. Part of the quote read as follows.
So how is it possible that no rapes occurred under the Caliphate. So is Sharia law so good that it just stops rape from happening or is there some other reasonÂ…
Ok now see how this works? NPR goes to great trouble to avoid calling these “village Councils” Sharia law but we know. The shame is that when talking about Darfur a few weeks ago NPR got it right. Well they never said it but the subject of the interview did. Come on just tell is like it is. If it’s Sharia and it’s true you are not giving Islam a black eye, Isalm is giving Islam a black eye. In their eyes it's always the woman’s fault men are not held responsible for being cowardly criminal rapists.
1
We shouldn't judge an entire group by the actions of some. After all, it's 99% of muslims that give the other 1% a bad name.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 03, 2005 04:36 PM (0yYS2)
2
These jihad Caliphate dumn asses are nothing but liars. The Caliphate had a policy of rape whenever any new territory was conquered by the Muslims. Of course, since the women happened to be Christian, Hindu, Buddist or any other religion the jihadists were not considered under Muslim law to have raped anyone.
Rape is one of the tools used by these jihadist bastards in their wars against the West and the Far East. That is why Scandanavian women are now being raped in large number by Muslim immigrants. But because these women are not Islamic, then the Muslims say no rape has occurred.
As a matter of fact, when the bastard Mohammed murdered the Jews in Medina, he raped the wife of the leader of the Jews. So Mohammed is not only a pedephile, but a rapist as well. Look at what is going on in the Darfur region of the Sudan, and tell me whether rape is being used as a tool for war by the jihadists. I getting like IM now, I hope these bastards start something here.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 03, 2005 04:38 PM (rUyw4)
3
True IM I see your point. However JJ has a great point here. I've not time to surf up the NPR Darfur story but it was good. Musharriff even comes up looking bad here jsut fromt he culture. I can't see why the left does not scream about it every day they are supposed to be all into civil rights and womens rights. We have a few girls on the site here so here we go. Also I'm whatever the percent is the good needs to speak out against the bad. Darfur, Northern Pakistan, Al-Qaeda. JJ is right on my point this guy claims no rapes but under Sharia it's hardly an objective or accurate statement. In darfur first they kill all the men in the village so no male witnesses when next week they come back and do the rapin. So now the only witness the women have are the rapists themselves fat chance for justtice there eh. This woman was handed over so her side does not get to witness the rape. Plus likeI said they just don't define rape as we do. Kufar rape = not rape. Rape as punishment not = rape. 3 wintenesses not = rape. Medical eveidence + 2 witnesses no rape. It's not a complex thing with just a litte attention to what the rules of Sharia are and by watching Darfur and this case it's apparent to any one.
Posted by: Howie at November 03, 2005 04:50 PM (D3+20)
4
The other part that gets me is that only hard right wingers see the evil of the Islamofacists. I'm not that way. I think the greatest hope is that the Arab world will wake up some day. I just don't see how the left can spend all it's time attacking the war and live with itself. How can you be all for rights and peace when obviously the islamofacists are not and could care less. So I'm middle of the road on most things. I'm conservative on fed power and spending. I'm all for rights but I would never be for the right of the islamofacists to rule the world it sounds as far out a some of gregs stuff unreal hard to believe. But here is a left althought they just can't say it pointing out what we all know. If I thought for one minute that Al-Qaeda would stop if we did I'd be all for packing it up. But I don;t think that's the case. In fact Iraq may get better but Iran and Syria and the rest it may get much worse. Oh one other thing when my country goes to war I expect the citizens to participate in winning. If DICK see's a problem he is a Senator he can march right up to the Oval office and bitch Bush right up one side and down the other no problems with that here. But when the press and the left are doing as they have done. it just burns me. America had best wake up and start pulling you don't win this war becuase we are just us. You win by working your ass off. The enemy has a 200 year plan counting on we will get all distracted and self absorbed and will do ourselves in. I wish I could say that's untrue but god it won;t be this middle of the road Republican swing voter that turns on his own country no matter what's wrong with it.
Posted by: Howie at November 03, 2005 05:03 PM (D3+20)
5
Most muslims are to busy raping little boys to worry about women. Besides a woman can whip the average wog.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2005 06:31 PM (ZaAd/)
6
Shari'a Judge: Ahmed, you are accused of rape. What say you?
Ahmed: The strumpet tempted me with her succulent zinaat!
Shari'a Judge: Yes, it is clear for all to see that her burqah is cut tight across the buttocks. Succubus! We shall have the salacious tart stoned!
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 03, 2005 08:06 PM (RHG+K)
7
A muslim worrying about women. Ha! Yea sure.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2005 08:08 PM (ZaAd/)
8
So why aren't we doing anything to help the christians in Dafur ? Why is it that we are sending Sudan 1 to 2 billion over the next 12 months. Because the muslim government in Khartoum are our "friends" and support our efforts in the war on terror.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44629-2005Apr11.html oh yes and also because of the oil there. "why isn't the left ........" who the hell cares why the left is or isn't doing whatever ! WE are in control of the government WE should be doing more to stop all that c**p The muslims have the oil and we are addicted to it. Sudan pumps about 1 million barrels a day thru its one pipeline Turn that off and see how fast things change there.
Posted by: john Ryan at November 03, 2005 11:11 PM (ads7K)
9
You "know" it's shariah law? Sorry, but it was local tribal custom that condemned Mukhtaran Bibi to be raped, not sharia law. Muslim or Hindu, these events are unfortunately common among the tribes there. That's Rajasthan for you.
The rape was actually denounced by the local imam, and it was he who convinced the family to bring charges against the rapists. So I guess you owe this imam, Moulvi Abdul Razzaq, a heartfelt "thank you" for bringing this event to your attention, eh? How *excited* you must have been, to learn that Muslims had perpetrated yet another crime! I mean, it's almost worth a few beheadings here, a rape or two there... just for that feeling of orgasmic satisfaction that you can feel upon hearing such news. Better than sex! Isn't it?
What it must be like to be so full of blind racist hatred that even the simplest of facts are obscured to you... You people have my pity. Go ahead, now, and say "Religion of peace, indeed!" or "fucking islamofascists you gunna be a pile of glass oooooorrraahhh!!!" Watching you people parrot the same phrases over and over and over never gets old.
Posted by: Marko at November 03, 2005 11:13 PM (FlRTs)
10
Oh, God... It's not *Christians* that are being killed in Darfur. It's *Muslims.* Look it up.
And, yes, you've just been caught caring about Muslims! Bwahahahaha!!!
Posted by: Marko at November 03, 2005 11:16 PM (FlRTs)
11
Those Mongols must've been excellent rulers to make the most powerful empire of that time last many many centuries and prevent it's citizens from doing crime. Guess senseless slaughter of their own followed by a barbarian overlord feared on 3-4 continents are the things that get Muslims to behave. Suddenly Bush seems logical, but he became ridiculous instead of feared... At least on 6 continents, haven't heard anything from the penguins on Antarctica, they might be crapping their feathers because of Bushes plan to melt their homeland.
Posted by: A Finn at November 04, 2005 03:01 AM (cWMi4)
12
Just about every conscious human in the free world knows about Islamic suicide bombers, train bombers, and night club bombers. Everyone knows that Muslims flying large commercial planes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon on 9/11. Those are the actions of the obvious terrorist side of Islam.
It is interesting that those Islamics committing these heinous acts believe absolutely that the Quran orders them to do these things to achieve Mohammed’s plan of Islam dominating the world. Yet, all the world hears is the plea from Muslims to understand that Islam is a religion of peace and love. If that is so, does this mean that Islamics who are terrorists use a Quran that is different from the “peaceful” Muslim’s Quran?
Does the fact that there is no one central power controlling Islam and giving one definitive translation or explanation for passages from the Quran that causes seemingly diverse interpretations of the Quran? Unless one is willing to look around at what else Islamics have been doing around the world besides blowing people to bits, the uninformed might believe the Islam really is a religion of peace and love, cursed with a few “bad apples.”
“Peaceful Islam” has been just as busy as the terror wing. Large numbers of Arab-Muslims have immigrated all over the world. European countries are alarmed at the number of Muslims within their borders. The attack on America was like a fire-bell ringing, waking other countries up to the growing masses of Muslims in their midst. It was noticed that these Muslims made no effort to blend in with the local population. Instead, Muslims banded together, taking over neighborhoods and eventually driving out the non-Muslims. Any acceptance of the local culture and customs was strongly discouraged and often severely punished. These Muslim neighborhoods set up their own legal system of Islamic law, ignoring the laws of the land. Immigrants were encouraged to have very large families to form huge voting blocks to maneuver Muslims into positions of power within the government.
Islam in Africa has been much bolder in the power grab of third world countries with uneducated and poor citizens often living under corrupt governments. Again, large numbers of Muslims would move into a country such as Nigeria and Sudan. Slowly growing in numbers, Muslims would either create a majority to take control of the government via a legal vote as in Nigeria, or by genocide as in Sudan. In tiny Rwanda, Islam used the war between the Hutu and the Tutsi tribes to convince those fleeing the carnage that Islam would protect them if they converted to Islam, and many converted to stay alive. Islam is now the majority in many African countries and in control of several governments.
Whether by persuasion, reproduction, or mass murder, Islam is slowly taking control of the African continent. Not satisfied with Africa, Islam has moved swiftly into Asia. The terror arm of Islam has been busy in places like Bali reminding the local population that catering to Western infidels is dangerous business.
Both Australia and Canada have had to fend off Islamic attempts to remove Muslim communities from the laws of the land and allow Sharia Law to govern the Muslim population in matters of divorce, marriage, and inheritance. Power grabs in strongly democratic countries has proven to be more of a challenge for Islam and it has regrouped to try again, this time, dropping the words, “Sharia Law” from their submissions for change that would place Islam in control of Muslim communities within democratic countries.
The term “Islamic Sharia Law” has become well known and closely associated with the oppression within Islam and the wide disparity between the rights of Muslim men and women. Western cultures want nothing to do with a 7th century view of justice where hands and feet are chopped off and young women who are raped are forced to produce three male witnesses to the crime or be judged as adulterers. Public execution in the form of stoning does not have much support in a democracy. Many Islamic leaders state emphatically that Islam and democracy cannot co-exist. Muslims are expected to have only one master and that master is Islam. Islam dictates every aspect of their lives from birth to death.
In America, Islam has had trouble gaining a real foothold. But IslamÂ’s dictation to American Muslims is the same as illustrated by Omar Ahmad, the Council on American/Islamic RelationÂ’s spokesman, when he publicly stated: "Those {Muslims} who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam...Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
In an effort to keep American Muslims under the total control of Islam, the Saudi Arabians have spent billions of dollars building mosques and Islamic schools so that Muslim children can be instructed in the strict laws of Islam. For decades, no one paid much attention to what was being taught in those Saudi-funded schools. Perhaps two generations of American Muslims were taught that Muslims are to be loyal to no country, only Islam. These children were taught that Christians and Jews were the enemy. They were taught that only Islam will dictate how they will live their lives. American children were being brainwashed right under our collective noses.
Because of that, American Muslims are often torn between country and Islam and there is no way to know which force will win in the end.
Islam has not grown in America as it has in Europe or Africa because of the strong Christian influence and democracy, so Imams and Muslim clerics were dispatched to the prison system to scoop up the disillusioned and those in need of something to belong to that claimed it would care about them and for them.
In the general population, Islam has a tendency to attract those in need of someone to tell them how to live their lives while assuring them that their lives will be better. It’s unfortunate that people don’t remember the old saying, “If something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t.” This is a perfect description of Islam. When convincing people to convert, only the loving side of Islam shows itself. It isn’t until it’s too late that people become aware of the dark side of Islam.
Islam is a shell game. Assisted by the “if it bleeds, it leads” motto of the media, Islam is able to keep the world’s attention on the terrorist attacks while “peaceful Islam” quietly goes about the business of taking over entire countries and working its way into the fabric of the legal and governmental systems of others. American Muslims are now petitioning that the call to prayer be blasted over loud speakers five times a day in quiet neighborhoods and towns. This is Islam’s next step in using democracy to destroy democracy. Always on the move, the quiet side of Islam is every bit as dangerous as the terrorists. The goals are the same, only the method varies.
About the Writer: Barbara J. Stock is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/
Posted by: Razor at November 04, 2005 05:11 AM (ywZa8)
13
Whow Razor. Heavy and true.
Marko: You're right, we don't give a damn about the muslims. Can you think of a reason why? Friggin idiot.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 04, 2005 05:26 AM (ZaAd/)
14
Barbara Stock speaks the utter truth without flambouyancy or bias. Just the facts. Not one word of it can be denied.
Posted by: Oyster at November 04, 2005 06:40 AM (YudAC)
15
Muslim as a religion has had 600 years less time to develop than christianity. Anybody recall what christianity was like 500 years ago ? Anyone recall any similarities between the bible and the Quaran. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth burning witches etc ... When ANY religion moves too far to the right bad things happen.
Posted by: john Ryan at November 04, 2005 09:43 AM (ads7K)
16
Now John Ryan is an apologist for the Muslim jihadists. You are a sick man. And Christianity has never taught that you should kill the non-believers. Good God, man, can you read?
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 04, 2005 10:05 AM (rUyw4)
17
Maybe Catholic church wasn't Christian when it ordered heretics and Jews as well as all people who question the faith to be burned, drowned and hung as witches and demons...
Posted by: A Finn at November 04, 2005 10:52 AM (lGolT)
18
And an apologist also for christians ? Christianity has taught that it was necessary to kill non believers. It also taught to kill other christians whose beliefs were not considered proper doctrine. How long in our country"s past were catholics considered "Papists". Were not catholics considered to be as evil as blacks and jews by the right wing christian KKK ? Jesuslandjoe can you read ?http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=2&id=351579 http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3181941?rss I try to be equally critical of all who I see doing evil. Does the left or the right pontificate more on the lack of rights for women ? Well certainly, in muslim, countries neither do much....... if there is oil around. Right wing "islamofascits" seem to be acceptable to both as long as they keep that oil flowing.For myself I try to have only ONE moral standard: to which I hold everyone.
Posted by: john Ryan at November 04, 2005 10:55 AM (ads7K)
19
John, does the fact that Christians used to behave reprehensibly somehow make you feel better than one day soon you may be presented with the choice of converting to islam or getting your throat cut? I'm an atheist who used to be Christian, and I know all about the past crimes of Christians, but you know what? They're exactly that; in the past. Islam is currently the plague du jour, and I harbor little fear that the raving mad fundamentalist Southern Baptists up the road are going to come burn me out and hang me for heresy. I am an avowed atheist and will remain so until I die, but I will stand with the Christians and all civilized people against islam, now and forever.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 04, 2005 12:40 PM (0yYS2)
20
Actually John the word is HAD - and even at its worst many opposed and eventually changed that. But that doesn't seem to matter to you.
OK! John you win - glass houses and all ..
I don't care what muslims do to or treat their women.
I don't care about female circumcision in other cultures.
I don't care about slavery still alive and well around the world.
I don't care about killing infidels or heretics - its none of my business (besides (love this argument) "they've been killing each other for thousands of years".
and on and on and on
But please John - don't come back later with some cause you do care about and EXPECT others to embrace or even give a fuck.
Don't show me some picture of starving babies in say Dafur - feed them - to the lions!
your last line is funny!!! ONE MORAL STANDARD you hold for eveybody????
Isn't that the ultimate contradiction for a Moral Relativist!!!
Posted by: hondo at November 04, 2005 12:46 PM (ymtSt)
21
John Ryan,
Quote me some scripture in the New Testament that orders its adherants to kill anyone just because they do not believe in Christ. None exists and you know it. Did some people do the things you claim? Yes, but they could not honestly claim that they were supported by scripture. So much for your argument. Evil men have always existed. How about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Ami, etc.? I could go on and on, but I made my point.
And your standard is that of any other liberal. One set of rules for me and another set for everyone else. It's called hypocrisy.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 04, 2005 04:00 PM (rUyw4)
22
Thanks for your input, "Greyrooster." I'm not at all clear as to which part of my post you were responding, but, hey, I'm glad that you can at least admit to being a racist... Awareness is the first step towards change, as they say.
I wonder: How many of you actually KNOW a Muslim? Or even have met one? I mean, reading this and other so-called "conservative" blogs, I can only picture you people as fat, middle aged white men, living in a McMansion on a secluded all-white cul-de-sac, in a wealthy, mostly-white suburb, completely surrounded by people who look, think, act, eat, worship, breathe, fuck, and shit EXACTLY like you. Yeah, yeah, I know: You wouldn't want to hang with those mediaeval savage raghead monsters, anyhow. But how can you form a proper opinion when you're just sitting there in front of your computer, quite possibly nude, bouncing racial epithets off of your fellow fat, middle-aged white guys? Instead of another evening masturbating to Fox News (or is that part of the "MSM," too?), why not get off your big ol' pasty asses, get out of your big plastic house, and drive your big plastic car to a kebab joint. Sit down, clear the foam from your lips, smoke some shisha with the locals, and chill the fuck out. All that rage is bad for you. And I do care, honest.
Posted by: Marko at November 04, 2005 07:24 PM (FlRTs)
23
Wow, Marko, that's so... deep. Let me guess; you're about ninteen-ish, white, middle class, college student, liberal arts major, etc., right? Probably never been to more than say, half a dozen cities, and a couple of countries in your life, including possibly Canada, Mexico or France on your high school trip? Lived a good life in the suburbs, raging against your allowance to show your friends that your corporate parents don't control you? Like to go to raves and be a rebel, exactly like everyone you know? Belong to Greenpeace and voted for Kerry?
Well as for me: Fat? No, but stocky at 5'8" and 200 lbs. of mostly (fairly) solid muscle and a little middle age spread. I figure what the hell though, it happens to the best of us. Middle aged? Does 37 count? White and male? Unashamedly so, unlike you, apparently. McMansion? Hmmm, does a two bedroom, two bath without a garage in a blue collar suburb count, with two gay guys living across the street and a black disabled Vietnam veteran on one side, and a single mother on the other, count? More like a Central Park mansion, (If you don't know what Central Park is, it's one of those drive-up, two-story burger shacks). My neighbors do not look like me, I don't inquire how they think, eat, or worship, and I'm pretty sure I don't want to know how the two across the street fuck, though
you might be interested. (
Wink, wink, say no more!) And I can type in the nude if I want to, and it's none of your goddamn business you pathetic little shit. This is America, after all.
As far as hanging with those "mediaeval savages", I have spent time in Saudia Arabia and Iraq. I got to watch a man get beheaded in Jubail, and was invited to dinner with some nomads in Iraq, and they let me, as the honored guest, kill the sheep, so I'm guessing I know a little more about them than you do. I also shop at a Pakistani grocery and eat at a Lebanese falafel shop, a Jordanian deli, and a Palestinian burger joint regularly. Some are actually quite decent people, but these are generally a minorty, with most being either unfriendly or outright hostile. I have known and currently know infinitely more Middle Easterners and muslims than you ever will, so shut the fuck up you stupid little bootlicking dhimmi libtard sycophant. The sooner you and your kind are exterminated the better off the world will be. Now go fuck off and protest something little kiddie.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 04, 2005 07:59 PM (0yYS2)
24
Marko: Ever think that we tried all the silly bullshit you expound years before you thought of it. That is why we act like we do. I know them because I spent 3 years living with them. (if you call it living).
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 04, 2005 09:43 PM (ZaAd/)
25
Marko: This is the Jawa Report. You are a Jawa. So we report on what you say. And what you say is the same old muslim hugging shit we have heard for years. What's important is that Jawas don't count. Have you read Jawas explained? Top left side of blog. Read it. Then you will understand how we feel. If you don't like it. Leave and find a blog that agrees with your muslim ass kissing philosophy.
JOHN RYAN: Now I know what Arnold means by girlyboy.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 04, 2005 09:54 PM (ZaAd/)
26
Hey, thanks for the advice, guy. That's great: I'm a Jawa! Oh, the joys of racist right-wing blog slang! (I hope George Lucas doesn't find out that you guys are using his trademarked alien names as a subtitute for "sand nigger," though) And I'm part of it!!!
Hey, dude, say "Religion of Peace, my ass!" That would ROCK.
So, what turned you into such a sad, racist old man, "Greyrooster?" I mean, I'm roughly the same age as "Imbprobulus Maximus," and I'm not horrible and bitter, and certainly not a racist. Are you overweight? Cul-de-sac, McMansion, all that? I want to help you, I do. But I need to understand you. What makes someone like you tick?
Anyways, back to the topic: Did you even bother to read my first post on this topic? Please do. And explain to me how it's incorrect. As you're an expert on Rajasthani folk customs, I'm sure you'll have no problem putting me in my place. How was this the result of "sharia law," and not primitive tribal customs and clan rivalries? What evidence is there to support the "sharia" claim, other than that some guy in a tinfoil hat "knows" it? And how does pointing out glaring inaccuracies and outright lies in a blog post make me a "Muslim hugger?" (Sounds a bit like "nigger lover," no?) Please respont forthwith.
Posted by: Marko at November 04, 2005 10:18 PM (FlRTs)
27
"Muslim as a religion has had 600 years less time to develop than christianity."
If the rest of the world, not just Christians, hadn't moved on to recognize human rights
for ALL humans, I could understand the lack of enlightenment. But, no. Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.
Posted by: Oyster at November 05, 2005 09:35 AM (YudAC)
28
European Islamic Uprising
The main stream press has again failed in its duty to inform the public of crucial facts that may one day make all the difference when hard decisions will have to me made.
To lay the blame for the Paris Islamic uprising exclusively on a few unemployed disenfranchised youths of North African origins without mentioning the self imposed getto mentality that is the hallmark of Islam in the West is irresponsible and dangerous to say the least.
If they (the press) are doing this in the mistaken belief that by exposing Islam for what it is, Inspiration and validation for the actions of the rioters will offend the Muslims. Then they have missed the point completely, the Muslims are already offended and have found everything we in the West have done since the 7th century offensive.
As you know the uprising has spread to several cities outside of Paris and there are unconfirmed reports that cars have been torched in other countries with large Muslim minorities.
Just as the Palestinian rock thrower has become the signature if their Intifada, I am inclined to think the torching of cars and schools will become the signature of the European Islamic uprising to be used every time the Muslim sensibilities are offended. I also feel that as the situation deteriorates, homicide bombings in Europe will become the norm as it is in Israel.
If and when the French Government regains control of the situation, It's only going to be temporary unless they stop living in denial and start applying extreme politically incorrect solutions to this extreme situation.
Failing that, something will inevitably offend the Muslims in the future and cars will be set ablaze again.
"If they didn't come here, into our area, nothing would happen. If they come here it's to provoke us, so we provoke back." Paris Muslim complaining about the Police.
Posted by: Razor at November 05, 2005 06:08 PM (M7kiy)
29
Riots have now continued for eight days in and around Paris. Thursday night, November 3, Muslim rioters burned 315 cars. In the previous week, they torched 177 vehicles and burned numerous businesses, a post office, and two schools. They have rampaged through twenty towns and shot at police and firemen. In an episode that summed up the failure of France's efforts to create a domestic, domesticated Islam, when moderate Muslim leader Dalil Boubakeur, head of the Paris mosque, tried to restore calm, his car was pelted with stones and he had to rush away.
The riots began on October 27 when two Muslim teenagers ran from police who were checking identification papers -- why they ran is as yet unclear. The police did not chase them, but evidently the teenagers thought they were being chased; they eventually hid in an electrical power sub-station, where they accidentally electrocuted themselves. That night young Muslims took to the streets for the first time, throwing rocks and bottles at police, burning cars, and vandalizing property. The next day rioters, throwing rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails, injured twenty-three police officers in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois. The violence continued over the next few days: more destroyed vehicles and injured police officers. Then on Sunday, October 30, a tear gas shell hit a mosque, further enraging local Muslims; French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy stated somewhat cryptically, "I am, of course, available to the imam of the Clichy mosque to let him have all the details in order to understand how and why a tear gas bomb was sent into this mosque." Since then the riots have continued unabated, defying appeals for calm from French President Jacques Chirac and others. The crisis now threatens to swamp the French government.
Why have the riots happened? From many accounts one would think that the riots have been caused by France's failure to implement Marxism. "The unrest," AP explained, has highlighted the division between France's big cities and their poor suburbs, with frustration simmering in the housing projects in areas marked by high unemployment, crime and poverty." Another AP story declared flatly that the riots were over "poor conditions in Paris-area housing projects."
Reuters agreed with AP's attribution of all the unrest to economic injustice, and added in a suggestion of racism: "The unrest in the northern and eastern suburbs, heavily populated by North African and black African minorities, have been fuelled by frustration among youths in the area over their failure to get jobs and recognition in French society." Deutsche Presse Agentur called the high-rise public housing in the Paris suburbs "a long-time flashpoint of unemployment, crime and other social problems."
One might get the impression from this that France is governed by top-hatted, cigar-smoking capitalists, building their fortunes on the backs of the poor, rather than by socialists and quasi-socialists who have actually strained the economy by spending huge amounts of money on health and welfare programs. Nor does the idea that the rioting has been caused by economic inequalities explain why Catholics and others who are poor in France have not joined the Muslims who are rioting. Of course, all the news agencies have either omitted or mentioned only in passing that the rioters are Muslims at all. The casual reader would not be able to escape the impression that what is happening in France is all about economics -- and race.
The areas hardest hit by the riots, according to Reuters, are "home to North African and black African minorities that feel excluded from French society." AP shed some light on this feeling of exclusion: "the violence also cast doubt on the success of France's model of seeking to integrate its large immigrant community -- its Muslim population, at an estimated 5 million, is Western Europe's largest -- by playing down differences between ethnic groups. Rather than feeling embraced as full and equal citizens, immigrants and their French-born children complain of police harassment and of being refused jobs, housing and opportunities."
So evidently France's failure to live up to its policy of playing down the differences between ethnic groups has bred the simmering anger that has now boiled over in the riots. However, in fact France has done just the opposite of playing down the differences between ethnic groups. In her seminal Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, historian Bat Ye'or details a series of agreements between the European Union and the Arab League that guaranteed that Muslim immigrants in Europe would not be compelled in any way to adapt "to the customs of the host countries." On the contrary, the Euro-Arab Dialogue's Hamburg Symposium of 1983, to take just one of many examples, recommended that non-Muslim Europeans be made "more aware of the cultural background of migrants, by promoting cultural activities of the immigrant communities or 'supplying adequate information on the culture of the migrant communities in the school curricula.'" Not only that: "Access to the mass media had to be facilitated to the migrants in order to ensure 'regular information in their own language about their own culture as well as about the conditions of life in the host country."1
The European Union has implemented such recommendations for decades -- so far from playing down the differences between ethnic groups, they have instead stood by approvingly while immigrants formed non-assimilated Islamic enclaves within Europe. Indeed, as Bat Ye'or demonstrates, they have assured the Arab League in multiple agreements that they would aid in the creation and maintenance of such enclaves. Ignorance of the jihad ideology among European officials has allowed that ideology to spread in those enclaves, unchecked until relatively recently.
Consequently, among a generation of Muslims born in Europe, significant numbers have nothing but contempt and disdain for their native lands, and allegiance only to the Muslim umma and the lands of their parents' birth. Those who continue to arrive in Europe from Muslim countries are encouraged by the isolation, self-imposed and other-abetted, of the Islamic communities in Europe to hold to the same attitudes. The Arab European League, a Muslim advocacy group operating in Belgium and the Netherlands, states as part of its "vision and philosophy" that "we believe in a multicultural society as a social and political model where different cultures coexist with equal rights under the law." It strongly rejects for Muslims any idea of assimilation or integration into European societies: "We do not want to assimilate and we do not want to be stuck somewhere in the middle. We want to foster our own identity and culture while being law abiding and worthy citizens of the countries where we live. In order to achieve that it is imperative for us to teach our children the Arabic language and history and the Islamic faith. We will resist any attempt to strip us of our right to our own cultural and religious identity, as we believe it is one of the most fundamental human rights." AEL founder Dyab Abou Jahjah, who was himself arrested in November 2002 and charged with inciting Muslims in Antwerp to riot (Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said that the AEL was "trying to terrorize the city"2), has declared: "Assimilation is cultural rape. It means renouncing your identity, becoming like the others." He implied that European Muslims had a right to bring the ideology of jihad and Sharia to Europe, complaining that in Europe "I could still eat certain dishes from the Middle East, but I cannot have certain thoughts that are based on ideologies and ideas from the Middle East."
What kind of ideologies? Perhaps Hani Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan Al-Banna and brother of the famed self-proclaimed moderate Muslim spokesman Tariq Ramadan, gave a hint when he defended the traditional Islamic Sharia punishment of stoning for adultery in the Paris journal Le Monde. In Denmark, politician Fatima Shah echoed the same sentiments in November 2004. That same month, filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who had made a film, Submission, about the oppression of women by Islamic law, was murdered in Holland by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri. Bouyeri later declared in court: "I did what I did purely out my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted." In other words, his problem was religious, not racial: Van Gogh had blasphemed Islam, and so according to Islamic law he had to die. Significantly, Bouyeri maintained during his trial that he did not recognize the authority of the Dutch court, but only of the law of Islam.
How many European Muslims share the sentiments of Mohammed Bouyeri? How many of these are rioting this week in Paris? Alleviating Muslim unemployment and poverty will not ultimately do anything to alter this rejection of European values by growing numbers of people who are only geographically Europeans. And the problem cannot be ignored. For France is not alone: Muslims in Århus, Denmark have also been rioting this week. And in France, Sarkozy recently revealed that this week's riots are just a particularly virulent flare-up of an ongoing pattern of violence: he told Le Monde that twenty to forty cars are set afire nightly in Paris' restive Muslim suburbs, and no fewer than nine thousand police cars have been stoned since the beginning of 2005.
Blame for the riots in France has thus far focused on Sarkozy's tough talk about ending this violence. On October 19 he declared of the suburbs that "they have to be cleaned -- we're going to make them as clean as a whistle." Six days after this, Muslim protestors threw stones and bottles at him when he visited the suburb of Argenteuil. He has been roundly criticized for calling the rioters "scum"; one of them responded, "We're not scum. We're human beings, but we're neglected." However, as a solution the same man recommended only more neglect, saying of the Paris riot police: "If they didn't come here, into our area, nothing would happen. If they come here it's to provoke us, so we provoke back." Others complained of rough treatment they have received since 9/11 from police searching for terrorists: "It's the way they stop and search people, kneeing them between the legs as they put them up against the wall. They get students mixed up with the worst offenders, yet these young people have done nothing wrong."
But of course, all these problems are exacerbated by the non-assimilation policy that both the French government and the Muslim population have for so long pursued: the rioters are part of a population that has never considered itself French. Nor do French officials seem able or willing to face that this is the core of their problem today. It is likely that the riots will result only in intensification of the problems that caused them: if French officials offer an accommodation to Muslims, it will probably result only in further intensification of the Islamic identity, often in its most radical manifestations, among French Muslims. The French response to the riots is likely to unfold along the lines of a decision by officials in Holland last May: they declined to ban a book called De weg van de Moslim (The Way of the Muslim), even though it calls for homosexuals to be thrown head first off tall buildings. The Amsterdam city council did not want to contravene "the freedom to express opinions."
That decision is a small example of what the Paris riots demonstrate on a large scale: the abject failure of the multiculturalist philosophy that disparate groups can coexist within a nation without any idea that they must share at least some basic values. The French are paying the price today for blithely assuming that France could absorb a population holding values vastly different from that of the host population without negative consequences for either.
That French officials show no sign, on the eighth day of the Paris riots, of recognizing that this clash of values is the heart of the problem only guarantees that before they will be able to say that their difficulties with their Muslim population are behind them, many more cars will be torched, many more buildings burned, and many more lives destroyed.
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of five books, seven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the WorldÂ’s Fastest Growing Faith and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). He is also an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation
Posted by: Razor at November 05, 2005 06:14 PM (M7kiy)
30
Paris Islamic Uprising
A solution perhaps?
I think that it's time for the French military to ruthlessly crush this nonsense, their Govt should deport all immigrants of Islamic origin who have not been gainfully employed for the last year and detain French Muslim citizens until they have been re-educated and deemed suitable for full integration into a civilised society.
Multi Culturism only works when the invited culture has something positive to add to society and through out history, Islam has repeatedly failed to pass the test.
Posted by: Razor at November 05, 2005 06:27 PM (M7kiy)
31
Hi, "Razor." Did you have anything to add, other than mindless copy-and-pastes? You know, anything actually related to the topic of Mukhtaran Bibi and brutal tribal customs in Rajasthan. If so, please share.
Or were you just trying to drown out my criticism with a barrage of pre-chewed bologna? Nah...
Posted by: Marko at November 05, 2005 06:44 PM (FlRTs)
32
Marko: Nice comeback. Can't argue the facts? Attack the messenger.
Here's a quick lesson, mkay?
TRIBALISM IS PART AND PARCEL OF ISLAM.
Thank you.
Posted by: Oyster at November 05, 2005 07:33 PM (YudAC)
33
Marko, If you dont see the authers credentials at the bottom of the post, I wrote it.
I feel that its important that I post these unbiased articles because the mainstream apoligist politicaly correct press is obscuring the real issue, Islam is not coplatable with modern civilization. Never has and never will.
Posted by: Razor at November 05, 2005 08:14 PM (M7kiy)
34
Oh and Marko .... if you really want so badly to hijack a thread and demand that one address your concerns without regard to what the host started, it might be a good day to start your own blog.
Posted by: Oyster at November 05, 2005 08:21 PM (YudAC)
35
Oh, two of you! Let's start wiiiiiith... "Razor!" OK. Maybe I'm a bit dense, but where does it say that the article you copy-and-pasted was written by "Razor?" It says it was written by a Robert Spencer, for StormFront.org or something. Is that you? Is "Razor" just your stage name? Anyways, none of it has anything whatever to do with the topic of Mukhtaran Bibi, does it?
Aaaaaand... "Oyster." Thanks for the words, and I value your input. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not I'm attempting to hijack the thread, I think. I can't really see how my actions could be so construed. After all, I'm the *only* one who's discussing the topic that "the host started," if you'd care to check.
Also, you wrote, in stunning ALLCAPS, that "TRIBALISM IS PART AND PARCEL OF ISLAM." This isn't the point we're arguing, though I'm sure that would be an interesting debate. I was disputing "Howie's" assertion that NPR was whitewashing their story on Mukhtaran Bibi by saying that her rape was the result of "tribal custom," not "sharia law." And, in this, "Howie" is demonstrably incorrect. Read up on the story, in any source, and you'll see that I'm correct. Gang-rapes happen, in Muslim Rajasthan, in Hindu Rajasthan (Google "Bhanwari Devi," for some good srticles on that) and in Christian America. Such horrors are in no need of embellishment.
But "Howie" claims that he "knows" it was "sharia law," KNOWS it. But what is his source? He has none. It's a prejudiced hunch, nothing more. It's horrible what happened to this woman, but skewing the facts so that they support his racist world views will not help her.
Lastly, I will tell you once again: the gang-rape was condemned by the local imam, and it is because of this imam that the word got out about the rape, and that Mukhtaran Bibi is now a hero to millions. This woman has been gang raped, braved death threats, and more. Please don't taint her accomplishments with your vitriolic hatemongering.
Posted by: Marko at November 05, 2005 09:15 PM (HVTlt)
36
Marko: You seem to be drawn to the word nigger. Are you one? Or as you say. A sand nigger. Are they the same?
Mukhtaran Bibi is now a hero to millions. Perhaps. But what about the other millions and millions of backward animals that agree with such bullshit.
Quit making excuses for the inexcusable. Only Islam allows and breeds this shit.
John Ryan brings up that muslims are behaving like Christians 600 years ago. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING LEFTARD. The scum bag muslims are 600 years behind. They produce nothing, they invent nothing, they achieve nothing. Everything a muslim country does that is progressive is copied from others. I doubt that the backward shits can even produce a light bulb. And if they did they would have to get the idea and machinery from others. The only thing Islam produces in pain, suffering and injustice. And Islam is the reason. In fact Islam is the reason they can't progress with the rest of the world.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 06, 2005 12:12 AM (ZaAd/)
37
Marko are you dense or what?
If the authors name appears ot the botom portion of the post for example: By Robert Spencer or Barbara J. Stock, that means they wrote it and Posted by Razor means I posted it not wrote it.
But just like a Muslim you obscure the issues getting stuck on minor details, while denying the real issues. ISLAM
Futhermore if you are so concerned about copyright, you should go to the Muslim world where 95% of the worlds pirated eletronic media emminates and start an anti pirating campange.
Posted by: Razor at November 06, 2005 04:21 AM (M7kiy)
38
"Muslim as a religion has had 600 years less time to develop than christianity."
Talk about a sorry excuse to explain IslamÂ’s penchant for mindless violence and backwardness.
John RyanÂ’s explanation has help me put everything into perspective.
I believe John is saying that, Islam is an inferior and defective product because they (Muslims) even after Allah having perfected religion for another 600 years before enslaving them with it, have not been able to evolve into the 21st century.
In fact Islam hasnÂ’t evolved past the 7th century, when it was founded.
Why is that?
Muslim believe that the Koran is the word of Allah, verbatim as dictated to Mohammed the prophet. Therefore if itÂ’s the word of god it cannot be changed, debated or criticised (thatÂ’s in the Koran) under the penalty of death. So for Infidels and true Muslims, who are not hypocrites, every word must be obeyed or you are condemned to hell, and thus makes every word of it as relevant now as they were then.
Therefore if Islam is still around in a thousand years it will still be as backward then as the day it was founded.
If it were as simple as Johns simple minded explanation, Judaism which had a couple thousand of years head start would have a couple thousand years progress to show for it and that just isnÂ’t the case.
I have nothing against Muslims, in fact I feel sorry for them. After all they are the first victims of Islam.
Posted by: Razor at November 06, 2005 05:15 AM (M7kiy)
39
Ah, what a beautiful morning! And what's this? "Greyrooster" AND "Razor?" Somebody loves me! But, as usual, the topic was barely mentioned, and my facts, untouchable as they are, still lay there, untouched. I guess that makes me right! Anywho, to respond:
"Razor": Ah, so ignore those pesky details, and just paste regurgitated off-topic drivel. Anything to add ON-topic?
"Greyrooster": Really? Only "Islam allows and breeds this shit?" So, what, all rapes are the work of Muslims? No gang rapes in St.Louis? Ah, you just mean over there, in Ragheadistan. So, what about the Hindus of Rajasthan? Did Islam make the high-caste Hindu thugs rape Bhanwari Devi? Oh, wait... You probably don't care for Hindus, either, right? My bad.
Oh, and since you guys LOVE to copy-and-paste, I'll join in. Here's a one of my absolute faves from the Jawa Report. A little gem written by you, "greyrooster."
"I seen a muslim piece of shit at wal-mart in St Louis today. Him and his ugly family wearing their stupid scarfs and ugly cloths. I wanted to punch his face to pieces so bad only my wife could contain me. This shit should not walk the streets of America. I know in my heart they are the enemy and will turn on us. Why the hell does this stupid liberal dipshit government allow the bastards to immigrate here. Look at the fucking mess they have caused in Europe. TIME TO GET DOWN AND LET THE ANIMALS KNOW THEY ARE NOT WELCOME HERE. And piss on the liberal ass kissing laws that caused this mess. I promise to do my part."
Posted by greyrooster at October 2, 2005 08:52 PM
First of all, beautiful prose, there. So, you saw a Muslim family, and your first reaction was to murder them? Fascinating! I can almost hear your great, pasty thighs quivering with rage! You show those dirty animals! Rats, they're like rats, I tell you! Bleeding this country dry! Guuuaaaagghhhhhhh!!!!
But, you know... since you're so ready to "do your part," I've got a suggestion for you: Instead of waddling around a St. Louis Wal-Mart in an undersized golf shirt, fantasizing about murdering men in front of their children, why not head over to Iraq and fight these "animals" over there? I mean, you're obviously up for it. And your "wife" wouldn't be able to stop you there, oh no! You'd be able to kill whomever you pleased! Rivers of dirty Muslim blood! So... what's stopping you, guy? You promised!
Posted by: Marko at November 06, 2005 07:04 AM (hyf58)
40
There is evidence, however slight, that some Muslims do indeed attempt to move toward the same century that everyone else is in. It's part of the reason there are so many sects (as Christianity has). The problem is that there are those sects, Wahabism and Qtubism in particular, who use extreme violence to force others into their 7th century brand of Islam. You're only technically right, Marko, in saying that it was "primitive tribal customs and clan rivalries" but, as I gave you in ALL CAPS, much of it is part of sharia law. Punishment is exacted to diferent degrees according to how each sect interprets Sharia law.
The difference is that it's extremely rare when punishment is meted out, and not to exact sharia law, that little if anything is ever done about it. What do you think the rapists will get for punishment? I've read too many accounts of women being mutilated, raped, burned to death, stoned, out right killed, you name it, and the perpetrators get 30 days in jail or a slap on the wrist. So far, Mukhtar Bibi is still waiting for justice. And the prime reason why is that a male dominated society is loathe to recognize her as equal in the eyes of the law. Sharia law.
There are some American Muslims who say that sexual violence is not, nor has ever been, a legitimate means of punishment in Islam. The key phrase is "in Islam". Yet, it is specifically shown, time and time again in the Koran by Mohammed himself, that it was quite alright to do so in the conquest of other peoples. Had Mukhtar Bibi been anything other than a Muslim woman, this would never be known world-wide. And still, even being a Muslim woman, she can't get justice.
These "tribal customs" evolve from Sharia law and Islamic doctrine, even if they aren't to the exact specifications related in the Koran. Hence, again, the many sects of Islam and their interpretaions of the Koran.
I watched myself on Arabic TV (over the web) how an Imam sat there stone faced showing what size stick was appropriate for beating one's wife with. "This one is too small, this one too large, but this one is 'just right'."
To put the emphasis on "tribal custom and clan rivalries" without reference to the fact that it's in deeply rooted Muslim communities, cities and countries is disingenuous.
Posted by: Oyster at November 06, 2005 07:50 AM (YudAC)
41
http://iqna.ir/NewsBodyDesc_en.asp?lang=en&ProdID=31880
Sudanese Priests Convert to Islam
10/20/2005
Some 65 priests from Southern Sudan embraced Islam, according Al Khabar newspaper.
The inheritance law of Islam is the major factor that attracted them to Islam, said deputy secretary general of the Islamic Solidarity Organization.
The number of people who embraced Islam in Sudan from 2003 until the end of 2004 reached 88,000.
Training programs and religious classes were offered to the new converts for a period of one month. This helps the new believers to spread the message of Islam among their people.
IINA
(Marko, because you a little denser than your average tard everything above this line was written by a Muslim news agency. What follows was written by me.)
In Southern Sudan where the Christian minority is afforded second class citizens status, as they are in all Muslim countries, the only way to break the cycle of servitude, poverty and discrimination is to convert to Islam.
While there is usually no overt religious compulsion to convert Islam, as in someone putting a gun to their heads saying "you must become a Muslim". The reality is, wherever there are Muslim majorities, the political, legal and socioeconomic restriction placed on the infidel population under Muslim rule really gives them no choice but to convert if they have any hope of alleviating their undue hardships.
Note that they claim that nearly 90 000 kafirs (filthy infidels) embraced Islam in less than a year. It must be really rough on the minorities there, also Muslims just love to brag about the numbers.
Also note that you don't even have to have a clue what their religion is about, you convert they give you a month long course and if you want to change your mind, not a problem, you become a Apostate and them they can execute you.
Lovely isn't it?
And we in the west don't give a rats ass about it.
Any comments?
Posted by: Razor at November 06, 2005 07:55 AM (6krEN)
42
Marko, excellent point about rape, but after consulting my copy of the New Testament over and over again, I still cant find any reference that condones rape in any context. For Christ sake, there isnÂ’t even a Jesus parable that come remotely close to endorsing that kind of behaviour.
Perhaps I just have an outdated version, I am saying this because the version you seem to be using as a reference to condemn everyone other than Muslims has a Koranic twist to it. And it just wont do to have an outdated version of the word of God.
Wait a minute.
According to the Prophet Mohammed, Islam is the third and perfected revelation from God, Version 3.0 with no updates because its perfect.
Using Gods word V 3.0, there is ample justification for raping , lying, cheating, assassination , war mongering, reneging on treaties, pedophilia, torture, genocide, discrimination, looting, terrorism and drinking camel urine.
Marko, you have convinced me to convert to Islam, it has it all.
After 10 years of satanic devil worship, I finally feel ready to join the major league.
Marko, because you are easily confused, I wrote everything above this line.
Posted by: Razor at November 06, 2005 08:26 AM (6krEN)
43
What is it about these libtard losers like Marko, greg, and DSM, that makes them think that anyone gives a good flying damn about what they say? To Razor: we're glad to have you; you make more sense than most, so keep on posting, and don't let Marko's idiotarianism bother you, because when they pick you to snivel and whine at, then you know you've spoken the truth, and that just kills them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 06, 2005 03:29 PM (0yYS2)
44
Marko you simple minded raghead. I'm to old to go to Iraq. I did serve in Vietnam. Mr father died in ww2. My son Scott is a Captain in the United States Marine Corps now serving his second term in Iraq. He and his men kills ragheads for me. So I don't need to go. But I would be glad to. Once again you little shit. You have no idea who you are talking to or about. As others have said. Who gives a shit about what you think. Jawas are to be shit upon. Not listened to. You and they are filth. Nothing more.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 06, 2005 09:25 PM (ZaAd/)
45
Peaceful Islam in Action
Muslim Attacks Incite Violence in Niger State, Nigeria
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1360757.html
Posted by: Razor at November 07, 2005 04:29 PM (ywZa8)
46
Ooh, sorry about the absence, fellas. I was down in New Orleans, heroically gaping at the carnage. Good times, good times...
So where where we? Ah yes... So, I'm really a bit disappointed. All I really wanted was for you guys to look into the true story of Mukhtaran Bibi, and perhaps learn to question your sources. Namely, Howie's ridiculous entry that is the source of this thread. Not by reading yet another racist op-ed piece, or some rubbish right-wing news article that tells you the story the way you, perversely, want it to be. But the simple, unvarnished truth, from multiple, truly unbiased sources, thousands of which are literally at your fingertips. But you didn't. I know you didn't. How? What am I, psychic? Nah: Throughout this thread, in several posts, I've intentionally included a big, fat, glaring ERROR. An error that anyone who'd actually read even a biased report on Mukhtaran Bibi would spot, and, naturally, call me on. But nothing. Not one of you did. So, boys, I must say: I'm disappointed in you.
But a big old "Marko Rules!" iron-on patch to the first guy who find it!
So... individual responses:
"Oyster": I'm not saying that tribal brutality isn't deeply ingrained in many Muslim cultures. I would argue that, in the case of Mukhtaran Bibi, these are pre-Islamic traditions, as evidenced by the fact that the same practices are common to many of the tribal peoples in the region, regardless of religion.
Of course there's nothing wrong with opposing insane Muslim tribal practices. But anyone who claims that this insanity is unique to Muslims is either deluded or dishonest. Poverty, neglect, and underdevelopment, coupled with a long, violent history (stretching into pre-Islamic times) as a regional borderland, are at the root of the problem here.
These are the things holding the people there back, not Islam. We've got some fairly crazy-ass shit in the Bible, too. But we've learned to ignore much of it, for the most part. Why?The "Christian world" is relatively wealthy and well-educated, and our nations are generally much more stable than the poverty-wracked, colonial creations that are the nations of "Islamic world." But in places where the Christians are as poor and neglected as Mukhtaran Bibi's people, such as in a Brazilian favela, or even moderately poor, as in America's ghettoes, you see insane amounts of violence. By Christians, and NOT because of their faith, but because they are poor, hopeless, and pissed off about it. This is not a religious issue. We're not talking "terrorism" here.
And yet, despite this being obvious, you continue to blame Islam for such violence. Why? Yeah, I get it: you guys hate Muslims. But are you insistent on being "set in your ways" that you've become completely incapable of learning? Why would you wish to remain so blind to the obvious truths?
What would draw someone to inhabit a hateful place such as this? I mean, *I'm* here because this "blog" has an overtly racist bent, as do most of its posters, and I enjoy mocking and challenging such people. But who actually comes here for news? There is nothing here. Just hateful gloating followed by ape-like war whoops and back-patting. For instance, there are TONS of sensationalist posts about the so-called "immigrant" riots in Paris, which have caused exactly ONE death, but nothing about the much, much deadlier SECULAR (though Christian-led) riots in Ethiopia. Is this really the "unbiased" information you presumably crave? Is it really so interesting to huddle with masses of like-minded old men and crow about the latest violent headlines that validate your racist views? I think that many of you are capable of better (and, no, not Greyrooster), and I hope you'll learn to think for yourselves.
"Razor": So, where does it condone rape in the Qur'an? Presumably, you've got a copy of that, too, since you're spouting off on the subject. Right?
And thanks for more off-topic copy-and-pastes and links.
"Improbulus Maximus": Finally! "Idiotarianism!" You've made my day. Please, PLEASE say something about the "MTM" or how I'm blaming the "Jooooooooooos." Ooh, ooh! Call me a "moonbat!" Mindless mimickry at it's best!
"Greyrooster": So, you're too old and frail to go to Iraq? What, a bad-ass veteran like you can't just buy a ticket to Iraq, buy a gun (they're everywhere over there!), and teach those dirty Arabs a lesson, Rambo-style? I mean, you did "promise to do (your) part, no? Well, if not actual dangerous fighting, what would your "part" entail, then? Just prowling your local Wal-Mart, pimpled buttocks clenched in rage, one eye keeping watch for any uppity dune-coons with the termerity to cross your path, the other for any bargain American flag-print socks? Important work, indeed!
But are you sure you're up to that, even? I mean, when you were planning to murder that Muslim man and his "ugly family," your frggin' "WIFE" was able to restrain you. And I imagine she's either some frail old gobbler or a malnourished Filipina mail-order slag. So, do you really think you have what it takes to kill some Arab dude in his fucking PRIME? I just can't picture it. Rather, I see you, on the floor, sobbing, clutching your ruptured colostomy bag like it's your mommy. Good luck, though, you big bad neo-Nazi, you.
Posted by: Marko at November 07, 2005 10:55 PM (4fLx9)
47
Marco,
Of course I have a copy of the Koran. But not just any copy, I have an un-sanitized version that was translated and published before the Muslims realized that that it could actually be used against them by a filthy Kafir.
Even better I have a copy of the hadiths (the Life Of Mohammed).
I also have a copy of “Reliance of the Traveler” But you being a dumb ass probably don’t know what that’s about.
Copy of Pact of Umar? Got that too.
Copy of Ayatollah KhomeiniÂ’s Green book? Still looking for it. But its very interesting because it give the correct procedures for molesting little girls as young as 5 until they menstruate. By following these koranic procedures the girl is not considered damaged goods by Allah thus daddy can still charge full price for the dowry.
I just love this Islam, it just get more depraved the deeper you look.
First of all the Koran is a hodgepodge collection of “revelations” from Allah to the prophet that were assembled after his death.
You need to have knowledge of the hadith to make any sense of it.
Next the verses of the Koran is not even in the chronological order of their “revelations”
That means that the earlier peaceful versus produced in Mecca at a time when Mohammed was still under the delusion that he could persuade Jews and Christians to embrace Islam were abrogated (cancelled) by the later in Medina, where he built his political and power base used it spread his “religion” by less than peaceful means.
Now I believe I stated that the Koran gives ample justification for raping, lying, cheating, assassination, war mongering, reneging on treaties, pedophilia, torture, discrimination, looting, terrorism, and my personal favourite, DRINKING CAMEL URINE.
But I find it very interesting that you do not contest any of these facts other than the rape. We know that the reason you didnÂ’t contest it is, because its all true.
Back to rape now.
Koran 033.050
Read it, weep and swill back some of that camel urine Mohammed was so fond of.
Posted by: Razor at November 08, 2005 04:31 PM (M7kiy)
48
What the French Muslims want,
They resent police searches for "sans-papiers" - illegal immigrants - and the constant threat of deportation hanging over them. They also want the right to vote, even for those without French citizenship.
Many French Muslims demand more public recognition by the state, and resent the law which bans the wearing of Muslim headscarves.
How the French Govt is dealing with it,
The prime minister skirted round the highly sensitive issue of Islam, the religion of the great majority of the immigrants and their offspring.
Proof that they (the French) still have their heads up their collective asses,
Mr de Villepin said only that in France all faiths were respected. He acknowledged public concerns about the growth of radical Islamic thinking, but played down the urgency of the issue.
I think I know how Churchill felt when he complained about Germany marching into Austria and Czechoslovakia and every one thought he was just paranoid.
Posted by: Razor at November 08, 2005 04:50 PM (M7kiy)
49
ISLAMIC RAPE
Marco, from the Noble Koran and the Hadiths
“When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).
After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.
Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.
I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO FATHOM THAT HAVING SEX WITH A WOMAN WHOSE HUSBAND, FATHER, BROTHER AND (OR) SON YOU JUST MURDERED WOULD BE CONSENSUAL. THEREFORE BY ANY STANDARD EXCEPT ISLAMIC, IT IS RAPE.
Posted by: Razor at November 09, 2005 03:36 AM (M7kiy)
50
Ok, Razor. Despite the fact that you copy-and-pasted your quotes from assorted holy books, rather than typed them out yourself, I'm willing to believe that you not only own these books, but have actually read them. Not owning a Qur'an myself, I'll even take your word for it that yout copy-and-paste is accurate. Thanks for the requested information!
But, honestly, so what? We've got the same kind of justifications of rape and slavery in the Old Testament. As you said, the New Testament does not condone rape. But, perhaps more importantly, neither does it condemn it. I don't know about your ancestors, but if they were, like mine, Europeans, they were doing the same (and much worse) to their enemies around 600 CE. Pulling out before ejaculating in your rape victim was downright civilized by the standards of the 7th Century.
But this is all besides the point. Yes, Muslim loonies justify their violent actions with crazy Qur'an quotes, just as Christian loonies justify their violent actions with crazy Bible quotes. I haven't denied that, have I? My point has been that Mukhtaran Bibi was not gang-raped as a result of "sharia law," and I have yet to be presented with any evidence that implies the contrary. Why? Because I'm right, and Howie was wrong. Disagree? Prove it.
PS: And nice ALLCAPS, there, guy. I really felt like you were right here, yelling at me. Very effective!
Posted by: Marko at November 09, 2005 12:25 PM (MrdKC)
51
I don't know if Marko will see this. Furthermore, I don't care. It's really not for him anyway, but for myself and others.
The charge that I "hate Muslims" is just that. A charge leveled toward me by someone who knows nothing about me. So let's just put that aside. It's a petty accusation not worth trying to prove or disprove.
However, his attempt to "educate" me, because I'm just so dumb I don't understand that tribalism is older than Islam, is silly. And to imply, or use the premise, that Islam is only "incidental" to the issue at hand is fallacious. These people continue to use Islam as justification to keep barbarous tribal customs in place. I never said these customs are "unique" to Muslims. I will say that it is common for Muslims to use their religion to justify it.
"These are the things holding the people there back, not Islam." Wrong. We can argue the merits of Islam all day, but when the most influential and powerful in the Islamic world use the religion to keep their "flock" in check, by dictating every aspect of their lives from what size stick to beat their wives with to which hand they wipe their asses with (all in the Quran) - from keeping them isolated from the "iniquities" of the world around them to instilling fear of retribution for arbitrary "crimes against Islam" - I'd say Islam is part of the problem.
"We've got some fairly crazy-ass shit in the Bible, too. But we've learned to ignore much of it, for the most part. Why?The "Christian world" is relatively wealthy and well-educated,...." Wrong again. You have it backwards. They are relatively wealthy and well-educated because they ignore the "crazy-ass shit" and stopped allowing the "crazy-ass" Cristian rulers to dictate to them anymore.
Regardless of what the Quran "says", it is the interpretation of it and those who enforce that interpretation that is the root cause of their "poverty, neglect, and underdevelopment". There is poverty, neglect, and underdevelopment all over the world. But take a look at it throughout Indonesia, most of North Africa, all over the Middle East, the ghettoes in France and other eastern European cities and countries, Bombay, Calcutta, and Delhi in India (I won't go on) and in each case you'll find Muslim majorities. This is not just coincindental.
Being taught, from day one, not to mingle with, have dealings with or fraternize with the "unclean", "subhuman" infidel they seal their fate. For those unclean and subhuman people would gleefully exercize free trade with them, share discoveries with them and work together with them to solve issues of disease and poverty elsewhere in the world which, would help to pull them out of their own poverty.
Bringing up conflict in Ethiopia and attributing it to Christians is irrelevant. However, their population of Christians and Muslims is about an even split and their conflict is largely a territorial one with Eritrea, not religious (even though that conflict has brought up some destabilization between the two religions). Read some of their history as Somalia comes into play here too.
It's not that I'm
"so blind to the obvious truths". The fact is that all over the world fundamentalist Muslims have declared war against "the west". Even many of those who are not active participants are supportive of the destruction of the west. Islam is the main focus of attention and much discussion for the most obvious of reasons - because
"they" have made it the focus.
Now ... try and go tell
"them", the Imams, Mullahs, Shaikhs and tribal leaders that Islam has nothing to do with it. Yes, they'll talk about the evils of the west but they won't be able to discuss it without bringing Islam into it and the "ultimate goal".
Posted by: Oyster at November 13, 2005 07:13 AM (YudAC)
52
Despite the fact that you didnÂ’t respond to my post using cuneiform on a clay tablet, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you still have a few active brain cells. Copy and paste, its part of the 21st century. Get used to it.
I find it appalling that you and a multitude of other so called free thinkers are defending the indefensible (Islam) without even having a cursory glance at the crap you are defending.
By extension I am willing to bet that you donÂ’t even have a copy of the old testament to back up your nonsense about it condoning Koranic behaviour. And obviously you havenÂ’t read the new testament either. By the way my weekly grocery list doesnÂ’t condemn rape, so by your standards, I must condone it. Right?
You still donÂ’t get it, Mohammed was not condemning rape, he was condemning pulling out before ejaculation because he needed more bastard children of Islam to carry on with Jihad in the way of Allah.
You and a multitude of other drones are quick to say that the Koran is not alone; the Bible, the Old testament in particular, contains exhortations to violence. Even if this were true, its besides the point because it does nothing to explain why the world today is teeming with Muslim terrorist groups and not Christian ones.
The difference is, people of all religions have committed mindless acts of violence in the name of their religion. But Islam has a long established tradition of interpreting the Koran to this end. And in fact demands it.
Christian Martyrs meet their end by being persecuted unto death, while Islamic martyrs are homicide bombers.
ThatÂ’s a big difference.
Until you write back in cuneiform on a clay tablet, I will not acknowledge your posts.
Posted by: Razor at November 13, 2005 07:28 AM (M7kiy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment