US Muslims bristle at Bush term "Islamic fascists"

Keep it up Mr. President, I know you can do it!!!

CAIR is a fascist organization. Write to your reps and Senators and demand an investigation of this Nazi-style propaganda organization. They are fascists. These fascists would love to do to Infidels in America and elsewhere exactly what they are doing in Darfur. They are peddlers of propaganda-no different from the Nazis. They are genocidal frauds. They are intolerant fascists. They are Islamic fascists.

Well, as an American, I do harbor suspicions
against Muslim Americans, in the same way I'd
harbor suspicions against Nazi Americans, or
Communist Americans. I'd be happier if the
President stopped saying "Islamofascist" since
it is redundant.

Maybe not all Muslims are terrorists, and some
are even decent people. Big deal. Oskar
Schindler was a Nazi. He wore the uniform, gave
the salute, was in the Party, etc. But he didn't
toe the line, and saved a few Jews. Does that
mean Nazism is an ideology we should respect?
Some Muslims don't practice the true Islam,
which is a Nazi like totalitarian cult, and they
may be nice people. But Islam is still
sickening, and it's founder a deranged pervert.

The Allies fought the Germans, not just the Nazi's.

If Muslims don't wish their religion to be associated with fascism, then they should join forces with the democratic people of the world and rid Planet Earth of Islamic facism once and for all.

If Fascism is a Totalitarian oppressive government, then the term is right on when describing The Caliphate, which is exactly what these groups want.

I am no Bush fan, but I am glad his handlers have given him this term when they are attempting to explain to him what is going on. As long as the Jihadists claim to be the chosen ones, and are entitled to doing anything to advance their agenda, let's us use language that correlates with the severity of the threat.

Their attempt to invert reality is what is going to finally cause people in America to demand an investigation of this Nazi-CAIR organization. The Nazi-CAIR thugs don't see how really offensive they have become to so many Infidels as they hide their antisemitism, their Nazi will to dominate and kill Infidels (as in Sudan), as they slyly attempt to turn-the-tables of their sick Nazi style intolerance on the Infidels. People see. They don't realize that people see.

Write the president, your reps, your congressmen, and demand an investigation of this Nazi-CAIR organization. As Senator Chuck Schumer has noted, CAIR is an organization that has known connections to terror organizations.

Their attempt to invert reality is what is going to finally cause people in America to demand an investigation of this Nazi-CAIR organization. The Nazi-CAIR thugs don't see how really offensive they have become to so many Infidels as they hide their antisemitism, their Nazi will to dominate and kill Infidels (as in Sudan), as they slyly attempt to turn-the-tables of their sick Nazi style intolerance on the Infidels. People see. They don't realize that people see.

Write the president, your reps, your congressmen, and demand an investigation of this Nazi-CAIR organization. As Senator Chuck Schumer has noted, CAIR is an organization that has known connections to terror organizations.

you name the enemy, you therefore make the onus on them to prove otherwise. Islamists are facists among other things. Awad needs to clean his own religion or leave. Why is it that always they always need to protect themselves after such incidents happen? how many muslims heads have rolled off their necks by any "westerner" or have they had any mosques firebombed? we are a patient people, but once our patience is gone, it will be a fury that will not go quietly in the night, and they will need much more protection then they would ever think they have.

"Let that vast majority stand up and begin comprehensive and organized efforts to fight the jihad ideology, and they will begin seeing these suspicions evanescing."

Well, as Lady Thatcher said after 911...

"The people who brought down those towers were Muslims and Muslims must stand up and say that is not the way of Islam.

They must say that it is disgraceful. I have not heard enough condemnation from Muslims"

Well, the guys plotting to take down the airliners were MUSLIMS. Now, either they were ordinary Muslims or they were Islamofascists.

Muslims, TAKE YOUR PICK. If you do not want to have them considered Muslims, then why not shout loudly against THEM!

I dare say that their REAL problem is that they quietly (behind closed doors) condone the actions of terrorists (except of course at anti-war rallys in favor of Hezbollah) but they absolutely hate it when we call Islam what it is.

Personally, I do not think Bush went far enough. He tip-toes around the fact that ISLAM is evil...and tries to make it sound like it is only a handful that are evil who CALL themselves Muslims. Truth is...ALL MUSLIMS who take the Koran literally are equally guilty by their silence.

The irony is that if Bush dropped the fascist part of that term and just went with "islam", CAIR would be infinitely more incensed. So they shouldn't complain. He could have said, should have said, 'we are at a war with islam', but pulled his punches and used the qualifer "fascist" to separate those muslims from all other muslims. They should be thanking Bush for his dhimmi phrase, instead of attacking him.

But like true muslims, the closer you come to the truth of the matter, the more they wiggle. World history is getting very interesting. This month will be one for the history books before it is over.

From now on,let's agree to call these bastards what they are...Lutherans!

the TERM could inflame anti-Muslim tensions?

What idiots! The MUSLIMS themselves are going to inflame anti-Muslim tensions by their terrorist actions and plans to take over the world.

Speak out or SHUT UP. Clean up your communities or we will do it for you.

"a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

George? Is that really you?

"We urge him (Bush) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves."

I can see it coming ...

The White House quickly stopped using the expression, expressing regrets if it had caused offense.

How soon will George back peddle? May be interesting to watch -- I give it a week.

One would hope that the Islamo-fascists become so 'alienated' that they pack up and leave, right out and back to the Islamo-holes where they came from...

All of ancient wisdom, all of the fables that relate to such matters, tell us that if we do not name the enemy, the consequence is that the enemy is given power over us. That is why CAIR is so upset that Bush has called this Rumplestilskin (Islamic fascism) by name. In all things in life, if we wish to succeed, we must name the devils that hurt us-that thwart us from success. Muslims must name the devil and we must name the devil in this matter. We must name the enemy.

http://videodetective.com/player.asp?PublishedId=6399&List=575124|127479|96214|605581|880139|468977|632711|968289|157675|280880|851232|449819|714978|725384|279441|414436|878151|572883|770199|118564|159157|794750|561947|235531|702847|757058|10486|782371|170632|297181|337565|599357|416454|561947|757058|338661|314308|539913|554689|322351|493710|880596|301878|856744|367408|366936|575124|386292|329006|720959|856364|876858|615978|869455|211738|536336|82623|88497|418726|522315&Customerid=97135

US Muslims bristle at Bush term "Islamic fascists"

To quote Dr. Evil: "Boo-frickety-hoo!"

"She said the terms cast suspicions on all Muslims, even the vast majority who want to live in safety like other Americans."

THERE NO PROOF OF MUSLIMS WANT TO LIVE LIKE AMERICAN. IT BS!

THEY ARE UNFIT TO BE IN AMERICA.

“We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims,” he told a news conference in Washington.

Qur’an 2:64 “But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you.”

CAIR YOU TELL THE BEST JOKES.
Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”
THIS IS WHY MUSLIMS WAR....
Qur’an:24:55 “Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good work that He will make them rulers of the earth. He will establish in authority their religion—the one which He has chosen for them.”

Here's the deal Nihad. You eschew the fascist political side of Islam and retract your stated offense at the use of the term Islamic fascists, and we won't use the phrase "war with Islam".

It's good that Bush called them ISLAMO FECES, but it's not good that he stoped Israel's military campaign.

I don't understand why Israel should care about what Bush has to say.

How to deal with Muslims:
1. No more Arabic/Islamic schools in Western countries.
2. No more religious symbols allowed in schools. No skull-caps, no turbans and no head scarves.
3. No woman should be allowed to cover her face with head scarf or burqa in public or in private. It should be against law.
4. Block all Islamic Jihadist or Wahabist websites.
5. Citizenship to immigrants should be granted conditionally. Those, who betray their country of adoption, should be sent back with their family to their home country (in case of dual-citizenship). Those who do not carry dual citizenship should be sent to sea and dumped there
6. Family of terrorist should be punished for the crimes of the terrorist, along with the terrorist.
7. Terrorists should be prosecuted in fast-paced courts and executed if proven guilty.
8. Those protesting in public, dressed as would-be suicide bombers should be prosecuted and killed (if proven to be found to have any allegiance with the terrorists) even before they kill anybody.
9. Wahabism as religion should be banned in all the western countries.
10. Distribution of Quran should be banned in all western countries.
11. Building mosques should be banned in all the western countries.
12. Tax muslims for being muslims (say 20% extra).
13. Tax muslims more for producing more kids.
14. The remains of suicide bombers will be stitched into pigskin for burial.

We were trying to get an office pool going as to the earliest time CAIR would issue some sort of condemation. Sadly, they mobilized the propaganda branch almost immediately. Go figure.

Get over it scum, and get out of all democratic countries while you're at it. We don't want you.

Again, the jihadists are the TIP of the iceberg we can see....those 'moderate' muslims are the ummah secretly supporting the tip just below the waterline, and so much larger than what we can see.

My parents were just traveling by air today, and I’m now worried about the problems they might now encounter at the airport. Yes, mainstream opinion says to fight the extremism, the terrorists, and not the religion, but what about the trampling of non-Muslims’ (here, a Chinese immigrant) rights? Are they going to stop people from bringing bottled water and wine onto airplanes?

If I may say, I am offended by Muslims and their jihad ideology.

I have tried several times to memorize all 72 sects of islam so I could keep them straight. I finally figured out they fall into two categories: “practicing” and “non practicing muslims”. The “non practicing muslims” should never be referred to as “terrorists” they are not obeying the koran. We only have to worry about the small minority of one billion who actually obey they koran and except their superiority over us poor infidels and actively work to convert, kill or enslave us and those who support them. I don’t think the term “fascists” is any more descriptive than practicing muslim. Traditional, pious and learned should also work. I do wonder how any title using the word "islamic" would ofend them, they all freely claim to practice 'islam"

Awwww, CAIR is upset. Like a little cheese with that whine?

No mention of any attempt to root out the "extremists", as Robert points out. And that is the most damning indicment. They get all bent out of shape over some silly cartoons, imaginary Koran desacrations and Israel's supposedly brutal oppression, but no effort to combat the "extremists" who've hijacked their religion. Israel gives up territory and what is the response? War. No wonder more and more people are rightfully concerned about Islam. It's gonna get a lot harder to peddle that religion of peace twaddle.

Most Muslims may indeed be moderate and live in peace, but I think we can say too many of them are either too fearful of opposing the Jihadis or figure since they are Muslims, they will be fine is the Jihadis win. If you look at history, the average Muslim had no problem benefiting and enjoying the spoils that came along with his dominant position under Sharia. To believe they will ever stand with Infidels against Jihad is a foolhardy fantasy.

"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad.

On behalf of the free world, I apologize for the President's remark Mr. Awad. May we please just call them 'muslim criminals', or perhaps 'quran toting bomb-makers'? And while we are at it, we will start calling the government in Iran 'democratic' so as not to offend. Also, thanks to the followers of your 'religion' for taking away my right to carry a drink onto a plane. And finally, one small request. Could you please allow us a church in Mecca, we feel left out. . . Islam did what it does best today, that is cause misery for everybody in the free world.

"We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he told a news conference in Washington.

Does he really mean "You see, they're doing you a favour by plotting to blow you up -- it gives you a golden opportunity to show your tolerance towards us"?

"Are they going to stop people from bringing bottled water and wine onto airplanes?" (Steve Cheng)

And what's worse, banning BOOKS. By God, death by in-flight entertainment.

I think it's good that CAIR is irked (of course they are perpetually and professionally irked) and I hope they continue to whine and squawk publicly, because this will draw more attention to Islam.

Here's a general definition of fascism:

fas·cism
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Islam does seem a lot like fascism, on the above definition. See Islamic quotes at this link.

Here are some examples:

"I was ordered to fight all men until they say, 'There is no God but Allah.' " --Muhammad's farewell address in 632

"I shall... pursue them until there remains no one... who does not acknowledge Allah." --Saladin in 1189

“I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah..." --Osama bin Laden

6:162. "Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Verily, my Salat (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists)."
--Quoted by Mohamed Atta.

Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 33 (see 30-35): It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah." [also see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24, Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2635]

8:39 (Also see 2:193). "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do."

[Note: That remark "in the whole of the world" is added by the author(s) of the Noble Qur'an. Keep in mind that Islam is a mission to all mankind 34:28, and Islam's mission is to conquer all other religions, 9:33, 48:28, 61:9. Also note 9:32, Allah will perfect his light (purity of religion), no matter how much the disbelievers hate it]

{ http://muttaqun.com/dictionary3.html

"Fitnah: Polytheism and to disbelieve after one has believed in Allah, or a trial or a calamity, affliction or to set up rivals in worship with Allah, etc." }

Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 176:
“…And fight them until there is no more mischief and religion is wholly for Allah…”

Ishaq:324 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.’”

Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6853:
”Verily, Allah commanded me to burn (kill) the Quraish… Fight against those who disobey you ..."

Ibn Khaldun (Islamic Historian),
“It is conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death."

From al-Amili’s manual of Shia law, Jami-i-Abbasi:

“Islamic holy war against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam.”

"Tomorrow, our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination, but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today, before remorse will do you no good. Our nation is moving forwards, and it is in your interest to respect a victorious nation."
-- HAMAS leader, Khaled Mash'al

“But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless.”—Ayatollah Khomeini

Ishaq:204. “‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’”

Tabari VI:138. "Those present at the oath of Aqabah had sworn an allegiance to Muhammad. It was a pledge of war against all men. Allah had permitted fighting."

Ishaq:471 "We are steadfast trusting Him. We have a Prophet by whom we will conquer all men."

58:20 Lo! those who oppose Allah and His messenger, they will be among the lowest.
58:21 Allah hath decreed: Lo! I verily shall conquer, I and My messengers. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.

9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.

48:28 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion. And Allah sufficeth as a Witness.

61:9 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.

Ishaq:587 “We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge…We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”

Ishaq:315 “It was so criminal, men could hardly imagine it. Muhammad was ennobled because of the bloody fighting. I swear we shall never lack soldiers nor army leaders. Driving before us infidels until we subdue them with a halter above their noses and a branding iron. We will drive them to the ends of the earth. We will pursue them on horse and on foot. We will never deviate from fighting in our cause. Any people that disobey Muhammad will pay for it. If you do not surrender to Islam, then you will live to regret it.”

Ishaq:530 "Get out of his way, you infidel unbelievers. Every good thing goes with the Apostle. I believe in his word. We will Fight you about its interpretations as we have fought you about its revelation with strokes that will remove heads and make enemies of friends."

Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We Fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will Fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.
Ishaq:326 “Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’ Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’”

42:10. All disputes must be referred to Allah. (Koran, Islamic Law).

18:26. No one may share in Allah’s government (Koran, Islamic Law).

5:45 “…Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers.”

29:49. “…And none but the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers, etc.) deny Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.).”

6:57. “…The decision is only for Allah, He declares the truth, and He is the Best of judges."

2:165. “…all power belongs to Allâh and that Allâh is Severe in punishment.”

4:80. To obey Mohammad is to obey Allah.

Obey Muhammad (3:32, 3:132, 4:13, 4:59, 4:69, 4:80, 5:92, 8:1-2, 8:20, 8:46, 9:71, 24:47, 24:52-56, 33:33, 47:33, 49:14, 58:13, 57:9)

59:6 “…Allah giveth His messenger lordship over whom He will.”
59:7. “And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it).”

Muslims must try to follow Mohammad's example conduct (33:21).

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 251:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 258:
Narrated 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it. (See Hadith No. 203, Vol. 4)

35:10. “Whosoever desires honour, power and glory then to Allah belong all honour, power and glory [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshipping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it (the goodly words i.e. the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds), but those who plot evils, theirs will be severe torment. And the plotting of such will perish.”

CAIR is an arm of the Jihadist movement and needs to be cut off. They are propogandists that would undermine our efforts in the war against ISLAMIC FASCISTS.

Doug Hooper needs to go along with all muslims back to the land of islam. This is the civilized world, and islam will not assimilate with free countries. Hooper says the words Bush used may cause backlash. No Doug, it is islam and it's satanic beliefs and actions that will cause the backlash.
By the way, what in the hell were you thinking? Converting to a religion that any thinking person can see is from the pit.

Hi all,

Isn't it peculiar that these extremist Muslims and their hangers-on have no problem connecting fascism with the Jewish faith, when they march with their racist posters and banners. But if the shoe is on the other foot, oh no! They must moan and groan. Indeed CAIR and others seem to have special access to parts of the MSM that no other ethnic rights organizations have. How do they manage this? Is there more Muslim/Wahabbi influence in the MSM than we know about?

Hyopcrites!

Magooey

the mos islam and cair always complain about the truth being spoken.

ilsam wants world wide religious war and their desire is fastly approaching.

Prepare, be armed, be ready.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost and the cost will be immense.

islam = fascism = terrorist

Too bad, so sad!

Get them all out of this country, mass deportation can be accomplished.

Ronin: "I don’t think the term “fascists” is any more descriptive than practicing muslim. Traditional, pious and learned should also work."

Ronin - I agree. But perhaps the term "fascist" carries too much western political baggage to properly characterize Islam, with its 1400 year history that long precedes the western term "fascism". Also, fascism is such a dirty word in a sense to us modern westerners that perhaps using the term merely creates resistance among those who don't want to malign a billion people.

Then there are terms such as "fundamentalist" Muslim, which seem to be erroneously attributing an attribute of Christian theological history onto Islam, where there really is no historical parallel.

What we need is a term which accurately conveys, as you suggest, that all we are really talking about here is "practicing" Muslims.

From that perspective, I like your choice of the term "pious". Another term that could work would be "devout", as in

The British security services foiled a major plot by devout Muslims to blow up 10 commuter planes mid air en route to the US from Britain.

Definition of "devout" :

"Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations."

Using the term "devout" (or "pious" as you suggest) as the qualifier, does serve the purpose of adding this apparently much needed qualifier to the term "Muslim", in order to let off the hook this supposed vast majority of peaceful Muslims ('Hey - I'm not devout! Don't point your figure at me!).

By the same token, though, the word "devout" is not inflammatory as is the word "fascist", but at the same time conveys the fact that jihad is, in fact, a central duty for "devout" Muslims. The term puts more of an onus on Muslims themselves, who surely know what their religion teaches. Of course Muslims would fight the term "fascist" as attached to Islam. But what would they say if we used the term "devout" instead, which is, after all, a term with positive connotations, as in "The plotters were "devout Muslims".?

What would CAIR and their ilk say to that? How would they go about denying it or complaining that the term unfairly maligns Muslims? Because actually its rather a compliment, from the Muslim perspective but it simultaneously expresses precisely what the infidel needs to understand.

How about the term "Muslim terrorists", or "Islamic fundamentalists"? Or just plain old "Mohammedans"?
They are devising ways to slaughter innocents en mass and we are worried about hurting their damned feelings!?

Well said, Caroline

Words of wisdom for truely those who understand:

"We've got Osama bin Laden hijacking the religion in order to define it one way. ... We feel the president and anyone who's using these kinds of terminologies is hijacking it too from a different side,"

Sheikh Yarmani posted: One would hope that the Islamo-fascists become so 'alienated' that they pack up and leave, right out and back to the Islamo-holes where they came from...

In no country are Muslims more "alienated" then in Britain, even though UK government has maintained the vast majority of them on Benefits, and granted them rights that no other community has.

My hope, along with yours, that as they are so alienated, they will get fed up and leave.
_____________
Incidentally, has anyone noticed that most of the international terrorism, is coming from Britain.

Now the BBC and UK authorities state that terrorism is coming from Asians, or better still, British born citizens. Let us play along with that and trustingly accept this to be so. Then it follows that British citizens are the source of most of the global terrorism at present.

Just a short trawl

1. British citizens engage in terrorism against British citizens in Yemen
2.British citizens in terror attack on Israel
3. British citizens in terror attack on tourists in Delhi.
4.British citizens in involved terroristic murder of Daniel Pipes.
5. British citizens attack tubes and buses in London, killing 52.
6.British citizen attempted blowing up a shoe bomb on airplane.
7. British born citizens in plot to down tens of airliners.

This is just offhand.

I cant think of any other country whose citizens are so heavily involved in international terrorism as Britain.

Looking at it objectively, and granting that "British born" citizens are involved in terrorism across the globe, it is only right that Britain should be placed as a member of the axes of terror.

"Words of wisdom for truely those who understand: We've got Osama bin Laden hijacking the religion in order to define it one way. ... We feel the president and anyone who's using these kinds of terminologies is hijacking it too from a different side," Posted by: enlightener [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 10, 2006 09:52 PM "

OK Mr Elibiary. Then "enlighten" us. Do you deny that the folks who plotted these attacks are "devout" Muslims?

Caroline,

You've got to admit that this's why the GWOT is a shipwrecked boat stuck on the rocks.

And please call me "Mohamed".

Ok Mohamed. Thanks. (but there's so many Mohamed's! Elibiary is far more distinctive!)

"You've got to admit that this's why the GWOT is a shipwrecked boat stuck on the rocks."

What I'll admit is that the term "GWOT" is a misnomer. I would call it something like the great 21st century infidel resistance against the Islamic jihad. Clumsy, I know. We'll figure out the proper name eventually no doubt, resourceful folks that we are.

But, you didn't answer my question. Apparently you don't like the term "Islamic fascists". How do you feel about the term "devout Muslims". Do you deny that the folks who plotted these attacks are "devout" Muslims? Would it be wrong or inaccurate of us to use that term to describe them? Would you find that terminology offensive?

C,

A part of me wants to fail your intellegance test, just because it'll make the conversation shorter due to the workload I've got.

Got to respond to dozens of pissed off folks who read the peace, answer a few months suggesting improved arguments and prepare my speech for a protest of our foreign policy tomorrow. :-)

The short answer is obviously no I wouldn't call them "devout muslims". I'm prepared to suggest an alternative, but only if you're ready to have a serious conversation with the civility you know it'd require.

Yes or No???

M - like I acknowledged before, you're WAY busier than I am and you have my full sympathies. I am heading to the beach for a week tomorrow and will be offline for a while. But before I go, by all means, hit me with your alternative - your preferred term in place of "Islamic fascists" - and I promise to chew on it until we cross paths online again. (And when have I ever been uncivil with you? A tad sarcastic perhaps, but downright uncivil, no.)

Well, it's not the "Apple Dumpling Gang" causing all of these problems around the world.

""We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group."

I guess this CAIR fellow had obviously not seen the video "Obsession"... but perhaps GW Bush did? Those little kids marching wearing suicide belts and saluting Nazi style makes quite an impression. There is no reason why not use "Islamofascism", or Islamonazism, if the label fits. If the Islamists really want to avoid war, they can stop Jihad. Plain and simple. But we know that can only be for 10 years... just enough time to regroup and recruit those little kids in the video, now as Jihad brainwashed adults. WW III is about present day "Islamofascism."

This is NOT a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a country, ideaology, belief system that governs ones' life, or a government. Islam declared war on the world almost 1400 years ago. Recently that has been repeated by al-queda, hezbulluh and many other muslim groups around the world. It's either going to be them or us who is annihilated. I vote we annihilate them before they do unto us. They've had enough chances to prove that islam is not a religion of peace but one of war. How many more must die at the hands of muslim murderers before people wake up?

"Let that vast majority stand up and begin comprehensive and organized efforts to fight the jihad ideology, and they will begin seeing these suspicions evanescing."

This is the biggest problem with American Muslims. This is the reason we must consider all muslims a possible threat.... your nighbor, your co-worker, your corner bodega owner. It has been a very rare occasion for an American Muslm to stand up loud against the actions of "Islamist Fanatics." Nationalism is unknown to them, they have no allegiance to the United States of America, but instead serve only Mohammed's Jihad. Why do they sit idly by, either, apothetic, sympathetic, or blantantly supporting and defending these monsters?

A call to all American Muslims; stand up and denounce the efforts of Hamas, Hezzbollah, Al-Quada, and the tyranic motives of many Islamic nations (Iran, Syria)! Where are the peaceful Muslums?

I've asked many Muslums in NYC, would you denounce these regimes? They usually stay tight lipped, but if prodded they explode (no pun intended), and rant about how bad Americans are. Why are they here then? Plotting? I've pissed off alot of cabbies here, almost to blows many times.

Americans need to let Muslims know that if they can't find it in themselves to denounce the terror tactics of these evil people, that they are not wanted here. Go to France!

We've got Osama bin Laden hijacking the religion in order to define it one way. ... We feel the president and anyone who's using these kinds of terminologies is hijacking it too from a different side,"
Posted by: enlightener at August 10, 2006 09:52 PM
++++++++++++++

enlightener you are brain washed and deceived.

all muslims are not terrorists, but all of the terrorists that have attacked western civilizations since 9/11 have been muslim.

islam demands in its tenets for all muslims to conquer the world for islam and enslave or murder those that will not convert to islam.

you demean your women and beat your women and lock them away when they do not follow your demands.

your belief in a very violent cult not in a religion.

you worship a violent cult that is not compatable with the civilized nations of the world.

the war of civilizations is underway and islam is not going to win but be destroyed.

islam has not seen the full force of America, just ask the germans and the japanese.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost and the cost will be immense.

If these Muslims are angerd by a few aptly descriptive wourds describing thier community I wonder if they would be offended by internment camps and mass deportations? Maybe they do not see that this is where all of this is headed if things do not cange and change soon.

I think I am going to have an Iranian, Hezbollah, and Hamas flag buring "protest" in my home town soon. Heck we should put one together I'd take a vacation to meet up with any and all that wanted to do it. We could even burn effigies of Hassan Nasralla, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Islam or Islamofascist does not matter. It is pure Treachery and it affects its own members. They ("ordinary" Muslims) dare not criticize the "terrorists" because they are themselves afraid. It's like any dysfunctional system. It's like victims who end up identifying with the victimizer.
I once had an Arab Christian inform me that he was going to send his daughters to high school in Israel because "all American women are whores." The same man sent his 25 year old son over to Nazareth to marry a 16 year old cousin because "in America there are all kinds of diseases like AIDs" and he wanted to preserve his son from these hazards. Suggesting that he live according to the dictates of his Faith, in chastity until married, evidentally didn't occur to Dad.
These people are pre-mediaeval. (And the Christian Arabs are educated!!!)
We might as well be dealing with Martians.
I HAVE occasionally seen American Moslems avow their patriotism and their love for the USA - credibly. But it is VERY rare.
They consider themselves the BEST people. Their culture (Islamism) is the best culture. Their murderous, treacherous, perverted, lying "prophet" is the best prophet - the best human being! They actually beLIEVE these things. And their belief system is like a house of cards. Admit that Moohammed was a deranged and wicked, vicious killer - and the whole thing caves in.
Admit that American democracy might be an improvement over life in dar al Islam, and the whole thing collapses.
I have no idea what the solution is.
Back in the Know-Nothing days U.S. Catholics were suspected of seditious activities. I am old enough to remember the fear that gripped some quarters when JFK was running for president, how the Pope was liable to be directing policy from the Vatican, and so on. Bishops, priests, teaching Sisters, all made a great effort to profess their patriotism.
I grew up in a neighhborhood (NY, NY) of Jews, Polish and Italian Catholics - probably more than half of the adults were immigrants. I never knew more civic-minded, patriotic and grateful Americans. And, NO, they didn't all "like" one another. But there were no bombs in synagogues or churches, nor any fear of them.
I remember a leaflet authored by a Protestant clergyman, which claimed that there were arsenals in the Knights of Columbus halls. The difference is - there weren't! I would bet that there is much unsavory and illegal activity in mosques, islamic centers, "charitable" organizations, etc.

Caroline:
"By the same token, though, the word "devout" is not inflammatory as is the word "fascist", but at the same time conveys the fact that jihad is, in fact, a central duty for "devout" Muslims. The term puts more of an onus on Muslims themselves, who surely know what their religion teaches. Of course Muslims would fight the term "fascist" as attached to Islam. But what would they say if we used the term "devout" instead, which is, after all, a term with positive connotations, as in "The plotters were "devout Muslims".?"

I hear what you're saying, but fighting a war against "devout" faithfuls has a hollow ring to it. It is reasonable but not effective at the gut level. Islamics do not respond to reason, they're braindead. You have to hit them hard, both physically and verbally, to make them understand that their "devout" religion is a royal pain in the ass for us, and dangerous. I think "Islamofascism" is still too kind. I favour "Islamonazism" which is what their devout believers really are. The "Obsession" video is an excellent example, and all Islamic Jihad terroristic attacks against us, even if foiled at the last moment, is the hard evidence. We go after them now, they're exposed, and WW III makes it open season on Islam. Especially on "devout" Islamonazis.

If CAIR wants to sqwawk, let them sqwawk, but they have not lifted a little finger against this Islamonazism, which makes them complicit. When at war, they are also part of the threat, and seditious. If they quietly support Jihad, they should be included in the round up.

No.

Publicly insulting Muslims is the wrong approach.
Other than a moment of satisfaction there is nothing to be gained.

We should be very nice to them in our public
statements. At the same time, we should use
the power of the state to covertly undermine
them and ultimately destroy them as a community
and religion. We must be as devious as them
if we want to prevail.

Mohammed

I too would like to read your answer to Caroline - how would you describe what President Bush called "Islamo-fascism"? And while you are at it, I'd also like you, or one of your colleagues who might have more time than you apparently do, to address the points Archimedes enumerated above - I'm linking it here (even though it's on this page itself) so that you don't have to spend too much time scrolling to find it

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012631.php#c254066

Do make the attempt to demonstrate why those citations from the siras and hadiths are invalid, or aren't being properly followed by the Jihadists/terrorists (again, what's your favored term?)

Also, as Robert noted above, none of you have called on your fellow Muslims to step up cooperation with law enforcement officials to root jihadists out of their ranks. Also, your pre-occupation with the image of Islam and Muslims that gets presented to us infidels as a result of all these terror attacks - (aborted such as this one, and successful, such as 7/11), as opposed to the real and tangible damage inflicted on its victims, is what guarantees that more and more of us Infidels will get to see Islam as a form of Nazism on steroids.

The term "Islamofascist" should become a household word. It should be commonly heard in our suburbs, in the inner-city in the diners and on the lips of an old woman sitting on the porch of an old wooden farm house in the mid-west.

It should roll off the tongues of our professors in our Universities and pepper our conversations in our Industrial Parks. The term should be used liberally when we speak of the future of America, this new war we are engaged in and whether or not we're going to survive it. WWIII. A war. An existential war. A war where the rubber meets the road -- the rubber being Nazism. The road is Islam.

Get together and print up cards. Hand them out to people you know and people you you don't know. Give them to people you want to see survive. Walk over to talk to a neighbor you don't know or haven't spoken to but to nod your head. You could call it, "Neighborhood Jihad Watch." Tell them there's alot more going on than baseball, basketball, American Idol and .... well you fill in the blank. Buy a Koran and read it. Show your friends. They want to kill us or convert us. They want to erase us from the face of the earth.

Islamofacists?

No kidding...

The correct word that should be used from this point forward is Islamic Supremacists, for the indeed do believe that they are superior.

You heard it here first: Islamic Supremacists.

(and maybe those who practice islamic terrorism should ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY and be concerned about the effects their actions will have on their fellow muslims instead of putting such blame on the victims of islamic supremacism!!!)

C,

True enough, sarcastic yet civil. Now I don't support any term that's "Islamo" anything and that includes "Islamist" simply because it's not accurate. Islam refers to the religion and is holistic and is supposed to encompass every aspect of life. The problem with taking a person who's actions are highlighting or over-emphasizing one aspect of Islam is that it empowers that person to the level of spokesman/orthodoxy maker and creates a situation where he's hijacking the faith to define according to his paradigm. I don't mean to lose you, but Islam is truly all about balance and that balance is lost when it's hijacked with an over-emphasis on any aspect of it whether ritualistic practices, mystical spirituality, defensive warfare or whatever.

The closest example I can think of us is when Catholic Socialists during the 80s in Central America pushed "Liberation Theology" and tried to make that the face of "Catholicism". The Pope correctly stood up to that and said that's not Catholicism, and that's what the Muslim leadership did to the terrorists. But when the President or anyone else says "Islamo" whatever, they are turning around and re-empowering the modern day (but violent) "Liberation Theologists".

I think a more accurate description of most of these groups that today are labeled terrorist (ex. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) is "Muslim Nationalists". Think about it, all these groups are after the creation of their version of what a perfect state is in a certain geographic region. But besides that they see the world through the prism of "Muslim" or "Non", kind of like "Jewish" or "Gentile". They'll go to war to protect a person they have no relations to except for one thing, they both belong to the "Muslim Nation".

Salaam, enjoy your vacation and I wish you a safe journey.

Texican,

I've only got one point for you:

1. The Islam you describe is totally unrecognizable to me and this is from a guy who's met quite a few Muslims and whose father was an Imam.

Reassess your conclusions and get educated before drawing such outlandish conclusion.

Salaam,

From now on,let's agree to call these bastards what they are...Lutherans!

Posted by: MP

I'd be willing to go along with Presbyterians :o)

Seriously, Bush is right to call them Islamofacists. It's interesting to note that these terrorists, (CAIR) instead of condeming these scumbag muslims, attack the president of the united states.
Not only should CAIR be investigated, they should be shut down and thrown out of the country, immediately.
Thier 1998 stated goal is more than enough grounds for these Hezbollah, Hamas,and Al Qaida supporting, flea infested pedophile prophet loving, America hating, Islamofacists to be sent straight to Gitmo and interogated, then dropped into the middle of the sea.

Mohamed

Actually, that's an acceptable response, given that it contains the term 'Muslim', and at least, doesn't pretend that the 'Muslimness' is not a factor in their activities. However, given the wider loyalty of Muslims to an universal 'ummah' over their individual countries, be it Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, et al, I think that the term 'nationalism' applied in this case is understating the goals of these movements, which is (re)establishment of a worldwide caliphate.

Would 'Muslim supremacists' be acceptable to you, or is that something you prefer to, for the record, deny? Also, would calling them vanilla 'Jihadists' be something that would provoke outrage from your groups?

I disagree with the term 'Islamo-Fascist', not because of Elibiary's objections, but because of the implication that if you take out the term 'Fascist', Islam, as it remains, is benign. However, Elibiary's suggestion to call them 'Muslim Nationalists' is not a bad one, since it leaves the identification on the followers of Islam, if not the religion itself, rather than mislead one into thinking that the Jihad campaign against us all is a 'twisted version of Islam', as parroted by ignorami like Sean Hannity.

Once this is done, one could actually look into how different this campaign is from the real Islam. CAIR may howl all it likes, but what's gone on even outside, as in London, Madrid, Beslan, Mumbai, Bali - all of which fall outside CAIR's 'jurisdiction'.

"1. The Islam you describe is totally unrecognizable to me and this is from a guy who's met quite a few Muslims and whose father was an Imam.

Reassess your conclusions and get educated before drawing such outlandish conclusion.

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener

You are probably a liar. Read the Koran and hadith.

or better yet, why don't you post the wonderful peaceful hadith from Mohammads life and sura's from the Koran and enlighten us? I can only find stuff like this:

Ishaq:204 “‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’”

Qur’an:2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), 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.”

Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Qur’an:9:29“Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Ishaq:208 “When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound themselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances.”

Maybe you were lucky, and your father was an apostate because he realized what an evil cult islam is.

Mullahmasher,

Thanks for the insult, no offense taken. Yeah you're probably right, what do I know. I've given and routinely give sermons in Mosques all around Texas. And I do direct the largest network of Muslims in the state with 90+ percent of the largest congregations affiliated to our network. Yeah, I see how I probably don't know what I'm talking about. Ooh thank you so much for "enlightening" poor old me, please forgive me ooh great "Mullah".

Salaam,

What if you leave out the 'Nationalists' from 'Muslim Nationalists'?

Islamofacists is a suitable definition. It's all one word.
You can also use terms like Jihadist, even though one might object because the koran says it's the duty of every Muslim. The Koran clearly defines Jihad as "holy"fighting in Allah's cause using every means of warfare to advance islam throughout the world. it isn't defensive, it isn't a "personal struggle".

You can also call them Islamic fundamentalists, or Islamo wacko's.

Fortunatly, some can be saved from the Islamic brainwashing they recieved from birth and be shown the light.

Infidel Pride,

I would like to ask you a question. You said: "Also, as Robert noted above, none of you have called on your fellow Muslims to step up cooperation with law enforcement officials to root jihadists out of their ranks. Also, your pre-occupation with the image of Islam and Muslims that gets presented to us infidels as a result of all these terror attacks - (aborted such as this one, and successful, such as 7/11), as opposed to the real and tangible damage inflicted on its victims, is what guarantees that more and more of us Infidels will get to see Islam as a form of Nazism on steroids."

Now I'm a graduate of the FBI Citizen's Academy and have done much in the areas you're saying we're not doing. Plus in my position at the helm of the largest network of Muslims in Texas, I'm aware of what many others are doing on a daily basis. Now I did hear House Homeland Security Committee Chair Peter King saying on TV tonight that Muslims aren't doing enough to help Law Enforcement, but I know enough to know that's BS and is being said by him for totally political reasons.

My question to you is how exactly do you know what our community has done or isn't doing? Do you honestly think you have access to enough information to make such sweeping and concluding statements?

I await your answer!

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener

I guess you know enough to avoid answering my question, and showing us what peaceful, loving Islam is.
You know you can't. There is no such thing.

Islam, the koran and hadith is a book of hate, a war manual against all mankind.

Infidel Pride,

The answer is no I wouldn't support "Islamic Supremcist" and I would assume that most Muslims would also find that insulting because it indicates a certain degree of 'racist' inclinations. A concept anti-thetical to a religion derived from God.

As one who studied latin for a couple of years in school, I don't see a difference between "jihadists" and "mujahideen". Both mean individuals who strive (jihad). Sometimes Jihad involves fighting, fine but you're not going to convince Muslims to do away with Jihad because it's integral, has legitimate uses and no authority would have the power anyway to remove it.

Now I'd like to ask you a question. Why are you so anti-Khilafa? A Khilafa with a Caliph is simply a Government structure where Political Power and Religious Power rest in an Episcopal Structure (i.e. a Pope). If that's what their people vote for, why should we care?

Salaam,

Here's something for your next "sermon"

Tabari I:219 “When Allah wanted to create the creation, He brought forth smoke from the water. The smoke hovered loftily over it. He called it ‘heaven.’ Then He dried out the water and made it earth. He split it and made it seven earths on Sunday. {??}

He created the earth upon a big fish, {??}
that being the fish mentioned in the Qur’an. By the Pen, the fish was in the water. The water was upon the back of a small rock. The rock was on the back of an angel. The angel was on a big rock. The big rock was in the wind. The fish became agitated. As a result, the earth quaked, so Allah anchored the mountains and made it stable. This is why the Qur’an says, ‘Allah made for the earth firmly anchored mountains, lest it shake you up.’” [Amen!]

run that one past your braindead minions.

Mullahmasher,

"Islam, the koran and hadith is a book of hate, a war manual against all mankind."

If you say so. I for one am going to sleep, so that I can wake up in a few hours to pray fajr. Guess I'll read my book of hate then and review my war manual against all mankind.

With all this knowledge maybe you should change your name to "Ayatollahmasher". A Mullah is a 6 grade education amongst Shia and South Asians. Believe me you're so knowledgeable that you should be able to breeze through your "Ayatollah" exam and get a seat on Iran's Governing Council (Rule by Supreme Court) in no time.

Salaam,

The leadership of Shi’ite and Sunni Islam have made it abundantly clear again and again that Islam is at war with America. It is time to play catch-up and acknowledge that a state of war does indeed exist between America and Islam.

The declaration must be for war on Islam, not some hyphenated version. In WWII, we did not declare war on just “Nazi Germany”, or “Fascist Italy” or Imperial Japan. We declared war on Germany, Italy, and Japan. And we fought to destroy the will of these enemies, not have a truce with them.

All Muslims who follow the Koran are necessarily at war with Dar-El-Harb and are instructed by their cult to kill or dhimmify all Christians, Jews, and Infidels therein. America and Israel share the number one slot for Muslim attack in Dar-El-Harb.

Those Muslims living among us are enemy and must be considered as potential subversives until individually proven otherwise.

A war declaration with a WWII-like war powers act will enable a full mobilization of the country, meaningful homeland security, deportation of alien Muslims, internment of American Muslims who do declare loyalty to America, disbanding of Muslim front organizations such as CAIR, and a no-holds barred approach to unlimited warfare on Islamic states.

Muslim nations who do not want to participate in the war with America should be given the option of disarming, abandoning sharia law, imposition of strict secular Kemal-caliber government with no religious component, secular re-education, total surrender to American armed forces, and the cult leaders, terrorist leaders, and politicians among them who fomented this war brought to justice.

This is coming, sooner or later. The sooner it is done the sooner the war will be over.

Muslims would also find that insulting because it indicates a certain degree of 'racist' inclinations.

Islam is a religion. "Muslim" is not a race.

A Mujahedeen is a fighter. (Islamic fighter if you insist)

Jihad is religious fighting for Allah's cause, ie to spread Islam, by all means, no matter how evil.

A Mujahedeen doesn't only fight for jihad. It's just a name for a warrior/fighter/ Islamic fighter/

"Sometimes Jihad involves fighting"

Bukhari:V4B52N311 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘There is no migration after the Conquest of Mecca, but only Jihad. When you are called by the Muslim ruler for Jihad fighting, you should go forth immediately, responding to the call.’”

Qur’an:47:4 “So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”

Why are you so anti-Khilafa? A Khilafa with a Caliph is simply a Government structure where Political Power and Religious Power rest in an Episcopal Structure (i.e. a Pope).

Bull crap!!!

It's canon law that the church is separate from the powers of the state.
With Islam, the cult IS the law, AND the state, AND the church and the justice system, all rolled into one, controled by a dictator.

As the history of the Caliphate has shown, it's a difficult job to hold on to for long, because Muslims, when they don't have infidels to kill, kill each other.

Those horrible Brits! By disrupting this wonderful plot to have Jews and Christians go up in smoke they took Muslim's only reason to rejoice. Bad, bad Brits!

More fun:

Tabari I:232 “Gabriel brings to the sun a garment of luminosity from the light of Allah’s Throne according to the measure of the hours of the day. The garment is longer in the summer and shorter in the winter, and of intermediate length in autumn and spring. The sun puts on that garment as one of you here puts on his clothes.”

[The sun wears clothes, and like us, their length varies depending upon the season. It even has a butler ]

Tabari I:233 “When the Messenger was asked about that, he replied, ‘When Allah was done with His creation He created two suns from the light of His Throne. His foreknowledge told Him that He would efface one and change it to a moon; so the moon is smaller in size.”

[How about that! the moon is a sun says "Allah"]

Tabari I:234 “Then the Prophet said: ‘For the sun and the moon, Allah created easts and wests on the two sides[??] of the earth and the two rims of heaven. There are 180 springs in the west of black clay-this is why Allah’s word says: “He found the sun setting in a muddy spring.” [18:86] The black clay bubbles and boils like a pot when it boils furiously.’”

How about that! The sun sets in a muddy pond in the west ON earth. So say "Allah" [what a dumb god]

Tabari I:235 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Allah created an ocean three farakhs (918 kilometers) removed from heaven. Waves contained, it stands in the air by the command of Allah. No drop of it is spilled. All the oceans are motionless, but that ocean flows at the speed of an arrow. The sun, moon and retrograde stars [planets] by which Allah swears in the Qur’an [81:15], run like the sun and moon and race. All of the other stars are suspended from heaven as lamps are from mosques, and circulate together praising Allah. The Prophet said, ‘If you wish to have this made clear, look to the circulation of the sphere alternately here and there.’”

[Allah says it, it must be so. Better inform Nasa that they have it all wrong.]

Tabari I:236 “‘When the sun rises upon its chariot from one of those springs it is accompanied by 360 angels with outspread wings…. When Allah wishes to test the sun and the moon, showing His servants a sign and thereby getting them to obey, the sun tumbles from the chariot and falls into the deep end of that ocean.[amazing!] When Allah wants to increase the significance of the sign and frighten His servants severely, all of the sun falls and nothing of it remains in the chariot. That is a total eclipse of the sun. It is a misfortune for the sun.’”

LMAO!!! Oh yeah, Islam is a real religion alright....

Tabari I:236 “Allah created two cities out in space, each with ten thousand gates, each 6 kilometers distant from the other. By Allah, were those people not so many and so noisy, all the inhabitants of this world would hear the loud crash made by the sun falling when it rises and when it sets [in that muddy pond]. Gabriel took me to them during my Night Journey from the Sacred Mosque [the Ka’aba] to the Farthest Mosque [the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem]. I told the people of these cities to worship Allah but they refused to listen to me.” [ I wonder why]

LMAO! That should be enough for your next sermon. Have fun!

Next, I'll get into the pedophile and murdering rapist stuff your flea infested "prophet" was into

Mullahmasher

Some years ago, Rush once used the term 'Fundamuslimists' to describe them. If you need a single word descriptor, it's a fantastic choice, and as good as any.

A Mullah is a 6 grade education amongst Shia and South Asians. Salaam.

Posted by: enlightener

Your point is?

I'm fully aware how UNEDUCATED mullah's are, as are Imam's like your dad, and likewize Ayatollahs. The Koran is learned by recital, not by actually reading and understanding it. You can become a mullah simply by reciting the Koran.
To become an Imam, you need to learn to tie your shoes. An Ayatollah, well, that takes connections if you want to have a share of the loot. Learning to READ is encouragd, but advanced hadith study can also be achieved by recital.

Considering that you CAN read, why is it you can't read Ishaq’s Sira, and see who Mohammad really was? since it is the earlest and ONLY source of Mohammads deeds and sayings, and also the only source of the Koran for that matter, it's undeniable. And to deny what it says about Muhammad, is to deny Islam all together.

Sweet dreams! don't let me keep you from your dream goats!

Mohamed

About your question on how exactly do I know what your community has done or isn't doing, the evidence is there for the looking. First of all, why is such activity not needed from the religious leadership (where it exists) of Buddhist, Confucian, Jewish, Hindu or any other religion? Second question: if it is really blasphemous to Islam to be advocating terror and jihad against Infidels, why isn't that message having any problems in trumping so-called 'Muslim-nationalistic' tendencies within your community?

We saw how well you could organize during the cartoon demonstrations, and again some weeks ago during pro-Hizbullah demonstrations against Israel. You mean to tell me that you can't do something similar to read all Jihadi-wannabes the riot act when they threaten to tarnish the 'peaceful-image-of-Islam' (it's fair to conclude that the effect of such activities on unsuspecting infidels is of no concern to you, just the negative publicity that it gives Islam).

As to your second question on why I oppose a Khilafa, it's because I know history. Under Caliph Umar I, the Sassanid empire was destroyed, and a civilized Zoroastrian Persia was converted into a barbaric Islamic Iran. Under Caliph Umar II, military expeditions were sent against Sind, and the people there experienced a barbarity that they hadn't encountered before, even though they were used to wars between different Kingdoms. Christians and Jews throughout the region - from Spain to Baghdad - were subject to subjugation and dhimmitude. As it is, the Khutbas call on the Faithful to wage jihad against the Infidels.

Once there is a Caliph, Muslim citizens everywhere in the world would be subject to his diktats, even to the point of betraying their own countries if so directed. As an example, look at India, where a local organization, called SIMI, orchestrated the 7/11 bombings, and has in its charter the 'liberation of India by converting it into an Islamic country', (even though Pakistan and Bangladesh were created for that very reason) They aren't a Pakistani or a Bangladeshi 'Muslim-nationalist' party; they are an indigenous party of Indian Muslims. If a Caliph existed, Muslims in Infidel countries like India, Israel, Thailand, Philippines, US, Denmark, Australia, et al would have a loyalty solely to that Caliph.

This is nothing like the Pope: Catholics in US, Italy, Austria, Spain, Philippines, Brazil, Mexico, Korea aren't expected, let alone required, to have an overriding loyalty to the Pope above and beyond their respective governments. That's nowhere near what it would be like with a Caliph. Also, there is nothing in Islamic history to suggest that a Caliph would be any more tolerant of Infidels than various Sheikhs, Sultans, Emirs, Maliks, Padshahs, Nawabs, Nizams, et al that existed from Algiers to Brunei.

The idea of a Caliph is apocalyptic: I'm no white Aryan, but if I had to choose, I'd sooner live under a Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Franco, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Castro, than live under even the most benign of Caliphs.

Anyway, now that I've answered your questions, are you going to respond to the points Archimedes made above, or shall we simply assume that what he cited is irrefutable?

CAIR and the other fake Muslim democrats ought to explain why Hitler was so interested in Islamic jihad and befriended a Muslim theologian whom he met in Berlin. Further, why did the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammad Amin el-Husseini [Husayni] tell the Bosnian Muslim SS division, the Handschar [Khanjar], that Islam and "national socialism" had much in common? On Hitler's interest in jihad, see link:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/01/islamic-influence-on-hitler-can-it-be.html
On the Mufti's speech identifying Islam with Nazism, see Joseph Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer (New York: Yoseloff 1965 [approx date).
By the way, in the years before WW2 and early in the war, there were numerous pro-Nazi groups operating in the USA. They often spoke in the name of peace and of democracy and American values.
On such groups, see John Roy Carlson, The Plotters & JR Carlson, Undercover, as well as A Kahn and M Sayers, The Plot against the Peace.

mullahmasher,
It is far from certain that the Quranic term "the Farthest Mosque" meant the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem when first used. That identification came much later. Indeed, Ibn Taymiyya, an important source for today's wahhabis and salafists, denied that farthest mosque meant the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and he opposed considering Jerusalem a Muslim holy city.

I can't imagine a flight to America with nothing to amuse the kids. Ridiculous! Muslims have achieved what they wanted-torturing Westerners, particularly women. They just didn't manage to kill us.

Each new day reveal the truth more and more. It is indeed Islam that is the terror and Muslims are the carriers of the disease. I note in my encounters with American Muslims that they are arrogant, hostile and really do hate America. Some may not openly say anything, but as soon as they are around other Muslims, the truth appears.
We must ban Muslim immigration now, we must start deporting Muslims on any visa violation, crimminal offense or on any violation of our laws, customs. We should deport on any Muslim who openly protests in our streets shouting "Death to America" or by shouting any praise to any terrorist group. Immediate deportation and no questions asked. The Muslim you send home now may be the Muslim who would have killed you.

Each new day reveal the truth more and more. It is indeed Islam that is the terror and Muslims are the carriers of the disease. I note in my encounters with American Muslims that they are arrogant, hostile and really do hate America. Some may not openly say anything, but as soon as they are around other Muslims, the truth appears.
We must ban Muslim immigration now, we must start deporting Muslims on any visa violation, crimminal offense or on any violation of our laws, customs. We should deport on any Muslim who openly protests in our streets shouting "Death to America" or by shouting any praise to any terrorist group. Immediate deportation and no questions asked. The Muslim you send home now may be the Muslim who would have killed you.

Each new day reveal the truth more and more. It is indeed Islam that is the terror and Muslims are the carriers of the disease. I note in my encounters with American Muslims that they are arrogant, hostile and really do hate America. Some may not openly say anything, but as soon as they are around other Muslims, the truth appears.
We must ban Muslim immigration now, we must start deporting Muslims on any visa violation, crimminal offense or on any violation of our laws, customs. We should deport on any Muslim who openly protests in our streets shouting "Death to America" or by shouting any praise to any terrorist group. Immediate deportation and no questions asked. The Muslim you send home now may be the Muslim who would have killed you.

President Bush has called a spade a spade. This is the first step.

Certainly there is no connection between Islam and terrorism. Islam teaches peace. There aren’t Moslem fascists any more than there are Christian fascists.
--- Sen. Tariq Azim KhanPakistan Minister of Information on Fox News

610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

I know plenty of wonderful Moslems.
--- E.D. Hill on Fox News Fox & Friends

Bimbo.

610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

Most Moslems are fine people, good Americans. It’s unfortunate that they don’t speak out against Islamic extremism. Maybe they’re intimidated, or maybe they are silent for some cultural reasons. It’s unfortunate.
--- Rep. Peter King R-NY on Fox News Fox & Friends

Himbo.

610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

No, it is our good fortune that they are silent. Who wants to hear a boat load of taqiyya bullcrap from a bunch of duplicitous Moslems who would subjugate us?

I can see the outcome of this event: Thousands of lectures given by Moslimas to American 3rd graders this coming September 11.

Were they fucking Muslims?? Did they plan these attacks in the name of Islam??

STFU, CAIR.

SOLUTION: Internment and deportation, starting with the CAIR terrorists.

Hold your huzzas.

"Islamic fascists" has both good and bad points. It is a great improvement over that idiotic phrase the "war on terror." It is no longer possible for our government, or other Western governments, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with the assorted terror plots foiled, or in some cases carried out, all over the world, and the Administraiton must have sensed the fury, directed at it not least from those whom it might have counted on to support it and that, for good reason, is opposed to the timidity and the stupidity with which the Administration has so often behaved.

But "Islamic fascists" is only a milestone along the way. Islam appears only adjectivally here, modifying the noun "Fascists." This still hints at a group that has possibly "hijacked" or "perverted" a great religion. Much remains to be made clear. What are these things about Islam, and the Jihad, that need to be made clear?

They include the following:

1. That Jihad to spread Islam until all barriers to its dominance are removed, and it does dominate, and Muslims, the Best of People, rule.
This is as Allah wishes it, this is the just and natural outcome that all Muslims must work toward and for. The fact that some do not means merely that they are insufficiently devout, or lazy, or unobservant. No one should take comfort in this, for at any moment a lapsed or lazy or unobservant or insufficiently devout Muslim may become the real thing, prompted by some event in the great world, or often prompted by some event in his personal life which we, the Infidels, have no way of knowing will set him off. And then there is also the "My Son the Fanatic" phenomenon, where the child of immigrants who may themselvs not have the leisure to dwell on their "humiliation" in this or that Infidel land, while the children, sons or daughters, proudly "return" to Islam, in a way that of course spells danger to Infidels and to their laws and even, in the end, their lives.

is both a collective and at times individual duty. It is to be pursued using whatever instruments come to hand. In 7th century Arabia the main instrument was "qital" or combat. But Islamic texts, Islamic commentators, are well aware of all the other insturments of warfare: the "wealth weapon" (which today means oil revenues, and the use of boycotts, bribery, support for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, armies of Western hirelings ready to defend and promote Muslim and Arab interests), and "pen, speech" (again, propaganda to spread Islam, or to protect Islam from those inclined to question or oppose its spread), and the newest instrument, openly discussed and even boasted about by Muslims, but hardly noticed by Infidels, or if noticed, those Infidels simply throw up their hands and say "What can we do" as if the initial mistake of allowing large numbers of Muslims into the Western world cannot possibly be rectified, not a single idea can come to any Western people as to how they might halt and reverse this Muslim presence, as if it were simply an impossibility to figure out ways to protect the laws, customs, the civilizational legacy and the very lives of those Infidels, from those who do not wish, and who cannot wish, those laws, customs, that inherited civilizaion created according to Infidel freedoms, and Infidel ideas of what is to be allowed, and those Infidel lives, well.

The phrase "Islamic fascists" implies that there are those among good Muslims, obedient Muslims, devout Muslims, those who could be other than "fascistic." But is this possible? Is this belief-system (do not call it a religion becuase the word "religion" in many quarters commands automatic respect) capable of permitting mental and other kinds of freedom? It presents itself as a Total Regulation of Life. Everything is either forbidden or commanded, and there are lists of such things, from foods and hairstyles, to matters of the most intimate personal hygiene. All written down, all carefully collected. And then there is Islam as a Complete Explanation of the Universe, with vague passages in the Qur'an supposedly containing all of modern science, from vulcanology right to Benoit Mandelbrot's fractals and the nature of DNA, the nature of atom and subatomic world. It's "in the book." But, you will answer, there are Muslims who do not decide everything according to the Qur'an, do not follow Muhammad in every particular. True, but irrelevant. As long as, in the population of Muslims, most of them are primitively wedded to the real Islam or can be made to do so becuase the textual authority is entirely on the side of those "Islamic fascists," then one has a problem with Islam that never goes away.

Furthermore, as we can see from the observable behavior of Muslims in the West, they do not express loyalty to the Infidel nation-state. Everywhere, whatever Infidel land they manage to end up in, the same disturbing attitudes of anger, hostility, a sense of "humiliation" and growiing, not lessening, hatred of the Infidels, can be observed. That a handful are not like this, and in fact have become merely "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, does not make for the very large number who openly demonstrate their insensate loyalty to the most cruel acts of Muslim terrorists, who attempt always and everywhere, it seems, to mislead us as to the nature of Islam, with such obvious examples, to those who have studied something about Islam, of taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, easily exposed, and who everywhere, despite the studied efforts of our masters in the media and government to protect them, to explain things away, to mislead us as to what Islam teaches or at the very least to do nothing to teach us about what it is all about (ask the soldiers returning from Iraq what they were taught about Islam, and what they more or less picked up, about the nature of Islam, from the behavior of the Muslims they were sent to "liberate" and to "help" -- never mind those they were asked to fight).

"Islamic fascists"? Perhaps one will now go beyond this formulation, better for the moment, but only just, then the previous efforts to hide the Islamic nature of the enemy, the Islamic goals of the enemy, the Islamic tactics of the enemy ("War is deception" said Muhammad, and it is around us, we are swimming in Islamic deception, all over the world), the Islamic attitudes toward Believers and Infidels (loyalty is owed to the first, no matter what they seeming wickedness they may do, and hatred owed the second, no matter what kindnesses they do).

It has taken nearly five years for President Bush, who in the many months following the 9/11/2001 attacks, when the American ruling elites should have, as part of their duty to protect and instruct us, begun to study the contents of Islam -- and not relied on armstrongs and espositos, or part-time "experts" on Islam of the kind known to have advised Bush -- and not only what is in the Qur'an, but what is in the Hadith collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and not only what is in the Qur'an and the Hadith, but what the Life of Muhammad, that Perfect Man, the man whose every word and deed and even silences tell the Believer how he should act, what he should do. That was not done. It still has not been done. Bush is said to have taken to the Crawford Ranch three books. Two of them are, we are told, about Lincoln. But it is silly for Bush to think he can learn about how to deal with Islam by reading about Lincoln during war-time. He can't. What he should have done is do what Abraham Lincoln would have done. He would have studied Islam. He would not have been satisfied to call it a "religion" and then without any grounds at all proceed to tell us that this "great religion" had been "hijacked" by a "handful of extremists." Lincoln would have studied the matter, and he would have looked at history -- he would have asked himself what he could learn, what one was taught, by an examination of the 1350-year history of Jihad-conquest, and of subjugation of non-Muslims everywhere. He would, in short, have known how to study. But then, Lincoln was also a man who could debate for hours, without notes or a speechwriter, Douglas and other opponents. He knew the value of words. He knew the importance of framing things correctly.

We are waiting for someone, anyone, to frame things correctly. It took Bush five years to get to the point of using that phrase "Islamic fascists." A tiny step, and insufficient. It must be followed by many more, until everyone understands that the duty of Jihad, to spread a belief-system which uncompromisingly divides the world between Believer and Infidel, is the problem. And it is a problem not only when terrorism is the instrument, but when the money weapon, and Da'wa, and demographic conquest, are the instruments. The plotters picked up in London are obviously the enemy, but so to are those Musliims who lie to us about Islam, who lead campaigns not to save souls, but to acquire, within the Infidel lands, more recruits for the army of Islam.

One of the least convincing arguments about the fiasco in Iraq is that "we have to fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over here." It is unconvincing because each passing day shows that they are "over here." Each passing day shows that they do not have to find a place to train in Iraq, or Afghanistan. They can train in Pakistan -- are we ready to invade Pakistan? And they do not even need Pakistan, or any country in Dar al-Islam. They can train down the street, in a basement, in a park, in an empty bulding, in a gymnasium, in a squat in Brick Lane over a curry takeaway, or in a posh apartment on Park Lane, funded by some rich Arab trying to atone, islamically speaking, for his decadent Western life by supporting such plots to kill Infidels, storing up points for his Muslim Heaven.

Bush is not there, and one doubts if he will get there. Why? He had a plan in Iraq, and now the plan has him. He still thinks that in Iraq there are those who are fighting against "freedom" and those who demonstrated that they "love freedom" by engaging in that purple-thumbed vote. Is that what happened? Did the Shi'a who voted in such numbers vote because they "love freedom"? Is that why they were so enthusiastic about the vote? Of course not. They were told to vote. They were issued a fatwa to vote. They wanted to vote because they knew that they constituted 60-65% of the Iraqi population, and they could win, or for those very rich American invaders, handing out all sorts of gifts and rewards, could legitimize, the transfer of power to them from the Sunnis that became inevitable once the regime of Saddam Hussein collapsed. Had the Sunnis constituted 60-65% of the population, instead of 19%, do you think they would not have enthusiastically gone to the polls and held up those purple thumbs? Of course they would.

The phrase "Islamic fascists" still shows how far Bush is from understanding, how timid he will remain. For if he were to declare, or even to hint at, the fact that it is Islam itself, not "perverted" nor "hijacked" but rightly, straightforwardly, understood, that is the source of the menace to us, and if further he understood that these clumsy or awkward attempts to not-quite-understand, not-quite-comprehend, have real consequences for the fashioning of policies, policies that in Iraq and Afghanistan were, after the initial destruction of Al Qaeda's setup in Afghanistan, and by the scouring of Iraq for all major weapons and weapons programs (the reason we were given for the invasion of Iraq, and a reason that, according to the information Congress and the public were given, was a rational one, for no Muslim state can be permitted to acquire or retain such weaponry), allowed to metastasize idiotically, pushed by the smooth Iraqi exiles, into becomoing an attempt at instant makeover in Iraq.

If Islam is correctly identified as the source of the menace, so that Believers, to the extent that they are Believers, and take Islam seriously, even if this must be expressed synecdochically by the word "Jihad," then the folly of remaining in Iraq becomes clear. It may be that the Bush Administration is working backwards. It has a policy in Iraq. It doesn't know how to get out of it in a way that is face-saving. And so the fiction that we must support those good Muslims, those Muslims who "love freedom" (does Al-Maliki strike you as someone who "loves freedom," a regular reader of Spinoza and Hume, a man entranced by Jefferson and Madison, and the First Amendment? Does he? Does Al-Hakim? Does Moqtada al-Sadr? Do any of the winners in the winner's circle in Iraq today strike you as a true friend of freedom, democracy, the individual rights enshrined in the American Constitution, and in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man? Even close?), against that other group, the "Islamic fascists," becomes a drama that does not exist, or is hardly useful.

There is the camp of Islam. There is the camp of the Infidels. Any Muslim who is a true Muslim is hostile to the camp of Infidels. It is not a question of "Islamic fascists" but of Muslims, and of the extent of their belief and their commitment and the choice of the instruments they use to further Jihad. But whatever instruments are used to further Jihad are, from our Infidel point of view, dangerous to us.

In Iraq we have available, at the same time, tow of the three main divisions within the camp of Islam. Those sectarian and ethnic divisions, between Sunni and Shi'a, and between Arab and non-Arab Muslims, are just waiting to be exploited.

That Bush cannot see this, that he persists in his inability to name, or even to identify for himself, the enemy rightly, and thus pursues this policy in Iraq is both wasteful and dangerous. It is wasteful because of the expending of the lives of soldiers, who by the time of their second or third or even fourth tours, know what a crock the whole thing is, and if they return, it is not out of any love for the so-called "Iraqis" but only out of a sense of duty and loyalty to fellow soldiers. But in the end the harm done to the morale of soldiers and officers has long-term consequences, and the indifference to this by the Administration, with those Potemkin-village arranged meetings with Bush and a backdrop of a dozen soldiers carefully instructed not to say anything controversial, merely disgusts. And the damage to civilian morale, and to encouraging the forces not that want a withdrawal in order to more effectively deploy resources, of men, materiel, and above all money (what could the costs, past, present, and committed for the future, because of this Iraq tarbaby, of some $400 billion, if it had been used entirely for nuclear, solar, and wind energy projects, and subsidies to mass transit, and other energy-saving programs, done to diminish the "money weapon" of Arab and other Muslim members of OPEC, and hence taken away the main weapon of Jihad, the one that after 1973 permitted the world-wide goals of Jihad to be undertaken instead of merely this or that local, or Lesser, Jihad (against Israel, against India).

Some will be full of praise for Bush. In my view, the only praise will come when he finally understands that the camp of Islam must be weakened, and he acts accordingly in Iraq, using whatever excuse ("we can't get involved in a civil war" or "we've done our part, now it's up to all Iraqis who love freedom to do theirs" or other plausible mountebank's patter to the same general effect) he needs.

Until then, until this or any other Administration instructs us in the nature, the promptings, the goals of Jihad, and in the various instruments of Jihad, and acts against not merely "terrorism" or those who "fund terrorism" but against all the instruments of Jihad, and articulates the problem cleverly and convincingly, in a way that CAIR and other spokesmen for the Jihad (for what is CAIR if not an organization determined to spread the role, and therefore rule, of Islam?") will find, no matter how hysterically they scream, unanswerable -- because based, unanswerably, on a knowledge of what is aactully in that Qur'an, in those collections of Hadith, in that Life of Muhammad.

Christians & Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe".
A Muslim martyr says; "you will die for what I believe"....
The Muslim Qur'an is unique among all the sacred writings in the entire world -- because it alone counsels its followers to make war on unbelievers.

Strange how a few cartoons bring such a reaction from this religion of peace, yet there was NO MUSLIM OUT RAGE when Muslims flew into American buildings killing 3500 people.
* Sunni Bombers Target Shia Children Playing Soccer - 12 Dead... no Muslim outrage.......
• Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.....
• Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school...... No Muslim outrage......
• Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq..... No Muslim outrage.....
• Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt..... No Muslim outrage.....
• A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. ....No Muslim outrage.....
• Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back..... No Muslim outrage......
• Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics..... No Muslim or media outrage.....
• Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. ....No Muslim or media outrage.....
• Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured..... No Muslim outrage.....
• Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder..... No Muslim outrage.....
• Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali..... No Muslim outrage....
• Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons..... No Muslim outrage....
• Muslims are involved in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world..... No Muslim outrage......
• Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge..... No Muslim outrage.....

* Muslims have caused over 5570 terrorist attacks since Sep 11th, thousands dying and even more are hurt...and still No Muslim outrage.... etc, ec.
I think we just have to except that it is part if Islam eh...and I cant understand why our leaders dont read the last three quarters of the Quran to find out what causes this religious army to be so murderous.

I would like to know as to why do people continually call them fascist. It part of Islam for goodness sake, and as I said above, there is no muslim outrage over any thing that Muslims do, yet there is many thousands in all countries rioting and protesting about a quran put down the toilet etc, so dont tell me that there are moderate Muslims, or they would be outraged and rioting in the streets against what Muslim are doing.. They cant as it is in their beloved books...they are to terrorise the people which makes us easier targets... Name me some friends that some of you have that are Muslims, real friends.... there wont be any, as the Quran says that they are NOT allowed to be our friends unless it is to lead us to Allah...in other words their own books is scared of them converting and leaning what a horrific book that they follow...

Enlightened:

I've been following the thread and find it very interesting. There are still several points that remain unclear to me.

Violence is being visited upon the world by individuals who, as Caroline very astutely observed, claim only to be devoutly following their faith - hence "devout Moslems." I can understand that this may make other Moslems uncomfortable, particularly those whose notion of devotion perhaps does not include such violence. However, there are many passages from the Qur'an and various ahadith that would seem to encourage if not demand such actions from the devout Moslem, to spread Islam be force or subtrefuge, fair means or foul. As has been asked on this site many times, are you saying that these passages are being interpreted incorrectly? If so, can you for the benefit of the world once and for all clearly provide the correct interpretations of these passages?

Your suggested alternative to the term "Islamic fascists" i.e. "Moslem nationalists" seems to be a bit of a sugar pill. You mention Hezbollah and Hamas in this context, both of which may perhaps be argued to have nationalist imperatives in the context of the Mideast conflict. But Al-Qaeda also has nationalist objectives: to the re-establishment of the Caliphate from "Andalusia (Spain) to Indonesia," if I am quoting Osama bin Laden reasonably accurately. I thus find the expression "Moslem nationalists" in this context to be particularly alarming. The Caliphate grew as a result of conquest and its holdings secured through colonization and suppression of the native people and religion. All of North Africa was once Christian, as was Constantinople, Asia Minor and the Middle East. The Christian Spaniards regained their country at great cost, and yet Osama bin Laden still alludes to Spain as part of the Caliphate.

So I find your choice of the expression "Moslem nationalists" to be misleading, unless you also make clear that "nation" means "ummah" and that the word "ummah" has particular resonances in the Moslem community that the unwary in the non-Moslem community may not be aware of.

Hold your huzzas.

"Islamic fascists" has both good and bad points. It is a great improvement over that idiotic phrase the "war on terror." It is no longer possible for our government, or other Western governments, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with the assorted terror plots foiled, or in some cases carried out, all over the world, and the Administraiton must have sensed the fury, directed at it not least from those whom it might have counted on to support it and that, for good reason, is opposed to the timidity and the stupidity with which the Administration has so often behaved.

But "Islamic fascists" is only a milestone along the way. Islam appears only adjectivally here, modifying the noun "Fascists." This still hints at a group that has possibly "hijacked" or "perverted" a great religion. Much remains to be made clear. What are these things about Islam, and the Jihad, that need to be made clear?

They include the following:

1. That Jihad to spread Islam until all barriers to its dominance are removed, and it does dominate, and Muslims, the Best of People, rule.
This is as Allah wishes it, this is the just and natural outcome that all Muslims must work toward and for. The fact that some do not means merely that they are insufficiently devout, or lazy, or unobservant. No one should take comfort in this, for at any moment a lapsed or lazy or unobservant or insufficiently devout Muslim may become the real thing, prompted by some event in the great world, or often prompted by some event in his personal life which we, the Infidels, have no way of knowing will set him off. And then there is also the "My Son the Fanatic" phenomenon, where the child of immigrants who may themselvs not have the leisure to dwell on their "humiliation" in this or that Infidel land, while the children, sons or daughters, proudly "return" to Islam, in a way that of course spells danger to Infidels and to their laws and even, in the end, their lives.

is both a collective and at times individual duty. It is to be pursued using whatever instruments come to hand. In 7th century Arabia the main instrument was "qital" or combat. But Islamic texts, Islamic commentators, are well aware of all the other insturments of warfare: the "wealth weapon" (which today means oil revenues, and the use of boycotts, bribery, support for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, armies of Western hirelings ready to defend and promote Muslim and Arab interests), and "pen, speech" (again, propaganda to spread Islam, or to protect Islam from those inclined to question or oppose its spread), and the newest instrument, openly discussed and even boasted about by Muslims, but hardly noticed by Infidels, or if noticed, those Infidels simply throw up their hands and say "What can we do" as if the initial mistake of allowing large numbers of Muslims into the Western world cannot possibly be rectified, not a single idea can come to any Western people as to how they might halt and reverse this Muslim presence, as if it were simply an impossibility to figure out ways to protect the laws, customs, the civilizational legacy and the very lives of those Infidels, from those who do not wish, and who cannot wish, those laws, customs, that inherited civilizaion created according to Infidel freedoms, and Infidel ideas of what is to be allowed, and those Infidel lives, well.

The phrase "Islamic fascists" implies that there are those among good Muslims, obedient Muslims, devout Muslims, those who could be other than "fascistic." But is this possible? Is this belief-system (do not call it a religion becuase the word "religion" in many quarters commands automatic respect) capable of permitting mental and other kinds of freedom? It presents itself as a Total Regulation of Life. Everything is either forbidden or commanded, and there are lists of such things, from foods and hairstyles, to matters of the most intimate personal hygiene. All written down, all carefully collected. And then there is Islam as a Complete Explanation of the Universe, with vague passages in the Qur'an supposedly containing all of modern science, from vulcanology right to Benoit Mandelbrot's fractals and the nature of DNA, the nature of atom and subatomic world. It's "in the book." But, you will answer, there are Muslims who do not decide everything according to the Qur'an, do not follow Muhammad in every particular. True, but irrelevant. As long as, in the population of Muslims, most of them are primitively wedded to the real Islam or can be made to do so becuase the textual authority is entirely on the side of those "Islamic fascists," then one has a problem with Islam that never goes away.

Furthermore, as we can see from the observable behavior of Muslims in the West, they do not express loyalty to the Infidel nation-state. Everywhere, whatever Infidel land they manage to end up in, the same disturbing attitudes of anger, hostility, a sense of "humiliation" and growiing, not lessening, hatred of the Infidels, can be observed. That a handful are not like this, and in fact have become merely "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, does not make for the very large number who openly demonstrate their insensate loyalty to the most cruel acts of Muslim terrorists, who attempt always and everywhere, it seems, to mislead us as to the nature of Islam, with such obvious examples, to those who have studied something about Islam, of taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, easily exposed, and who everywhere, despite the studied efforts of our masters in the media and government to protect them, to explain things away, to mislead us as to what Islam teaches or at the very least to do nothing to teach us about what it is all about (ask the soldiers returning from Iraq what they were taught about Islam, and what they more or less picked up, about the nature of Islam, from the behavior of the Muslims they were sent to "liberate" and to "help" -- never mind those they were asked to fight).

"Islamic fascists"? Perhaps one will now go beyond this formulation, better for the moment, but only just, then the previous efforts to hide the Islamic nature of the enemy, the Islamic goals of the enemy, the Islamic tactics of the enemy ("War is deception" said Muhammad, and it is around us, we are swimming in Islamic deception, all over the world), the Islamic attitudes toward Believers and Infidels (loyalty is owed to the first, no matter what they seeming wickedness they may do, and hatred owed the second, no matter what kindnesses they do).

It has taken nearly five years for President Bush, who in the many months following the 9/11/2001 attacks, when the American ruling elites should have, as part of their duty to protect and instruct us, begun to study the contents of Islam -- and not relied on armstrongs and espositos, or part-time "experts" on Islam of the kind known to have advised Bush -- and not only what is in the Qur'an, but what is in the Hadith collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and not only what is in the Qur'an and the Hadith, but what the Life of Muhammad, that Perfect Man, the man whose every word and deed and even silences tell the Believer how he should act, what he should do. That was not done. It still has not been done. Bush is said to have taken to the Crawford Ranch three books. Two of them are, we are told, about Lincoln. But it is silly for Bush to think he can learn about how to deal with Islam by reading about Lincoln during war-time. He can't. What he should have done is do what Abraham Lincoln would have done. He would have studied Islam. He would not have been satisfied to call it a "religion" and then without any grounds at all proceed to tell us that this "great religion" had been "hijacked" by a "handful of extremists." Lincoln would have studied the matter, and he would have looked at history -- he would have asked himself what he could learn, what one was taught, by an examination of the 1350-year history of Jihad-conquest, and of subjugation of non-Muslims everywhere. He would, in short, have known how to study. But then, Lincoln was also a man who could debate for hours, without notes or a speechwriter, Douglas and other opponents. He knew the value of words. He knew the importance of framing things correctly.

We are waiting for someone, anyone, to frame things correctly. It took Bush five years to get to the point of using that phrase "Islamic fascists." A tiny step, and insufficient. It must be followed by many more, until everyone understands that the duty of Jihad, to spread a belief-system which uncompromisingly divides the world between Believer and Infidel, is the problem. And it is a problem not only when terrorism is the instrument, but when the money weapon, and Da'wa, and demographic conquest, are the instruments. The plotters picked up in London are obviously the enemy, but so to are those Musliims who lie to us about Islam, who lead campaigns not to save souls, but to acquire, within the Infidel lands, more recruits for the army of Islam.

One of the least convincing arguments about the fiasco in Iraq is that "we have to fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over here." It is unconvincing because each passing day shows that they are "over here." Each passing day shows that they do not have to find a place to train in Iraq, or Afghanistan. They can train in Pakistan -- are we ready to invade Pakistan? And they do not even need Pakistan, or any country in Dar al-Islam. They can train down the street, in a basement, in a park, in an empty bulding, in a gymnasium, in a squat in Brick Lane over a curry takeaway, or in a posh apartment on Park Lane, funded by some rich Arab trying to atone, islamically speaking, for his decadent Western life by supporting such plots to kill Infidels, storing up points for his Muslim Heaven.

Bush is not there, and one doubts if he will get there. Why? He had a plan in Iraq, and now the plan has him. He still thinks that in Iraq there are those who are fighting against "freedom" and those who demonstrated that they "love freedom" by engaging in that purple-thumbed vote. Is that what happened? Did the Shi'a who voted in such numbers vote because they "love freedom"? Is that why they were so enthusiastic about the vote? Of course not. They were told to vote. They were issued a fatwa to vote. They wanted to vote because they knew that they constituted 60-65% of the Iraqi population, and they could win, or for those very rich American invaders, handing out all sorts of gifts and rewards, could legitimize, the transfer of power to them from the Sunnis that became inevitable once the regime of Saddam Hussein collapsed. Had the Sunnis constituted 60-65% of the population, instead of 19%, do you think they would not have enthusiastically gone to the polls and held up those purple thumbs? Of course they would.

The phrase "Islamic fascists" still shows how far Bush is from understanding, how timid he will remain. For if he were to declare, or even to hint at, the fact that it is Islam itself, not "perverted" nor "hijacked" but rightly, straightforwardly, understood, that is the source of the menace to us, and if further he understood that these clumsy or awkward attempts to not-quite-understand, not-quite-comprehend, have real consequences for the fashioning of policies, policies that in Iraq and Afghanistan were, after the initial destruction of Al Qaeda's setup in Afghanistan, and by the scouring of Iraq for all major weapons and weapons programs (the reason we were given for the invasion of Iraq, and a reason that, according to the information Congress and the public were given, was a rational one, for no Muslim state can be permitted to acquire or retain such weaponry), allowed to metastasize idiotically, pushed by the smooth Iraqi exiles, into becomoing an attempt at instant makeover in Iraq.

If Islam is correctly identified as the source of the menace, so that Believers, to the extent that they are Believers, and take Islam seriously, even if this must be expressed synecdochically by the word "Jihad," then the folly of remaining in Iraq becomes clear. It may be that the Bush Administration is working backwards. It has a policy in Iraq. It doesn't know how to get out of it in a way that is face-saving. And so the fiction that we must support those good Muslims, those Muslims who "love freedom" (does Al-Maliki strike you as someone who "loves freedom," a regular reader of Spinoza and Hume, a man entranced by Jefferson and Madison, and the First Amendment? Does he? Does Al-Hakim? Does Moqtada al-Sadr? Do any of the winners in the winner's circle in Iraq today strike you as a true friend of freedom, democracy, the individual rights enshrined in the American Constitution, and in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man? Even close?), against that other group, the "Islamic fascists," becomes a drama that does not exist, or is hardly useful.

There is the camp of Islam. There is the camp of the Infidels. Any Muslim who is a true Muslim is hostile to the camp of Infidels. It is not a question of "Islamic fascists" but of Muslims, and of the extent of their belief and their commitment and the choice of the instruments they use to further Jihad. But whatever instruments are used to further Jihad are, from our Infidel point of view, dangerous to us.

In Iraq we have available, at the same time, tow of the three main divisions within the camp of Islam. Those sectarian and ethnic divisions, between Sunni and Shi'a, and between Arab and non-Arab Muslims, are just waiting to be exploited.

That Bush cannot see this, that he persists in his inability to name, or even to identify for himself, the enemy rightly, and thus pursues this policy in Iraq is both wasteful and dangerous. It is wasteful because of the expending of the lives of soldiers, who by the time of their second or third or even fourth tours, know what a crock the whole thing is, and if they return, it is not out of any love for the so-called "Iraqis" but only out of a sense of duty and loyalty to fellow soldiers. But in the end the harm done to the morale of soldiers and officers has long-term consequences, and the indifference to this by the Administration, with those Potemkin-village arranged meetings with Bush and a backdrop of a dozen soldiers carefully instructed not to say anything controversial, merely disgusts. And the damage to civilian morale, and to encouraging the forces not that want a withdrawal in order to more effectively deploy resources, of men, materiel, and above all money (what could the costs, past, present, and committed for the future, because of this Iraq tarbaby, of some $400 billion, if it had been used entirely for nuclear, solar, and wind energy projects, and subsidies to mass transit, and other energy-saving programs, done to diminish the "money weapon" of Arab and other Muslim members of OPEC, and hence taken away the main weapon of Jihad, the one that after 1973 permitted the world-wide goals of Jihad to be undertaken instead of merely this or that local, or Lesser, Jihad (against Israel, against India).

Some will be full of praise for Bush. In my view, the only praise will come when he finally understands that the camp of Islam must be weakened, and he acts accordingly in Iraq, using whatever excuse ("we can't get involved in a civil war" or "we've done our part, now it's up to all Iraqis who love freedom to do theirs" or other plausible mountebank's patter to the same general effect) he needs.

Until then, until this or any other Administration instructs us in the nature, the promptings, the goals of Jihad, and in the various instruments of Jihad, and acts against not merely "terrorism" or those who "fund terrorism" but against all the instruments of Jihad, and articulates the problem cleverly and convincingly, in a way that CAIR and other spokesmen for the Jihad (for what is CAIR if not an organization determined to spread the role, and therefore rule, of Islam?") will find, no matter how hysterically they scream, unanswerable -- because based, unanswerably, on a knowledge of what is aactully in that Qur'an, in those collections of Hadith, in that Life of Muhammad.

enlightener:
"..But when the President or anyone else says "Islamo" whatever, they are turning around and re-empowering the modern day (but violent) "Liberation Theologists"."

When the Jihadist Islamofascists are confrontational, it is necessary to confront them in return. If this means 'empowering' them by calling them by their true name, then let them feel empowered so the confrontation is brought to the surface rather than existing covertly in subterfuge. Bring them on, so we can fight them openly. No need to be nice to people who want to kill you or dominate with their sick version of their 'balanced' religion. The threat can be removed by Islam, but they are failing. So now it is up to us to remove this evil. There is no other evil on Earth like Islamofascist evil, with no historic precedent except itself, for 1400 years. Time to kill the monster, it's been long enough.

I heard Bush use the term "islam-o-ascists"....

Good on yer Mr President....

Maybe he's had enough of all those CAIR advisors , the dhimmi counsel , ad nauseum....

He looked frightfully pissed off too...

I'd all but given up on any kind of learning curve from this Presidency.....and then the lad earns himself a nice cigar...

To quote dumb and dumber....

"Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself."

The big hurdle in determining whether the threat from islam has sunk in will be the Kosovo independence question.....

a few months ago I'd given up all hope for the centre of Europe remaining in Infidel hands , but now all bets are off.....

"I grew up in a neighhborhood (NY, NY) of Jews, Polish and Italian Catholics - probably more than half of the adults were immigrants. I never knew more civic-minded, patriotic and grateful Americans."-SanSantiago

Greenpoint?... Anyway, my point exactly; my family & enviroment growing up was of the same nature. All these immigrants, living together, not necessarily liking each others customs, but tolerating them... unified under one common theme, they were now Americans (officially, or just in their hearts), with the same goals and dreams in front of them. That's the problem with many modern day immigrants.

Although the term fascist does apply to the Islamic ummah, I prefer to use the terms meccan and medinan mohammedans. Islam is a buffet where one can pick and chose what methods to apply in a situation at any given time. Be nice, deceive and murder; be generous to your guests, don't be friends with any infidel as they will pollute you physically, mentally and spiritually and so on. Unless a person is an apostate, the mohammedan will hold two sets of ethics, one for other mohammedans and another for the infidel. Islam does not have any doctrine similar to the golden rule. Hate and revenge, death and destruction are their tenets. That is why it does not deserve a seat at the table of humanity.

What they do is "Terrorislam"

Who they are - Moslems

"Until recently the word was also spelled Moslem. Muslims do not recommend this spelling because it is often pronounced "mawzlem," which sounds like an Arabic word for "oppressor""
(from reference.com/browse/wiki/Muslim)

CAIR finds time for this sort of "dribble" but can't be speaking out demanding the ummah denounce the facisitic behavior of the jihadists?

President Bush was wrong. He should have not qualified with the word facist. Simply stating that the Islamist are prosecuting a war against the free
peoples of the world would have been sufficient.
Guenter

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

The updated version of this Shakespearian verse would go something like this: "Methinks CAIR doth protest too much!"

Guenter: Those who do not kiss both sides of the Islamophere's derriere are 'toast' in the eyes of Muslims. Even the faintest allusion to Islam not being the savior of Planet Earth times infinity can arouse Muslims' unbounded wrath. In other words, even if Bush HAD deleted the world 'fascist' from his speech, it almost certainly wouldn't have helped at all. He wasn't kissing Islam's tushy--and Muslims WON'T stand for that.

Posted by: enlightener [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 10, 2006 10:13 PM

It looks like this thread is done. Unless I'm mistaken, this self-styled enlightener, Mohamed Elibiary is the bananas character from a while back. Perhaps I've missed something, but I'd love to see Elibiary's explanation of the "bananas" incident. (I know he can't explain his way out of the verses, hadiths, sira quotes, and other quotes, which I cited earlier.

P.S. Elibiary is pulling taqiyya about the specificity of the word "Mullah." I guess our learned enlightener has never heard of Mullah Omar, or maybe Mullah Omar was a "sixth grade teacher"? Nonsense. Mullah is most often used as general term to refer to a Muslim cleric or teacher.

What an awesome posting subject and response this has turned out to be! WOW! I would have been happy to simply copy and paste the whole darned thing for the benefit of my friends & acquaintances save for one small point that I hope to correct here...

I believe that it is a grave mistake to allow the Q'ran the dignity of a "holy" book. It was, in fact, a very clever (but equally cheap) ruse, invented by Mohammed to help him secure the allegiance of his highly ignorant and superstitious "Companions" - itself a cheap take-off of Jesus' Disciples. Bear in mind that the "Companions" happily slaughtered and raped, razed and looted all by themselves when the Profit needed a little vacation time.

The (often extreme) intolerance demonstrated by the slaves of Allah, towards any who challenge (or by Moslem logic, mock) Islam, the Q'ran or its author (Salmon Rushdie, take note!) is the clearest and most universal example of what it is that underlies Islam. In a word, this thing is fear. And well they should be afraid...

The Islamic Manifesto (aka the Q'rn, ahadith et al) appeals to all that is worst in human nature. After all, Mohammed, a raider/bandit by trade, needed some right mean sons-of-bitches to help him out in his little schemes of conquest. He got them. And that is the problem. They were a bunch of cut-throats and Ali Babas. To maintain real and effective control over this dangerous bunch, he needed to put the fear of "god" into them. Enter, stage left, one "Allah" - a pre-existing and well known god of the pagan Arabs. Only now, he speaks through his "profit" so woe betide any who defy the "profit"! What a clever ruse! All the more so when you consider that it still works today.

So, work on the fear factor. Remember that, beneath the remarkably delicate skins of the Moslem hordes, there remains a gnawing fear of almost everything - from a totally unpredictable and violently capricious "god" to the huge disparities within Islam that lead to endless, gruesome and unpredictable outrages against human flesh (as is being witnessed everyday in Iraq).

As Ayn Rand (?) once stated: You can know the true meaning, quality or worth of a philosophy/theology or manifesto by its fruits. (paraphrased). And on this statement I rest my case that Islam is exactly what its manifesto teaches it to be and that this is anything but holy.

Keep the good stuff coming!