freedoms, but can only address their imperialistic nature. So this is the key. The method to dismantling Jihad ambitions is to focus on their imperialistic nature instead, and not the religion itself. I believe, given European sentiments for freedom of religion and tolerance of other cultures, that this is the most effective way to address the 1400 year old empire which is once again flexing its muscle to dominate. The key is to fight coercive power with a direct attack on what that power represents, which is an ancient imperialism forcing itself on the world once again. Can the world fight off this aggression successfully without challenging any of the religious tenets behind it, since religion is a sacred and private thing, but by addressing the coercion? Can this work, even for our European friends who after two world wars are shy of using force against others? I believe this is the key to dismantling modern Jihad. Any ideas or opinions on this? I think it deserves serious consideration.


(ps: we will leave the "Religious Dialogues" open, as a separate discussion, while this discussion will focus mainly on the non-religious aspects of 1400 year old imperialistic jihad ambitions, and how to dismantle them.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 04:54 pm:   

A very interesting posting Ivan,

I many ways I think the driving force behind the current wave of imperialistic militant jihadism stems from a deep seated feeling of inferiority on the part of the Jihadists. This need to prove that they are the equal of the West stems, in my opinion, largely from the failure of the Islamic Empires of the Past to make progress and provide for the welfare of their people.

Throughout their history the Islamic Imperialists have demonstrated an inability to manage economic forces or sustain economic, social or industrial development. These failures have resulted in the moribound economies that are currently in place in most of the Islamic World and contribute to the spread of Islamic Imperialist Militant Jihadism support among the lower Socio-Economic Status members of Islamic Society today. These people on a whole, mired in grinding poverty, look to the Jihadists to improve their condition by their actions. With no institutional mechanisms for socio-economic change available to the populations, within most of the Islamic nations, the Jihadist's ideology and movment becomes very attractive.

I have attached a link to Child Poverty and Mortality rates in the Islamic World. 11 of the the 16 nations with the highest child mortality rates are Islamic.


In terms of overall poverty rate, despite its vast oil wealth, Saudi Arabia ranks 77 out of 177 countries.


In addition to this the population of Saudi Arabia continues to grow at a rate of twice that in terms of the number of jobs created. This imbalance has lead to high unemployment and under-employment of a large portion of the Saudi Population.

contentMDK:20839892~menuPK:34473~pagePK:34370~piPK:42770~theSitePK:4607%2C00.htm l,http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20839892~menuPK:34 473~pagePK:34370~piPK:42770~theSitePK:4607,00.html

As you look across the developing western world, with few exceptions, nation states are advancing in terms of providing for the health, welfare and security of their populations. Economies are maturing and wealth is being generated and spread.

In the United States we have put in place policies in the short term that favor buisiness at the expense of the worker in order to stimulate economic and job growth. However, I believe that like all things these policies will be modified via constitutional means to ensure that all who contribute to the generation of wealth recieved a share that more accurately reflects their contributions to the success of the economy. This modification could include increases in social program spending, support to the middle class, and or restructuring of the tax laws to restructure how taxes are assessed on the wealthiest Americans.

Over the centuries the American and Western Socio-Economic-Cultural Models have consistently out performed those of the Islamic World and left them with deep seated feeling of inferiority. As the teeming masses of the Arab street have languished in poverty under represive regimes, they have witnessed the economic success of the West with jealous eyes. Trapped in failed socio-economic systems this jealously has resulted in generation of deep seated feeling of inferiority and anger that resulted in the orgy of violence that we are witnessing throughout the Islamic World.

If we are to be successful against the Jihadist we need to address the root causes of the problem in Islamic society which stem from inequality.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 07:52 pm:   


Over the centuries the American and Western Socio-Economic-Cultural Models have consistently out performed those of the Islamic World and left them with deep seated feeling of inferiority. As the teeming masses of the Arab street have languished in poverty under represive regimes, they have witnessed the economic success of the West with jealous eyes. Trapped in failed socio-economic systems this jealously has resulted in generation of deep seated feeling of inferiority and anger that resulted in the orgy of violence that we are witnessing throughout the Islamic World.

I think your take on this, Ed, is somewhat reflected in this article, titled "Will Muslim Immigration destroy Western democracy" http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=553 . Though I do not think this will happen, for many reasons, there is a statement here that echoes what we're saying:
" As I argued in my earlier articles, such as 'How Islam failed Muslims', Islam has impeded the progress of Muslims (8). I argued that Islam is a warrior's religion designed to facilitate Arab imperialism. While it can still produce brave warriors, it cannot produce the sort of people needed for a modern society.

Thus, the culture that Islam produces not only makes it difficult for democracy to work but also impedes economic development. As Muslim leaders like Dr Mahathir Mohammed and Pervez Musharaff have acknowledged, Muslims are amongst the most backwards people in the world (6). This would not be so bad if Muslims are prepared to assimilate and adopt new values. But from the surveys I cited, it appears that so far they are not willing to do that.

The problem is that Islam claims the Muslim Ummah to be the best nation. You can see this arrogant attitude in the Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights. (7) If you see the preamble, you will see their self-image of themselves as 'the best nation':

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization."

Of course, what their 'best nation' status fails to address is their glaring economic failures, which must be a goading problem. So in return for this failure to produce economically viable societies, by and large, they draw upon past glory. However, that form of imperialism is now badly out of date and cannot work in a world where bringing people together towards unity rather than spreading them apart with 'best people' superiority complex, this is why they fail to come to agreement with the world at large. This self imposed separatism, the 'us vs. them' mentality, acts as a detriment, where rather than agreement between diverse peoples we find instead coercions, such as evidenced by their imperialistic jihadi ambitions.

Any society that so totally insulates itself against the rest of humanity's dreams and successes is bound to suffer. The best example I can think of is North Korea. It is so divorced from the rest of the world that the general population is fed a steady diet of hatred for all modern western things, things of which they are kept ignorance so know nothing of our world, and yet in turn blame us for all their failures. That is a guaranteed recipe for failure, to fail to see oneself realistically and blame others. It's a vicious cycle of failures, where the people suffer more and more. Very bad, because it is a cycle very difficult to break.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, October 22, 2006 - 12:47 pm:   

Would there still be war on Earth if the legacy of Jihad imperialism ended?

It occurred to me while thinking about war in the world that really there was no more war. Since the fall of Soviet Communism, nations have learned to coexist peacefully through exchange and agreements, both economic exchange as well as intellectual and technological exchange. The world has united over the past quarter century into a holistically self conscious social entity, a kind of global village, sometimes vaguely reflected politically, that finds benefit in cooperation of agreements rather than conflicts and coercions. This is no small feat, given Earth's history of perpetual war. Our modern era, which I would place at the start of the fall of the Berlin Wall, had been drifting towards a universal recognition of the value of human freedoms and individual rights with equality for all humanity, which is no small accomplishment, with its commensurate democratic governments and the right for individuals to choose their government by vote and constitutional protections. These extend to the right to personal safety from predatory practices, the right to property, right to guarantees of contractual agreements, and the right to pursue one's life as chosen personally without coercion for others, or from others. Monumental achievements for humanity, which perhaps began as early as the Protestant Reformation, and was cemented philosophically into place with the European Enlightenment and scientifism of the past three centuries, which are now culminating with a general wish for world exchange freely between human beings at all levels, from information, such as we have here on the internet, to free exchanges where possible in economic trade, to laws that both domestically and internationally recognize the validity of such free exchange. We are becoming united as a planet by these exchanges supported by our human rights to be who we are. So the fundamental basis for war is being eliminated, if albeit not perfectly, all around the world. Even China, a still Communist state, is recognizing the benefits and values of this new paradigm of inter-human exchanges, even if personal freedoms in China, the world's most populous nation, has not yet reached full maturity. The drift is there, world wide. So why is the news still dominated by war, when war is ended? The problem, nearly exclusively, is only from one very large segment of humanity, that which subscribes to the imperialistic nature of jihadic Islam. There, wars are still very much at work as they had been through the past fourteen centuries.

With some 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, about 20 percent of the planet's population, this is a rather large segment still failing to accept the benefits of peace. Think of every war on the planet today, and in some way it involves Islamic jihad imperialism. Whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan, Chechnya or Somalia, or Darfur, the warring parties have some Islamic component to them. It is as if the 1400 year old jihadic imperialism never ended, but is still continuing full force. Some will say this is a direct legacy of Mohammed's religion, but blame should not be placed on the faith directly, but on those who interpret the faith, not for achieving a closeness to God, but rather for achieving an imperialistic end for their own power of dominance over others. Therein lies the difference between the world at large, the other 80% of humanity, and this still sizable 20% segment of humanity that wishes to exercise power over the rest, through both fast and slow Jihad controls over them, in direct opposition to the modernity developments of the greater world. The concept of individual rights, and individual responsibility, is negated by this jihad imperialism, to the point where the benefits of free exchange and laws designed to protect the individual, are totally lacking in that imperialistic mindset. Peace is not a goal, but rather control with a religion based order of laws designed not by men for men, and women, but by their Mohammed's idea of Allah to rule over every aspect of our individual human being. We are thus not to be responsible to each other in this religious based order, but to an interpretation, human interpretation by any reasonable standard, of how dictated through the messenger Mohammed, what are Allah's rules of conduct for humankind. Thus the responsibility is not to each other, for each other's benefits, or a Golden Rule type responsibility, but to Allah's dictates and rules, where our responsibility is only directly to Mohammed's god, as he defined it. And here is the vast difference between these two worlds, one of personal responsibility to ourselves and each other, and the other only as responsibility to the greater order directed by the representatives of Mohammed's teachings, the Islamic clerical Ulema, which demands total allegiance to itself. That is the imperialism, that none may choose what is right and responsible for oneself, but must obey with total submission to what the clerical interpretations of the Ulema demands of mankind, or the laws of Sharia. By definition, if this is so, Sharia is imperialistic in nature by forcing all to obey it, not for the benefit of finding suitable and meaningful, and mostly productive agreements between men, and women equally, but for the benefit of obeying the dictates for humanity as defined by Mohammed. Because these dictates are inherently coercive in nature, demanding an almost military like strict obedience to orders from above, there is virtually no room for personal incentives of finding agreements, and thus exchange where it is allowed to exist is forced into the mold set by Mohammed's Allah. Under such conditions, not only is productivity of free exchange hampered, but the very idea of peace is virtually impossible. The result is war, and imperialism from war, as evidenced in every part of the world where jihadic imperialism is operative.

When Pope Benedict XVI gave his lecture at Regensburg, Germany, titled "Faith, Reason and the University", he caused a great stir within the Ummah, by both Islamic clerics and their civilian populations, demanding an apology for saying, in effect, that modernity and freedom are incompatible with imperialistic Islam. In Andrew G. Bostom's article "The Pope, Jihad, and 'Dialogue' he makes the case for where Benedict was calling on reason to spread the faith rather than violence and coercions. Bostom writes: "Christianity, the Pope maintained, was indelibly linked to reason and he contrasted this view with those who believe in spreading their faith by the sword. Benedict developed this argument by recounting the late 14th century  “Dialogue Held With A Certain Persian, the Worthy Mouterizes, in Anakara of Galatia” between the Byzantine ruler Manuel II Paleologus, and a well-educated Muslim  interlocutor. The crux of this part of his presentation, was the following: Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God’, he [the Byzantine ruler] says, ‘is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death’..." Reason alone can bring an agreement to believe, while violence can only subdue by force to believe, against our will, so it is against reason and is of necessity coercive. Likewise, violence, threats of violence, and imperialistic jihadi war, are of necessity against our freedom to choose to believe, to accept belief of our own free will and reason. Violence and war are in effect incompatible with reason and freedom, and our freedom to believe, as the modern world has come to accept this incompatibility, except within the ranks of imperialistic Islam, where this incompatibility is still enforced. These two worlds cannot coexist peacefully, because by definition the world of jihadic imperialism is war like. Hence, wherever this jihadi imperialism comes in contact with the modern world, as well as within its own internal worlds in the Ummah, it goes to war.

So how can this modern effect of jihadi imperialism war be ended? It is not the fault of Islamic countries per se that is at fault, because many such governments already see the benefits of free exchange, though their over all record of human freedoms is still poor. The world has clearly seen the economic and social benefits of reason and freedom where they exist, since the nations supporting such freedoms are successful nations, while those opposing them are still mired in poverty. Social advancements in the sciences and technology, and in market exchange successes, in economic well being, are largely lacking from Islamic nations, with the exceptions of countries like Turkey, Malaysia, and to some extent Morocco and Indonesia, where Islamic fundamentalist interpretations are held in check by social secular laws. But in countries such as Saudi Arabia, and by extension Iran and their orbits of nations, the lacking structure of secular social laws manifests are poorly functioning societies. Were it not for oil, their societies would live in abject poverty. The Palestinian-Israel issue is separate, where the war there is over land and the implementation of UN resolution 181, so though it has a strong Hamas like Islamic component, it is also due to genuine grievances from UN 181's failure to implement. But in other Islamic states, where governments are weak on the freedom side and strong on the dictatorial side, the conditions for continued popular discontent and economic backwardness is clearly evident. This makes those worlds fertile grounds for recruitment for imperialistic Jihad, out of the malcontent populations, so that war is per force the outcome. They will war on others in response to their own socio-economic failures to provide the general populations with the benefits of a peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world. While such governments rule by tyranny and oppression, and by the dictates of a clerical class who prevents the advances of modernity into their realms, often tainted by official corruption at all levels, there seems little likelihood of improvements, even if democracy is successfully introduced. The sectarian violence of Iraq, or the freely elected Hamas government of the Palestinians, proves that peace cannot come of democracy alone. For there to be peace, the rule of law must be based not upon raw dictatorial powers, or the power of dictatorial clerics imposing Sharia, but upon the rule of reason and legally safeguarded human freedoms. To win peace, we must have the right to choose with the responsibility of each human being in response to their personal condition, rather than having imposed upon each person the conditions of coercions by both government and politicized religious ideals. The safeguarded right, by law, to choose of our own free will is paramount to peace. This is something Jihad imperialism fails to understand. The result is world wide wars to sustain Islamic imperialism.

In reflection of all this, the world has clearly entered an era of contest between freedom and oppression, and between reason and politicized religious dogma. This is the recipe for a world in contest between two very opposed forces, that of human agreements versus human coercions, and the outcome will be determined in the not too distant future, when jihadi imperialism will either triumph or fail. Failure is the more likely outcome in the modern world. We are becoming conscious of what the power of human freedom, the liberties enjoyed by an increasing portion of the 80% world's populations, given today's speed of communications and inter-human exchange, that the social benefits of such freedoms far outperform the regressive coercions of religious imperialism. We are poised on another very great revolution akin to that of the fall of Communism, a great global awakening, that human freedom is greater than religious repressions. We are on the threshold of a planetary evolution of mind, where we collectively and individually will recognize the power of doing together by agreement rather than by coercions. Once that happens, imperialism by force, imperialistic Jihad, will end.

When I wrote Habeas Mentem, a few years before the end of Soviet Communist imperialism, I had not foreseen the rise of Islamic Jihad imperialism. But both answer to the same call, to subdue others to their philosophy of controls over human thoughts and actions by force. The fall of Nazism was from war, where it was forcibly ended. I believe that the fall of Jihad Imperialism will be more like the fall of Communism, not by force but by reason. Freedom of thought and actions, within the rule of democratic law, is by far the greater force in the world today. And when that happens, which is what Habeas Mentem was about, that each human being has the legal right to be who they are, under God, the world will truly know peace. Islamic Jihad imperialism is the last bastion of war, and it is over. The last piece of this global puzzle is to end imperialistic Jihad. Then the world will rejoice, that it will be the end of war, and usher in a millennium of Peace.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 06:37 pm:   

Imperialism has another face: Slavery

http://www.ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/slaves-from-darfur-around-1850-nothing .html

There are some good links in the sidebar too.

Not so 'veiled' threat? Police protection for MP in Italy because she said the veil is not mandatory. So what does the imam do? He calls her an 'infidel'. Well, aren't we all who disagree with him? Wake up Europe, you're invaded by Islamic imperialism.


...and narrow eyes are watching.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 06:57 pm:   

Growing Resistance to world Jihad imperialism?

I sense there is a growing resistance to world Jihad imperialism, not "war mongering'' , as Mohideen calls it, but an honest look at what this whole new phenomenon is all about, and it is coming from many sources both in the media and the net; what is still missing is the same from politicians and academia. I suspect people have had enough, and the next elections both in Europe and America will bear this out. At this stage it is still inactive resistance, only with word and thought, but I fear the active part is soon to come. Here are some examples, all today's:

1. News reports are becoming more openly frank:

Burning busses in Paris
Map of French Riots, 2005

- and commentaries are more pointed:

2. Women, even Muslim women, are fighting back:

One on One, Wafa Sultan
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193523009&pagename=JPost/JPArticl e/ShowFull
No Problem with the Veil

Wafa Sultan says:
"I personally don't believe Islam can be reformed. But my view is very much needed among those who wish to reform it. There are two choices: rejection or reform. My voice forces the reformists to work even harder. The first step is for the West to put pressure on Islamists to respect my right to reject Islam as much as I respect their right to believe in it. Once Muslims are free to choose, the rest will take care of itself. The real solution, in other words, is transformation, not reformation.

Christianity underwent a reformation. Why not Islam?

They are not comparable. According to Islam, anyone who questions a single word of the books or teachings should be killed."

3. Commentaries are Jihad/Dhimmi Watch are becoming more focussed on Islamic Jihad Imperialism:

Fjordman: Why the European Union Must be Dismantled
Pakistan Jihadists slam Musharraf

And an as always excellent analysis by Hugh Fitzgerald, which is here shown in full:
"In the weeks just after 9.11.2001, the American government, still did not understand Islam. It had spent the past fifty years not understanding Islam. It had spent the past fifty years thinking of Islam only as a "bulwark against Communism" and of attempting to curry favor with such "staunch allies" as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and by taking an indignant stand against its main allies at Suez (when Nasser might have been, and should have been, knocked right down), and constantly pressuring Israel, in 1956, to give up the Sinai for worthless guarantees, and later, in the post-1967 world, with all that Kissiner "shuttle diplomacy" and then the Rogers Plan, and then a dozen other plans and schemes, and not a single thing was done about the menace of OPEC in the one-third of a century since 1973, and nothing done to prevent, or even to study or wonder about, the mass settlement of Muslims within the Western countries, a policy of criminal negligence toward all Infdiel peoples by all Infidel governments, and based on sheer laziness, sheer unwillingness to learn enough about Islam, or listen to the diminishing number of real scholars -- as opposed to Muslim and non-Muslim apologists carefully intiltrating and rising in the ranks of academic and govenment "experts" and "advisers" on Islam (John Esposito was consulted by the Clinton Administration; Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy by the French government; Tariq Ramadan was appointed to all sorts of E.U. commissions and is even now, in his pseudo-academic post at St. Antony's, "advising" the Blair regime that does not know where to put its feet and hands, but its opponents promise no better.

And not only have successive Administrations, and therefore the fates of the Americans whom they presume to protect and instruct, relied on all sorts of people, of both parties, equally ignorant of Islam or unwilling to consider the evidence of the their senses or of their minds (and how many people who have risen to the top of the Washington anthill have the time, have the leisure, for reading and taking in, and beginning to comprehend, entirely new subjects?) relying on all those who never understood it, such people as Brzezinski with Carter (not to mention that "Iran" specialist Gary Sick, and the disaster of abandoning the Shah when he might have been saved), or such people as Scowcroft the chocolate soldier and Baker the fixer, or Dennis Ross, merely the most earnestly comical, or comically earnest, of all those in Washington who spent their entire professional lives in the "peace process" (what a phrase, what an idea whose time never came, and never could come, had the Lesser Jihad against Israel been properly understood), with all their absurd and exhausting and frenetic "peace-making," ever figuring out that the Lesser Jihad against Israel had no solution based on "negotiations" and "treaties" that, supposedly, would bring "peace" and, of course, the latest avatar of silliness and ignorance, that "two-state solution" that Condoleeza Rice thinks would be a wonderful achievement for the United States, as her remarkable, or rather incredible, speech to some American group "for Palestine" a few weeks ago demonstrated for all who possessed minds that could still be properly horrified. There is still not a hint that anyone in official Washington has ever read a thing about the Law of War and Peace in Islam, has read read Majid Khadduri on the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, or a hundred others who could explain, carefully, the essential role of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiiyya, and why all treaties between Muslims and Infidels are meant, on the Muslim side, purely as "truces" and never to be permanent "peace treaties" because that would go against all of Islam, implying that some parts of the world could forever remain free from Islam, free to remain Infidel -- and that, of course, goes against everything in Islam, a belief-system that springs from a desire by the already-conquering Arabs to possess their own faith, one that would both justify and promote their conquest of Christians and Jews (and then Zoroastrians, and then still later Buddhists and Hindus), non-Muslim peoples far more advanced, wealthy, and settled peoples than the primitive Arabs who by force seized their lands in the Middle East and North Africa, and that has not changed in this essential division, so obviously reflected in the terms Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. No, one doubts that the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D. and broken deliberately by him 18 months later (and this was later held to be an act of magnificent cleverness by Muslims, as Muhammad -- who said that "war is deception" -- proved a master at defeating, by any means, his enemies. "Pacta Sunt Servanda" is the basis of Western treaty-making, but not of treaty-making in Islam. Every "peace treaty" signed by Muslism with Infidels is meant only as a "truce treaty." But why should Dennis Ross, or Condoleeza Rice, be expected to know about that, any more than they should be expected to know about the concept and definition of the "dhimmi," much less to have read Antoine Fattal's full treatment of the status of non-Muslims according to the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam. Why take Islam seriously, when Prince Bandar, and now Prince Al-Turki, offer such generous hospitality at their lavish receptions, and speak so well, so "forthrightly," and when, after all, all kinds of Arab and Muslim leaders keep assuring us that all this business of Islam is just so much nonsense, and Islam -- look deep into their eyes, grasp their souls the way Bush grasped the soul of Vladimir Putin -- and see that what they say must be true.

And what does this have to do with Pakistan, and its meretriciousness? Had the American government been properly prepared, had it contained a sufficient number of people well-versed in Islam, who therefore would have remained serenely and calmly comprehending of what had past, was passing, and was to come, had such people on 9.12.2001 been much in evidence, then thinking clearly, the American government might, not merely with anger but with anger that had behind it well-prepared minds lucidly planning, have made the government of Pakistan an offer it couldn't refuse not about helping to find Osama Bin Laden, but rather on handing over, lest its entire economy and country be destroyed (and the Americans, together with India, could do that), those nuclear weapons it managed to acquire through the thefts, and ISI funding, of A. Q. Khan (about whose nuclear aid to North Korea and Iran, the Pakistani government announces this past week, it is "truly sorry" and it won't happen again, and by the way, why shouldn't Pakistan now get the same nuclear deal as India? I'll tell you why: because Pakistan is a Muslim state, with Muslim people in control, that's why. Might as well ask why we would not object if Australia acquired nuclear weapons but do when North Korea does, or why it is necessary, and proper, for Israel to acquire such weaponry, which is the only thng that will ensure its survival and threatens no Infidel state, but on the other hand, neither "our ally" Egypt, nor "our ally" Saudi Arabia, nor any other Muslim state, can be allowed to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Might as well make that clear, if not say expressly say it aloud.

Given the sensational nature of the whole Bin Laden business -- the caves, the Saudi plutocrat who becomes a kind of J. Worthwington Foulfellow with his sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri, and all those solemn "terrorism experts" who, like Peter Bergen, still keep far away from the larger and more important questions, but apparently can dine out, in the American media and even elsewhere, on the fact that they "met Bin Laden" or "travelled in Afghanistan" or "have studied Al Qaeda for years."

That should be seen as part of the sensational, quasi-yellow press, and the lowering of standards, all way round. Suppose someone knew every detail of Bin Laden's life? Or suppose the American government kills Bin Laden? So what? What does this have to do with the menace of islmamization in Western Europe? How does this stop the Saudi-financed campaigns of Da'wa everywhere in the world, both among those who are Muslims (as in Niger, where the syncretistic local version of Islam, with its marabouts and unhijabbed women, has with Saudi money and influence been completely transfomred, and so as the practice of Islam in many sub-Saharan states), and those who are Infidels but, out of their economic or psychic unsteadiness, been correctly identified as ready (the readiness is all) for efforts to convert them, and thus to acquire more recruits, deep behind Infidel -- i.e., enemy -- lines, to the Army of Islam.

The "Hunt for Bin Laden" business, and the perceived need to obtain the coooperation of the government of Pakistan by cancelling billions of dollars in debts and offering new billions in aid of all kinds, and in not reading Pakistan the riot act about A. Q. Khan (he should be in American custody, subject to American grilling) and in not threatening complete economic destruction unless those nuclear weapons were given to the Americans "for safe-keeping" (and the Pakistani government did not have to announce it; it might have simply pretended that it still had them, to keep the primitive Muslim masses calm, or as calm as they can be), has been a disaster for it has allowed Musharraf to present himself as something he is not, and Pakistan as something it is not, and in that misrepresentation, to continue to play on long-established innocences and dreams about "Islam" as essentially okay and unworrisome, if only the "moderates" can keep control.

And thus we have the fiascos we see all around us, including the fiasco of Iraq, where
Bush, who once had an idea, and now that idea has him, still will not relent on his foolish squandering of men's lives, of money, of war material, will not exploit, and certainly is incapable of welcoming, the ethnic and sectarian diviisions that sooner or later will explode, and for our sake should explode, and what's more, will have consequences for Shi'a-Sunni relations outside of Iraq, and possibly, if the Kurds get their state, for the relations between non-Arab and Arab Muslims (as with the Berbers in Algeria and in France), and all this internecine warfare can only weaken the Camp of Islam, and have it put on a display useful for Europeans to observe, and to draw the necesssary conclusions from.

For within the Bilad al-Kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, there are still so few who comprehend the permanent menace of Islam to most forms of art, to the free and skeptical inquiry necessary for the enterprise of science, to individual rights and to mental freedom, to all the legal and political institutions and social arrangements and understandings and assumptions upon which the advanced West is based, and which others in that Western world, over several millennia of thought and effort, managed to achieve, and all the artifacts they produced, and which those who today call themselves "English" or "French" or "Italians" or "Americans" hold merely in trust, as a legacy for which they have a life estate, and which they have a duty to learn about, and then having learned about to appreciate, and then having learned to appreciate, to defend intelligently, and especially now, when it can be done at very little human cost, because the most effective weapons of the Jihad are the "wealth weapon," campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

As has been steadily insisted here for nearly three years, the "wealth weapon" can be countered by taxes on gasoline in the United States that rise in steady increments to far higher, possibly European levels, in taxes on all usess of oil, on subsidies to mass transit, on subsidies and all kinds of encouragement for solar, wind, and other forms of energy, including new ways to burn or to transform coal, and of course nuclear energy which should be seen, following the French example, as one of the best ways to dimiinish reliance on oil. Everything conceivable should be done, and because of the costs involved (and insrance for nuclear plants) governments, including the American government, should participate fully, eagerly. Nonsense about "letting the marketplace" decide will not do. No one said during World War II that the government should not fund the Manhattan Project. The diminshment of the Muslim "oil weapon" is essential. So too is the endinig of all the transfers of wealth, through hundreds of billions of dollars overall, from Infidel peoples (unwillingly) by their govenments (all too willing), to Muslim states and groups, such as Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the ineffable "Palestinians" about whom a veritable cult of aid has developed, no doubt mainly not because the "Palestianians" themselves are worthy, but because unexpungable animus toward Israel, an animus that has been carefully cultivated by the Islamintern International and its supporters in the world press, is used to encourage aid for the "Palestinians" and their quite unnecessary, and utterly phony, "plight."

As for campaigns of Da'wa -- they can be constrained at every step, beginning with careful monitoring in prisons, aid to Christian missionary efforts, the segregating of Muslim prisoners in sepaarate buildings (for "security and administrative -- i.e., halal food and other observances-- purposes). Since it is clear that black prisoners are a special target, why not employ black African refugess such as Sudanese "lost boys" to speak frequently in prisons about their experiences, why not make the subject of the Arab slave trade, and the use of Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism (the most successful imperialism in history, as yet not fully comprehended save, so far, by a few). Why not discuss how the inshallah-fatalism of Islam encourages economic paralysis, and that only the false manna of oil managed to provide any prosperity for Muslims once they no longer had large numbers of non-Muslims within their lands upon which to batten).

As for demographic conquest, that can be halted, and as the Infidel peoples wake up, they can not only halt, but reverse the immigration of the past three or four heedless decades, and undo much of what they stupidly permitted to be done. Just as the parents of young children try to "child-proof" their house, by all sorts of measures, so the Lands of the Infidels can be made, not welcoming, but unwelcoming, for the continued practice of Islam. We need not make allowances, we need not yield in the slightest to Muslim demands. We can deny our custom for goods and services to Muslim-owned businesses. We can be quick to detect the campaigns in the press to render us more susceptible to Islam, to focus only on the most inoffensive of the rituals (i.e., Ramadan) and not on what is written in Qur'an and hadith, and certainlly the press has failed completely to deal with the figure of Muhammad, and what he did, and what Muslims revere him for --which is everything he said, and everything he did.

There has as yet been as little action by the American govnement, paralyzed by Iraq, over all this, as there has been in dealing with its false allies -- such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and of course Pakistan.

But it will change. It will change because whatever Bush clings to, in 2008 a new President will have to promise, as Eisenhower promised to "go to Korea" and end thaet war, to end promptly the now clearly misguided and wasteful effort (misguided by March 2004, when the country had been thoroughly scoured for weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq -- misguided if the goal is to weaken the Camp of Islam. And that should be the goal, whatever vague description of "victory," a "victory" never clearly defined by our confused and confusing and largely incoherent President, who cannot allow himself even the possibility of lucidity, for if he did, then his whole edifice built to date would come tumbling down, and in public."

Posted by: Hugh, at October 26, 2006 07:24 AM

There is no more of the niceties that so characterized European and American tolerance of religion, and understanding of Islam, not anymore, things are changing. Islamic Jihad is not taken as religion, but as aggressive Sharia law politics, and more people are waking up to this, both men and women, both writers and thinkers everywhere, including the average person out there who sees what is going on. We are still at the 'talking and writing' stage, but once the floodgates open, non dare call it 'war mongering' because they had been asking for it painfully long, and we had been patient. It looks like patience is fast running out. Watch the polls in upcoming elections.

And if anyone in government or academia have any doubts about the roots of Jihadi Imperialism, read this:
The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Slyar)

So it is written, so be aware oh 'infidels', because they had exerting themselves to conquer you for 1400 years. Wake up, because 'takkiya' is out to blind you. Tens of millions of innocent men, women, and children have died from Jihad through the centuries, while they secured a 'peace and security' for themselves, at your expense. Once Da'wa is offered, circle the wagons, because you are being attacked. Islamic Jihad is an ancient evil war cult, with which they think they will dominate you, as it is written in their Koran:
Then God revealed the verse:" It is not befitting for a prophet that he should take prisoners until the force of the disbelievers has been crushed..." to the end of the verse:" so eat ye the spoils of war, (it is) lawful and pure. So Allah made booty lawful for them."

Everything you cherish in this world is their 'spoils of war', including your loved ones taken in slavery, so be aware.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 09:53 pm:   


The common definition for "imperialism" is one of conquest, whether territorial, political, or commercial. The latter is one of a kind of political monopoly, such as was manifest during the periods of European, and later American, and ultimately Soviet, type of controls over colonized states. Wiki says on "Imperialism":
Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of these other entities. The term is often used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the nation considers itself part of the empire. The "Age of Imperialism" usually refers to the New Imperialism period starting from 1860, when major European states started colonizing the other continents.The term 'Imperialism' was initially coined in the mid to late 1800s [1] to reflect the policies of countries such as Britain and France's expansion into Africa, and the Americas."
However, this does not clarify whether or not such "imperialism" is in fact harmful to the subject state. If the colonizing power is interested merely in trade, without political control, then is it really fair to call it Imperialism? However, if that commercial control has given the colonizing power total monopoly power over the subject's market economy, meaning the subject nation has no pricing power and must by force submit to the colonizing power, then there is a wrong here, one of monopoly control. But if there is no such monopoly control, take today's price of oil set on the market place, or the cost of DVDs, then there is no control by any one power, though both the consumers of oil, or producers of DVDs had been called imperialistic, as if they controlled those markets. That is a confusion in today's use of the word "imperialism". If American movies dominate world markets, or Arab oil dominates world markets from China to Europe, these cannot be due to imperialism; rather they are what is bought by the consumers from producers. In fact, if the producers do form a cartel to create monopoly pricing power, then that indeed can be called "imperialism", in the economic sense. However, political or military imperialism, of the kind Pres. Ronald Reagan labeled Soviet Communist Imperialism as the "Evil Empire", or in fiction such as Star Wars, where the Galactic Empire controls by military might and commerce the victimized planets, then there is something of the "evil" in that kind of imperialism. This kind of imperialism is clearly a coercion both militarily and politically, and for the captive states or planets, commercially as well. However, to call commercial success because consumers buy with enthusiasm what is being sold is definitely not imperialism, but merely a function of human agreements in market exchange, the market place.

I bring up this topic of imperialism because it is so often bandied about without real definition. For example, the dictionary gives it as: "1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies." Does this tell enough of the story? If it is political and military rule over a sovereign state, there is no question this is imperialism. But that is not how the context of how the word is used by popular sources today. What nation today controls politically and militarily another? Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind, as does Tibet, and some other states that are borderline client states, such as some in the Caribbean; until recently Hong Kong and Macao would had fit. China would like to control Taiwan, and North Korea laughably would like to control South Korean. But in fact most nations, except those of the former Soviet Union that had not gained independence are free of colonial type imperialism. India got free, as did every state in Africa, and most of Asia, except for Tibet. The unique positions of conquered states such as the Talebanic Afghanistan, or Saddam's Iraq, is that they are now states in transition. In both cases, a local indigenous government is being formed, though contentiously by warring parties within the states. Palestine is once again an odd state, since it never fully formed under UN Resolution 181, so it remains in limbo, fault of the United Nations. Israel is not colonizing Palestinian lands, since other than keeping them from attacks launched by either missiles or suicide bombers, Israel by and large has divorced itself from the economic ties it had earlier, especially as it applies to employment, though they may still buy agricultural goods in good times when the border is open. So not imperial powers, though sometimes they appear to be, if these governments so accused are in fact not ruling the allegedly colonized states. Election had been held in both Iraq and Afghanistan, including Palestine, but the contentious conflicts for power had not yet resolved themselves within the local populations. The fault lies with them, until they sort it out. Nobody wants to control these countries, except to keep them from harming us, with suicide bombers or whatever. Neither America nor Europe want to hold colonies, not in their best interest. Tibet may be a separate form of colonization, as the Chinese imperial interests have flooded Tibet with Han Chinese, and thus maintain both political and economic control, as well as cultural control of the Tibetans. I would think Tibet is the clearest case of being victimized by Imperial power in today's world reality.

The oldest world empire, Islamic imperialism dating back from post Roman times, or nearly 1400 years, is not only militaristic and political, as well as commercial, but religious as well. In fact, in that empire, the religious clergy and government are inseparable, so a culture formed around this imperialism that combined both. Like its much later counterpart in Soviet Communist imperialism, it too controls not only politically and philosophically the culture under its total dominion, but even the thoughts of its subjects. Something to think about, when thinking of imperialism, in that total imperialism controls everything, even in how we think, or how we do commerce, or how we interact with one another, such as experienced during "dhimmitude". An imperialism that is so all inclusive is actually rare in human history, not even in the days of Darius and Alexander, or later Rome, since there were still personal freedoms enjoyed by their subjects, though not in the manner of today's understanding of personal freedoms. If you were not slave, then you enjoyed quite a few freedoms. But when all thinking and action is controlled from above by imperial edict, regardless of whether or not this imperialism has one ruler or many, the philosophical manifestation as one body politic, economic, and religious, creates conditions that resemble very much the empire of fiction, or the "evil empire". We are then all slaves to it. There is no distinction between freemen and slaves, since now all must obey the edicts of the Empire. Once the empire has control of your heart and mind, or euphemistically has its finger on your "heart plug", then there is no place to hide from it. It will pursue you to the ends of the universe to control you. And that is indeed the Evil Empire in action. Except here, it is not fiction but the ambitions of those who want to rule that empire for all mankind. We of the "federation" of free human beings can never let it happen.


(These were just some thoughts I had this weekend while staying out in the desert.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 06:54 pm:   

On Jihad Islamic Imperialism... do I hear an echo?

Truth About Islam's Founder Revealed, book reviewed by Dr. Trifkovic

The more we look, the more we see the same thing?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 06:54 pm:   

Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age

by Noah Feldman, New York University law professor and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/magazine/29islam.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=364467 9335bdc7b6&ex=1162443600&pagewanted=all

This excellent NY Times article was sent to me by my friend Alex in Boston. Its author seems to have an indepth understanding of Koranic text and hadiths without any alarmist catastrophic predictions, but a coldly reasoned analysis of what it means to have nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists, both as it pertains to the teachings and how Jihad had been waged against 'infidels' thus far. The report is grim, but the reality of this eventuality is sobering. Or, as in the suicide bomber's message to the world:
"You cannot stop me, because I am already willing to die."

Die he will, but with nuclear weapons, he will take millions with him. This is not justifiable war under any theory, secular or religious, and the fault will fall totally upon the Muslim world for perpetrating such total suicidal carnage. But then, maybe this is what "Day of Judgment" is all about, Mahdi or not, that the end of days will be a horrific total collapse of the Muslim world. We may be here to see it, if they do not stop it now. Better they go back to their Koranic teachings with a fine tooth comb, and soon.

Or, as Naive posted yesterday, "So indeed we are at a crossroads in human history. And it is only fitting that this, one of the final hurdles in our development as moral, intellectual, and spiritual beings, be a huge one!"

It may indeed be a huge one, to stop being barbarics so intent on war, and all its imperialism coercions, and to finally step into our true legacy as light filled beings.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 10:53 pm:   

How about this for the religion of peace?

The inevitability of genocide (by Islamic jihad)

Try to explain that. Imperialism?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, November 08, 2006 - 12:24 am:   

A feminist speaks out against Islamic imperialism.


In "Radical Islam Threatens the Freedoms of American Women" , Carol A. Taber says:
"All radical Islamists, and many Muslims who claim not to be radical, envision the United States one day to be a Muslim nation. These two groups differ only in their tactics: violence or infiltration. Their oft-stated goal is indeed global domination and they are determined to achieve it.

With this in mind, the subject of national security takes on a new meaning to the women of America and their families. If American women, who are the majority of the electorate (by 10 million voters in the last presidential election, up 43% from the 7 million advantage they enjoyed in ’00), do not unite to fight this war against radical Islam, their own individual rights could be trampled in a short period of time in a way that is unimaginable to most of us. The key to uniting in this common cause is knowledge of the threat. Knowledge is indeed power, and I suggest that every able-bodied American woman go forth to find that information…now."

There's obviously interest in this by women, and especially militant freedom loving women, such as those who fought for women's rights in the sixties, and their grandmothers suffragettes in the twenties. Brave women!

Here's what Sharia looks like, lifted off Jihadwatch commentary:
What is Sharia law?


Here are some examples of Shariah law:

1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;
2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar;
3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;
4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet;
5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;
6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father;
7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;
8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;
9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;
10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;
11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;
12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”;
13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;
14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;
15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;
16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;
17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;
18. Laughing too much is forbidden;
19. Musical instruments are unlawful;
20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden;
21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory;
22. Slavery is permitted;
23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam;
24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible; and,
25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad).

FYI, contrast that with our Western civilization's freedoms.

We are not what we say, we are what we do.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 10:56 pm:   


What does "Freedom" mean for the Iranian students?

Is theirs a quest for freedom of religion, or political freedom, or philosophical freedom? I ask these questions in relation to other posts on another thread by Peace and Freedom and by Mohideen Ibramsha on the "War handicaps Reason" discussion, where the students of Iran wanting to bring their country freedom from the dictatorial tyranny of its present theocratic regime of Ayatollahs. What will this freedom they seek look like? What will Maryam Rajavi's freedom for a democratic Iran mean?

Look at how many ways there are to interpret the meaning of Freedom, as per Wikipedia:
1. Freedom (philosophy); 2. Freedom (political); 3. Liberty; and even 4. Freedom from slavery.
This idea of freedom is broken down further into:
  • Freedom of assembly
  • Freedom of association
  • Freedom from government sanctioned discrimination
  • Freedom of education
  • Freedom of movement (or travel)
  • Freedom of the press
  • Freedom of religion (or belief)
  • Freedom of speech
  • Freedom of thought

Which freedoms are they after? In Maryam's page above, it says:
"After transferring power to the people, this Resistance wants nothing more than democracy, a republic based on the separation of church and state, and the people's free choice."
Freedom of choice as to how Iran is ruled by its people, is what democracy means, one where there is a clear constitutional separation of church and state, and one where the rights of freedom are protected by law. The reason it becomes a resistance, and I am using Rajavi's National Council of Resistance as only one manifestation of the desire for the Iranian people to be free, is because under the present quasi-religious regime of the mullahs, such freedoms are neither respected nor protected. And yet, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had said "Iran is the most free nation on Earth." What can he possibly mean, when the resistance to the theocratic rule demands freedom? How can they both be asking for freedom when one already claims they are most free?

So it becomes a philosophical question: What is meant by 'freedom'?

A very old notion of freedom is that of internal control, such as perhaps practiced by the Stoics in ancient Greek times, or by fakhirs and some gurus of the East in modern times. As Wiki explains: "In the context of internal control, freedom is also known as self-determination, or autonomy. From a spiritual perspective, freedom may also be called inner peace; the presence of inner control, and an inner experience of choice, spontaneity and fulfillment. ... Spiritually, freedom encompasses the peaceful acceptance of reality. The theological question of freedom generally focuses on reconciling the experience or reality of inner freedom with the omnipotence of the divine." So this is a particular form of freedom, within a religious context, and one that may apply to the Iranian's President words. But are we truly free in prison? Therefore, it may not be the freedom as understood in modern times, which is represented by a freedom of belief, freedom of conscience, freedom from external coercions, and ultimately a freedom to be who we are. That requires a new thinking on freedom, perhaps more on liberty as a political freedom, championed in the Age of Enlightenment forward. Here is how Wiki explains this new kind of freedom, as opposed to the old kind, On Liberty: "Perhaps the most memorable point made by Mill in this work, and his basis for liberty, is that "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign". Mill is compelled to say this due to what he calls the "tyranny of the majority" (a line from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America), wherein through control of etiquette and morality, society is an unelected power that can do horrific things." This now already more closely mirrors what most modern minds consider freedom. Or as also said on Mills here: "In John Stuart Mill's work, On Liberty, he was the first to recognize the difference between liberty through the freedom to act and liberty through the absence of coercion." So now it is narrowed further into 'an absence of coercion'. But is this really freedom, or but perhaps only one more step towards freedom?

If we are to live the lives of free beings, free human beings, then there is a necessary condition that must be met in our 'absence from coercion' as a social body. We must have durable laws that define for us the Social Contract upon which our freedoms are based, or else we regress into anarchy. Again, the writer in Wiki puts Liberty thus:
"The Social Contract: The social contract theory, invented by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, was among the first one to provide a political classification of rights, in particular through the notion of sovereignty and of natural rights. The thinkers of the Enlightenment reasoned the assertion that law governed both heavenly and human affairs, and that law gave the king his power, rather than the king's power giving force to law. The divine right of kings was thus opposed to the sovereign's unchecked auctoritas. This conception of law would find its culmination in Montesquieu's thought. The conception of law as a relationship between individuals, rather than families, came to the fore, and with it the increasing focus on individual liberty as a fundamental reality, given by "Nature and Nature's God," which, in the ideal state, would be as expansive as possible. The Enlightenment created then, among other ideas, liberty: that is, of a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws. Later, more radical philosophies such as socialism articulated themselves in the course of the French Revolution and in the 19th century."
So now the 'divine right' of kings, or mullahs and ayatollahs, is put in question, that their right to rule is not a given, but only acceptable upon condition of an agreed upon contract. This social contract is by the people, and a contract between individuals rather than king and the people. So a fundamental difference was expressed on freedom, that it is a responsibility of the individual, to other individuals, within the context of the laws of the state. Liberty, as a personal freedom, is not defined by the state, but rather by the natural state of being human, that we are innately free by definition, and that this freedom must be recognized by the ruling bodies of our necessary Social Contract, if we are to avoid anarchy. So this once again reverts back to a philosophical question of freedom, that we are inherently free from coercion, but only within the context of law that also protects us from coercion by restricting us from coercing others. This is a key point in understanding freedom: that to be free ourselves, we must allow the same freedom for others.

When it comes to political freedom, especially after the works of Karl Marx, a new definition enters our consciousness of what it means to be free. As in Liberty: Criticism it says:
"The conception of individual liberty was criticized from different angles by Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. Socialist conceptions (both anarchist and marxist, since the division between these two political philosophies would stem from their difference in appreciation of the role of the state) criticized the "formal liberties" explicated by the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which Marx called the "rights of the egoistic bourgeois". Marx argued that Civic rights such as freedom of expression were only abstract rights insofar as the material conditions to exercise them were not ensured."
Under Marxist communism, or socialism, the idea of individual liberty is once again subjegated to class roles, where the proletariat working class is deemed un-free because the ruling class of capitalists own all the rights over their lives. So to be truly free as a people, we need to be firstly equal as a people, which gave Communism its initial impetus for revolutionary reforms. However, what replaced the initial capitalistic inequality was a new institutional inequality where, contrary to the class equality envisioned by Marx, a new class rose to dominate over the people, the Communist Party. So once again the government was not representative of people's rights to their individual freedoms, but became an oppressor of the people instead. Mind how this harks back to a neo-divine 'right of kings', where those who questioned the Party were subject to arrest, imprisonment, and even execution. Millions died or suffered under this form of 'freedom' of equality, rather than freedom of the individual protected in his or her rights to be who they. The responsibility of freedom was shifted from the individual and the laws of Social Contract to the Communist government's Party, which in effect became the new 'king'. So wishing for freedom is not enough, because we have to be very mindful of what kind of freedom it is we want. Freedom and equality of opportunity is not the same as freedom of equality. We may be inherently unequal in our abilities, but we are all equal before the law as free human beings with equal opportunity.

I should note there was something unsatisfactory in Wiki's examination of freedoms: when I word searched for "agreement" I came up empty. And yet this is paramount for a true understanding of what it means to be a free human being in the modern sense, not the negative freedom from want, such as equality-freedom implies, but for a positive freedom of having the right to be who you are. This is a demand not from a mind in shackles, but a free mind that demands the right to think, to believe, and to be, as they are in their inner-most self identity; so it is a demand from a conscious mind. But a conscious mind cannot act unconsciously towards others, instead it must act responsibly towards others. This implies that a conscious mind demanding freedom must find agreement with others who seek the same, rather than coercing them into it, for if we are coerced, we are back to the starting point where our freedoms are once again negated. This is an inherent problem for all revolutions seeking freedom, is that in the end, as happened in Soviet Marxism, the result is merely another form of tyranny. So it is paramount that agreement is the operative cause for all revolutions of freedom, that the social contract has embodied in it the agreements, or constitutional laws, that both protect the individual from coercions, but also prevent individuals from forcing others against their agreement, i.e., coercion. Agreements must be not only firm, but firmly conscious of what it is we are agreeing upon, and then sealed with contractual laws that enforce that agreement once it is made. That is the only way to validate the right of the individual to maintain their right to their self's identity, the who they are, without violating their freedoms. Society can agree to whatever it wants, same as individuals can agree to whatever they want, but this is restricted by the condition that these agreements do not violate the rights of agreement of others, that such agreements to do coerce anyone who is not guilty of having broken the law. The law must be very clear on this, which is a pragmatic approach to freedom. Where it works, largely such as in western styled democratic societies, its results are phenomenal. Why? Because it validates the individual to be who they are, responsible for their actions, and encouraged to be as conscious minds in society. I should also note that this is still an idea that has not yet taken full root in any society, but one with which we are constantly struggling to bring it about. There is further discussion on this issue, of the conscious mind in a free society, in Habeas Mentem. The 'word given' is more important, as a condition of truth, than most of us realize: our given word defines who we are.

Why did I ask these questions on freedom here? I could have posed these same questions on the other discussion, on War, but felt it is more important to address freedom here, within Imperialism, because that is where it cannot exist, almost by definition. The Iranian students, and all who call for freedom for the people of Iran, must understand that their lack of freedom comes within the context of an Empire. Long ago, Persia was conquered by the Arab Muslim forces, and so had to surrender their indigenous civilization to that Arab Islamic imperialism. However, Persian culture did not submit entirely, and what resulted was a religious schism, between Shia and Sunni Islam, which has lasted to modern times. All this happened so long ago that it is not within the living memory of anyone today, but the results of this 'resistance' is still evident in the people of Iran. Persians laboring under the imperial yoke of Islamic theocratic rule made their peace with the conquest. Nevertheless, today's ayatollahs as representatives of Islam rule by 'divine right', so that holy scriptures of the Quran, understood as the word of God, dictates all aspects of both religious and political conditions. To gain freedom, the Iranian students must address this first, that there is a clear separation of church and state, or mosque and state, if they are to gain freedom in the sense that they are no longer subjects of a theocratic dictatorship, but have individual inalienable rights, to be who they are. That defines freedom in the modern democratic world of social agreements; otherwise, their only freedom allowed is that of ancient times, to find peace with their oppressors. You do not want the 'freedom' of a prisoner. So in choosing freedom, the students must be very aware, conscious, of what freedom it is they want, because freedom from want, or freedom of equality, is not what yields freedom of belief, or freedom or the right to be who you are. That freedom demands a conscious freedom from coercion. Coercions had been with us from the beginnings of human society, and to break these coercions, which is what freedom demands, can only become meaningful if the agreements between individuals are not overturned by religious dogma. Separation of the power of the mullahs from the powers inherent in a socially agreed upon government, which is constitutional laws and democracy, is paramount to insure that the freedoms you seek are those that will become reality. Otherwise, the end result will be a new theocracy that will once again rule by 'divine right' in the form of the Ayatollah and his government representatives. Is this what the students of Iran want, when they call for freedom? The issue is very complex, so they must be very clear on this, or they will end up with the same conditions we now see in Iraq. That would be a terrible trap to fall into, because that means the age old Islamic imperialism continues, and you may not be free. To gain Freedom, you must dismantle theocratic Imperialism, because that is an age old society built upon slavery.

Here is the prime directive of Freedom: You must break the 'divine rights' and act responsibly by agreement, and protect each individual from coercions, if you are to be free. Then Maryam Rajavi's dream can come true.

Personally, as a religious person, you may believe as you will. There is nothing wrong with Islam. God is everywhere, even in every breath you take, and so to do God's will is in every breath. But as mindfully conscious human beings, you must separate religious dogma from politics, or else you cannot be free.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 04:11 am:   

We are indeed a powerful and greedy empire. We are a empire of ideals! They too wish to create an empire of ideals. So in their best imitation, they seek with atrocity to enforce their will. Remember all Western-European-Christian nations and their subsequent colonies, developed through bloody warfare and exploitation of non-Christian peoples. This exploitation only lessoned when the ancestors of the exploited: 1. Became Christianized themselves. 2. Were able to navigate the complex legal systems put in place to check and restrain them. 3. Capitulated to conform and assimilate.

Look at the components of Sharia and Jihad listed above. Not too different from what happened in the past. Once upon a time, Christian Kings rationalized "Manifest Destiny" from their bible, and used that philosophy to enslave the world. Some Muslims are now doing the same thing 400 years later.

As Malcolm X once said, this is a case of "the chickens coming home to roost."

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 08:35 pm:   

"Islam Watch"

this looks like a nice place to post this if you are not familiar


for your forum discussion on Islam imperialism
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 09:33 pm:   


A very good posting and from the look of it an organization whose aims and objectives I support.

Muslims should be afforded only the same level of accomodation that any other religion is afforded. In Muslim culture caving in to demands is seen as a sign of weakness and a victory for them. Give them an inch and they take a yard, so to speak.

Unfortunately what the Islamics don't understand is that the "West" is reaching a point where it is growing tired of Islam and that should the Islamics continue to push the issue they will be met at all levels with a response they can not imagine.

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 11:08 am:   

Regarding 'Regime Change in Iran, per this post by Friendly.

Theocracy suffers from this one flaw, that 'God's messenger' is above the law, above the wishes of the people, and unyielding to change. Hence, such as is now happening in Iran, the imperialistic powers are becoming increasingly disconnected from the people despite their illusion of democratic endorsement.
"On the political front, the Iranian people feel increasingly disconnected from their religious leaders. The valy-e faqih is accountable to God and is above all politics; the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. ... It is difficult to live within the confines of "divine legitimacy" when it becomes clear that those who consider themselves God's messengers are themselves flawed. This is accentuated by the state's role in defining the Almighty. Hence in Iran the valy-e faqih are operating as the ultimate authority and accountable to nobody, least of all the general populace.[21] This gives Iranians a sense of helplessness and a need to somehow address their grievances. The longer the reconciliation is delayed, the greater the potential for violence and widespread civil unrest."

If the Iranian dissidents can successfully overthrow the coercive powers of their Council of Guardians, a theocratic power structure of the Ayatollah, then the Islamic imperialism established in Iran as its government can be stripped of its religious fanaticism to give the Iranian people a chance to government themselves by constitutional laws. Constitutional laws are those that protect the individual from coercion, both coercive actions of individuals as well as the state and its corrupt officials, so society can function upon the principles of its social agreements. Laws are made by human beings, even so called 'laws of God' are written by human beings, so there is no greater legitimacy to govern than when human beings agree to be governed, such as happens in a constitutional democratic state, even constitutional monarchy provided the monarch as head of state is not above the law. For Iran to strip itself of the Islamic theocratic imperialism tyranny, the people must be able to write their own social agreement to protect all individuals in society equally. The use of force in such laws is allowed the government for one purpose only, to validate the social agreement in protecting each individual from unjust coercions, by both the state and others. Can Iranians do this? How will change happen, peacefully or through bloody revolution? That depends upon how much power hungry are their mullahs, and how vigorously the people are willing to resist this power hunger. Imperial power survives on fear, much like it does in any criminal organization where fear rules from above, so all below must obey it. Thugs demand absolute loyalty from their gang members, this is universal. In a freedom based society, that fear is replaced with respect for the people by the state, and the people's respect and loyalty for their government in return. Can Iran do this? Will their mullahs help them seek this change, or will they be the enemy? We shall see.

The article ends on this note: "Regime change is accomplished by either a collapse or overthrow. Overthrow requires success in an internal war or conspiracy. Since these two options are difficult to foresee in Iran, regime collapse is the most viable option. Increasing reliance on the basiji and patronage has made co-option the bond between the ruling clerics and the enforcers. A serious downturn of the Iranian economy could cause an erosion of loyalty from the basiji, IRGC, and the military. Another factor seldom mentioned is the civil service which helps make the state governable. If significant numbers of civil servants go uncompensated for a prolonged period, acute paralysis may overcome Iran leading to the regime's collapse."

We shall see. It's in their hands.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 05:58 pm:   

I was just thinking, lying down in my soporific state, how the tragedy of all those Iraqi deaths today could have been avoided if the architects of regime change had given deeper thought to the Sunni-Shia divide. Did Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of invasion in Saddam's Iraq, understand this divide, and how violent it would be? Did the new president of the World Bank understand the religious implications, the violent retaliations, the imperial dogma of Mohammedism? Did he not understand the unyielding and unforgiving nature of a religion that dictates dominance of others by force, crafted by its 'messenger of God' into a force that self perpetuates its coercive imperial conquest ambitions, successful for 1400 years? Did he not understand the true nature of fanatical literal Islam in Iraq, or the Middle East, from Egypt to Lebanon to Iran?

Where were the experts to save this Iraqi disaster from happening? Or did they want this as a necessary price for the fall of Saddam's Baathist regime? Sad thoughts, but not as sad as the condemnable and unnecessary deaths. Can freedom ever come to the region if its architects are such failures? Do they even understand the threats to our freedoms from the cursed dogma of JIhad, where like zombies rushing to destruction, death means nothing? Do they have any idea how to dismantle 1400 years of imperialistic Islamic Jihad?

* * * * * * *
Hope all had a very happy Thanksgiving. We who live in freedom have much to be thankful for.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 04:16 pm:   

Why WW III is inevitable against Islamic 1400 years Imperialism.

Nobody wants war. The last thing anybody wants is to be under attack. We all want peace. We want to live joyful lives, enjoy the fruits of our labors, raise our families and watch our children grow, breathe the free air, enjoy the sunshine, take vacations, love each other, enjoy all the beautiful things life has to offer. Where there is war, these are put on hold until the peace returns. In a world of telecommunications, satellite television, internet, we can look in on how the rest of the planet lives, share with them ideas and feelings, exchange each others cultures freely, and enjoy the company of human beings throughout the planet. Peace makes this possible. But war will take it away, where the other person becomes the enemy, and for this enmity all will suffer. Nobody wants war, but it may be inevitable.

It is this same freedom of communications that makes this ultimate war inevitable. Two highly divergent worlds are being brought together into one network, one of freedom of thought and technological advancements against another of dogmatic repression to theocratic rule hostile to our freedoms. How can it be otherwise? On one hand you have freedom of expression, freedom of joy, while on the other hand you have strict obedience, restrictions of joy, restrictions of freedoms, where each person is only free to obey. The war is between slavery and coercion against the joyfulness of being free. There can be no agreement between these two worlds of freedom or slavery, of great human accomplishments or servile human repressions, where everyone who lives in this servile world suffers from a lack of freedom. Human beings need to be free to express themselves as God made human beings to express themselves within this living reality with the full joy of being alive. Repress that joy, and the world suffers, as it has for 1400 years within the domination of a philosophy of life that restricts freedoms and joy. It is inevitable, because human suffering is what defines evil, the evil things we do to each other to make the other suffer. Goodness is join in a common bond of happiness, of love for each other, of helpfulness; while evil will take this away, and then our common bond becomes suffering. It is inevitable that these two world must clash, especially now that with such sophisticated means of communications they are in contact as never before. The liberties and fruits of the free world are penetrating the repressions of a theocratic world suppressing human freedoms. People can see for themselves how the others live, and to see such joy and success of life's fruits of human freedoms forces them to think what is wrong with their own lives? Is it really the fault of the Americans and Jews that we are so miserable, they will think. Young people who had not been suppressed enough will think. Their minds had not yet been trodden into an accepting stupor where they dare not think. So young people are a threat to the theocratic dogmas of Islam imperialism, because they can still think. That is unacceptable, to have young minds think and see for themselves how lives the rest of the world, so this information must be suppressed. The free communications, which is now such a great threat to Islamic imperialism must be stopped. The freedoms they see must be stopped. And the only way to stop this flow of information successfully is to stop the freedoms of the West, where these things were born. It is inevitable, but the forces of Sharia theocratic imperialism must stop the West if it is to survive as a hold over the minds of their people. Mohammed's dogma must survive, at all cost, now, or it will forever fade into history as the world turns away from his demands for absolute submission and embrace freedom instead. It is inevitable.

In 1400 years of imperialism, Islam had never faced such an adversary before: Freedom. Never before such a free flow of information had ever threatened so much. The Mullahs know this threat too well, and they know that in order to preserve the Sharia controls over the minds of their Muslim men and women, they must not let this happen. Freedom cannot be allowed if total submission is to triumph, submission of the mind and soul over every individual to believe in only One God, as dictated by Mohammed. This is the tragedy they face, that their young men and women turn away from that One, and surf the net into another God, that of Freedom. This cannot be, so they must fight this with every breath they take, teach against freedom, turn inside out logic to show how freedom is wrong, that only submission to Allah is right, or they will lose their men and women forever. The Mullahs know this may be their last stand, and so with absolute force they must prevent this from happening, or else all will be lost, and Mohammed will be relegated to the dust heaps of history as another old myth. They cannot stand the thought of this, maddened by this possibility, and forcing their young to hate all that freedom stands for, that it is evil, that it will take them away from God. This is how desperate is that fight to preserve the submission legacy of Mohammed, that they will do evil, do suicidal Jihad bombings, to stop it from drifting towards freedom. And they know that if they do not succeed now, if they fail to overturn constitutional freedoms, if they fail to shut down the internet, if they fail to stop all those broadcasts of happiness in the free world, they are lost. They would lose control. The Mullahs know this deep in their hearts, that this may be the last chance they have to stop Freedom, or they will lose their power over their people forever. The planet will change, and their power will no longer rule over their submissive subjects, because those people would now find freedom. The horror, the horror, it must be stopped.

How will the young of Islam respond? Will they see the joys and successes of the free world as evil? Will they identify the suffering in their own world, the poverty and oppression of mind, the locks on internet access, the banning of music or theater or television and films, as a good? Or will they open their eyes and see their suffering itself as evil? We do not know the answer to this, because that answer is in their heads. They, and they alone, can stop the Mullahs power. Will they stop it? Or is war inevitable? How will the young men and women respond to the suppression of their freedoms? How will the Mullahs tighten their grip over the minds and hearts to suppress them totally into submission? How will this conflict between control and freedom be resolved within the Empire of 1400 years of Islam? These are very big questions, and from the Mullahs's point of view, Jihad against the West is the answer. Will this also be the answer for the young of Islam? Yes and no. Those who will side with Sharia controls over the minds and hearts of men and women, they will embrace Jihad, because they know they must force others to see what they see, that without strict obedience to Mohammed, the world of Freedom emerges triumphant. Those who reject the sharp theocratic controls over their minds will side with Freedom, but unless they are safeguarded from the coercions that force them to obey Sharia, and Mohammed's war code of submission to fight for Allah, Jihad, then they will be crushed. The Mullahs will crush them, same as they crushed them in Iran when the students demanded more freedom. This is the reality the young men and women whose hearts turn to freedom, to the joys of life as free human beings, to a life where doing God's will is a joyous gift to all humanity, those freedom loving people will be crushed. The 1400 years Imperialism demands that they obey, or are punished for wanting their freedoms, if Mohammed is to survive as a legitimate power based structure for the Mullahs to rule. How will the young respond?

This is why war, WW III, is inevitable, because the Mullahs will not surrender under any conceivable scenario their power. They cannot under any reasonable argument, or any circumstance, ever accept that free human beings are doing the Will of God. To their minds, the only way to do Allah's will is through strict obedience to Sharia. Think what this means: If you support Sharia, you are calling for war, because the right to believe that you are doing God's Will through freedom is forbidden to you. Slavery to Allah must win, and under no circumstance may people be allowed that God wants them to be free, joyful, successful, intelligently achieving human beings. That is dangerous to the powers of the Empire, and it had been powerful for 1400 years. Do not think they can release their hold on power easily, but will fight it with every once of strength they have. They must win, or else God's Freedom will rule the Earth, and that cannot be. The Mullahs have no choice, they must do Jihad. God cannot be allowed to let human beings the freedom to believe as they want to believe in their hearts, but instead they must believe as they are told to believe. Anyone can believe as they wish in Freedom, but they cannot believe that their belief must be forced on another, for that is against God. The Mullahs have no option but to war against such a belief, so must do Jihad. This is their last chance, or all will be lost, so they must go to war with the West. There is no other option, except for the West to surrender their freedoms to them, or the Empire is lost. Can the West do this? Can we who are free surrender our freedoms of doing God's Will as He gave us the freedom of mind to do this? Or do we have to fight back against this massive coercion of tyranny of the mind of man and woman by the Imperial powers of Islamic Jihad? But if we fight back, is this not war? If we surrender, is this not the death of God's Freedom? Which do we choose, slavery to Allah, or freedom for God? How will the West choose? And if we choose Freedom, how can war be avoided, or is it inevitable?

The tragedy of this new worldwide phenomenon, this contest between freedom and submission to a theocratic rule, is that the Mullahs are forced to side with evil. They have no choice. They cannot under any circumstance side with the freedom of belief. To do so would be that they would embrace joy, and a happiness in life that would take away their control of the Empire. Free people generate a life on Earth like none ever experienced before, but that is a total threat to the demands of absolute submission to Mohammed's Allah. To be a slave of Allah, as Mohammed demanded 1400 years ago, means that you must fight for him, be ready to sacrifice for him, and stop anyone else from doing otherwise. You as a slave of Allah cannot allow freedom to rule anywhere. There can be no freedom of belief, no freedom of expression, no freedoms of art and passion, no freedom of inquiry, ever. These must be suppressed to maintain control. The suffering that results from this control is the price you must pay to keep the Mullahs in power. That is evil. So the Mullahs must of necessity side with evil, because they can never side with freedom without losing what they cherish most of all in this world: Power. The power to force submission, to tax, to punish, to kill, to act in every conceivable way as government, to do God's will only as governed by Sharia. This is the power to enslave for Allah, and it cannot be surrendered to the West with its new inventions, its universal freedoms and human rights, its instant communications, and all the sins that freedom brings to human beings. They cannot have the freedom to explore, to make mistakes, to correct mistakes and learn from them, to be who they are. That is not allowed in the Empire, and it has served the Empire well for centuries, so it is too dangerous to let people be free. For the Mullahs, freedom is dangerous, and thus evil. But to God, freedom is who we are, and evil is the suffering when freedom is denied. So the Mullahs must side with evil, of necessity. From this manifests war, Jihad against the infidels, suicidal killings, stonings of those who disobey, or beheadings. These evil things the Empire must enforce, of necessity, or Mohammed's Allah cannot claim its slaves of pure submission. This is their un-holy quest, that they force us all into submission, that we must not argue, but surrender. Will the West surrender?

The war is inevitable. The West will not surrender its freedoms, because the right to be free, to be who you are, is a God given right, even if many in the Western world had forgotten this. It matters not what they believe, as long as they have the right to believe as free human beings in pursuit of their personal lives, their happiness, their well being, and their love for one another without coercions. The West will not surrender these, even if it does not really understand why it is fighting the Jihad coercions of Sharia. The more the Mullahs hold back their people from freedom, the harder will be the fight, not only by those of us who live in the fruits of freedom, but also from those within Islam who want the fruits of freedom. Anyone is free to believe in Mohammed's God as they will, but they cannot impose that belief justifiably on anyone else without violating the most important rule of logic: you cannot prove belief with belief. The only proof of belief is what is in your heart, and that is where it belongs. No one is allowed to coerce that belief from your heart into the heart of another. Islamic Jihad for the Empire is wrong. Thus, WW III is inevitable, because we must fight against the evils of forced belief. Same as we fought, and won, against Hitler's Nazism, and against Marxist Communism, so must we fight and win against this new aggression over the mind of man, and woman. We must fight against Islamic Imperialism. The Jihad Sharia is attacking us, and we must win. We who are free human beings under God have no choice: we must win. It will either be a bloody fight if the Mullahs continue with forcing their power, or it will be the fall of the Islamic Empire without bloodshed, if the young men and women of Islam win. Either way, our God given Freedom is the future of the planet: Freedom will win. Because this is Who we as free human beings, under God. Look at yourself, look around, this is Who we are. Look into your heart: this is Who God created.

God knows best. We will win. And God will rule with Peace on Earth.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 06:00 pm:   

Religious justification for imperialism. This is the new manifest destiny! The question is, how long will the rest of the world tolerate it?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 07:57 pm:   

A note to our friend Mohideen.

Dear Mohideen, please do not be offended by my post above on WW III, that is is inevitable, but accept it in the spirit of philosophical discussion. The point I want to make is that perhaps this great war is not inevitable, but I cannot see how it cannot be, short of surrendering our freedom of choice, what defines us as free human beings, to the power structure of Sharia law. Am I wrong? I beg for you to consider this with great depth, because I am fearful that we are facing a war, of necessity, based upon the reality of how things are now inside the world of Islam. Please prove me wrong, that there will be no war. I am not a war monger, and desire peace between the cultures of freedom in the West and the cultures of submission in the East. I desire this peace very much, that we can all live in peace together, enjoying all the bounty our Earth can provide to humanity. But I also know that if this war comes, God help us.

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

Posted on Sunday, November 26, 2006 - 06:47 pm:   

Some want Shari'ah the law of the land in the world and US of A.


Sample quotes from Muslim Village forum, Australian:

"please endeavor to keep the discussion in this thread about the methodlogy for achieving the comprehensive implementation of Islam (and related matters), which, for everyone's benefit, requires, as a minimum:

- The Muslim lands to be united, without any borders;
- The law applied in these lands is to be the Shari'ah, which requires the implementation of the Islamic economic/educational/social/judicial/political systems;
- The security of these lands to be in the hands of the Muslims.

These we may call the ultimate or overall objectives, for which the Ummah, as an Ummah, is accountable in front of Allah.

We need lawyers, doctors, accountants, merchants, politicans.. we can't just claim that Allah is on our side and that there is 1.8 Billion Muslims around the world and that we can take on the USA and all those tyranic rulers. No matter how vastly we may outnumber them, faith is the biggest issue of it all.

I wasnt really talking about revolution. The lack of co-operation that im talking about is undermining of the system through legal loopholes.

The khilafa can only work when the system and the people have trust with each other. When the majority of people are willing to obey the laws of Allah out of fear of Allah before fear of the Caliph... and the scoundrels are few...
You cant behead and whip half the country, which is what would happen to a current khilafa...

so ideally i'm hypothetically asking, isn't the culturing and interaction phase well past and over? don't you think that the majority of muslims recognise the "obligation" to live under divine law (and the fardul khifaya of needing to work for revival using a correct idea and method), if not here in Australia then surely in the muslim lands like Palestine and Pakistan.

The enormity of the task shouldn't dazzel us, for it is an obligation, a fard- a task that needs to be sincerely attempted with the intention of fulfilling it with the proper method and victory is promised regardless.

The real work is in fact in the Muslim world (the big medina pre-establishment of the State if you like) and those living in the West (abasynnia under Negas if you like) part of the same Ummah and must be a part of the work in their Islamic capacity- again borrowing from the seerah. When the public opinon is thoroughly changed towards Islam in a particular Muslim country, the governments will fall as it did in Yathrib, later known as Medina- without any bloodshed. This is the method of the Prophet.

Now, you can call this (seeking military support to establish authority for Islam in place of the existing government) a coup (and in modern political science terminology it is) but as far as we are concerned the governments in the Muslim world have no legimtmate authority in the first place."


If you think there is no Islamic empire with an agenda to take over the West, stop deluding yourself. They are here and they want to rule by their Ummah Khalifah, sincerely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, November 26, 2006 - 07:52 pm:   

Wow anym, what a find. Something like your post re Muslim village was mentioned earlier in a post above: "Islam Watch" with similar ideas of taking over for the caliphate and ummah by legal means, and not just violence. Changing a country's legal system to recognize special preference for Sharia law for family matters seems to be a start for them, and then keep pushing for more and more concessions, until the legal system is sufficiently undermined, or their demographic numbers are large enough, where they could push for a full change of law into Sharia. None of us who are sane and intelligent want a Taliban like government to replace our Jeffersonian democracy, it's too silly an idea to be taken seriously. But there are those who do, and are dead serious about it. They want to spread their Islamic Empire all the way around the globe. I guess in the end, if in their dreams they succeeded, it would all look like Afghanistan or Somalia. This of course, now that Freedom exists in our world, it can never be allowed to happen, ever. As free human beings, our service to God is on a much higher order of magnitude than their primitive ideology of the 7th century, and I do not think anyone, whether or not they are consciously aware of it, are ready to give up the 21st century for the 7th. The Ujmmah caliphate is outdated, imperialistic, coercively primitive, and simply wrong. It would be the death of a planet, a Dark Age that woul last a thousand years or longer. They can scheme and plot all they like, it can never be allowed to go anywhere. We must be highly vigilent against this regressive force of Islamic imperialism.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, November 26, 2006 - 09:19 pm:   

Calls for calm as crowd stones Iraq PM


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The motorcade of Iraq's prime minister was pelted with stones on Sunday by fellow Shi'ites in a Baghdad slum when he paid respects to some of the 200 who died there last week in the deadliest attack since the U.S. invasion.

The situation in Iraq is on the brink of spiraling out of control. In this dog fight they fight over the bones of a nation for control of its destiny, which if the Jihadists had their way would lead it back to a new dark age.

The Jihadists are playing a deep game and as our Australian friend posted conspiring to use our laws against us as well as attack us directly.

We are now engaged in WWIII with a fith column active in the rear area, masked by the cloak of religous freedom.

In this fight we defenders of the constitution of the United States that our ancestors wrote will accept no abridgment of the rights enshrined in it.

Islamic Imperialism has yet to meet the full force and fury of the technological west. Should it be unleased the world would tremble at the forces that would be brought to bear.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 12:17 am:   

Unfortunately the use of our technological power upon them will only create martyrs at this point, only serve to villify us further in their eyes.

Most likely the atrocities must continue in order for other Muslims to wake up and regulate these jihadists. Or perhaps this is simply the battle of ideals for our time, and confrontation the inevitable cost we must pay in order to determine what type of human beings we want our future generations to become.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 10:02 am:   

Political Islam is a 'bedouinized' heresy, Dr. Soheib Bencheikh speaks out.

'Islam Must Be Criticized, Just as Christianity Was [Criticized] During the Enlightenment; Islam is a Message for All Humanity – Therefore It Is Not the Property of Muslims [Alone]'

The former grand Mufti of Marseilles speaks out:
""The first heresy in Islam in the 20th century was the politicization of Islam. As soon as Muslim countries became independent came the birth of political Islam - i.e. a kind of Islam that is dictated by the state, obeys only the state, and is merely an organ of the state - since it helps the state to increase its power and oppress the people..."
That's right. Once a religion is politicized, it stops being a religion, which is heresy for that religion. This is the problem of today's (and yesteryear's) interpretation of Islam. There is nothing wrong with believing in Islam, provided it is a matter of the heart and mind, and not political force. The violence of Islam is not from this believing in one's heart, but from its being politicized into a violoent force, where this makes it into a Mohammedan war-cult. Peaceful Islam is what criticism of 'violent Islam' is all about.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 03:39 pm:   

We make a grave mistake. Political Islam is the twisting of Islam to suit the ruler. One such twist is to claim that the Muslims should suffer in silence if a ruler is unjust. This twist favors the ruler and not Islam.

If one looks at the first four Caliphs, they were controlled by Islam and Islam was known to the population. One example is given in the URL below. Notice that Caliph Umar, Allah be pleased with him, accepts the evidence and does not punish the individual for the disrespect shown.

http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=called+went+away+bring&trans lator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&submit22=Search

So there is nothing wrong in Islam being the law of a land. What is wrong is the population becoming ignorant and obeying men instead of the Divine Law.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 07:45 pm:   

BTW, follow up on my post WW III is inevitable: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=2518#POST2518

I said: "The free communications, which is now such a great threat to Islamic imperialism must be stopped. The freedoms they see must be stopped. And the only way to stop this flow of information successfully is to stop the freedoms of the West, where these things were born. It is inevitable, but the forces of Sharia theocratic imperialism must stop the West if it is to survive as a hold over the minds of their people." Now, isn't it a strange coincidence, beautiful really, in what Iran proposed to do: http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/11081/
"Government of Iran is limiting the download speeds of Internet to keep its younger generation away from outside influences that can undermine its Islamic culture. The service providers in the country have been instructed to restrict download speed to 128 Kbps. It will make the download of foreign music and video from Internet difficult.
Probably, upload speeds have also been restricted but the figures are not out yet. Restrictions on upload capacity will bother those groups and organizations most who want to oppose the government's move as it will become difficult for them to put their views onto the site. Limitation on the speed of Internet is an aftermath of a clampdown on illicit satellite dishes that were used by Millions of Iranians to watch western programmes on TV. In last some months, thousands of satellite dishes have been nabbed. The experts wonder on government's belief that it is doing right by cutting off its natives from outside world."

Did I call it, or what? They can't stand the idea of having their people the freedom to learn of the outside world. The theocratic mullahs will do what ever it takes to keep them ignorant and obedient to their coercive rule. It's beautiful, so classic, pure coercion in the name of their god of Islamic imperial power, a god that hates our freedoms. They are so predictable, ignorance is valued over intellect for their superstitious god of fear and punishments, and ignorance.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 08:02 pm:   


So there is nothing wrong in Islam being the law of a land. What is wrong is the population becoming ignorant and obeying men instead of the Divine Law.

Mohideen, this is intellectually dishonest. Men write laws. Men write holy books. Men write holy scriptures. Men did all this. Keep God out of it, for otherwise it is blasphemy. You, men, wrote down the words in the Koran. Mohammed was a man, his words were the words of man, and written down by men, so get over it. Be intellectually honest for once! Don't you understand that once you politicize God's word you are committing a grand blasphemy? How can we get it through your head? It is a major offense to God to have men speak for him! Get it?

The only Divine Law is that God is the Universe in which we live and die. All else is man's word. If you do not respect God's work in the life of another human being, if you coerce them instead, how can your words even be close to God? When you cease to respect God's work, your are failing God, and that is blasphemy, perhaps a sin (in your language), and only in Freedom can we actually respect the works of God. Your coercive ideology is not God, maybe even shaitan (in your language) but definitely NOT God.

You can believe whatever you want, worship Allah or Mohammed as you wish, but DO NOT POLITICIZE IT! Remember something I wrote long ago on another thread?

"Once you coerce, you are failing to do God's will."

Do you understand it now? If not, put it back in your pocket and think about it some more.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 08:25 pm:   

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/86849.php/Musharraf-to-sign-Womens-Protection-Bil l--on-November-30
Islamabad, Nov.28 (ANI): Pakistan President Musharraf will sign the Women's Protection Bill after its passage from the two houses on November 30.

… The bill, if passed, will dramatically reform the rape laws of Pakistan. The rape laws were passed by former dictator Zia ul Haq in 1979 under the auspices influence of the religious fundamentalist establishment.

The laws of 1979 required a woman to produce four male witnesses to substantiate her charge of being raped. If she is unable to put forth the witnesses she herself is liable for adultery (and can be imprisoned or put to death for adultery).

The requirement that a woman produce four male witnesses to substantiate her charge of being raped is not part of Islam.

Tradition numbered 1012 in Al-Tirmidhi Hadith found in ALIM CD reads as follows:
Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr
When a woman was forced against her will in the time of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) he avoided punishing her but inflicted it on the one who had molested her. The transmitter did not mention that he had appointed a dower to be paid to her.
Tirmidhi transmitted it.

The above Tradition establishes the fact that a molested woman is not to be punished. Since the molester was punished either he confessed or there were four male eye witnesses. Let us take the case where there were four eye witnesses. Would these eye witnesses remained silent and watching if the woman had called for help? Understanding the nature of the Companions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, they would have fought to free the woman. So if there were four eye witnesses the woman must have remained silent. Then how does one conclude that she was molested? The following Tradition demonstrates the importance of the woman’s statement when it concerns sex involving her.

The following URL has 7 Traditions all meaning the same with slight variation in words. Because of the importance of the topic under discussion, along with the URL I quote the first Tradition also.

http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=confessed+stoned+year&transl ator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&submit22=Search
Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani: A bedouin came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's apostle! I ask you by Allah to judge My case according to Allah's Laws." His opponent, who was more learned than he, said, "Yes, judge between us according to Allah's Laws, and allow me to speak." Allah's Apostle said, "Speak." He (i .e. the bedouin or the other man) said, "My son was working as a laborer for this (man) and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that it was obligatory that my son should be stoned to death, so in lieu of that I ransomed my son by paying one hundred sheep and a slave girl. Then I asked the religious scholars about it, and they informed me that my son must be lashed one hundred lashes, and be exiled for one year, and the wife of this (man) must be stoned to death." Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to be returned to you, your son is to receive a hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. You, Unais, go to the wife of this (man) and if she confesses her guilt, stone her to death." Unais went to that woman next morning and she confessed. Allah's Apostle ordered that she be stoned to death. (Book #50, Hadith #885)

Notice that in the above case the male was punished for illegal sex while the female was not punished even though the male has had illegal sex with her. She was punished only on her confession.

A female under attack could be terrified and might not raise an alarm. Thus when a female says that she was molested she would not receive punishment for illegal sex. However her accusation on a male would not result in any punishment on him unless there are four reliable eye witnesses or he confesses.

Contrast the real Islamic law with the one passed in Pakistan in 1979. Ignorance of Islam by the masses is the real problem.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 09:39 am:   

Keep God out of it, for otherwise it is blasphemy.
Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 08:02 pm: Ivan

In response, I quote the Revered Pope Benedict XVI.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/ hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061128_pres-religious-affairs_en.html
Freedom of religion, institutionally guaranteed and effectively respected in practice, both for individuals and communities, constitutes for all believers the necessary condition for their loyal contribution to the building up of society, in an attitude of authentic service, especially towards the most vulnerable and the very poor.

Muslims as a community believe that the Holy Quran is the Word of God. Why do you deny us that freedom of faith? To claim the Holy Quran as Word of God is not blasphemy but TRUTH!

Jihad itself is to serve the vulnerable and the poor. Please read my post on Jihad in my web: http://deentech.com/MI_IC_Jihad.aspx

The concept of Jihad as understood from the Holy Quran is the same as the one given by the Revered Pope Benedict XVI.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 10:17 am:   

Faith vs. 'politicized faith'.


Muslims as a community believe that the Holy Quran is the Word of God. Why do you deny us that freedom of faith? To claim the Holy Quran as Word of God is not blasphemy but TRUTH!

Mohideen, no one would deny you the right to believe in God as Truth. That is your belief, no question about it. Look again at what I said above:
"Don't you understand that once you politicize God's word you are committing a grand blasphemy?"...
"You can believe whatever you want, worship Allah or Mohammed as you wish, but DO NOT POLITICIZE IT! Remember something I wrote long ago on another thread?

"Once you coerce, you are failing to do God's will."

The Muslim community may believe their prophet gave them God's word all they want. But what they may not do is politically act as if God's word applies to anyone else but those who believe.

There is a difficulty here, because according to Mohammed's Koran, 9:5 and 9:29, he is 'speaking for God-Allah' by telling Muslims they must act 'politically' by force to SUBDUE the non-believers (of his words), which is advocating political force. By doing this, he is calling upon Muslims to judge others (as either believers or infidels), and to govern them by punishing them with the use of governmental force (kill them or take them as slaves, or forced conversion), so Mohammed POLITICIZED God's word. Once you do this, you cannot be speaking for God, because no man, not even Mohammed, can act as 'God on Earth'. Is this such a difficult concept for Muslims to understand? There's the difficulty, that Muslims keep insisting they be allowed the 'community' to act according to Mohammed's alleged 'word of God', but in doing so, since his words are inherently coercive, they then as Muslims presume to act for God. That's BLASPHEMY! You can act according to your Mohammedan teachings explicit only within the realm of your own heart, what you do to yourself, according to what you believe; BUT you cannot act like this towards anyone else outside your realm of the heart, towards other people, without being blasphemous. Then you are coercing.

What is the world's biggest complaint with Islam today? Jihad, imperialistic acts of force and terrorism towards those deemed by the Arab faith of Islam that we are 'infidels'. How dare they judge us!!! That is the coercion I am referring to. We may be so much more holy in the eyes of God than any Muslim judgment of us, whether not Muslims call us 'infidels', as free men and women. When we do not coerce others, but do things through agreement with others, nay, even with love for others, then we are holy in the eyes of God, as respectful creations of God, where we respect one another as creatures of God. That is what I'm talking about, and Islam fails here.

What you need to do is DE-POLITICIZE your religion, that Islamic community you cherish as the 'word of God' according to Mohammed. But that causes a problem, since now you can no longer do Jihad against the so-called infidels who are not of your faith, as Mohammed dictated. This is entirely a Muslim problem, but do not bring it to our doorstep with attacks, terrorism, suicide bombings, hate for this or that, death to them and those, and all the other odious practices of coercion against people, especially against women with so-called 'honor' killings, sexual mutilations, wife beatings, etc. Maybe Mohammed brought a progressive idea to the desert Arabs of the 7th century, where coercing and enslaving was normal, but it is no longer progressive today, in fact it is horribly regressive. Do not hope to institute Sharia in our modern age, because that is not only coercive to human freedoms, but it is blasphemous against God (because the word of man is speaking for God), it seeks to establish a government according to this blasphemous idea (of men acting for God), and most of all, your Sharia being coercive to others (acting as a government speaking for God) is failing us human beings in doing God's will. Only as free human beings can humanity be the holy beings God created. Anything less is Arab Jihad imperialism. Do you understand this?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 02:03 pm:   

You can act according to your Mohammedan teachings explicit only within the realm of your own heart, what you do to yourself, according to what you believe; BUT you cannot act like this towards anyone else outside your realm of the heart, towards other people, without being blasphemous. Then you are coercing.
Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 10:17 am: Ivan

Ivan, you are restricting the freedom of action just to the individual; the Revered Pope has included the community. That has been the basic contention between us.

I quoted the practice of ‘Sati’ in one of the posts. It is a Hindu custom adopted by some Hindu communities. The British banned that practice, which to me is coercion.

If Muslims as a community stone a married person for having committed illegal sex either on the strength of own confession or on the strength of four reliable witnesses, that community is acting on its faith. Do you agree? As per your definition of freedom of action, the Muslim community cannot stone the above guilty to death. Because then as per your definition the Muslims are acting on behalf of God. Am I right in understanding you?

If Muslims who are forbidden to marry the daughter of own sister impose that rule and separate a Hindu and his wife who happens to be his own sister’s daughter that is coercion. A community following the tenets of its faith within itself is not coercion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 03:39 pm:   

A true believer in any faith would simply let their God take care of the situations mentioned above. If God is indeed the judge of all actions, let him dole out consequences, for once men judge and hand down sentences, then God is removed from the equation.

Surely Allah did not call for stonings and killings. These were practices from before Mohammed's time. The community has no right to act in Allah's name! Thus we must choose between the laws of men or man's interpretation of God's laws?

In reality laws are enforced by those who hold the power to enforce them. In most countries that is the government, chosen by the people. If the majority of people in a land choose Sharia then Sharia it is. If, however, you live in a country whose laws don't include it, then don't expect it to be a right.

I don't see why this is even an argument.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 06:01 pm:   

Naive, you have missed the point. Please read Ivan's postings. He does not accept community can enforce common laws.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 07:51 pm:   

I realize what Ivan is saying. My point is, the law of the land is the law of the land.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 08:15 pm:   

Le me clarify, in yours Mohideen:


Ivan, you are restricting the freedom of action just to the individual; the Revered Pope has included the community. That has been the basic contention between us.

I am refering to freedom at the most common basic denominator: the individual human beings.
Why? 1. we are born as one human being, we die as one human being. 2. we as a community are made up of individual human beings in agreement to form community, or made up of individual human beings enslaved into community against our will, coerced. 3. we enjoy life as one human being, or we suffer pain as one human being. 4. we contribute to life as one human being, or we fail in life as one human being. 5. we understand ideas as one human beings, or we do not understand as one human being. 6. we obey laws as one human being, or we disobey laws as one huma being. 7. we agree as one human being or we are coerced against our agreement as one human being. To do as Mohideen, and Islam wants, to put community as basis for legal human freedoms rather than the individual is to do everything in reverse order. But that seems to be how the Muslim mind works in its invertted twisted logic.

As Naive said, why is this even an argument?

Here is something else that came up regarding Islamic law and Democratic freedoms: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014245.php
" The American Founding Fathers, too, were skeptical of "democracy" in the meaning of unconstrained direct democracy, which they, like Plato, perceived could quickly disintegrate into mob rule. They outlined a constitutional Republic with indirect, representative democracy defined by a constitution. Citizens would be governed by the rule of law, thus protecting the minority from abuse and the potential tyranny of the majority. John Adams defined this as "a government of laws, and not of men." "
This has been a long debate, as to what is freedom: Is it democracy or is it laws that protect our rights from coercions? Mohideen does not understand this distinction, I suspect. Regardless, it is not Sharia law that is compatible with human freedoms; rather Shria is the inverted twisted opposite of freedom, that's certain.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 10:02 pm:   

In many ways the New Imperialism has less to do with land and more to do with control of perceived personal freedom. Political and religious systems usually did not survive in the past unless they could maintain the status quo. In the past monarchs could be assured, children of peasants would also become peasants, thus providing them with workers to fuel their economies. And of course they had wars and colonialism to fill their coffers.

So too religious groups had a stranglehold on salvation and interpretation of divine words. Thus it was easy to keep membership and strength through numbers.

Now it seems the agenda is more about shaping the thought process in order to control the economic production of citizens, the development of potential willing and loyal soldiers, and maintaining (within the masses) a state of satisfaction with the present state of available freedoms. In other words, an Imperialism of the Mind.

What is interesting, is that for the most part the public doesn't seem to mind as long as their illusion of happiness is maintained. But woe unto those who are trying to dismantle our illusion. At any moment our government can unleash the cultural trigger that will push the nation toward devastating action.

I suppose this too is the idea behind Orwell's "1984", the film "V for Vendetta", and even Mohideen's conspiracy theories. Whatever is the truth behind the matter, it is a far more sophisticated game than those who are attempting to grab their own piece of our pie, know how to play. Worse still I think these enemies underestimate the willingness of the American people to let their leadership play this game in order to maintain our freedoms.

This I think is the true meaning of our freedoms: that we are willing to part with some of them, in order to maintain the concept as a whole.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 07:35 pm:   

even Mohideen's conspiracy theories.
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 10:02 pm: Naive

Could you please enlighten me about the conspiracy theories attributed to me? I am at a loss.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 07:43 pm:   

Citizens would be governed by the rule of law, thus protecting the minority from abuse and the potential tyranny of the majority.
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 08:15 pm: Ivan

That is exactly what is done in Islam; we perform Jihad to help the oppressed.

The only difference is the US Constitution was written by the founding fathers while the Holy Quran was given by God Almighty as far as Muslims are concerned.

We have a set of laws as you have. I fail to see how obeying one set of laws is freedom while obeying another set of laws is slavery?

Don't forget that outside the Arabian Peninsula the apostate can live. So there is no compulsion to obey the Holy Quran. If someone prefers man made laws to God given laws he is free to leave the religion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 09:50 pm:   


That is exactly what is done in Islam; we perform Jihad to help the oppressed.

Takkiya, intellectual dishonesty. Jihad, per you leader Mohammed talking from the grave 1400 years ago, is to spread his idea of what is your faith of Islam, by force and coercion agains the infidels. Sorry, we no longer believe you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 09:57 pm:   

Freedom, from six months ago: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=6&post=618#POST618

Mohideen, we had done around this one over and over again with absolutely no progress. You insist that God's word is your law; we insist men wrote those laws. So what's the point! You, nor your religion, have absolutely no intrinsic value of freedom. Where in your teachings, surahs, hadiths, etc. does it address human freedoms? Where does it show doing God's will as free human beings? It DOESN'T!!!

Give it up. Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 12:10 pm:   

WARNING POSTED: Ideas intolerant of freedom, anti-freedom ideology, is not tolerated here, will be checked or deleted.

Remember on what premise Humancafe was established, on the 'evolution of human consciousness', from the Humancafe home page:

"You are cordially invited to participate in the celebration of the evolution of human consciousness with your ideas. Our hearts and mind had been awakening a long time, and now we are entering into the most exciting period of our historical experience.
Just like the Web on which you read these words, we are uniting into a global cultural entity with a new total awareness. As each one of us throughout the planet awakens to this, we create a new paradigm for what our future will hold."

Now compare this with what was written on Humancafe forum about a year ago:
"ON TOLERANCE: At what point is Tolerance overcome with Coercion?

I think of Tolerance as a gift of goodwill towards our fellow human beings. But if this gift is squandered by the other, then why extend it further? Coercion squanders this goodwill, so Tolerance as a social imperative is limited by the other's intolerance, which is coercive, and cannot be tolerated by any modern civilized society that respects the individual. Our human rights are based on this Tolerance, but it is checked at the point where coercive behavior makes it null and void. What Islam is facing today, philosophically, is whether or not they are prepared to find Tolerance within their holy scriptures and teachings of their Messenger from God. If they cannot, then they are squandering the gift of our Tolerance, and thus must be checked. Firstly, however, they must become aware that they are doing this, because it seems that at this point, with their supremacist philosophy of conquest, they remain unawares. So discussions like this, or in the popular literature, is a first step."
(see bottom of page "When is Coercion Necessity-2?")
So when Mohideen Ibramsha, and all others in the world, propose ideas that are intolerant of tolerance, intolerant of other's freedoms, then they must be checked or deleted.

Freedom is something that is universal to our common humanity. It does not draw lines of distinction between races, or borders, or sex. We all who are alive and have a personal identity of who we are desire to be free. Even animals will resist being caught and encaged. But there is a form of ideology that will counter-freedom successfully, at least amongst its adherents who subscribe to their ideologies, in that it tells its members it is right to coerce others for their ideological beliefs: Communism, Nazism, Islamic-Jihad, Kali Cult, Voodoo, Satanism, etc; where these ideologies politicize their members's beliefs into action against others for their own benefits. This means that the other's freedoms are negated, disqualified as valid to them, and overturned with impunity by those who coerce in the name of their ideology because they say it is superior, the best, God-given, or however validated in their own minds that they are the supreme ideology, and therefore have rights over all those who do not understand it or agree with them. Theirs is to voluntarily accept belief in these ideologies, because they are convinced they are right, so they feel they have the right to stop others from believing otherwise, which is their self declared 'power'. Now, when this happens, the natural freedoms we are all born into become abrogated by this aggressively intolerant ideology, and even to argue against them, to fight for our freedoms is used against us: they then call us intolerant. That is simply a power play against our freedoms. Therefore, arguments against this ideological coercion fall into a constant pattern of protecting our right to be who we are, our freedoms, from those who keep insisting that we are not free as we think, but that we must subscribe to their ideology instead, which happens to be an ideology that is anti-freedom. For example, how tolerant are Muslims towards their offsprings the Bahai's? Yet, both claim to be speaking with the word of God, though only one persecutes the other. Why is that? Which is tolerant of freedom and which is not?

This is most sinister, and why Mohideen Imbramsha employs his religion's intolerant ideology on a regular basis since his appearance on the Humancafe discussion, to use our tolerance for ideas against us in order to convince us to his intolerant idea of Sharia-Jihad-Islamic world government is for all humankind without borders. The ideology he is pushing here is not only intolerant of other's beliefs, but it is intolerant of other's consciousness of mind, of reason. Mohideen does this under the disguise of 'reason' but it is not reasonable, and here is why: You cannot employ reason, a function of human consciousness, to promote the opposite of human consciousness, where reason is intolerantly forbidden to be used to gain greater human consciousness, without forcing people into confusion, unreasonableness, mental enslavement, and ultimately human unconsciousness. You cannot use freedom of ideas to stop freedom of ideas, because that is inherently of necessity a contradiction. That contradiction is against the universe, against human progress, against human conciousness and reason, and no matter what god told you to do this, whether it is some devilish god, or some biblical god, or some mohamedan god, you may not negate reason with reason into non-reason, because that is intolerant of the other's freedom of belief, freedom of reason, and freedom of being who they are; in effect, it is using reason to coerce the other into mental slavery. Is this understandable to you, Mohideen? No one else on these forums ever attempted what you are attempting to do, and that is why all ideas here are welcome, even graffiti; but your idea to promote an idea that is against reasonable freedoms is coercive, and such coercion is stopped. You are hence doing 'jihad' of mind on the Humancafe forums, which is coercive, and because we are dedicated here to promoting freedoms rather than coercions, your posts will be checked, and if necessary deleted henceforth.

Same as you may not promote your religious beliefs to convert others to your religious beliefs, you may not promote Jihad-Sharia as a legitimate form of government without invalidating our freedom of belief. You may not use the bony hand of your prophet to reach in time 1400 years to promote his coercive ideology of Jihad against the infidels, those whom you deem are either ignorant or resisting to your ideology, and force them into that ideology through the political process, or even violence. You may not advocate such a political process anymore than we would allow anyone to promote Nazi supremacy ideology on these boards. You cannot post ideas that restrict our tolerance of each other's freedoms, without being intolerant yourself, which is a contradiction meant to confuse your opponents into accepting your 'right to coerce' and trespass against us, as your prophet commanded you to do. That is what represents Islamic-Jihad-Sharia, that your laws are meant to convert us into obedient 'slaves of Allah', which may suit your belief system, but it may not be politicized into a discussion of ideas, not here. Otherwise, if we allow you to do this here, we are allowing coercion to become acceptable as an idea against which we are not allowed to resist, which means our freedoms are subdued and subjugated to your ideas of ideologically acceptable coercion, as your prophet used against his enemies. This is a pure power play, not a discussion of ideas, so it must be stopped. You Mohideen Ibramsha will not use the power structure of anti-freedom to power over ideas of freedom. In short, be warned (once again) not to use intolerant ideas to overpower our tolerance of ideas, or yours will be checked and deleted.

This Warning is specifically directed to your above post (which is not deleted by example) where you stated:
"Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 07:43 pm:   
Citizens would be governed by the rule of law, thus protecting the minority from abuse and the potential tyranny of the majority.
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 08:15 pm: Ivan

That is exactly what is done in Islam; we perform Jihad to help the oppressed.

The only difference is the US Constitution was written by the founding fathers while the Holy Quran was given by God Almighty as far as Muslims are concerned. (bold mine)

We have a set of laws as you have. I fail to see how obeying one set of laws is freedom while obeying another set of laws is slavery?

Don't forget that outside the Arabian Peninsula the apostate can live. So there is no compulsion to obey the Holy Quran. If someone prefers man made laws to God given laws he is free to leave the religion."
ALL LAWS FOR MANKIND ARE WRITTEN BY MEN, and laws that demand obedience are NOT equal to laws that ensure and preserve freedom from coercion. In fact, laws that negate freedom are subservient to laws that ensure freedom, of necessity, and cannot claim equal right; they must fall under the jurisdiction of the constitutional laws of the land. (Why do you think we have separation of church and state?) Obeying your set of laws, as 'prophessed' by Mohammed, are obeying laws of slavery, not freedom, so they represent a contradiction to our freedoms and tolerance of belief. In effect, your laws of religion, written by men, are anti-freedom; to promote man-made laws of anti-freedom becomes your 'Jihad' on the Humancafe. Such 'contradiction to tolerance' of ideas, as we here represent, is intolerant to our freedom of ideas. THEREFORE, YOUR JIHAD HERE IS NOT ALLOWED.

What we aim to do on Humancafe forums is to promote evolution of 'human consciousness', which is represented by human Freedom, and not its de-evolution into unconsciousness of 'human slavery', which is submission and obedience (anti-freedom). We must preserve Freedom against the false reason of anti-freedom ideology. This is not a statement against your religion, (Islam is not at fault), but a statement against the 'politicized' ambitions of your power play, 1400 years of imperialism ambitions. YOU may NOT DO this 'POLITICAL JIHAD' here. We hope you understand, and be warned.

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

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 08:25 am:   

Warning was read and understood. It is a pity that one who is striving to cancel the jihad of global conquest is warned of practicing jihad on the mind.

If due to not understanding which statement of mine crosses the redline I do make such a statement, kindly point it out and give me an opportunity to correct myself.

I believe we all are desirous of the same goal: peace. Let us not hurt each other even by mistake.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 10:46 am:   

Appreciated your response and noted. The element of legalized freedom is represented here:

"ALL LAWS FOR MANKIND ARE WRITTEN BY MEN, and laws that demand obedience are NOT equal to laws that ensure and preserve freedom from coercion."

This is an underlying creed of our Humancafe here, which preserves our freedoms. Freedom is not something legislated by law, it exists a priori of its own right. The laws are there to preserve that right to freedom.

It is also why we of the free world have a separation of church and state. That same separation exists on Humancafe, to preserve freedom of ideas from unreasonable dogma. Thanks for your understanding.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 10:37 am:   

Mohideen, please tell me if this is crossing some 'red line' of disrespect, if I think of the man Mohammed in the following manner:

1. a clever man knows how to consolidate power
2. a powerful man knows how to perpetuate control
3. a powerful and clever man gives the people what they want to control and consolidate power
4. in war, booty, slaves, women, treasure, children slaves, are powerful incentives to continue war to please the powerful and clever man
5. if this booty does not appeal to the men and women under his command, offer them heavenly treasures in the next life, virgins galore, or little boys to please them, and if that fails, then appeal to their superstitious fears with terrible damnations in hell
6. last, keep the women subservient to produce more warriors, so the machine created by this clever powerful man is self perpetuating with more and more 'believers'
7. call this newly conquered empire by religious name, Islam, and say it was an act of god.

So there you go. That is 1400 Islam imperialism in a nutshell. I hope I am not being disrespectful (or god forbid islamophobic) in my assessment above.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 08:19 pm:   

Ed, this is the 'war room' against Jihad imperialism you would have been working in, probably something you can relate to:


It sounds straight out of James Bond. Been working pretty good too, no new attacks on American soil, and many plots foiled both here and abroad.

Keep it up guys, doing great.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 08:37 pm:   


even Mohideen's conspiracy theories.
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 10:02 pm: Naive

Could you please enlighten me about the conspiracy theories attributed to me? I am at a loss. --Mohideen

Do you mean something like this?
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/144.html?1161911754 (that discussion was closed)

Mohideen, you had served up various conspiracies from oil control by USA in the Mid East to cause Lebanon war (which is patently false since the war was over Israel soldiers captured by Hesbollah), to crackpot 911 ideas, to bin Laden and al qaeda as US stooges: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=1793#POST1793

There are other conspiracy theories, but I'd have to go and look for them, most of which I blocked out or ignored anyway, so not worth the trouble. I know you mean well, Mohideen, but you do have a weakeness for not overly rigorous naive reasoning, or factual reasoning, to buy into some of the nonesense circulating out there as 'theories', alas.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 08:46 am:   

Ed, this is the 'war room' against Jihad imperialism you would have been working in ...
Posted on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 08:19 pm: Ivan

From the link given by Ivan:
But I put it to Vice Adm Redd that although America itself had not been attacked since 9/11, al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism appears to be as active as ever.

Did America's strategy go any deeper than tackling the symptoms?

This question is ill-posed. The Center is to protect America first; then it would help the friends of America.

In such a set up, the critical information flow does take time to reach the friends. That delay is possibly exploited by the terrorists. It in no way implies the Center is not effective.

As regards Ed is concerned he is better off doing what he does without the shackles of privacy controls that would have constrained him were he to be part of such a center.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 08:52 am:   

... to crackpot 911 ideas ...
Posted on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 08:37 pm: Ivan

Thanks Ivan. To me they are not conspiracy theories. (There you go exclaims Ivan!)

I have my own analysis which I might publish - if need be - to protect the population of America from vengeance attacks in future, God willing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, December 09, 2006 - 11:13 am:   

How 1400 years of Islamic Imperialism is dis-assembled, by the Rain Man: Who owns Sophia?

Posted here: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=2693#POST2693

Let the silent dialogues of heavenly wars begin... "There is the answer to how to end 1400 years of Islamic Imperialism: ask the question, for all Christian churches throughout darl-al-Islam-Harb."

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, December 09, 2006 - 12:05 pm:   

Thanks for the Post Ivan,

Actually I was selected based upon a pyschologial analysis of Osama, the head of the Japanese sarin gas terrorist group and a couple of others I did to work at the National Counter Terrorism Center.

However, due to the effects of nerve agent on my nerous system and my wife needing treament for cancer I had to return back home.

With regards to the data flow into the center. What I have been doing here is demonstrating my capability to fuse large amounts of data into a coherent picture. From that I do trend analysis and perform pridictions of activity.

I took it a bit further this time because I was worried about the effects of earthquakes on our society.

As part of my work that got me recommended for a position at the National Counter Terrorism Center. I reconstructed the network of Jihadist terorist hubs and nodes in Europe from unclassfied data. These hubs and nodes form an integrated network that shares data via the internet, sermons, and Islamic Centers and Mosques in Europe and here in the United States.

This is not to say that these centers are Jihadist in nature but Jihadists make use of the facilities and freedom of religon we have here in the west to coordinate operations. So in effect these sites are dual use in form. This makes it a challenge in sorting out what is going on in them but it is not an insurmoutable problem.

Also with regrds to the National Counter Terrorism Center, I, like Dr. Nash in the movie a brillient mind, I have the ability to walk into that type of center and fuse the data streams in my mind to come up with a coherent picture of what is going on in terms of network activity.

I have slowed down as I have aged but still can do it.

I did it at Joint Analysis Center Molesworth England when I looked at the data regarding Darfur. I did it years ago when I looked at the data prior to Yugoslovia breaking up into civil and I did it again when charting the gravity map of the earth. I also did it before PANAM 103 and the Ryhad bombings that destroyed my office. In all cases I read the data I was recieving and made an assessment on risk and probability of outcome. In the case of Ryhad, I left before the operation to bomb the compound was put into play.

Right now I am finishing my degree in Social Work and will likely be moving on to work in VA in some capacity.

I am by nature a very private person and do not like ploygraphs backgorund checks and interference in my life by intelligence and security officials. I am a free thinker and would consider acting a a consultant to the National Counter Terrorism Center, but leave that for the future.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 12:43 pm:   

A common misconception of a borderless world.

I hear often said that if all borders were eliminated, much of the world's conflicts would disappear. I think this is false, because what causes world conflicts are mega-structured coercions and their resulting injustices, which causes strife and conflict. The dream of a 'borderless' world is in fact an imperial dream. Rome had it, Alexander had it, ancient Egypt had it, and any world empire had the goal of borderless states within the empire. Did this cause conflict to cease? No, not if the cause of conflict is not addressed first. Europe today is undergoing an evolution of 'borderless' states, but it is not yet clear whether or not this will work for them, still being so new. The United States of America, and most modern states, have regional borders withint themselves, such as separate states or counties, but these all fall under the federal jurisdiction of a central government. This central authority must have the power to resolve disputes within its internal states. So if an empire has grown large and strong enough to power over the internal states, then there may be peace possible. None of the states within the USA war on each other, for example. But to do this on a world stage would require a massive world empire powerful enough to rule for all the internal states. If such a world empire were both peaceful and respectful of our modern freedoms, and its people under the empire agreed with its rulings, then there could be hope for world peace from Empire. But I doubt this could work, since at this stage of human development, a world government would probably look more like Somalia than the EU, since there are so many competing and conflicting philosophies of life and government, that any such union would be inherently unstable. That is, it would be unstable except under the very heavy handed rule of a very powerful central authority. However, that would basically kill our human freedoms, so not acceptable at this time. World borderless imperialism is not the answer to world peace.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 08:27 am:   

Happy Christmas

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/features/article_1236553.php/Leban ons_faiths_mingle_at_Christmas_Eve_rally
Beirut - Lebanese anti-government protesters united across religions Sunday for a high-spirited Christmas Eve street party, complete with balloons, drums, fireworks and a two-story-high Christmas tree.

Shiite Hezbollah members dressed as Santa Claus to entertain children, kids in coloured masks cheered, coffee and tobacco sellers hawked their wares and Lebanese flags fluttered in what was also the latest rally against the Western-backed government.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 08:29 am:   

Happy Christmas

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/features/article_1236553.php/Leban ons_faiths_mingle_at_Christmas_Eve_rally
Beirut - Lebanese anti-government protesters united across religions Sunday for a high-spirited Christmas Eve street party, complete with balloons, drums, fireworks and a two-story-high Christmas tree.

Shiite Hezbollah members dressed as Santa Claus to entertain children, kids in coloured masks cheered, coffee and tobacco sellers hawked their wares and Lebanese flags fluttered in what was also the latest rally against the Western-backed government.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 08:32 am:   

If such a world empire were both peaceful and respectful of our modern freedoms, and its people under the empire agreed with its rulings, then there could be hope for world peace from Empire.
Posted on Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 12:43 pm: Ivan

I cannot speak for other philosophies; due to Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran there would be peace if such a World Government is under the Caliph.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 08:34 am:   

I am a free thinker and would consider acting a a consultant to the National Counter Terrorism Center, but leave that for the future.
Posted on Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 12:43 pm: Anon

My prayers for the above.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 11:15 am:   

Peace on Earth, for all humanity.

Dear Mohideen, I believe you are a sincerely good man, as many of your posts have shown us, and that what you believe is sacred to you, and I respect your belief. So when you say: "I cannot speak for other philosophies; due to Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran there would be peace if such a World Government is under the Caliph," I know you mean this sincerely. I have no ill will against your belief in Islam, nor that the Caliphate would be a good and just rule in your eyes. You actually believe that a world empire under the Caliph would be a just and peaceful rule. My perspective is that to date, this peace had been illusive in Islam, so the historical record does not bear out your sincere hopes for a future peace, if such a Caliphate were ever established. But that is my belief.

Remember my critique of Sharia rule is not of Islam itself, which as a personal belief is beyond criticism, because it is a personal faith you have, so nor is it a criticism against you, nor your belief. What I have criticized, and I hope I did this with both clarity and force, is the politicized aspects of the faith, that portion of the faith that feels itself valid as a rule of law for all humanity, both Muslims and non-Muslims. It is the political aspects of Islam that I criticize, not the personal faith. Also remember what I said: "If such a world empire were both peaceful and respectful of our modern freedoms," but such 'respect of our freedoms' is not evident in the Sharia rule of law, and rather the opposite is evident, as I had shown in many of our discussions. The well established 'doctrine of warfare against non-Muslims and their ultimate subjugation under Sharia rules' is historical fact. Much of our loss of freedoms is from religious dogma acting as if it were a 'God mandated' government on Earth, as mandated by the desires and wishes of the followers of all three Abrahamic faiths. It is this lack of freedoms that creates conflicts and wars, not the religions, but their political aspirations to rule humanity by dogma. This is the fault of Islam as well, except under Sharia this dogma of personal belief is further codified into a religiously sacred rule of law for all humanity. This I find objectionable, even dangerous for future humanity, because once we fall under this rule we are no longer free to be 'Who we are', the creations of God as God made us, not man made us. This is why I believe that only under the protections of rule of law that guarantee our freedoms can we ever hope to aspire to do God's will, and thus bring 'heaven on Earth', if one must see this philosophy in religious terms. In fact, we do God's will with every breath we take. But I have not seen any evidence in the political side of your religion, in the Sharia, that both validates our freedoms and our right to be Who we are. Sharia does not respect our freedoms in the modern sense, so an implementation of Sharia law as designed by Mohammed's successors would invalidate our freedoms. Once our freedoms are lost, war continues indefinitely. And this is also the historical evidence we have within the worlds of Islam, that peace never results. This I fear is the error of having a world Caliphate rule, because that peace hoped for would never materialized. And even if it did materialize, it would be a world of submission and not a world of freedom, which as explained are very different from each other. How does Islamic jihad support our individual freedoms, for example, when it is expressly against our freedom to believe, to make us feel subdued?

It is our political beliefs that differ, not our personal beliefs, since I know we both believe in God, though we believe in God differently. But it is the same God, as there is only one Universe that applies infinitely to both of us, and to all life. How we approach this faith in a universal God is our individual belief, how we reach for something greater than the fallible acts and rules of man, something beyond our personal egos and fears, with a belief that we are more than we had been, or could have been, in the many evil deeds humanity caused others to suffer. This is the paramount importance of our freedoms, that we are free to pursue something greater in ourselves, both in terms of intellect and human interactions, to alleviate suffering and bring justice into the world. The only way I can see this happening is for us to respect one another, and to have faith that once we resepect each other without coercing each other, that then there is hope of a human evolution beyond the conflicts and wars, beyond our self inflicted human sufferings, into a future of humanity that can shine with its full potential. Historically we have seen this evidence in the free world, where the freedom of the individual, we who are created by God, is respected and safeguarded by rule of law. This political belief is not evident, however, in the rule of Islamic laws, so therein lies the difference in our approach to solving humanity's conflicts and social ills. What we believe powers what we do, of necessity, because this is who we are. And if we believe in goodness and peacefulness, we will see it through, regardless of what others may say about evil, the devil, Satanic spirits, jinns, etc. - all man made superstitious ideas. We are the makers of our world as it applies to us and what happens to us, so a right belief, we both agree, is the way to a future peace on Earth. But once this belief is politicized, especially if it is politicized where our natural human freedoms are restricted from letting us be Who we are, then what is pure and personal for us as belief becomes profaned by the political powers that would restrain our freedoms, by imposing their man made will on us. I see this a grievous error, a wrong philosophically enslaving idea, that keeps us from reaching our full human potential, but rather keeps us enslaved to an ancient idea of power over the human soul. That is the fault of religious dogma.

We all want the rule of law that would bring justice and peace to our world. But this cannot happen if such rule is against our freedoms, against what we modern humans have achieved over the centuries to make life on Earth tolerable and enjoyable. Human beings are beautiful because they are God's creation, or the creation of an infinitely beautiful Universe, that has given us life and mind. We cannot profane this beauty by restricting it, by forbidding creation of the human arts, by outlawing music or dance, painting or sculpture, and forbidding a hundred other things that we may or may not wish to do in finding the beauty and joys of life. Why should it be wrong to laugh, for example? But religious dogma, that dogma created by men and not God, will restrict us on so many levels that the beauty of humanity is made shabby and small. We are great, and only in our freedom to pursue our happiness and joy can that greatness manifest as a reality in this world. Then, and only then, can God's rule on Earth become manifest amongst the billions of lives of living human beings, each one a free individual. That is how we bring God to Earth, in each one of our hearts, so it becomes the natural beauty for all humanity. Then we will have peace. I believe this with all my heart and soul.

So on this Christmas day, I wish you and yours all the best life has to offer, all the goodness in your heart manifest in your everyday, so that the joys you feel for life and the love for each other is what becomes your everyday reality. I believe as you do, that we should have peace on Earth. May our joint beliefs, though different from each other's, bring about this Peace we all desire, for all humanity.

Thank you for all your kind thoughts and expressed ideas, to everyone who had contributed to the creation of ideas on this discussion at Humancafe. We all desire the same thing, to make ours a better world. God Bless, in Peace.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, December 25, 2006 - 05:50 pm:   

Ah if all the world thought like this (see above)!

Over the last few months I have come to enjoy my discourse with others who frequent this site. I appreciate each of your unique perspectives. Indeed, they are helping me on my journey through life, and also in my dealings with my students.

Truly to Mohideen, Ivan, and Ed I say, thanks for the intelligent discussion. I hope you have an enjoyable holiday season, no matter what your belief system.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 11:07 pm:   

I visited this page just now. Yes we all desire peace. There is no better path to peace than respecting each other's individuality. Permit me to quote the Holy Quran on this aspect. The Holy Quran has devoted one whole chapter on this concept.

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=109&from_verse=1&to_v erse=6&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1
Yusuf Ali 109.1:Say : O ye that reject Faith!
Yusuf Ali 109.2:I worship not that which ye worship,
Yusuf Ali 109.3:Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Yusuf Ali 109.4:And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Yusuf Ali 109.5:Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Yusuf Ali 109.6:To you be your Way, and to me mine.

The whole chapter emphasizes the point that there should be no coercion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 01:24 pm:   

What to do about Iran

Here is a strong condemnation of the present Mullah dominated Iranian state, where death is worshipped more than life, and the nation is dying.

I personally do not see Iran as a real threat, at least not yet, and think there is still time for the Iranian people to wrestle the power away from the imperialistic war mongers who rule them now. This situation bears watching, because it can regress very quickly into war, a state of affairs that can bring on a world nuclear war. "What to do about Iran", written by an Iranian, is a serious examination of why this state is a potential threat to peace.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 08:51 am:   

"What to do about Iran", written by an Iranian, is a serious examination of why this state is a potential threat to peace.
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 01:24 pm: Ivan

I opened the link with trepidation. We are in a mess in Iraq listening to those who abandoned Iraq and had their own axe to grind. However, I am happy to read this from the link:
And when it comes to doing something the prudent way, it is good to follow the advice of the ancient Persians: “The lion of the meadow of Mazandaran can be captured by no other than a Mazadarani warrior.” The best match for the ruthless Mullahs and their hired Islamic storm troopers are the Iranian warriors themselves. The people of Iran themselves are the best solution for the present Iranian conundrum. The valiant Iranians need a bit of help. And the last thing they need is appeasing negotiators to give the Mullahs a new lease on life, or invasion by the Marines, or a shower of bombs from the skies.

I have a slightly different take. We should engage them in negotiations if for nothing else to buy time for the people of Iran. In the absence of negotiations the Mullahs could do something stupid and initiate the war. Once war commences the population loses control. So for the sake of the population do negotiate but do not yield.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 12:16 am:   


I have a slightly different take. We should engage them in negotiations if for nothing else to buy time for the people of Iran. In the absence of negotiations the Mullahs could do something stupid and initiate the war. Once war commences the population loses control. So for the sake of the population do negotiate but do not yield.

Mohideen, we should negotiate up to a point, but remember that while we're talking they're burrowed in their tunnel networks and building nuclear capability. I would not be too kind to the Mullahs with their mahdi inspired self destructive ambitions. It is far better for the people to act now, to save themselves, from both themselves and us. We will not tolerate their aggressive nuclear capabilities for long. I also think we should make this message very clear to the mullahs and ayatollahs in Iran, so they understand that we're not playing their silly games. Our freedoms of our civilization are at stake, and we will fight to preserve them from falling back hundreds of years to mullahood caliphate times. Sharia is not the way. They must understand this, as any modern civilized person understands it. How do we get that message out to them? When will Iranians rise up against their oppressive tyanny of mullahood?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 04:45 am:   

When will Iranians rise up against their oppressive tyanny of mullahood?
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 12:16 am: Ivan

I would leave the timing to those working for the peaceful change of regime there. We negotiate just until our forces are ready. We do not negotiate until the mullahs are ready to strike at us.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 12:16 pm:   

I once asked Mohideen, "Do you know the Baha'i faith?" though I don't remember if he ever answered me. (It was a Bahai friend who told us of ML King Gospel concert at UCI, and we have many Bahai friends.) Here are some pages for anyone interested in learning more of this lovely faith, which is related to Islam but with a more modern consciousness of what it means to be a human being. This is not to promote a given faith, nor to compare it to others, but merely to inform for any who are not familiar with it. (Of course, if Mohideen wishes to answer my question, much appreciated too! :-) )

The Baha'is

Religious Tolerance, Baha'i Faith

Wikipedia, Baha'i Faith

(We consider ourselves "friends of the Baha'is", though are not members of the faith.)

From a political point of view, I must admit I see the Baha'is as a step forward towards dismantling the Arab imperialism attached to Islam, to bring the Islamic faith back towards being once again a Personal faith, rather than political faith.

Ps: I am currently reading a very fine book on Islam, written by an Iranian scholar (and referred to me by a scholar of Asian studies friend):

"No god but God: The origins, evolution, and future of Islam" by Reza Aslan

Only about a third into it, but very interesting and well written. I am not sure, but I think he too thinks Islam is a personal faith, and not to have been politicized as it had been, but will read more...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 01:54 pm:   

Pps: Here is a very well written review on "No god but God", from Amazon page:
"Fascinating, well-researched, and timely book on the history and future of Islam, December 17, 2006
Tim F. Martin (Madison, AL United States) - See all my reviews
_No god but God_ by Reza Aslan is a fascinating, well-researched, and timely book on the history and future of Islam.

In this ambitious work Aslan had three goals. He sought to provide a critical look at the origins and evolution of Islam, not only telling its story but discussing why the religion developed the way it did. Aslan is a big believer in religious scholars and individual worshippers coming to terms with the "spiritual and political landscape" of Muhammad's time, of understanding how this influenced the origins and development of Islam. Any reasonable interpretation of the rise of Islam and how it should be practiced today must come to grips with the cultural milieu of sixth- and seventh-century Arabia, an understanding of which is vital in tracing how Muhammad's "revolutionary message of moral accountability and social egalitarianism" was over time reinterpreted by later clerics into various "competing ideologies of rigid legalism and uncompromising orthodoxy," something which fractured the Muslim community and widened the gap between Sunni Muslims, Shi'ism, and Sufism.

A major example Aslan discusses is the rights of women. Islam is often seen as being restrictive and repressive when it comes to women but the author says this was not always so. Muhammad actually introduced many reforms that benefited women, such as a religious view that both sexes were equal in the eyes of God, the right to own and inherit property, divorce their husbands, and limits on the number of wives a man may have, major advances for women when compared to their status in pre-Islamic Arabia. Only after Muhammad's death, when the hadith were collected and canonized (stories and anecdotes about the Prophet and his earliest companions) did women start to lose their rights. Religious scholars - nearly all men - sought to regain the male political, religious and economic dominance they had had before Muhammad's reforms. Hadith that were helpful to women were discarded or misinterpreted and those of doubtful authenticity were deemed official when it suited their purposes. The veil for instance was not "enjoined upon Muslim women" anywhere in the Quran but instead arose later. What originally was something that only Muhammad's wives wore when their home was the community's mosque became at first a way to emulate those wives and then still later yet another means for males to regain their dominance, an example of the "rampant misogyny" of many early Quranic experts.

Aslan also analyzed other important debates within Islam by looking at the context of 7th-10th century Arabia. He wrote that Islam is too often characterized as a "religion of the sword" for instance, but he maintains that at the time religion was not an individual choice as it is now; instead, "religion was your ethnicity, your culture, and your social identity...it was your citizenship." All religions of the time, including Christianity, were "religions of the sword." Similarly, the unfortunate and seemingly permanent association of apostasy (denying one's faith) with treason (punishable by death) dates back to early rebellions against the Caliph shortly after Muhammad's death, not anything the Quran stated.

A second goal of the book was to note the nature of what he termed the Islamic Reformation, something that is going on right now. The insurgency in Iraq and the bombings in Bali, Madrid, and London, should not be seen only as some jihadist war against the West, but also the results of a civil war within Islam, as various divisions within the Muslim world fight over the future of the faith. Many Muslims favor a more moderate and pluralistic Islam, while to others this is "anathema to their own puritanical beliefs." Not unlike the Christian Reformation, much of the struggle is over who has the authority to define faith, the individual or institutions. As with the Christian Reformation, the first target is not those of other faiths, but those within the faith who do not agree. In many ways the West is but a bystander, if a target at all only so as to galvanize other Muslims to the jihadist cause.

The major issue in the Islamic Reformation is the nature of religious authority in Islam. As there is no official, central religious authority, it is instead scattered among a number of smaller, competing though highly influential institutions in the Muslim world, institutions that have maintained a virtual monopoly on interpretation not through any divine decree but instead as the result of scholarship; by maintaining a stranglehold on religious learning, they have kept a tight control over Islam itself. However, dramatic increases in literacy and education and now widespread access to new theories and sources of knowledge as well as a swelling sense of both nationalism and individualism have challenged this monopoly, leading to a variety of "lay" interpretations, from secularizing Western Muslims to Muslim feminists to "veiled-again" Muslims who have rediscovered their faith and traditions. Osama bin Laden is in fact a product of, not a counter to, these newly emerging (and wildly diverging) theories.

The Christian Reformation was a violent and bloody contest that embroiled Europe in war and devastation for over a century. It took "fifteen vicious, bloody, and occasionally apocalyptic centuries" for Christianity to progress from pre-Reformation doctrinal absolutism to the doctrinal relativism and pluralism of the modern era; Aslan predicts the Islamic Reformation will be very similar, a "terrifying event, one that has already begun to engulf the world," its battleground not the deserts of Arabia but Islamic cities such as Baghdad, Cairo, and Damascus and Western cities with Muslim populations such as London and Paris.

Finally, Aslan sought to advocate reform within the Muslim world. A practicing Muslim, he wrote that some will be upset with the term reform or Reformation, as they resist the notion that there is any inherent flaw within Islam that needs "reforming," while others will consider the term too optimistic, perceiving the rise in jihadist violence not as an indication of any evolution but of devolution within the Islamic world. "

Is the main theme of today's Jihad against the West only a Reformation within Islam? That is the issue, and perhaps the historical debate for decades to come. Or is Jihad really to take over the governments and laws of the Western free societies with Sharia? I still lean towards the latter, so not in full agreement with Aslan's thesis, except that Islam is a Personal faith, not to be politicized into an aggressive faith against the 'others', which I think was a post Mohammed de-evolution of Islam.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 06:44 pm:   

On "The Quranic Concept of War" by Joseph Meyers

The author explores Islamic concepts of war, as dictated by hadiths and Quran, with special interest in how this concept generates terrorism. For example:
"In The Quranic Concept of War, Malik seeks to instruct readers in the uniquely important doctrinal aspects of Quranic warfare. The Quranic approach to war is “infinitely supreme and effective . . . [and] points towards the realization of universal peace and justice . . . and makes maximum allowance to its adversaries to co-operate [with Islam] in a combined search for a just and peaceful order.”10 For purposes of this review, the term “doctrine” refers to both religious and broad strategic approaches, not methods and procedures. Malik’s work is a treatise with historical, political, legalistic, and moralistic ramifications on Islamic warfare. It seemingly is without parallel in the western sense of warfare since the “Quran is a source of eternal guidance for mankind.”11

The approach is not new to Islamists and other jihad theorists fighting according to the “Method of Mohammed” or hadith.
Brohi then defines jihad, “The most glorious word in the Vocabulary of Islam is Jehad, a word which is untranslatable in English but, broadly speaking, means ‘striving’, ‘struggling’, ‘trying’ to advance the Divine causes or purposes.” He introduces a somewhat cryptic concept when he explains man’s role in a “Quranic setting” as energetically combating forces of evil or what may be called, “counter-initiatory” forces which are at war with the harmony and the purpose of life on earth.16 For the true Muslin the harmony and purpose in life are only possible through man’s ultimate submission to God’s will, that all will come to know, recognize, and profess Mohammed as the Prophet of God. Man must recognize the last days and acknowledge tawhid, the oneness of God.17

Brohi recounts the classic dualisms of Islamic theology; that the world is a place of struggle between good and evil, between right and wrong, between Haq and Na-Haq (truth and untruth), and between halal and haram (legitimate and forbidden). According to Brohi, it is the duty of man to opt for goodness and reject evil. Brohi appeals to the “greater jihad,” a post-classical jihad doctrine developed by the mystical Sufi order and other Shia scholars.18

Brohi places jihad in the context of communal if not imperial obligation; both controversial formulations:
When a believer sees that someone is trying to obstruct another believer from traveling the road that leads to God, spirit of Jehad requires that such a man who is imposing obstacles should be prevented from doing so and the obstacles placed by him should also be removed, so that mankind may be freely able to negotiate its own path that leads to Heaven.” To do otherwise, “by not striving to clear or straighten the path we [Muslims] become passive spectators of the counter-initiatory forces imposing a blockade in the way of those who mean to keep their faith with God.19
The next dualism Brohi presents is that of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the house of submission and the house of war. He describes the latter, as “perpetuating defiance of the Lord.” While explaining that conditions for war in Islam are limited (a constrained set of circumstances) he notes that “in Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His will and work against the very purpose of the creation of mankind.”24 Brohi quotes the Quranic manuscript Surah, al-Tawba:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.25
Malik argues that the “nature and dimension of war” is the greatest single characteristic of Quranic warfare and distinguishes it from all other doctrines. He acknowledges Clausewitz’s contribution to the understanding of warfare in its moral and spiritual context. The moral forces of war, as Clausewitz declared, are perhaps the most important aspects in war. Reiterating that Muslims are required to wage war “with the spirit of religious duty and obligation,” the author makes it clear that in return for fighting in the way of Allah, divine, angelic assistance will be rendered to jihad warriors and armies. At this point The Quranic Concept of War moves beyond the metaphysical to the supernatural element, unlike anything found in western doctrine. Malik highlights the fact that divine assistance requires “divine standards” on the part of the warrior mujahideen for the promise of Allah’s aid to be met.44
The author expands on the earlier ideas that moral and spiritual forces are predominate in war. He contrasts Islamic strategic approaches with western theories of warfare oriented toward the application of force, primarily in the military domain, as opposed to Islam where the focus is on a broader application of power. Power in Malik’s context is the power of jihad, which is total, both in the conduct of total war and in its supporting strategy; referred to as “total or grand strategy.” Malik provides the following definition, “Jehad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral and spiritual to attain the objectives of policy.”50 The power of jihad brings with it the power of God."
But then it dives into terror in the hearts of the enemy:
"Malik uses examples to demonstrate that Allah will strike “terror into the hearts of Unbelievers.”52 At this point he begins to develop his most controversial and conjectural Quranic theory related to warfare—the role of terror. Readers need to understand that the author is thinking and writing in strategic terms, not in the vernacular of battles or engagements. Malik continues, “when God wishes to impose His will on his enemies, He chooses to do so by casting terror into their hearts.”53 He cites another verse, “against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts) of the enemies of Allah . . . .” Malik’s strategic synthesis is specific: “the Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, known or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy.”54 Terror is an effect; the end-state.

Malik identifies the center of gravity in war as the “human heart, [man’s] soul, spirit, and Faith.” Note that Faith is capitalized, meaning more than simple moral courage or fortitude. Faith in this sense is in the domain of religious and spiritual faith; this is the center of gravity in war. The main weapon against this Islamic concept of center of gravity is “the strength of our own souls . . . [keeping] terror away from our own hearts.” In terms of achieving decisive and direct decisions preparing for this type of battlefield first requires “creating a wholesome respect for our Cause”—the cause of Islam. This “respect” must be seeded in advance of war and conflict in the minds of the enemies. Malik then introduces the informational, psychological, or perception management concepts of warfare. Echoing Sun Tzu, he states, that if properly prepared, the “war of muscle,” the physical war, will already be won by “the war of will.”55 “Respect” therefore is achieved psychologically by, as Brohi suggested earlier, “beautiful” and “handsome ways” or by the strategic application of terror.
Malik’s most controversial dictum is summarized in the following manner: in war, “the point where the means and the end meet” is in terror. He formulates terror as an objective principal of war; once terror is achieved the enemy reaches his culminating point. “Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose . . . .” Malik’s divine principal of Islamic warfare may be restated as “strike terror; never feel terror.” The ultimate objective of this form of warfare “revolves around the human heart, [the enemies] soul, spirit, and Faith.”56 Terror “can be instilled only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed . . . . It is essential in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate [the enemies] Faith.” Those who are firm in their religious conviction are immune to terror, “a weak Faith offers inroads to terror.” Therefore, as part of preparations for jihad, actions will be oriented on weakening the non-Islamic’s “Faith,” while strengthening the Islamic’s. What that weakening or “dislocation” entails in practice remains ambiguous. Malik concludes, “Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent.” The soul of man can only be touched by terror.57

Malik then moves to a more academic discussion of ten general categories inherent in the conduct of Islamic warfare. These categories are easily translatable and recognizable to most western theorists; planning, organization, and conduct of military operations. In this regard, the author offers no unique insight. His last chapter is used to restate his major conclusions, stressing that “The Holy Quran lays the highest emphasis on the preparation for war. It wants us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost. The test . . . lies in our capability to instill terror into the hearts of our enemies.”58"

So 'terrorism' as such is not merely acts by some small disaffected 'minority' of Muslims, but 'striving' through jihad with terror as an end in itself, to break down the enemy spiritually, as called for by the Quran, and Hadiths.

How does one dismantle 1400 years of Jihad imperialism, when the basic manual calls for 'terror' as a basic principle of this struggle? This is so far removed from anything we modern humans believe in, regardless of whether or not we believe in some religion, as to make it almost from another age, almost another planet, to which we can no longer relate. Yet, this is the reality that powers jihad against our freedoms in the West... Know your enemy, read it all. On these boards at Humancafe, neither terror nor jihad are allowed, since this is a discussion dedicated to reason, beliefs in our hearts, but not those that deny our freedoms through coercions that are achieved by terror "we wish to impose." Not here, no jihad of will, or preaching, or acknowleging any Islamic 'supremacy' at any level, not here. Not on this planet Earth. Let Freedom ring.

Islam as a Personal faith is harmless, potentially uplifting and spiritually beautiful; but to denigrate matters of the soul and God into a code of war and terror is profanity, to profane both God and man.


Ps: Mohideen, please know none of this is ever directed at you, since I know you are not a war-monger; rather it is directed against those who would profane a beautiful sprituality, a human reaching for God, by using it to enslave and terrorize, which is adamantly against what our human Freedoms represent.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:18 am:   


The Quranic approach to war is “infinitely supreme and effective . . .

From Malik's text, in above.

This statement alone reveals a whole universe of thought, what drives and powers Islamic jjihad and imperialism. Think of it this way: If God (Allah) is giving 'infinite' support because you are following 'His' (Allah's) word to the letter, then how can anything happen other than absolute 'infinite' guided victory? This is the reasoning behind Islamists, terrorists included, bold arrogance that they will dominate the world. However, this is merely another form of primitive magic: My medicine is stronger than your medicine, so I am more powerful than you!

Reason understands this, but the primitive mind will believe it, sometimes blindly, and take itself to its doom in the bargain. Terrorists are not to be feared, becausse they are primitive thinkers, but they must be checked and stopped, because they do 'infinite' harm to all humanity with their violence and deceits. There is absolutely nothing 'infinitely supreme' in their actions of violence and coercions against others.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan, Eds.
Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 12:30 pm:   

Dr. Pepper's "Dialogue with a Muslim" reached termination, safing mode.

Dear Dr. Pepper, Mohideen Ibramsha, thanks for starting this 'voyage of discovery' last April, 2006, and much had been discussed on Islam, ideas well explored with reason, and at times with passion. To all we are grateful. Religion as a personal belief is an open ended search, a search of human consciousness upon the larger universal stage of human evolution; but religion as a dogmatic politicized belief is a closed dead end system, where the universe is closed off from our consciousness. Reason may or may not sway personal beliefs; but it has proven over these past months that it has no effect on a politicizes faith system, one which believes itself superior to other faiths. It is a closed system. How does one reason with an ideology that thinks itself superior to human thoughts, and even mandated to dominate personal beliefs, or any man made ideas? Such supremacist ideology shows no response to reason, so any discussion such as this (it had been a very fine discussion) nevertheless is forced into a dead end. What else can we say that would make a difference here to a mentality that my belief system is divine, and everyone else's is inferior? Words fail where reason fails. Unlike the faith of a personal Islam, political-Islam is no longer a religion; it then becomes but a supremacist political ideology, case closed.

So we had decided, singly and mutually at Humancafe, to put this discussion into a permanent 'safing' mode. When an exploratory spacecraft encounters anomalous and unexplainable phenomena, it is parked into safing mode until the anomalies are understood, to save the craft from self destruction. However, where reason fails, that safing mode may be permanent, if no cause is understandable. So is it with this discussion on Islam, both with a Muslim and non-Muslims, that we had reached an impasse of understanding. Neither side can improve on this, though we had tried sincerely over these past nine months. Once reason begins to fail, the discussion cannot solve the impasse of failed reason, by definition, and the arguments fall back upon personal beliefs. Religion, any religion, when it falls away from reason, then falls back only upon its own beliefs; so it can exist only as a personal faith. As a sacred belief, what the believers believe in their hearts, is entirely in their own souls. None should argue this. But when religion becomes a force of action, politicized into laws of violence, and incumbent upon our beliefs with punishable rules, then it fails as a personal belief. Once this failure is evident, especially when faced with an unyielding dogmatic ideology, reason can make no inroads against its designs, or its use of force, so religious tyranny results. This is a truism for all belief systems, whether faith based or secular, where to argue against such a supremacist system invokes punishments, violent reprisals, and ultimately death to those ideas. None dare question such a belief system without fear of coercive reprisals. So such arguments become totally one sided, where reasonable arguments are silenced, and those who question such political beliefs become silenced as well. And this is the sinister part, in final analysis, that the same silencing that is applied by tyrannical beliefs then spills over to those whose beliefs are apolitical in nature, and everything stops, of necessity. We are there now. So no resolution is possible here except as it had always been resolved historically, when faced with a coercive force, through combat between forces of freedom and forces of tyranny. Where only slaves are free to believe, freedom dies, and with it dies the reasoning human mind. That is the face of evil.

Someone once said something to the effect: "To accomplish achieving everything, one must accept desire for nothing." So is it on these boards that we accept a desire for nothing, that a resolution cannot be achieved, and this is acceptable to us. If reason fails, and we are safing the discussion from further harm and ill will, then let the world resolve this impasse in the ways it had always been. In ancient times, it was believed that God will champion the victor in combat. So we leave this discussion, and how to deal with a supremacist ideology, to God. Wars had been fought to extinction in the past, and when an idea has passed its time, it must face its own extinction. But we cannot judge on this, but must take it out of our hands, our words of reason, and place it before the altar of God. If there is a failed reason, or if there is a failed ideology, then let God's rule determine the outcome for us, we those infinitesimal humans, on this small world, in but one galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars, and worlds, within our vast infinite universe. We must desire for nothing, but aim for everything. Thus, we stop it here, and move on. It is a very big universe to explore, which is what these pages of Humancafe aim for, and where all ideas are welcome. The human mind cannot be constrained within a small closed circle, of religious beliefs or otherwise, without sacrificing our freedom of thought. We must move on.

In ten days time, to give time for those who wish to make last statements, we will put all Islamic discussions into a permanent safing mode. Let history be the judge of how this will be resolved, whether a personal faith with prevail, with freedom of belief for all, or a politicized supremacist faith will prevail, with submission of mind for all, and perhaps with extinction for a dead idea. God will be judge. This discussion will then be closed.

God give us victory over all tyranny of mind, and let human consciousness prevail with evolution of freedom in this world. We hope all here will agree, God save our souls.

To all who participated here, thank you. It had been a very fine and enlightening discussion.

Ivan, and editors, Humancafe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 10:16 am:   

I too sign off. Please read
for my sign-off statement. Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 09:41 am:   

REFORM ISLAM - my analysis of how, nine points.

What went wrong with Islam? -The Caliphs.
Can it Reform? -Yes.

Here is the progression, how I think an error crept into God's words to Mohammed:
  • God can only teach us of Love and Peace
  • Mohammed gets inspired revelations from God
  • "Allah is all Merciful and Compassionate", a religion of love in the heart
  • Mohammed tells his companions, while alive he teaches them
  • Upon his death, Caliphs write down their version of God's words
  • Mohammed's words of love and compassion, of the heart, are turned into words of control and warfare
  • This contorting of God's Love into human Power is a grave sin against God's words to Mohammed
  • Man now has the most powerful weapon of God's contorted words turned into raw power, for the Caliphs
  • This power spreads its corrupt version of God's word, through warfare, piracy, intimidation, persecution, and cultural genocide, until we have today's imperialistic Jihad

The real Jihad is NOT suicide bombers killing innocent men and women and children in Israel, or New York, or Bali or Beslan, or London or Madrid or Casablanca or Istanbul, Sharm al Sheik or Nairobi or Manila, or Mecca, or Baghdad or.. No, these are the profaned versions of the word of God, for the power hungry, those who twist the human heart into evil, and profanely use human fodder to kill. The real Jjihad is to reform Islam back to God's words to Mohammed. The real Jjihad is a struggle with evil, that which contorted God's message to His messenger, a message of Love and Peace and Compassion. That is the REAL Islam. Reform starts here: Quran 2:256.

God Willing, these reforms will come to pass, and God's Love is once again supreme to the faith, where Islam does not mean 'submission' to the Caliphs imperialism, but rather Freedom and Peace for all human beings equally, men and women, as given to us by God.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideenn Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 08:13 pm:   

Reform starts here: Quran 2:256.
Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 09:41 am: Ivan

Count on my services for establishing that 2:256 is not abrogated and forms the central core of Islam.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 09:46 am:   

Thanks Mohideen, for your helpfulness.

An old friend whom I met nearly 40 years ago lived by the motto, "The greatest gift to mankind is that of helpfulness". Though he was physically handicapped, and already an old man, he did what he could to uplift others.

If there is a message that came through all these pages of Humancafe, it is this, that none may presume to take on the mantle of doing God's will by either punishing or hurting others. Leave that to God. Our only way on Earth is to help one another, to teach others, and ultimately to learn to have faith in each other's uniqueness, and love that. And in so doing, we are doing God's will in more ways than we can understand. Teach this, with kindness and helpfulness, and God's will happens in more ways than we know. That is the true path to peace, for us now, and for all humanity yet unborn.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 07:51 pm:   

Last thoughts (closing threads tomorrow midnight) on Political-Islam.

Paradise Lost; Why the Left Loves Muhammad

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, godfather of modern liberalism, in his Social Contract wrote:


"MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains."

"It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions.

"What the pagans had feared took place. Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms.

"Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighborhood, have desired without success to preserve or restore the old system: but the spirit of Christianity has everywhere prevailed. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the Sovereign, and there has been no necessary link between it and the body of the State. Mahomet held very sane views, and linked his political system well together; and, as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good."

Read it all, very interesting point of view from a Conservative paper. Separation of church and state is paramount to overcome religious dogmatic rule, something we of the West understood, but the Eastern world of Islam is yet to understand.

Another point of view, though not mentioning the difference between a personal faith and a political faith, rather concentrating on the ills of a politicized faith all through history, is this article by Robert Spencer:

The D'Souza Follies


Conservatives also must also “stop holding silly seminars on whether Islam is compatible with democracy. In reality, a majority of the world’s Muslims today live under democratic governments – in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Turkey, not to mention Muslims living in Western countries. There is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic tradition that forbids democracy.” And “if they want Sharia, let them have it.” Of course, even if most Muslims today do live under democracies, to assume that this means Islam is compatible with democracy is like saying that most Russians loved Stalin’s reign of terror, since they lived under his regime for so long.
Terrorism? If that word is understood to refer to attacks on civilians meant, at least in part, to demoralize an enemy population, then these incidents and many others like them were most assuredly terrorism. Moreover, they were part of an imperialistic pattern that even D’Souza acknowledges: “Inspired by Islam’s call to jihad,” he observes, “Muhammad’s armies conquered Jerusalem and the entire Middle East, then pushed south into Africa, east into Asia, and north into Europe.” Indeed, before Muhammad had been dead ten years (he died in 632), Muslim armies took Syria, Egypt, and Persia. Muslim armies conquered Damascus in 635, only three years after Muhammad’s death; substantial portions of Iraq in 636; Jerusalem in 638; Caesarea in 641; and Armenia in 643. The conquest of Egypt took place in the same period. The Muslims also won decisive victories over the Byzantines at Sufetula in Tunisia in 647, opening up North Africa; and over the Persians at Nihavand in 642. By 709 they had complete control of North Africa; by 711 they had subdued Spain and were moving into France. Sicily fell in 827. By 846 Rome was in danger of being captured by Muslim invaders; repulsed, the Muslims “sacked the cathedrals of St. Peter beside the Vatican and of St. Paul outside the walls, and desecrated the graves of the pontiffs.”

What else can be said? Political-Islam is a heinous error of spirituality, it cannot be allowed to survive as the monster it had become. A personal faith is of the heart, loving and peaceful before God, but its politicized bastard child is a horror. Though Spencer does not explicitly make the distinction, this is what the future must concentrate on in its confronting political Islam. Adapt or perish, just like Christianity did. Freedom is the Law of God, and no dogma no matter how violent can stop it.


Ps; this thread will close midnight tomorrow.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan & Eds.
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 12:36 am:   


We are permanently 'safing' dialogues and discussions dealing with Political Islam. Any justifications for a politicized faith, whether secular or mythical, such as Nazism or Communism, or religious, of any religious dogma, will not be tolerated here henceforth. All coercive philosophies which are against human freedoms, against human equality, will be treated with equal contempt, and rejected.

This in no way affects any discussions on Personal Faith, in Islam or otherwise. Personal experiences of faith, such as testimonials, are always welcome, since they are personal in nature and are not meant to proselytize the faith, only to share in its wonders. But politicized faith is something different, what has intent to impose itself politically on the rest. Political Islamic belief ranges from embedded Sharia laws of a 'state within a state' , to overturning our Constitutional laws of Freedom into theocratic laws of Sharia, to do either quiet Jihad with deceptions and 'takkiya', or violent Jihad with war and terrorism, where the alleged supremacy of the faith is to be imposed on the rest; none of this is acceptable on Humancafe discussions. Such Sharia-Jihad is coercive in nature at the core, and runs counter to our human freedoms. None are superior to another, we are all free to believe as we believe. However, when one believes it is right and just, even by 'God mandated' words, that they bear down with coercions on another, regardless if or not for their benefit, then something is horribly wrong with such belief. The paradox is that such coercive belief leads to supremacism, which is of necessity intolerant, and therefore inferior to our human freedoms of belief and equalities. Coercions against another, as are all enslaving doctrines, are against the rich beauty of our humanity, against God, and are not allowed here. We broke the chains of slavery, and so they will remain broken. Freedom: That is God's Law.

The great paradox of a politicized faith is that it takes what is in the heart between man and woman, and God, Love, to politicize it into intent and actions of man against man, or woman, as if acting for God. Political-faith, totally unlike personal faith, is an oxymoron, as demonstrated in these pages, no matter what the faith. To make men and women act for God, by utilizing their love of humanity and God, in a political-coercive manner is a major sin against our heartfelt spirituality for God, which is our God given right to be Who we are. It is a rape of God. To act or speak for God is to profane God's words; to punish or enslave human beings in the name of God is profanely horrible, and so totally wrong. We are all equal creations before God. Political-Islam, a supremacist closed belief-system, cannot take that away from us, so it must be stopped. We stop it here in this discussion, by making the burden of this profanity of God theirs, and not ours. We are not to blame for what they do, or say, to blaspheme God, for it is their Cross.

* * * * * * *

Special thanks to all who participated in these discussions over past nine months, starting with "Dialogue with a Muslim" and ending here. Mohideen Ibramsha had been especially gracious to share with us his thoughts on his Islamic faith. But Sharia will never be allowed to undo our freedoms given to us by God. Islam will never be allowed to flex its political muscle of government over a free people. That is a firm rule which all Muslims must come to understand, if the world is to know peace. Judge them not by what they teach, but judge them by what they do.

No more needs to be said. This discussion is now closed.

Ivan, editors, Humancafe

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