Fadel Soliman's Hong Kong Da'awa Jihad


“The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”

Da’wa (proselytizing) is one of the Islamic weapons. So is Fadel’s jihad of the pen.

China Droll:

And so, it begins. Having been allowed to live in peace and relative quiet for so long, Hong Kong is finally to receive its very first muslim apologist, come here to explain islam – the real islam you see, not the one you read about in the newspaper every day of the week but the fuzzy, feel-good one where jihad suddenly means ‘struggling with your ego.’

Yep, Fadel Soliman has descended on Hong Kong where he is to show a documentary which will explain all about how islam really, really! is the religion of peace, and that all we hear about cutting off hands and noses, not letting girls go to school, hanging gay guys from cranes, killing daughters for looking at a boy, creating no-go zones in an increasing amount of European cities, demanding exemption from a country’s laws and demanding that citizens of countries muslims move to get rid of crosses, Christmas trees, pigs and what not because it offends them, is just our evil, lying eyes and ears totally deceiving us.

So this Soliman is one of those mythical creatures, a “moderate” muslim. He thinks that if we infidels (kafirs) only knew more about islam, we would submit to Allah’s will more easily.

No need for beheadings and all that dirty stuff. Talking of heading, he used to head The World Assembly of Muslim Youth, currently under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee for ties to terrorism … but that can of course not be? How can a group whose only struggle is with its evil urges (one presumes for example wondering what a girl’s face looks like) possibly be linked to terrorism? As we all know, terrorism is un-islamic. More about WAMY: “The Eagle consulted a number of experts and translators to verify our reporting… In each case, the experts unanimously verified that a.) WAMY is an extremist group, b.) WAMY published numerous anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Shi’a Muslim writings, c.) WAMY and its affiliates have been raided, investigated or even deported from India, Pakistan and the Philippines for aiding terrorism or militant groups. In fact, in the 9/11 Commission, WAMY was one of the few groups that was singled out as “spread[ing] Wahhabi beliefs throughout the world.”

But you know, that was just something I found on the internet by googling Fadel Soliman, so it’s probably not true. Must be put there by one of those ‘islamophobes.’

So now that Soliman will tell Hong Kong what islam really is about, will we be so reassured that we start giving muslims special doors that no kafir can walk through? Muslim only days at the swimming pool? Special footbaths at the airport? Streets they can clog up with praying arses? Halal meat only, and the removal of pigs and all future references to this animal? Sharia courts? Special dispensation from bigamy laws – after all, having four wives is only cultural?

That’s what they do in Europe, you see. It’s only fair that we should do the same.


Were Conquered Christians Really Liberated Muslims?

Raymond Ibrahim/Frontpagemag

The Wild Lies that Pass for ‘Truth’ in the Muslim World

Imagine if a top American historian appeared on the MSM insisting that the only reason Europeans conquered the Americas was to “defend” the Native Americans—who somehow had adopted Christianity centuries before Jesus was born—from being persecuted by heathen tribes.

While that would create a maelstrom of outrage and derision in the West, in the Arab world—where some think bewitched animals work as infidel operatives—such absurdities regularly pass for “truth.”

Copts: Muslims Before Muhammad

Consider the case of Fadel Soliman, a celebrated Sharia expert and Arab media darling, who regularly appears on al-Jazeera. Director of the Bridges Foundation—which teaches Muslims “how to present Islam” to non-Muslims—Solimanalso lectures at Western universities, churches, and governmental agencies, including the U.S. Dept. of Defense.

His new Arabic book, Copts: Muslims Before Muhammad, asserts that, at the time of the Muslim conquest of Egypt (c. 640), the vast majority of Egyptians were not, as history has long taught, Christians, but rather prototypical Muslims, or muwahidin, who were actually being oppressed by Christians: hence, the Muslim conquest of Egypt wasreally about “liberating” fellow Muslims. Soliman’s evidence is that the Arian sect, which rejected the claim that Jesus was coequal with God, was present in 4thcentury Egypt. Therefore, according to Soliman, the indigenous Egyptians were practicing Islam hundreds of years before it was founded in the 7th century.

As with much of modern academia’s approach to Islam, this thesis is based on pure fiction. While the Arians were pronounced heretics at the Council of Nicea (325) for their interpretation of the Trinity, they nonetheless accepted all of Christianity’s core tenets—including original sin, crucifixion, resurrection, and salvation—all of which directly contradict Islam’s teachings. What an imaginative stretch, then, for Soliman to portray the Arians as prototypical Muslims, simply because they did not believe Jesus was coequal with God (a standard that would make many people today “Muslims”).

Needless to say, no historian has ever suggested that Muslims invaded Egypt to liberate “proto-Muslims.” Rather, the Muslim historians who wrote our primary sources on Islam, candidly and refreshingly present the conquests as they were—conquests, for the glory and empowerment of Islam and its followers at the expense of unbelieving infidels.

Of course, with the weakening of Islam in the modern era, embarrassed Muslims began to euphemize their imperialistic history, portraying jihad as “defensive,” “spiritual,” etc.—culminating with Soliman’s fairy tale. Even the unapologetic Sayyid Qutb, the sheikh of “radical Islam,” interpreted jihad and the conquests as “altruistic” endeavors to “liberate” mankind.

Such sophistry is inevitable; for the Muslim conquests pose a thorny problem for Muslims. As David Cook writes in Understanding Jihad, p.167:

[T]he conquests were seen from the beginning as one of the incontrovertible proofs of Islam. To disavow them or to examine them critically—which has yet to happen in the Muslim world—will be very painful for Muslims especially Arabic-speaking Muslims. At every point… when Muslims have tried to abandon militant jihad for the internal, spiritual jihad… the memory of the conquests and the need to rationalize them have defeated this effort. The problem may lie in the unwillingness to confront the fact that the conquests were basically unjustified. They were not a “liberation” and they were not desired by the non-Muslim peoples; they were endured and finally accepted.

The question remains: Are Islam’s apologists disingenuous or deluded? When it comes to “bridge-building” Soliman—who provides “sensitivity training” to the FBI and Pentagon—one is inclined to answer in the former: his book containsacademic crimes, including flagrant mistranslations to support his thesis and wild, but undocumented, assertions (for example, that the Arians, like the Muslims, used to proclaim “There is no god but Allah and Jesus is his prophet”).

That said, Muslim self-deception—typified by the impulsive need to always exonerate Islam—is a very real and widespread phenomenon. I am reminded of an Arabic op-ed I read last year in Al-Masry Al-Youm, which opened bluntly by saying: “We Muslims have an inferiority complex…and feel that our Islamic religion needs constant, daily affirmation from Europeans and Americans… What rapturous joy takes us when one of them converts—as if to reassure us that our religion is ‘okay.’” Discussing how the Arab world exulted when it erroneously thought that Muslim critic Henryk Broder had accepted Islam—based on sarcastic remarks he had made—the author wrote “but we are a people who do not understand sarcasm, since it is subtle and requires a bit of thinking and intellectualizing; rather, we read quickly, with a hopeful eye, not an eye for truth and reality.”

Considering Islam’s lax views on deception, this comes as no surprise. After all, whether Muslims consciously deceive infidels or unconsciously deceive themselves, the goal has long been one: empowering Islam and its adherents—reality be damned.

European Converts To Be Indoctrinated In Cairo By Global Muslim Brotherhood Leaders

According to an online profile, camp lecturer Fadel Soliman is director of the Cairo- based Bridges Foundation, a body that specializes in presenting Islam to non- Muslims. He is also an Islamic daawa activist, former imam of the American University in Washington DC, and was appointed the National Chaplain of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth in North and Central America (WAMY, reported by U.S. government agencies and officials to have sponsored terrorism in places such as Bosnia, Israel, and India. (Source)

 Fadel Soliman, a dangerous lunatic and a deceitful soldier of allah:

By Mark Durie via Counterjihadreport:

Things are not going well for lovers of freedom in Egypt.

Egypt is under a moral and spiritual siege. Freedom of speech is deteriorating rapidly, because of rather than in spite of the ‘Arab Spring’.  A recent incident illustrates the critical state of affairs for free-thinking Egyptians.

Sayyid Al-Qemany is a well-known 64 year old prize-winning intellectual and writer on religious and political topics who  has emphasised the importance of critical thinking, and opposed Islamic radicalism.  He has argued for the separation of religion and state and demanded the repeal of article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution, which stipulates that the Islamic sharia is the main source of the nation’s legislation.

Al-Qemany identifies as a Muslim, but believes the Islamic faith should apply to the domain of personal belief and sacred ritual, not politics.  He has also pointed out that not all the verses of the Qur’an are applicable today – such as laws permitting slavery and concubinage –  and some are not even followed in any Islamic jurisdiction in the modern world.

In many ways Al-Qemany is representative of the kind of Islam which Western political leaders hope will characterize the faith of their growing Muslim minorities in their states.

For Western people, Al-Qemany’s views would be regarded as ‘normal’ and rational.  However in Egypt he is bitterly opposed by conservative Islamic leaders, thousands of whom have declared him to be a blasphemer.

Even the Dar Al-Ifta, the office of the Egyptian Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, issued a fatwa implying that Al-Qemany was a heretic and apostate from Islam.  This was after he had been awarded a prize by the Egyptian state for achievement in the social sciences (the selection was made by a free ballot of Egyptian intellectuals).  The Dar Al-Ifta fatwa states:

The statements [from Al-Qimni’s writings] quoted by the [individual] who requested the fatwa are heretical, regardless of who wrote them; they remove their author from the fold of Islam… and [also] constitute a crime according to Article 98 of [Egypt’s] penal code. If these depraved, loathsome, and invalid statements were indeed made by a specific individual, then this individual should be convicted rather than awarded a prize, and punished to the full extent of the law.

This fatwa was subtly written to allow Al-Qemany a way out by disavowing his writings, hence the wording: ‘if … these statements were indeed made by a specific individual’.  The purpose of this fatwa is to intimidate Al-Qemany into retracting his views, for the charges made against him attract the death penalty under Islamic law.  One of the principles of dealing with apostates in Islam is that they should be given a chance to repent.

It is not hard to understand why Islamic leaders oppose Al-Qemany, for he has been fearless in challenging them on many counts.

For example he exposed examples of Muslim leaders who have lied to Western media about Islam.   Among other examples, Al-Qemany reported that:

  • When questioned by broadcaster Barbara Waters, the Saudi Foreign Minister expressed surprise and even denied the existence of a well-known tradition of Muhammad about trees which will cry out in the last days saying, “There is a Jew hiding behind me, kill him.”
  • The Revd Jerry Falwell referred to Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha when she was 9 and he was 52.  Although this is a well-known fact of Islamic history, Hussein Ibish, spokesperson for the Armerican-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee ‘vehemently denied’ Falwell’s statements and claimed he had slandered Islam.  Al-Qemany pointed out that Falwell’s report was accurate, that marrying girls as young as 9 is accepted in Sunni Islam as a result, and even Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi is reported to have taken a new wife more than 60 years younger than himself, younger even than his youngest granddaughter.
  • The high-profile American Muslim Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR (TheCouncil on American-Islamic Relations) and signatory of the Common Word letter, boasted that he had successfully lobbied a publisher to remove from a school textbook a(n accurate) reference to Muhammad’s “marriage” to the Jew Safiyya after killing her male relatives including her husband, on the grounds that the reference was Islamophobic.  Al-Qemany commented that this historical erasure made a ‘mockery’ of America’s democracy:  “The Americans, out of respect for Muslims and their religion … ordered that the story be expunged from the [school] book, and even accused its authors of ethnic extremism.”

Al-Qemany pointed out that such mendacious strategies, far from defending the honour of Muhammad and Islam, in fact manifest contempt for Islam and embarrassment about Muhammad because they attempt to deny and conceal matters which are well-known and not disputed in the religion.  Such ‘protection’ through lies implies a fundamental lack of confidence in Islam.

The question today is how much longer thinkers like Al-Qemany will be able to exist in Egypt, given the rise of expectations that strict sharia must regulate public discourse.  Al-Qemany is a key voice for the anti-sharia opposition: he has spoken out against a culture in which ‘one group is in possession of the absolute truth, and is obligated to correct the others, or, if it can’t correct them, to destroy them…’.

On January 2, 2012 a debate was filmed between Al-Qemany and popular Al-Azhar sheikh and celebrity television presenter Kaled al-Gindy (see here).  Al-Qemany had agreed to the debate on the grounds that it was to be a dialogue with Al-Gindy to discuss their differences in a respectful manner.  However the interview, in which the ‘moderator’ was Fadel Soliman, turned into a kind of trial, in which videos of Al-Qemany’s past statements were repeatedly aired, and it was demanded that he respond to them.  This was in essence a trial designed to prove that Al-Qemany is a murtad or apostate from Islam.  Al-Gindy kept using very derogatory, contemptuous language towards Al-Qemany, which would be very inappropriate to use towards a respected fellow Muslim.

Al-Qemany felt ambushed by this approach.  It was not what he had agreed to.  Initially, for the sake of the viewers, he did respond, but eventually, in protest, he broke off the interview.

Al-Qemany later reported that as he was leaving the studio, the moderator, Fadel Soliman, struck him from behind on the back and the back of his head with a mug full of water,  and threatened his life.  Al-Qemany is reported to be undergoing treatment for head and back injuries in a Cairo hospital.  (An interview with Al-Qemany – in Arabic – is posted here, in which he speaks of his shock at what is happening in Egypt.)

What should make this incident especially attention-grabbing for Western readers is that Fadel Soliman, the alleged assailant, has been a well known interfaith speaker in the West who claims to promotes harmony through peaceful dialogue.  A member of Al-Qaradhwi’s International Union of Muslim Scholars, Soliman heads up Bridges Foundation, which claims to bridge the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims: “Bridges Foundation aims to bridge peoples from different religious and ethnic backgrounds through educational interfaith activities, like power point presentations, gatherings, discussions etc…”  Its website reports that Soliman offers workshops on how to present Islam to non-Muslims and ‘refute misconceptions‘ about Islam. Soliman has given presentations on Islam to more than 65,000 people in the USA, including in churches, universities, and to government departments, such (see here; and also here for testimonials, including from a US lieutenant colonel, a member of congress and a Christian pastor).

One of the ‘misconceptions’ Soliman addresses in his workshops is that Islam is a violent religion (see here). He ‘strongly believes that educating each other about our differences is the best way to bridge peoples and facilitate the peacemaking process, because people do not fight when they communicate with each other (see here).

The idea that violence can always be prevented by communication may appeal to some.  Of course talking can sometimes help prevent violence, but it is no silver bullet against it. And many people do not regard using violence and communicating to be mutually exclusive activities!

To appreciate the implications of the verbal attacks on Al-Qemany, it is essential to grasp the religious context.  There are precedents in Islamic law when Muhammad exonerated people who took the law into their own hands to kill his critics, including one incident in which a man killed his own wife for disparaging Muhammad.  (A discussion of whether such vigilantism is lawful in Islam, which cites the text of this and some other relevant traditions, can be found here).

Although some authorities insist that only the caliph has the authority to execute apostates, the point is that for an ordinary Muslim to do so is not considered murder.  Thus, according to the Shafi’i sharia manual, The Reliance of the Traveller, killing an apostate without lawful authority at worst attracts a minor disciplinary action, for ‘arrogating the caliph’s perogative and encroaching upon his rights’ (p.596 of the Keller translation).  More than this, some scholars judge killing an apostate to be a righteous act, especially when the state is unwilling to apply the sharia’s rulings.  Consider for example the remarkable outpourings of supportfor convicted assassin of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer, including a scene in which hundreds of Pakistani lawyers showered the killer with rose petals.

Al-Qemany understands all this.  He himself has remarked that the allegation of his defection from Islam ‘means, in our country, that I could be slain; any citizen is allowed to kill me and be awarded by God in Paradise’.

Of course the concept of outlawry — of declaring an open season on a human person — is rejected by modern legal thinking, for reasons which do not need to be explained here.  It may have been good enough in the era of the Vikings and Robin Hood, but it won’t wash in Europe today (although the Third Reich did made heavy use of the concept).  The thing is that conservative Islam has not made this adjustment.  (To which statement an optimist might add the word ‘yet’.)

The Islamic version of outlawry means that an accusation of heresy made by a respected Muslim authority leaders can be tantamount to a threat against a person’s life by proxy.  For example, the fatwa issued by the Egyptian Dar Al-Ifta against Al-Qemany gives a justification for anyone who takes Al-Qemany’s life to claim immunity from prosecution before an Islamic court.   These are lethal words.

In a Western country, if someone says about another in a debate ‘you should be taken out and shot,’ it would be considered rhetorical or at best a joke.  But if an Islamic leader declares in a debate that his opponents’ views are heretical or he is a blasphemer, this is in effect signing a warrant for the person’s execution, as well as issuing a get-out-of-jail-free card for whoever performs the deed.

It is very difficult for those who are outside a sharia-oriented Islamic context to understand the intensity of the fear generated by such tactics. Let no-one be so unrealistic as to imagine that the Egyptian state would prosecute those who incite the killing of others through allegations of apostasy.   Dr Ali Gomaa, the official Chief Mufti of Egypt could never be charged for the deadly fatwa issued from his office against Al-Qemany.  And how could the state prosecute anyone else for saying the same thing as the Chief Mufti?  There is no likelihood that Al-Qemany’s assailant will be prosecuted, for Al-Qemany already bears the mark of the outlaw, inscribed upon his life by his zealous Muslim fellow citizens.

Of course the fact that the sharia encourages and licenses incitement to murder under certain circumstances, extolling it as righteousness, makes an absolute mockery of the international campaign to prohibit ‘Islamophobia’, and fools of Western leaders who would partner with Muslims in this misguided project.

When will the West heed the wise counsel of Al-Qemany, and many others, to develop a healthy skepticism towards those who claim to speak for Islam, but conceal and deny its clearly established principles?  When will they comprehend how ridiculous – and tragic – their gullibility is?

When will Western political leaders – some of whom pride themselves in being ‘progressive’ thinkers –  stand up for the freedom and right to life of clear-thinking Muslim progressives in our increasingly sharia-compliant world?

Today some Western leaders profess high hopes that Islam can reform itself.  The White House has even promoted the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical and thoroughly Islamic institution, will become more moderate as it enters the political mainstream.  But how can reform take place if the West does nothing to support progressive Muslim thinkers?

See here for Al-Qemany’s 2009 ‘Appeal to the Conscience of the Word’, in which he calls out to “the conscience of all humanity in the free world to come to my and my children’s rescue by providing moral support and the condemnation and denunciation” of incitement against him and his family.  He writes “This is a distress call to all bodies and individuals; a call to the consciences of every free individual in the world.”

Are our consciences so seared by false ideas and failed, politically correct notions that we cannot heed this call?  Shall we be silent while brave voices like Al-Qemany’s are snuffed out one by one?

If this is so, what right do we have to claim our own freedom, or the freedom of our children’s children?

9 thoughts on “Fadel Soliman's Hong Kong Da'awa Jihad”

  1. The Minds Of Our Youth!~

    Logans Warning:

    I frequently speak about the never-ending information war in which we are engaged with the Islamic world. One of the Muslim tactics is to pit other non-Muslim Americans against us, and they know just who to target: America’s impressionable youth! Let’s examine a perfect example of this practice. This is today’s article from the University Daily Kansan:

    Bond: Educate yourself on Islamic faith to help stop Muslim prejudices

    Since September 11, 2001, Muslims in America have constantly been targets to religious intolerance. One would think after 10 years the hype of Muslim terrorists would be over. I thought that today people were more educated about the Islamic faithand put aside their prejudices. I hoped Americans no longer took seriously the minority of people who burn Qurans and solicit hate speech toward Muslims. However, I have been sadly proven wrong once again.

    I get it, all the Islamic terrorist attacks that have taken place across the world post 911 are just “hype”. Don’t believe the “hype!” Besides that, people are more educated about Islam today, and that is exactly why they are speaking out against it.

    On March 10, a congressional hearing took place to discuss Islamic terrorism within America in association with radical Muslims living in the U.S. The New York Times wrote that some people at the hearing portrayed Muslims to be a “community ignoring radicalization among its own.” Witnesses testified saying things like, “Our children are in danger” and “Americans are sitting around doing nothing about radical extremists.”

    Our children are in danger. The danger comes from the Sharia movement that is taking place across America. Do you want your children to be subjugated under Sharia?

    But what are Muslims here in America supposed to do about this issue? Aren’t there radical beliefs in every religion that could lead to radical acts? It is disappointing that we have decided to single out Islamic radicals and Muslim communities once again. While it seems that Congress was split on the issue, the fact still remains that Islamic intolerance is still an issue in America.

    Christians and Jews are not on a worldwide movement looking to impose a barbaric set of religious laws on all. Now please explain why Sharia should be tolerated. I’d really like to hear an answer…

    This intolerance is spreading all over the world and has recently landed in France as well. On April 11, France officially banned the wearing of “full faced veils” in public. Muslim women, who wear the niqab for religious purposes, are outraged that they are being limited in expressing their faith. Once again, the Islamic faith is being targeted for Muslim radicalism that now threatens the French Republic.

    I had to reread that last sentence twice. YES, Muslim “radicalism” does threaten the French Republic. Muslim “radicalism” = Islam. This is as simple as 1 + 1 = 2.

    This intolerance toward the Islamic faith needs to be stopped here in America and abroad. It starts with us here at KU. The Muslim Student Association on campus works to educate the student body about Muslim identity. It is our job to learn all we can about what the Islamic religion is truly about and not base our opinions and thoughts on what the world is trying to tell us about a select group of radical Muslims.

    Tell me one valid reason why we should tolerate Sharia! The MSA is part of the Islamic propaganda machine. From their Kansas University website:

    “Once this is realized, it should be clear that Islam has the most continuous and universal message of any religion, because all prophets and messengers were “Muslims”, i.e. those who submitted to God’s will, and they preached “Islam”, i.e. submission to the will of Almighty God.”

    Mohammad was a rapist, who called for perpetual war against all infidels! Jesus neither raped nor killed. Slight difference there.

    Was Mohammad part of this “select group of radical Muslims”?

    Bukhari Hadith Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25: Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
    Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

    Back to Bond:

    Education can start with attending prayer at the Islamic Center of Lawrence mosque on Fridays at 1:30 p.m., attend events during the MSA Islam Awareness Week, take an Islam course through the department of religion or research on your own. Religious intolerance will not stop until prejudices can be put aside and individually we can start to move forward in our education of others. Perhaps eventually then, America and the world will become a place where freedom of religion is truly present.

    — Bond is a junior in religious studies and journalism from Andover.

    Would that be a course that you took? Because, if so, it was a complete waste of your time! You are obviously unaware of the intolerance of Islam.

    Muslim Hadith Book 041, Number 6985:

    Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him;but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

    You are also oblivious to the lack of religious freedom under Islam.

    Koran verse 009.029
    YUSUFALI: 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.

    Sorry Bond, journalists are supposed to do their homework. You get an “F”!

  2. Yes, I think we should construct an entire parallel world for them … somewhere past Mars …

    Sheik … Maybe I’ve just not had enough coffee. Would you mind doing an obvious (for Sunday morning retardates) “I said/he said” on the above blue-background article? Thanks.

  3. Whatever, try reading it on the Logan’s Warning link at the top of the “blue” article, then from there on the University Daily Kansan link.

    Logan did the “fisking”.

  4. I wonder what’s so Han about Islam?
    The ethnic Chinese will laugh in this dog’s face.
    They’ll laugh hard.
    And then, the authorities will, hopefully, make him disappear.

  5. Sheik,

    Much of China is “occupied Islamic land”. The case of Xinjiang in the northwest is obvious. Fujian in the southeast was the site of a separatist Islamic theocracy between 1357 and 1366, headed by treasonous Muslim sepoys during the Yuan dynasty. Likewise, Yunnan in the southwest was the site of a separatist Islamic theocracy, the Sultanate of Dali, under the fanatic Du Wenxiu, between 1856 and 1873 before being put down by the Qing with nearly-excessive force. Between 1910 and 1949, the Chinese Nationalist Party actually permitted Sufi Muslim warlords of the Ma Clique to exert authoritarian control over several provinces in central China — Gansu, Qinghai, and Ningxia.

    All “occupied Islamic lands”, of course.

  6. The way mussies look at the world, it is ALL muslim lands which should be returned to islamic control. And we were all born muslim, that’s why one does not convert to islam, one ‘reverts’ to islam…

  7. Quran Ch 8 Verse 59 as mentioned in the early part of this article is completely wrong. Check the Quran Ch 8 Verse 59 does not read like this and please bear in mind to read the CONTEXT.

  8. Quran 8:59 – The infidels should not think that they can get away from us.

    Quran 8:60 – Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.

    Does that make you feel better? The meaning is still the same. Muslims are commanded to kill us infidels.

Comments are closed.