Who is Sheik yer’mami?
Shem, Winds of Jihad Vice President and resident cartoonist, is presently in charge of editing and moderating this blog. Thank you all for news-feeds and contributions and your support. Sheik yer’mami will be saddling the camels and head off on a short expedition to the Middle East. I will keep you posted…
*
Yes: We know this page is outdated and needs to be reconstructed! Bear with us: in the meantime please go to our educational site:
* Robert Spencer:
If you speak honestly and accurately about the Islamic jihad doctrine and the Islamic supremacist agenda, and even confine your case entirely to quotes from authoritative Islamic sources and spokesmen, you will still be accused of “hating Muslims.” This is the constant refrain of apologists for jihad and their useful idiots in the West — and they constantly have recourse to it because they know that it is effective: it turns the Left and much of the squishy Right away from the message of the “hater,” regardless of how outlandish and unjust the charge is.
Myself, I don’t hate Muslims. I love Muslims. Telling the truth is not an act of hate. I am not “Islamophobic,” I am Islamorealistic. I tell the truth about Islam and work to defend Western civilization and society from the encroachments of a legal and societal system that oppresses Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Or visit our Islam site: here
For the Nutroots:
Multicultural Europe and its suicide
Finsbury Park Mosque, London 2002
Are you willing to defend your freedom?
* Fight against sharia: “Sharia is Hate”
Unlike refugees from Nazism, or Communism, who hated Nazis and hated Communists, and wanted only to escape from them and, in many cases, to actively work against them, the so-called “refugees” or simply immigrants from Muslim lands bring with them, in their mental baggage, Islam itself. They do not realize that it is Islam, with its inshallah-fatalism and natural support for depotism as opposed to advanced Western democracy (for the belief-system locates legitimacy not in the expressed will of the people, but in the will expressed by Allah in the Qur’an, as glossed by Hadith and Sira). They carry the belief-system with them, and what is more, attempt – not without success — to spread it about, to make sure that the numbers of adherents of Islam grow and grow and grow. It is this Da’wa, and demographic conquest that is the result of fantastic, utterly unchecked Muslim migration, and the great disparity in birth-rates between Muslims (who often smuggle in plural wives, supported by Infidel taxpayers in their generous welfare payments), and the indigenous non-Muslims, that has, for example, caused the 15,000 Muslims in Holland in 1970 to become 1 million, or 5-7 million Muslims now to burden the educational and justice systems, and the welfare benefits, and the laic state, and social peace, in France, and England, and Germany, and everywhere that Muslims in large numbers have been permitted to settle — which has led, no clear-sighted Infidel can deny, to a situation far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous — and becoming more unpleasant, more expensive, more physically dangerous every day — for the indigenous Infidels.
This must stop. This suicidal policy cannot continue.
Guessing the religion of those who plant bombs, hi-jack planes, fire into crowds of civilians, take hostages and murder hostages is the world’s ultimate no-brainer. And yet our leaders, the media and many of us pretend there’s no connection between psychopathic killers and the religion which exalts the slaughter of unbelievers. Islam remains what it was at its beginning, a violent, expansionist faith that will tolerate no competitors. What other religion has the concept of jihad, the notion that if you die fighting for allah you get 72 virgins in paradise? Mohammed started by eliminating the competition, annihilating Jewish tribes in the Arabian Peninsula. More than a 1000 yrs later, it’s still business as usual for his successors. Is islam a religion of peace? Is there an Easter bunny? Can pigs fly? Calling for a war on terror is like trying to stop the bullets instead of stopping the people who are doing the shooting, decades of terror and they still dont get it. Any religious creed that promotes terrorism as a method for the conversion of infidels deserves only contempt and needs to be mocked, crushed, and expelled from the lands it has silently infiltrated. The war is, and needs to be identified without question, against islam and their numbers and attitude warrant exceptional attention…
Hugh Fitzgerald
*
So-called dialogue with the Islamic world and relativism regarding marriage, the dignity of women, and sexual equality in the name of multiculturalism is destroying European identity and doing away with womens rights.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
By Samir Khalil Samir
The ideology of multiculturalism, i.e. blind tolerance toward any culture and tradition, is destroying European identity and is above all doing away with human rights and, more specifically, women’s rights. A prime example is the increasing tolerance in European countries toward polygamy.
In theory, polygamy is prohibited in Italy and in Europe. But it increasingly happens, in the name of multiculturalism, that Muslim immigrants are registered as polygamists in the European continent: if a man is Muslim and married in his country of origin with 4 wives, we cannot but accept this as a given. All this goes against European laws and constitutions – which affirm monogamous families – but, in the name of a misplaced respect for cultures, any solution is deemed acceptable.
Tolerance for polygamy?
In Italy, some constitutionalists are suggesting, for the sake of letting people have it both ways, that only one wife be recognized as such, while the others are considered concubines: this would settle the situation of various Muslims who already have a wife in their country of origin and take another in Italy. Others think that a distinction could be made between civil marriage (at City Hall, with just one wife) and religious marriage in a mosque, where polygamous marriages could be celebrated. Naturally, to do this, they are proposing that the articles of Italian civil law, which affirm monogamy and the equality of men and women, not be read. A similar trend is spreading in Greece. In certain areas where Muslims are the majority, the government has accepted the principle that they manage themselves with their own norms. And so, in Athens, polygamy is prohibited, but in Muslim-majority areas, it is allowed, again in the name of cultural respect.
Multiculturalism is doing a lot of damage. Firstly to common sense: if a man is married in Senegal with a woman and in Italy with another, this cannot be defined as monogamy. A crime remains such whether it is committed in Italy or abroad. Such tricks are actually a way to suggest loopholes for polygamy. Thus, if an Italian wants to have more than just one wife, all he needs to do is to convert to Islam!
But multiculturalism is above all damaging to the dignity of women. Polygamy in Italy is prohibited in that it is contrary to the principle of equality between men and women. It would be useful to Islam too to affirm this principle. In Islamic society, in fact, women cannot be polygamous (only men have that “right”). The same is true for repudiation, which is permitted to a man, but not to a woman who, however, can ask her husband the favour of repudiating her. Affirming monogamy is thus the way forward on the path for an overall effort in favour of women’s rights.
The Imam of Vénissieux and women
To understand the humiliation in which women live in the Islamic world, I would like to recall a fact that sparked much debate in France. Last February 20th, the courts definitively rejected an appeal made by Imam Abdelkader Bouziane. An Algerian-national, Sheikh Abdelkader, imam of the mosque of Vénissieux, near Lyon, a polygamist and father of 16 (sixteen) children (14 of which French citizens) had been living in France since 1980.
He had been ordered on February 26, 2004, to leave the country by Interior Minister Sarkozy, for his inflammatory speeches and for incitement to hatred, but the ordinance was not enforced. On April 20, following an interview in the “Lyon Mag” newspaper, he was again served an expulsion order for his statements against women, in particular for having said that “the Koran authorizes a Muslim, in certain cases, to beat his wife,” that women must subjugated themselves to their husband and were not equal to men.
On April 23rd, the administrative tribunal of Lyon suspended the expulsion ordinance and rejected the Interior Ministry’s request. The imam went back to France in May 22. On October 5, 2004, the State Council cancelled the expulsion suspension, and the next day the iman was again expelled to Orano in Algeria. On June 21, 2005, the Lyon court declared him once again free, but on October 14, he was convicted in absentia. The imam filed an appeal, but on February 6, 2007, the courts definitively rejected his case.
The “Régards de femmes” Association of Lyon, which had sued the imam, declared: “The right to dignity, to respect, to the integrity of her body belongs to every woman in France. It will not be possible from now on to legitimize violence against women on the pretence of religion.”
The Imam’s interview
here are a few extracts of the (famous) interview with Sheikh Abdelkader on the male-female relationship.
In your opinion, are women equal to men?
No. For example, women do not have the right to work alongside men, as they [women] could be tempted by adultery.
Must women necessarily be subjugated to men?
Yes, because the head of the family is always a man. But he must be fair to his wife: he must not beat her for no reason, nor consider her a slave.
Is this why you are favourable to polygamy?
Yes, a Muslim can have more than one wife. But not more than four! Plus, there are conditions.
But why can women not have more than one husband?
Because no one would know who fathered the children!
Are you in favour of the stoning [1] of women?
Yes, because beating one’s wife is allowed by the Koran, but under certain conditions, in particular if she betrays her husband. Please note however: the man does not have the right to beat her everywhere: not on the face, but in the lower parts, her legs, her stomach, her bottom. He can beat her vigorously so as to induce fear, so that she does not start again!
The Koran: wife beating is allowed
Various readers were up in arms, but in the end the imam defended himself saying that this is the Koran. And he’s right. If we open the Koran at Sura 4, verse 34, we can read:
“Men have authority over women due to the preference that Allah concedes to them over the other and because they spend their property [for women]; Good women are therefore obedient, guarding under secrecy that which Allah has preserved [sex]. [2] ; As for those on whose part you fear insubordination, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do nothing further against them; Allah is high and great.”
Last week on Al Jazeera, I heard another imam explain the four conditions for beating a wife: not on her face; without drawing blood; without breaking bones; not in the presence of children. If all this is insufficient, one must resort to extreme punishment, i.e. the man deprives his wife of sexual relations.
The Koran is also explicit on the question of the superiority of men to women; according to the Koran, Charter 2 (The Cow), Verse 228:
“Divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have priority to take them back during this time if they wish for reconciliation; and they [women] have rights equivalent to their duties, on the basis of good custom, but the men are superior. Allah is Mighty, Wise.”
The Italian edition published by the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy (UCOII) includes a long footnote (absent on the on-line version) on the phrase “but men are superior”:
“In a pitiful effort to standardize Islam to Western culture, certain modernist commentators have written that superiority has only to do with the right of men to repudiate their wife, a faculty which is not reciprocal. In reality, it is a much more important and fundamental matter for the maintaining of balance at the individual, family and social levels.
“Man and Woman are two complementary realities that exist unto each other. If this were not so, Allah (glory be to Him the Most High) would not have formed Eve from Adam’s rib, he would have furnished each gender with complete reproductive organs, etc., etc.
“The physical structure of men is capable of great exertion and significant exploits, that of women, of steady labour and great endurance of pain.
“Male sensitivity is entirely exterior, projected outside the realm of family and tends to become public and political. That of women is interior, careful of oneself, aimed at the protection of that which has been acquired and to the acquisition of simple means of sustenance and security.
“Male psychology is imaginative, creative, experimental, risk-loving, desirous of novelty, of affirming the Self, usually ample and superficial. That of women is concrete, traditional, risk-hating, desirous of certainty, of conserving what is “mine”, usually profound and limited.
“In the realm of family, the respect of the Laws of Allah and of the Sunna of the Messenger can create situations that require an affirmation of power that mortifies the complementarity of spouses. But apart from complementarity, there is the problem of leadership, in the family and in society, which does not mean predomination, oppression or the lack of recognition of female predominance in a number of sectors and circumstances. Allah (Glory be to Him, the Most High) assigns this management role to the male. It is an onerous and difficult task that men would often willingly do without, and for which he must respond before Allah.”
This apologetic comment, written by an Italian converted to Islam, mirrors the opinion of traditionalistic ulemas, avoiding their excesses. It assigns specific tasks to men and to women, tasks which are unchangeable because determined by God, which claim to correspond to the nature of one and the other. It is obvious that such a distribution of roles, established by God for eternity and valid for all times and cultures, is hardly compatible with Western mentality and is often incompatible with the laws and constitutions of Europe.
Conclusion
Is it possible to accept this teaching in the name of the respect for cultures and religious tolerance? This is the serious question faced by all Western countries.
I don’t know if the flag-wavers of multiculturalism realize how much human damage they cause. Actually, it is increasingly clear that so-called multicultural tolerance is only acquiescence to a subtle form of racism. In the name of cultural difference, in fact, everything is left to proceed on parallel tracks, without envisaging any progress, integration or betterment in the name of human dignity.
It is time for Europe to understand that religious law cannot prevail over civil law and that, above every form of tolerance, there is a country’s constitution. If this does not happen, Islam will be given carte blanche to colonize our customs.
NOTE :
1) The imam, who had lived in France for 24 years, did not understand the word “stoning”, which he understood to mean “beating”. Hence, his reply.
2) In UCOII’s translation, generally attributed to Hamza Piccardo (Imperia, 1994), the following note can be read “This is the ideal of the believing woman: ‘patient and modest.’ Says the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “The best of women is she who rejoices at your gaze, obeys you, guards her person and the property of the husband in his absence.”
Was Muhammad a Sex Maniac?
From the Hadith:
Muslim (8:3309) – Muhammad married Aisha at the age of nine.
Bukhari (62:18) – Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, wasn’t on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.
Muslim (8:3311) – The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad’s house (something to play with when the “prophet” was not having sex with her).
Bukhari (6:298) – Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her.
Muslim (8:3460) – “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she could sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?” Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an “older woman” instead.
Bukhari (4:232) – Muhammad’s wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it’s a wonder he found the time to slay pagans.
Bukhari (6:300) – Muhammad’s wives had to be available for the prophet’s fondling even when they were having their menstrual period.
Bukhari (62:6) – “The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.” Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally – and it isn’t hard to guess why.
Bukhari (5:268) – “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, ‘Had the Prophet the strength for it?’ Anas replied, ‘We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.’ ”
So let me summarize:
Even if we accept a 54 year old man marrying a child, raping captured (non-believing) woman what does that make him?
Even we accept the unacceptable, what do you call a guy who rapes captured women and sells them into slavery?
Even if we accapt all that, what do you call a guy who has sex with 14 women in one night?
Did Muhammad, profit of Islam, drink wine? Yes he did!
Here’s more:
The Sex Life of the Prophet
Some of many jihad verses:
Qur’an:2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you , though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”
*
Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
*
Qur’an:8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”
*
Bukhari:V4B52N44 “A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed.’”
*
Bukhari:V1B2N25 “Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah’s Cause.’”
Arguing, debating with Muslims:
They will say:
1. He’s taking verses out of context
2. He’s an Islamophobe/racist/bigot
3. He doesn’t know Arabic, and you can’t understand the Qur’an unless it’s in Arabic
4. He’s not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials
5. The Qur’an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand
6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?
7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?
8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims
9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics
10. He’s lying
11. If you prove him wrong from Qur’an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed
12. He has been refuted hundreds of times, and thoroughly discredited
Muslims are hopeless. They can’t debate because Islam doesn’t make sense. They are victims of a senseless indoctrination program that devours them and their perceived enemies. More
Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Not!
The day after 9/11, President George W. Bush made the absurd statement that Islam is a religion of peace. Ponder the findings of a monumental study of the Islamic Trilogy, the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sira published in 2007. The study was made by Bill Warner, director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam:
- Of more than 153,000 words in the Koran, only 4,018 or 2.6 percent seem to express goodness to humanity, qualified, however, by obedience to Muhammad.
- The words of Allah are only about 17 percent of the Islamic Trilogy, but the words and actions of Muhammad comprise 83 percent of the Trilogy.
- About 20 percent of the most authoritative school of the Hadith is about jihad.
- At least 75 percent of the Sira is about jihad.
- There are 146 references to hell in the Quran, only 6 percent of which concern moral failings such as murder and theft. The other 94 percent of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Muhammad, a political crime.
Warner concludes: there is no benevolence toward good nonbelievers in Islam. Moreover, and, contrary to what Obama said in Cairo, there is no golden rule in Islam that restricts what Muslims may do to non-Muslims. This places a big question on Islamic monotheism
Open Season on British Women (The Opinionator)
Now that Europe has imported a 7th century values system and given it top priority, the continent’s women will need to remember to cover up.
Debating Islam (Answering Muslims)
A four-part video series of a debate between David Wood and Sami Zaatari. The subject is “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” (As usual, Sami’s job is to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with what is done in the name of Islam each and everyday).
Poll: Muslim Support for Terrorism Declines (Pew Research)
Muslims are less likely to support terrorism when THEY are the targets of such attacks. Thanks to recent al-Qaeda sprees in Islamic countries, bin Laden is barely pulling 50% approval ratings. Religion of Peace, indeed!
Child Rape and the Religion of Peace (CNN)
(Video) Parents express shock that their child is raped afterbeing “married off,” but then tell the girl that she belongs to her husband.
Sex in the Islamic City (FrontPage Magazine)
An ex-Muslim explains why Muhammad’s religion has been so successful in motivating young Muslim men to become “martyrs.”
We are Losing Europe to Islam (TownHall.com)
As a side note – If Europe goes Muslim, then where will the Muslims who have “fled” there have to flee next?
Our “Ally” Islamabad (The Australian)
One of America’s best buddies is in the process of becoming the world’s first nuclear-armed Sharia state.
Jihad for Love (FrontPage Magazine)
A new film exposes the very real persecution of homosexuals under Islam that goes far beyond mere disapproval.
‘She Doesn’t Want to be Called an Uncircumcised Girl’ (LiveLeak)
Video of female genital mutilation. Seriously, does this look natural?
Britain Adopts Sharia (Chronicles Magazine)
A must-read piece from Srdja Trifkovic.
When Someone Says You Shouldn’t Watch Something. . . (JSOnline)
. . . react accordingly. In this case, the film in question is the excellent documentary, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West.
The al-Aqsa Myth (Europe News)
Just one more example of Islam’s attempt to borrow legitimacy from someone else’s religion.
(Joke) India vs. Pakistan at the UN (The Kashmir)
A bit of inside humor regarding the “disputed” region to which Pakistan lays claim.
Female Genital Mutilation in Eritrea (BBC)
Muslims in some parts of the world are beginning to realize that Allah wouldn’t have made the clitoris in the first place if he meant for it to be cut off. Women elsewhere. . . not so lucky.
Jordan’s Outreach to Hamas (JCPA)
The bonds of Islam are simply too strong to let a little thing like terrorism spoil relationships.
Gave Peace a Chance (Jerusalem Post)
A Peace Now activist in Israel reluctantly admits that his country has no peace partner in the Middle East.
No Longer One Law for All (Spectator)
“Sharia law is not compatible with English law or the principles of equality and human rights that it embodies.”
Fear and Fiction (FrontPage Magazine)
The story behind the story that was deemed too hot to handle.
Losing My Religion – Continued (Islam Watch)
The second piece to the story of a Muslim who decided that believing for the sake of believing wasn’t making much sense anymore.
From Magna Carta to Sharia: Britain’s Decline (Brussels Journal)
Labour has worked hard to give the cancer a foothold.
Islam and the Barbary Pirates (Islam in Action)
How did the Tripoli ambassador justifiy the plundering of ships and the enslaving of innocent people to Thomas Jefferson? Let’s just say the man knew his Qur’an.
Fleeing Malaysia (Islamist Monitor)
Only a few short years ago, the young country of Malaysia was held up as proof that a Muslim majority didn’t necessarily mean discrimination against other religions. Wonder what it means now?
Street Warfare in Denmark (The Opinionator)
More Islam – less peace.
Wildcatting for Allah (Max Flack)
Somalis in Colorado demand special privileges for themselves, but how do they treat other religions back home?
Islam at Face Value (Europe News)
A lot of insight into Islam can be gained from the first few verses of the Qur’an. Unfortunately, little of it is good.
The Hatred within Britain (The Telegraph)
These investigators were shocked to find that hatred exists within British mosques. Other than that, there’s nothing humorous in this article.
Honor Killings in Islam (FSM)
“What kind of an ideology causes a man to show no remorse for murdering his own daughter, but then rant and rave at being served ham sandwiches while in prison?”
Fighting for the Right to Incite Murder (Pajamas Media)
The Muslim Student Union is fighting hard to keep hate alive.
The Islamic Suicide Bomber
Dead Mumbai Headbanger
| “Sharia Is Hate” |
By Supna Zaidi
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, October 06, 2008
Imagine Dodger Stadium full of loud and whooping fans cheering on, not baseball, but your weekly stoning and flogging of adulterers, thieves and other errant citizens of southern California.
This is America under Islamic law, or Shari’a, a system that everyone should fear. Or so, Alan Kornman, director of the United American Committee (UAC) thinks. He continues to fundraise for a freeway billboard in Florida stating, “Shari’a Is Hate,” to educate America before it’s too late.
As Kornman argues, “under Shari’a law if you are accused of stealing, a hand and foot from opposite sides are amputated. If you are caught having an affair, the woman is stoned to death and the man is given 80 lashes. If you change religions, you can be charged under apostasy laws and given the death sentence by a legal Sharia court.”
The implementation of Shari’a is much more subtle than the quotation from Kornman suggests, however.
Through Shari’a, Islamists govern the private lives of individuals as well as regulate the social, political, and economic aspects of society. Islamism crosses national borders, with the final goal of asserting the Muslim ummah globally, with all non-Muslims as second class citizens. It is a totalitarian ideology, and Islamists do want to make Europe and the US Islamist states.
Don’t wait for floggings in your local neighborhood. Consider the following incidences:
1. Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing fares where would-be passengers are carrying alcohol because it is a sin to drink in Islam:
This first example exemplifies the lack of tolerance Islamists have for non-Muslims. It is one thing to believe drinking is a sin; it’s quite another to enforce your opinion on others. Muslims aren’t alone in this belief. Consider Mormons, who don’t drink coffee because of the caffeine. The problem is the belief that you have the right to impose your opinion on people of a different faith, or no faith at all.
The Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC), possibly fearing charges of discrimination, tried to compromise and approached Kahlid Elmasry of the Muslim American Society, who sided with the cabbies: “it is expressly stated transportation of alcohol for Muslims is against the Islamic faith, and therefore forbidden.”
But this is not an Islamic country. The Constitution governs us, not Shari’a. Therefore, Elmasry’s defense of the cabbies’ position reinforced their notion that Islamic law trumps American secular law. In a later lawsuit, the cabbies lost and intend to appeal.
2. Niqabi fails to reveal face for ID purposes.
The second example concerns Muslim women and modesty. While there is no specific definition of what modesty entails in the Quran, Islamists increasingly demand the niqab, which covers a woman’s body, hair, and her face. Islamists refuse to concede that the niqab is not a requirement of Islam, but greatly debated among Muslims. Yet, when Americans raise security concerns, Islamists call them racist.
Consider, Sultana Freeman, a niqabi in Florida. She refused to remove her veil for picture identification purposes at the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) citing modesty. In reality, she mocks any reasonable person’s definition of modesty since ID pictures have nothing to do with attraction and sexuality, completely ignoring Florida’s right to identify its citizenry for the sake of public safety. Such blind adherence to Shari’a rather than the laws of the state exemplifies the disdain Islamists have for non-Muslims wherever they may live as well as common sense.
3. Polygamy in America
United States are obligated to perform their duties within the limits of American secular law. Yet, some Imams, like Siraj Wahhaj, prefer to ignore American law where it conflicts with Islamic law. Wahhaj stated in Paul Barrett’s 2007 book American Islam* that, “If a man can have a hundred girlfriends, and it’s legal, I don’t say you can’t have more than one wife.”
Rather than explain what is wrong with men having multiple relationships, Wahhaj greenlights it under the guise of polygamy despite American law against it. This is because he only sees relationships from a usurious male perspective when he should be teaching men to see women as equals and partners. Moreover, he ignores a woman’s perspective entirely. Subsequent wives have no legal rights. Family problems, domestic abuse, combined with economic dependency, forces women to remain silent when issues arise.
Wahhaj also ignores the criminal fraud behind polygamy as well. The UK, Canada, like theUS, face welfare fraud every time polygamous marriages are made. Subsequent wives live in a marital household, yet can file for welfare as single women because they failure to register the marriage. The failure to register is not an accident. Polygamous couples know that if they file they will be arrested for violating local bigamy laws. Second, these couples realize the financial advantages given current welfare policy. Such fraud is occurring in the thousands and is a burden to all taxpayers.
It is time for policymakers to realize that Sharia is a system of hate and must not gain any influence in American society. It denigrates women, non-Muslims and the US Constitution. Policymakers must define the limits of religious accommodation in light of the Islamist agenda. Otherwise, democracy and true tolerance will be mere words with no meaning as Islamism spreads in the West. The UAC billboard is a good start in bringing the danger of Sharia to the nation’s attention.
Greetings from sheik yer’mami!
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 528 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
KAW,
Remember Ft. Hood.
You know it is Nature of human when he sees injustice for long time he become psychological sick and react so the person who react it was a human reaction in Ft. Hood now the media and sick people like you will says it was by Muslims and by name of ISLAM which is every time did by media and it is job of media to propagand against ISLAM, believe me if the injustice continues the reaction will be more and more and our Christiane people will die every day by our own Christiane peoples. hope it will stop.
John
John, I don’t understand what it is you are trying to say, but one thing I do pick up from your reply is that you are thinking of sex with women and girls. AND THAT, YOU WON’T FIND IN PARADISE.
Search my friend for the truth. Ask God to help you know what is true and what is not.
John, or whatever your name is, you have evaded the question by rambling, but onething I did pickup from your replay is sex with women and girls. AND THAT, you won’t find in “paradise”.
Search my friend for the truth.
John
you ARE a muslim idiot. You just described a muslim with your diatribe – IF YOU WANT TO SAY SOME THING THEN KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE TOPIC.
YES JOHN WE WILL ALL DIE – BUT WE TRY AND LEAVE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE WHEN WE GO – WHICH IS WHAT YOU MUSLIMS DO NOT DO!!!
And please use your muslim name – a muslim like you using the name John is an insult to all people who are, and were called John What in the world is your major problem with sex – it is only one component of our existence but it seems to be everything for you – as I said – you sound like a muslim pervert.
Are you really as stupid as your last email indicates??????
John
Are you really as stupid as your emails suggest? Sex is only one component of life. It is not everything and your hangup with it is very amusing, We all die and we usually try to make things better for others before we we leave. DO YOU????
An observation: Muslims are the most selfish people one can meet – they have no concept of society and all they do is to satisfy a perverted set of rules so that they believe they will be rewarded. And that is the equation – you people do every thing for yourselves only – for a reward – you have no concept of sacrifice for others unless of course you are rewarded after death. Well many of us non-muslims sacrifice something or a lot for no reward but only so that others can benefit or survive – you will never understand that you selfish little twit.
You are wasting peoples time – go back to the mosque you idiot.
You are simple proof of how backward most muslims really are.
John [I mean Abdullah], and your point!
KAW,
Remember Ft. Hood.
You know it is Nature of human when he sees injustice for long time he become psychological sick and react so the person who react it was a human reaction in Ft. Hood now the media and sick people like you will says it was by Muslims and by name of ISLAM which is every time did by media and it is job of media to propagand against ISLAM, believe me if the injustice continues the reaction will be more and more and our Christiane people will die every day by our own Christiane peoples. hope it will stop.
John
John,
You are a waste of space. Why are you so hung up about sex – it is only one part of being human and that is all you can concentrate on. Actually muslims are the only group that behave in the way you suggest – just ask the millions of women who have been murdered by muslim males in the last cenury. Go back to your madrassa and give your imman a blow job – maybe you wont have to lick his butt clean tomorrow.
Excellent site! Blogrolled!
I don’t know how i should start the writing……. because the matter on your website is totally non-sense. we can say that people like you are responsible for today’s worst condition of our planet earth. if you don’t know about religion then why you are wasting your time. if you are funded by any devil than you should know that one day you will die…. and God will ask about what you are doing today. so please study the religions comparetively and then decide what is wrong and right. plz study like a human not with the eyes of muslim or christian or jew.
Hope you will try to understand.
Martin
Martin,
You need to study all religions, not comparatively but, in their entireties. This way you gain the essence of each clearly. Each of us has a different way of expression but a single view about Islam, after a lot of research, here, there and everywhere else.
The Sheik’s site is unique for its acceptance of a forthright range of views. You should view it for a while because you clearly have not understood it.
Its humour is particularly appreciated by me because it helps to deal with the issues we learn about. Otherwise we might bury our heads in the sand, for the ugliness.
When you finish studying Islam get back to us!
If Islam is not a good religion and according to your propaganda if Muslims are terrorists then why hundreds of christians are embracing Islam everyday?
You do not have any answer……
Study the Islam, you will love Islam.
Islam is a religion of humanity, truth and peace.
Read the history.
Open you mind.
Spread peace and love.
You cannot kill billions of Muslims.
Leave the “road of hate”.
Join the “road of peace and love”
I was a christian but know, thanks God, I am Muslim.
I again want to say that “read the history and Islam with neutral mind and heart”.
Yusaf John
Yusaf John,
We have! We Have! We have!
That is why we know it as the ‘religion of hate, war and death.
Taqiyya, Jusaf John, taqiyya! I do not believe anything you say from your first point. You were never a Christian.
The fact is many, many Muslims are secretly converting to Christianity and other faiths, to get out of Islam, because of the terrorism. They are sick of it. If any do, it is because your horrible Imans are forcing them via your Islamic police. What sort of religion is that? NOT ONE! It is a sick cult! Only 20% of your guys go to the mosques! All these are facts!
Please look some up before you write on sites like this.
Good-bye Jusaf John. Nice Christian name there! Well done! you’re half converted.
John,
Very few Christians convert to islam – there is NOTHING in islam. However, many muslims convert to Christianity. And yes, we have read history and UNDERSTOOD it. You have not.
Shall we pup up a tote to remind you, John, of how many people are murdered on a weekly basis by muslims becaue they are not muslims. islam is NOT a religion of peace – go and practise your lies elsewhere.
Martin,
Take Dhumme Dhimmi’s advice and then come back. It is better to make an informed comment than to rattle out the twaddle that you have written. I cannot be any kinder.
Why is it that when a muslim murders 14, the muslim community say “No – it wasn’t our fault”. Well John, you just threatened us in your Ft. Hood comment!! If you muslims really want us to declare open war on you, then keep on inventing pathetic excuses for crimes commited by Muslims and keep trying to avoid the responsibility for your actions. As I said before , you are an idiot and I doubt if your IQ is larger that a single digit.
O mr. Dhumme Dhimmi,
Cooool , Cooooooooooooooooooool,
You are totally unaware of current affairs and the scenario of current world. you are seeing dreams in daylight.
As you said that Islam spread through “police”, you are totally wrong. which ‘police’ convert billions of Asian pacific budhists and christians to Islam?
which ‘police’ convert billions of Africans to Islam?
What crusaders did with thousands of Muslims, when they conquered Jerusalem ? …………………Do you know?
What Salah-ud-din ayubi did with thousands of Christians and Jews when he conquered the Jerusalem?……………. You know?
You know……………. Mr. Dhumme Dhimmi………….?
……………. Really, if you want to know the history of Jehad, then just read the history of Crusad Wars by a Christian writer, Lane pol.
……………….
Do you know about the condition of women before Islam? Read the history, O Mr. ………… again i want to say that read the history… you will get the truth. plz read the history.
I want to let you know that more people are embracing Islam then ever. Your drama of 9/11 has been failed. Just read the statistics of today’s christians who convert to Islam.
Take care of your self.
Yusaf John
You are a liar Yusuf John
Almost none converts to islam you stupid and idiotic islamic troll. However, the converse is true. Folks Yusuf John is a typical muslim – stupid and dishonest – he says that red is black and hopes he can convince you if he says it long enough. Again yusuf john – ALMOST NO ONE CONVERTS TO OSLAM!!! AND A LOT OF PEOPLE TRY TO LEAVE ISLAM OR LEAVE IT!!!
In last post the word OSLAM is a play on 9/11 and the perverted philosophy called islam. Wonder if john understoods it. Sheik can you send out the headers for this twit. Guess what john – twenty people converted from islam in the last 10 minutes . no one decided to become a muslim – the ration is 20/0 which is infinite – so by your logic an infinite number of people wish to leave islam and no one want to join. We all see mohammed for the pervert that is it. No get lost you little troll. BUT FIRST TO ANSWER YOU QUESTIONS.
>You are totally unaware of current affairs and the scenario of current world. >you are seeing dreams in daylight.
NO – YOU ARE TOTALLY UNAWARE.
<As you said that Islam spread through “police”, you are totally wrong. which <‘police’ convert billions of Asian pacific budhists and christians to Islam?
<which ‘police’ convert billions of Africans to Islam?
DD never said this – but it is well known and documented that islam is propogated through violence and force – very few join voluntarily. muslims are violent scum – you threaten our pacific friends are you will be screwing camels in allahs used camed lot very quikly you muslim pervert.
<What crusaders did with thousands of Muslims, when they conquered <Jerusalem ? …………………Do you know?
killed them – a good move – pest removal.
<What Salah-ud-din ayubi did with thousands of Christians and Jews when he <conquered the Jerusalem?……………. You know?
killed them when they didnt convert – murder
<……………. Really, if you want to know the history of Jehad, then just read <the history of Crusad Wars by a Christian writer, Lane pol.
We all acknowledge that the Crusades were brutal however Christians grew up – muslims scum never did and cannot. Muslims remain trapped in the mires of the past and the frustrations of dreams they can never hope to achieve
<Do you know about the condition of women before Islam? Read the history, <O Mr. ………… again i want to say that read the history… you will get the <ruth. plz read the history.
Yes – Woman were not slaves before mohammed (the pervert) – under mohammed (may piss and puss be upon its name) they were not freed – they were enslaved so that preverted little loosers like you john could rape with immunity. islam is no friend of woman kind. Why dont you take your advice and read the truth, you miserable idiot,
<I want to let you know that more people are embracing Islam then ever. <Your drama of 9/11 has been failed. Just read the statistics of today’s <christians who
As before – muslims murdered 3000+ in 9/11 and very few convert to islam. You are a liar. Again Sheik – can you post the emaiil headers for this twit.
O Mr. Kaw………….. why u are going so hot….. your language tells the readers that what you are. ………
this is the language of christians? Ha ha ha ha
What a language? ………. you words tells the readers that ‘abuse’ is your religion and ‘killing’ is your faith.
you wrote that killing a human is good…. shame for you.
As you are propogating that muslims are terrorists and killing humans, then would you like to let me know that
1- Who was Hitler, killed millions of jews, …………….he was muslim or christian?
2- Who was Stalin, killed millions of christians, muslims, jews and Buddhists,…………..he was muslim or christian?
3- Who was mesoleni, Muslim or christian?
4- Who were Karadzic and Milsovich, killed and rape thousands of people in Bosnia including Croatian Christians ? …………………. were they Muslim or christian?
5- Who is bush, which is killing millions of innocent humans in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? ………………he is muslim or christian?
If Hitlor, Bush, Stalin, Mesolini, Cradzic & milosovich are christians, then would you like to let me know that “this is jesus christ (peace be upon him) religion?
If you want to convert me back to Christianity then please answer these questions ?
I would like to say again that read the history and write truth.
As you said that the western people hate Islam then I would like to quote one example that “the ambassador of Italy embrace islam after one day of 9/11. …. Another important thing i want to let you know that according to western statistics, women of west is more interested in Islam.
If you want a dialogue, then choose a topic then we will try to discover the truth and lies, don’t run ‘here’ and ‘there’.
Yusaf John
The difference, YJ, between the people you have named and your prophet is this: While these men were politicians who committed attrocities based on their political convictions, your prophet and his henchmen killed and masacared people in the name of Allah. Do you see the difference? Hitler, Stalin, and the others did NOT do what they did because God told them to do it. These men, like your Mohammad were inherently evil. Your Mohammad was a terrorist, and his followers today kill people in exactly the same fashion as their beloved “prophet”.
Mr. nolaughingmatter,
I red your comments. A bunch of lies and hate.
I mentioned in my last post that if you want to discuss something then choose a topic. don’t abuse any person or religion.
Mr. nolaughingmatter ! you are not human, you are just an evil and son of devil.
If you don’t have knowledge then why you are wasting your time.
‘Abuse’ and ‘killing’ is your religion and your words are proving this.
If you have proof then put it. you are sitting in a cave. if you are brave, then come out , the people will see the decision.
Don’t act like illiterates……………..
Prove what you said in your comments.
Yusaf John
Mr. nolaughingmatter
Prove your words.
Dont lie.
Yusaf John
I make you this offer, YJ, compare the life of all these men with the life of the Lord Jesus Chirst and discover the goodness of God.
Mr. nolaughingmatter,
Ok, I am accepting your challange,
I am going to answer your question. but first let me know about
your knowledge and your age ???
I am comming back after your answer.
Yusaf John
john (Islam is Great) January 16, 2010 at 7:46 am, there is always a BUT…!
Just when you have to produce something, Yusaf John [Muslim/Christian].
You certainly were busy while I was away.
Answer the questions directly. Not in the Islamic way. Twisting and turning and attacking the other person. [tsk tsk tsk].
We tell you we have learnt about your horrible cult. We tell your points are fallacious. You compare incomparable points. Then twist it and attack the other person.
The evidence does not support anything you say. Yes, there is a lot of jihad happening lately, BUT…how far is it getting Islam. Nowhere actually. Beneath the noise the West is waking up to your mess of a cult and turning you back in every country.
A few months ago I thought Islam was a Religion of Peace [Please forgive me Sheik for writing that].
THANKS TO THE SHEIK, I, AND MOST VICTORIANS NO LONGER BELIEVE IT.
GAMES UP BUDDY!
Now all we have to do is remove you from our countries and return you to your Paradises.
The non-Muslim verdict on Muhummed (PBUH)
If a man like Muhammad were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
George Bernard Shaw
People like Pasteur and Salk are leaders in the first sense. People like Gandhi and Confucius, on one hand, and Alexander, Caesar and Hitler on the other, are leaders in the second and perhaps the third sense. Jesus and Buddha belong in the third category alone. Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Mohammed, who combined all three functions. To a lesser degree, Moses did the same.
Professor Jules Masserman
Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but, he was Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man had the right to say that he ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.
Reverend R. Bosworth-Smith
Muhammad was the soul of kindness, and his influence was felt and never forgotten by those around him.
John William Draper, M.D., L.L.D.,
( A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, London 1875, Vol. 1, pp. 329-330 )
In little more than a year he was actually the spiritual, nominal and temporal rule of Medina, with his hands on the lever that was to shake the world.
John Austin,
( “Muhammad the Prophet of Allah,” in T.P. ‘s and Cassel’s Weekly for 24th September 1927. )
Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Warrior, Conqueror of ideas Restorer of rational beliefs, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?
Lamartine,
( Historie de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol. 11 pp. 276-2727 )
It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty
Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them,
a new way of admiration, a new of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.
Annie Besant,
( The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, p. 4 )
Muhummed is the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities.
Encyclopedia Britannica
I have studied him – the wonderful man – and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ he must be called the saviour of humanity.
George Bernard Shaw
( in “The Genuine Islam” )
By a fortune absolutely unique in history, Mohammed is a threefold founder of a nation, of an empire, and of a religion.
…………….
Now what you think about these Christian scholars ?
I think you are not more literate than these christian scholars…..
Read with neutral and open eyes.
I will come back soon. so wait …………………
Yusaf John
[The non-Muslim verdict on Muhummed (PBUH)
If a man like Muhammad were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.]
The sort of thing Antichrist will do, in his time:
[Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.] (Part of the prophecy of Daniel 8)
Hi John, you silly twit
<O Mr. Kaw………….. why u are going so hot….. your language tells the <readers that what you are. ………
<his is the language of christians?
No, my language tell you that you are wasting peoples time – you are an idiot – nothing more and nothing less. You are a contemptible muslim liar and you are simply being treated as such.
<What a language? ………. you words tells the readers that ‘abuse’ is your <religion and ‘killing’ is your faith.
No – you cannot understand English – what you imply was never said or written. Perhaps this is an example of "self-projection" on your part.
<you wrote that killing a human is good…. shame for you.
No – I wrote that killing a muslim parasite is good – islamists are not human.
<As you are propogating that muslims are terrorists and killing humans, then <would you like to let me know that
<1- Who was Hitler, killed millions of jews, …………….he was muslim or <christian?
Irrelevant – He did not kill in the name of Chritianity. muslims murder often in the name of their pig prophet.
<2- Who was Stalin, killed millions of christians, muslims, jews and <Buddhists,…………..he was muslim or christian?
Again irrelevant – he did not kill in the name of Christianity. See above,
<3- Who was mesoleni, Muslim or christian?
again irrelevant – and you cannot even spell the name you silly muslim fool.
See above.
<4- Who were Karadzic and Milsovich, killed and rape thousands of people in <Bosnia including Croatian Christians ? …………………. were they Muslim <or christian?
again irrelevant!! See above. Additionally it now appears that many of the alleged atrocities were fabricated.
<5- Who is bush, which is killing millions of innocent humans in Iraq, <Afghanistan and Pakistan? ………………he is muslim or christian?
millions have not been killed in these places and allmost all dearths are due
to muslims killing muslims. Also see above. You have offered no examples of mass murder of the Christian religion in this and the last century because there are none. Certainly in the period between 1000 and 1800 there are examples but Christianity grew up – and islam remain rooted in the belief system and morals of a 6th century pervert called mohammed the sex criminal. muslims murder and rape regularly in the name of mohammed the child molester and rapist – well that is what he was.
<If Hitlor, Bush, Stalin, Mesolini, Cradzic & milosovich are christians, then <would you like to let me know that “this is jesus christ (peace be upon him) <religion?
again irrelevant . these people commited crimes but these were not commited in the name of their religion. EVERY MUSLIM CRIME IS COMMITTED IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. For example: Dafur, Sudan, Somalia, Chechyna, Kashmir, Dagestan, Southern Thailand, Southern Phillipines, Mumbai, London, Paris, Amsertam, Moscow, New York City, Chad … to name a few places where muslims are currently murdering in the name of the pig prophet.
<If you want to convert me back to Christianity then please answer these <questions ?
You never were a Christian and, quite frankly, you are too stupid to be one.
<I would like to say again that read the history and write truth.
We have, you silly muslim. We can tell you what history is recorded and what it means, and what are the implications for the future than can be deduced from what has passed before. You cannot – and it is pretty clear that you have understood little or nothing. From your pathetic arguments it is clear that you have a very limited understanding. There is no point in having a serious argument with you – you are simply too stupid.
<As you said that the western people hate Islam then I would like to quote one <example that “the ambassador of Italy embrace islam after one day of 9/11. <…. Another important thing i want to let you know that according to <western statistics, women of west is more interested in Islam.
Where did you get this myth about the Italian ambassador – and in which country was he stationed?!!! t I suspect that this is a symptom of your diseased imagination. Inventing statistics. Show me the source you silly muslim – and I can shown plenty of other sources which show that most people, men and women, find islam repugnant and revolting. There is no mass conversion to islam and there never will be, except in your own feeble imagination.
<If you want a dialogue, then choose a topic then we will try to discover the <truth and lies, don’t run ‘here’ and ‘there’.
I dont want a dialogue with you – firstly you are not intelligent, secondly you are a liar. You offer little argument, and all argument that you offer is based on concepts and ideas that you have tried to understand but failed miserable.
Despite atetmpts by others to open your eyes you are incapable of responding in an intelligent fashion. You are the only person running "here and there" – we see the same arguments from you – none of these arguments hold – this has been explained to you but you are simply too dishonest or too stupid to understand. John, you never were a Christian – you are a lying muslim. It is clear that you do not understand Christianity, it is clear that you are incapable of interpreting current events, and it is clear that you are simply another brain dead islamic donkey. You have not even tried answer questions that others have set you – simple reversion to fallacious argument that has been often disproved is no answer but that is the only mode of answer that you seem capable of. No one is running here from you – do keep on writing – it will be interesting to see if you are dumber that you appear to be. Actually , you really are a waste of space.
The burden of proof is on you, John. It is YOU who has to prove your claims to be true.
Listen to me and listen good. Size, or the number of adherents of ANY religion is not a sign of appeasement. In simple words, it does not mean that God approves of you or of your religion if you number 1 billion – and are still growing.
Again I ask you to consider the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ – and to think of this one probablitiy that you might just be dead wrong.
We now consider the statement of Jules Masserman. My comments are capitalized.
—————————————————————————–
Leaders must fulfill three functions-
1: Provide for the well-being of the led.
(KAW: The key word here is “well-being of the led”. This implies, in some sense, that the led are incapable of looking after themselves – a situation reminiscent of islam where people effectively cannot function without instruction from a book whose authority is questionable and whose interpretation is open. Pasteur and Salk did NOT provide leadership of this form, although their work benefited all, muslims included. The leadership provided by Salk and Pasteur was scientific. Masserman has made a huge and invalid assumption is equating the work of science to the social definition he has provided. Even under the loosest terms his generalization cannot be accepted. An important point is that his definition implies that only the led are to get benefits of the leadership. What of those who are not lead? Masserman’s definition explicitly excludes those who are “non-lead” from “being provided for”. Again Salk and all scientists worked and work for all peoples. islam, however considers non-muslims as something less than human and as a group to be destroyed. As such and within the very narrow confines of the definition provided by Masserman, a psychopath like mohammed who murdered all those who simply believed in another concept of religion is a leader. Thankfully, the modern world recognizes such leaders as the criminals they are. However with the narrow definition provided by Masserman (and this is the point that the idiotic muslims who regularly quote this cannot comprehend) muhammed was a great leader. I suspect that many idiotic muslims will think this is praise for the pedophile – it isn’t.)
2: Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure.
(KAW:islam is unique in that it encourages people not to think – it is in effect a social organisation which destroys individuality and seeks conformity – this provides a simple explanation for the rather mediocre performance of muslim society for many hundreds of years. It is the hall mark of a cult and a very dangerous cult. The NSDP functioned in a similar way, as did the Soviet Communist party. islam does indeed share the same characteristics as an extreme brand of socialism. From the point of humabn growth and development, these characteristics are not those that should dominate a dynamic society. Also, the means through which the security is achieveds, via violent and threat, is common to islam and to the NSPD and to the Russian Communist party. However, many societies are secure without resorting to the extreme measure that islamists or nazis have had to resort to. It is interesting that the first goal of the islamists is to try and destroy the perceived security of the culture that they are trying to invade. There are numerous examples in history – I shall dig out some references and post them later. In short, this attribute of leadership is again not necessarily an attribute of humanity. The definition is ambiguous and both evil and good can fit the satisfy the description. )
3: Provide them with one set of beliefs.
(KAW: Provide does not mean enforce – another point islamists seem unable to comprehend. islam destroys all other beliefs. It is interesting why Masserman makes the statement that a great leader should provide one set of beliefs. In one sense he is correct – a great leader should have a well defined and easily understood concept of what he wishes to achieve. In another sense he is quite wrong – a great leader should encourage diversity. creativity, originality and understanding. The truth lies usually lies somewhere between these mutually exclusive concepts – islam however cannot encourage creativity except within a very narrow range.
People like Pasteur and Salk are leaders in the first sense.
(KAW: This is an inconstent argument – see (1) above)
People like Gandhi and Confucious. On one hand, and Alexander,
Caesar and Hitler on the other. Jesus and Buddha belong in the third category alone.Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Muhammad (PBUH) who combined all three functions.
(KAW: Again I stress the definition provides a very narrow range of leadership types. If you want such a leader then Ghengis Khan, Hilter, Stalin, mohammed are good choices for you. All of these choices do not offer a long term stable society and that is also a weakness of Masserman’s thesis)
(KAW: Summary –
The claim is true within a very narrow definition of leadership that is satisfied also satisfied by people who wold be considered mass-murderers today – Ghengis Khan, muhammed the chid molester and others. The conclusion is that this statement is not a statement of support for islam – rather a statement that mohammed (may camel puss drip on his node forever) satisfied the criterion specified by Masserman. )
In a few day a reposnse to the claim that Bosworth-Smith makes.
(KAW: Summary –
The claim is true within a very narrow definition of leadership that is satisfied also satisfied by people who wold be considered mass-murderers today – Ghengis Khan, muhammed the chid molester and others. The conclusion is that this statement is not a statement of support for islam – rather a statement that mohammed (may camel puss drip on his node forever) satisfied the criterion specified by Masserman. )
In a few day a reposnse to the claim that Bosworth-Smith makes. ll
We now consider the statement of Jules Masserman. My comments are capitalized.
—————————————————————————–
Leaders must fulfill three functions-
1: Provide for the well-being of the led.
(KAW: The key word here is “well-being of the led”. This implies, in some sense, that the led are incapable of looking after themselves – a situation reminiscent of islam where people effectively cannot function without instruction from a book whose authority is questionable and whose interpretation is open. Pasteur and Salk did NOT provide leadership of this form, although their work benefited all, muslims included. The leadership provided by Salk and Pasteur was scientific. Masserman has made a huge and invalid assumption is equating the work of science to the social definition he has provided. Even under the loosest terms his generalization cannot be accepted. An important point is that his definition implies that only the led are to get benefits of the leadership. What of those who are not lead? Masserman’s definition explicitly excludes those who are “non-lead” from “being provided for”. Again Salk and all scientists worked and work for all peoples. islam, however considers non-muslims as something less than human and as a group to be destroyed. As such and within the very narrow confines of the definition provided by Masserman, a psychopath like mohammed who murdered all those who simply believed in another concept of religion is a leader. Thankfully, the modern world recognizes such leaders as the criminals they are. However with the narrow definition provided by Masserman (and this is the point that the idiotic muslims who regularly quote this cannot comprehend) muhammed was a great leader. I suspect that many idiotic muslims will think this is praise for the pedophile – it isn’t.)
2: Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure.
(KAW:islam is unique in that it encourages people not to think – it is in effect a social organisation which destroys individuality and seeks conformity – this provides a simple explanation for the rather mediocre performance of muslim society for many hundreds of years. It is the hall mark of a cult and a very dangerous cult. The NSDP functioned in a similar way, as did the Soviet Communist party. islam does indeed share the same characteristics as an extreme brand of socialism. From the point of humabn growth and development, these characteristics are not those that should dominate a dynamic society. Also, the means through which the security is achieveds, via violent and threat, is common to islam and to the NSPD and to the Russian Communist party. However, many societies are secure without resorting to the extreme measure that islamists or nazis have had to resort to. It is interesting that the first goal of the islamists is to try and destroy the perceived security of the culture that they are trying to invade. There are numerous examples in history – I shall dig out some references and post them later. In short, this attribute of leadership is again not necessarily an attribute of humanity. The definition is ambiguous and both evil and good can fit the satisfy the description. )
3: Provide them with one set of beliefs.
(KAW: Provide does not mean enforce – another point islamists seem unable to comprehend. islam destroys all other beliefs. It is interesting why Masserman makes the statement that a great leader should provide one set of beliefs. In one sense he is correct – a great leader should have a well defined and easily understood concept of what he wishes to achieve. In another sense he is quite wrong – a great leader should encourage diversity. creativity, originality and understanding. The truth lies usually lies somewhere between these mutually exclusive concepts – islam however cannot encourage creativity except within a very narrow range.
People like Pasteur and Salk are leaders in the first sense.
(KAW: This is an inconstent argument – see (1) above)
People like Gandhi and Confucious. On one hand, and Alexander,
Caesar and Hitler on the other. Jesus and Buddha belong in the third category alone.Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Muhammad (PBUH) who combined all three functions.
(KAW: Again I stress the definition provides a very narrow range of leadership types. If you want such a leader then Ghengis Khan, Hilter, Stalin, mohammed are good choices for you. All of these choices do not offer a long term stable society and that is also a weakness of Masserman’s thesis)
(KAW: Summary – The claim is true within a very narrow definition of leadership that is satisfied also satisfied by people who wold be considered mass-murderers today – Ghengis Khan, muhammed the chid molester and others. The conclusion is that this statement is not a statement of support for islam – rather a statement that mohammed (may camel puss drip on his node forever) satisfied the criterion specified by Masserman. ) In a few day a reposnse to the claim that Bosworth-Smith makes.
We now consider the statement of Jules Masserman. My comments are capitalized.
—————————————————————————–
Leaders must fulfill three functions-
1: Provide for the well-being of the led.
(KAW: The key word here is “well-being of the led”. This implies, in some sense, that the led are incapable of looking after themselves – a situation reminiscent of islam where people effectively cannot function without instruction from a book whose authority is questionable and whose interpretation is open.
Next part in next post
Pasteur and Salk did NOT provide leadership of this form, although their work benefited all, muslims included. The leadership provided by Salk and Pasteur was scientific. Masserman has made a huge and invalid assumption is equating the work of science to the social definition he has provided. Even under the loosest terms his generalization cannot be accepted. An important point is that his definition implies that only the led are to get benefits of the leadership. What of those who are not lead? Masserman’s definition explicitly excludes those who are “non-lead” from “being provided for”. Again Salk and all scientists worked and work for all peoples. islam, however considers non-muslims as something less than human and as a group to be destroyed. As such and within the very narrow confines of the definition provided by Masserman, a psychopath like mohammed who murdered all those who simply believed in another concept of religion is a leader. Thankfully, the modern world recognizes such leaders as the criminals they are. However with the narrow definition provided by Masserman (and this is the point that the idiotic muslims who regularly quote this cannot comprehend) muhammed was a great leader. I suspect that many idiotic muslims will think this is praise for the pedophile – it isn’t.)
next part in next post
2: Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure.
(KAW:islam is unique in that it encourages people not to think – it is in effect a social organisation which destroys individuality and seeks conformity – this provides a simple explanation for the rather mediocre performance of muslim society for many hundreds of years. It is the hall mark of a cult and a very dangerous cult. The NSDP functioned in a similar way, as did the Soviet Communist party. islam does indeed share the same characteristics as an extreme brand of socialism. From the point of humabn growth and development, these characteristics are not those that should dominate a dynamic society. Also, the means through which the security is achieveds, via violent and threat, is common to islam and to the NSPD and to the Russian Communist party. However, many societies are secure without resorting to the extreme measure that islamists or nazis have had to resort to. It is interesting that the first goal of the islamists is to try and destroy the perceived security of the culture that they are trying to invade. There are numerous examples in history – I shall dig out some references and post them later. In short, this attribute of leadership is again not necessarily an attribute of humanity. The definition is ambiguous and both evil and good can fit the satisfy the description. )
2: Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure.
(KAW:islam is unique in that it encourages people not to think – it is in effect a social organisation which destroys individuality and seeks conformity – this provides a simple explanation for the rather mediocre performance of muslim society for many hundreds of years. It is the hall mark of a cult and a very dangerous cult. The NSDP functioned in a similar way, as did the Soviet Communist party. islam does indeed share the same characteristics as an extreme brand of socialism. From the point of humabn growth and development, these characteristics are not those that should dominate a dynamic society. Also, the means through which the security is achieveds, via violent and threat, is common to islam and to the NSPD and to the Russian Communist party. However, many societies are secure without resorting to the extreme measure that islamists or nazis have had to resort to. It is interesting that the first goal of the islamists is to try and destroy the perceived security of the culture that they are trying to invade. There are numerous examples in history – I shall dig out some references and post them later. In short, this attribute of leadership is again not necessarily an attribute of humanity. The definition is ambiguous and both evil and good can fit the satisfy the description. )
3: Provide them with one set of beliefs.
(KAW: Provide does not mean enforce – another point islamists seem unable to comprehend. islam destroys all other beliefs. It is interesting why Masserman makes the statement that a great leader should provide one set of beliefs. In one sense he is correct – a great leader should have a well defined and easily understood concept of what he wishes to achieve. In another sense he is quite wrong – a great leader should encourage diversity. creativity, originality and understanding. The truth lies usually lies somewhere between these mutually exclusive concepts – islam however cannot encourage creativity except within a very narrow range.
2: Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure.
(KAW:islam is unique in that it encourages people not to think – it is in effect a social organisation which destroys individuality and seeks conformity – this provides a simple explanation for the rather mediocre performance of muslim society for many hundreds of years. It is the hall mark of a cult and a very dangerous cult. The NSDP functioned in a similar way, as did the Soviet Communist party. islam does indeed share the same characteristics as an extreme brand of socialism. From the point of humabn growth and development, these characteristics are not those that should dominate a dynamic society. Also, the means through which the security is achieveds, via violent and threat, is common to islam and to the NSPD and to the Russian Communist party.
2: Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure.
(KAW:islam is unique in that it encourages people not to think – it is in effect a social organisation which destroys individuality and seeks conformity – this provides a simple explanation for the rather mediocre performance of muslim society for many hundreds of years. It is the hall mark of a cult and a very dangerous cult. The NSDP functioned in a similar way, as did the Soviet Communist party. islam does indeed share the same characteristics as an extreme brand of socialism.
test
2: Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure.
(KAW:islam is unique in that it encourages people not to think – it is in effect a social organisation which destroys individuality and seeks conformity – this provides a simple explanation for the rather mediocre performance of muslim society for many hundreds of years.
It is the hall mark of a cult and a very dangerous cult. The NSDP functioned in a similar way, as did the Soviet Communist party. islam does indeed share the same characteristics as an extreme brand of socialism. From the point of humabn growth and development, these characteristics are not those that should dominate a dynamic society. Also, the means through which the security is achieveds, via violent and threat, is common to islam and to the NSPD and to the Russian Communist party.
It is the hall mark of a cult and a very dangerous cult. The NSDP functioned in a similar way, as did the Soviet Communist party. islam does indeed share the same characteristics as an extreme brand of socialism.
The non-Muslim verdict on Muhummed (PBUH)
George Bernard Shaw
People like Pasteur and Salk are leaders in the first sense. People like Gandhi and Confucius, on one hand, and Alexander, Caesar and Hitler on the other, are leaders in the second and perhaps the third sense. Jesus and Buddha belong in the third category alone. Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Mohammed, who combined all three functions. To a lesser degree, Moses did the same.
Professor Jules Masserman
Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but, he was Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man had the right to say that he ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.
Reverend R. Bosworth-Smith
Muhammad was the soul of kindness, and his influence was felt and never forgotten by those around him.
John William Draper, M.D., L.L.D.,
( A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, London 1875, Vol. 1, pp. 329-330 )
In little more than a year he was actually the spiritual, nominal and temporal rule of Medina, with his hands on the lever that was to shake the world.
John Austin,
( “Muhammad the Prophet of Allah,” in T.P. ’s and Cassel’s Weekly for 24th September 1927. )
Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Warrior, Conqueror of ideas Restorer of rational beliefs, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?
Lamartine,
( Historie de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol. 11 pp. 276-2727 )
It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty
Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.
Annie Besant,
( The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, p. 4 )
Muhummed is the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities.
Encyclopedia Britannica
I have studied him – the wonderful man – and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ he must be called the saviour of humanity.
George Bernard Shaw
( in “The Genuine Islam” )
By a fortune absolutely unique in history, Mohammed is a threefold founder of a nation, of an empire, and of a religion.
…………….
Now what you think about these Christian scholars ?
I think you are not more literate than these christian scholars…..
Read with neutral and open eyes.
I will come back soon. so wait …………………
Yusaf John
* Now what you think about these Christian scholars ?
Like Annie Besant? Really?
Theosophy has about as much to do with Christianity as islam and its false prophet.
Like George Bernard Shaw? Really?
Fabian Socialists might find that interesting, as they fawn all over muslims & islam in their attempt to destroy the West from within.
“With Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Shaw founded the Fabian Society, a socialist political organization dedicated to transforming Britain into a socialist state, not by revolution but by systematic progressive legislation, bolstered by persuasion and mass education. The Fabian society would later be instrumental in founding the London School of Economics and the Labour Party. ”
Take your time, and do some homework on your “Christian scholars”.
* Now what you think about these Christian scholars ?
Like Annie Besant? Really?
Theosophy has about as much to do with Christianity as islam and its false prophet.
Like George Bernard Shaw? Really?
Fabian Socialists might find that interesting, as they fawn all over muslims & islam in their attempt to destroy the West from within.
“With Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Shaw founded the Fabian Society, a socialist political organization dedicated to transforming Britain into a socialist state, not by revolution but by systematic progressive legislation, bolstered by persuasion and mass education. The Fabian society would later be instrumental in founding the London School of Economics and the Labour Party. ”
Take your time, and do some homework on your “Christian scholars”.
(site is rejecting comments again – seems to be when google is slow & unresponsive)
Annie Besant – Theosophist
George Bernard Shaw – co-founder of Fabian Society, which led to LSE (beloved of muslim “extremists”) and Labour Party (NuLabour / Blair & co).
Hardly “Christian scholars”.
Of course we have quite a few learned people among us who understood what Mohammedanism is all about.
How’s this for starters:
But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.
-Voltaire, Letter to Frederick II of Prussia, December 1740
“We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. (He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god). That can be the historic future.”
- Karl Jung, The Collected Works Volume 18, The Symbolic Life (1939),
“Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”
-Winston Churchill, 1897
“I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.”
-Alexis de Tocqueville.
“…the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt, between the Zion and the Moriah, where their synagogues are situated ?the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins, and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren.”
Karl Marx, The New-York Herald Tribune 1854
It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.
The precise and devastating observations of A Carlebach (Ma’ariv October 7 1955) brought to our attention by Hugh Fitzgerald and which – ironically preserved and drawn attention to, by the fool Edward Said, who thus shot himself in the foot – says all that needs to be said about the relationship between Islam and the misery that festers everywhere it prevails.
It is one of my favourites. I haven’t quite memorised it yet, but I shall post it, yet again, for the benefit of any new readers here today, and any who may in future be investigating the archives.
“These Arab Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam.
“Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression.
“The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress,
“that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword.
“The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world…
“their reactions — to anything — have nothing to do with good sense.
“They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat.
“You can talk ‘business’ with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah…
“This is what every grain in this country [Israel] shouts.
“There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them — even the Crusaders — left signs of culture and blossoming.
“But on the path of Islam, even the trees have died.”
Others here might like to bring out, yet again, the equally ruthless observations of Churchill and John Quincy Adams, on the obvious nexus between the teachings of Islam and the havoc it wreaks upon people and societies.
Plenty more available on request!
Ah – the idiot John is back again. Okay we debunked Shaw – Now it masserman.
We now consider the statement of Jules Masserman. My comments are bracketed.
—————————————————————————–
Leaders must fulfill three functions-
1: Provide for the well-being of the led.
(KAW: The key word here is “well-being of the led”. This implies, in some sense, that the led are incapable of looking after themselves – a situation reminiscent of islam where people effectively cannot function without instruction from a book whose authority is questionable and whose interpretation is open. Pasteur and Salk did NOT provide leadership of this form, although their work benefited all, muslims included. The leadership provided by Salk and Pasteur was scientific. Masserman has made a huge and invalid assumption is equating the work of science to the social definition he has provided. Even under the loosest terms his generalization cannot be accepted. An important point is that his definition implies that only the led are to get benefits of the leadership. What of those who are not lead? Masserman’s definition explicitly excludes those who are “non-lead” from “being provided for”. Again Salk and all scientists worked and work for all peoples. islam, however considers non-muslims as something less than human and as a group to be destroyed. As such and within the very narrow confines of the definition provided by Masserman, a psychopath like mohammed who murdered all those who simply believed in another concept of religion is a leader. Thankfully, the modern world recognizes such leaders as the criminals they are. However with the narrow definition provided by Masserman (and this is the point that the idiotic muslims who regularly quote this cannot comprehend) muhammed was a great leader. I suspect that many idiotic muslims will think this is praise for the pedophile – it isn’t.)
2: Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure.
(KAW:islam is unique in that it encourages people not to think – it is in effect a social organisation which destroys individuality and seeks conformity – this provides a simple explanation for the rather mediocre performance of muslim society for many hundreds of years. It is the hall mark of a cult and a very dangerous cult. The NSDP functioned in a similar way, as did the Soviet Communist party. islam does indeed share the same characteristics as an extreme brand of socialism. From the point of humabn growth and development, these characteristics are not those that should dominate a dynamic society. Also, the means through which the security is achieveds, via violent and threat, is common to islam and to the NSPD and to the Russian Communist party. However, many societies are secure without resorting to the extreme measure that islamists or nazis have had to resort to. It is interesting that the first goal of the islamists is to try and destroy the perceived security of the culture that they are trying to invade. There are numerous examples in history – I shall dig out some references and post them later. In short, this attribute of leadership is again not necessarily an attribute of humanity. The definition is ambiguous and both evil and good can fit the satisfy the description. )
3: Provide them with one set of beliefs.
(KAW: Provide does not mean enforce – another point islamists seem unable to comprehend. islam destroys all other beliefs. It is interesting why Masserman makes the statement that a great leader should provide one set of beliefs. In one sense he is correct – a great leader should have a well defined and easily understood concept of what he wishes to achieve. In another sense he is quite wrong – a great leader should encourage diversity. creativity, originality and understanding. The truth lies usually lies somewhere between these mutually exclusive concepts – islam however cannot encourage creativity except within a very narrow range.
People like Pasteur and Salk are leaders in the first sense.
(KAW: This is an inconstent argument – see (1) above)
People like Gandhi and Confucious. On one hand, and Alexander,
Caesar and Hitler on the other. Jesus and Buddha belong in the third category alone.Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Muhammad (PBUH) who combined all three functions.
(KAW: Again I stress the definition provides a very narrow range of leadership types. If you want such a leader then Ghengis Khan, Hilter, Stalin, mohammed are good choices for you. All of these choices do not offer a long term stable society and that is also a weakness of Masserman’s thesis)
(KAW: Summary -
The claim is true within a very narrow definition of leadership that is satisfied also satisfied by people who wold be considered mass-murderers today – Ghengis Khan, muhammed the chid molester and others. The conclusion is that this statement is not a statement of support for islam – rather a statement that mohammed (may camel puss drip on his node forever) satisfied the criterion specified by Masserman. )
In a few day a reposnse to the claim that Bosworth-Smith makes.
← Previous Comments