Islamic threat, myth or reality
Y Rapido
"Islamic threat" and such idioms are a part of pre-manifactured
propaganda, invented by the Oligarchy in the West, mostly
Zionist masters in the West, to describe anyone who is
rejecting the total domination of Zionists over Middle East and
the rest of the world. It is also used sometimes (in a lesser
degree) by the British Oligarchy and some other "satellites"
and geostrategic tools of theirs.
Basically, throughout the 19th and 20th Century, parts of Africa,
Asia (including Middle East, of course) have been British and
French colonies. During the 20th Century, most of those
countries have liberated themselves form the "hands on" rule of
the western colonial forces ... but, have remained their
vasals and covert and/or (mostly) overt servants, protectorates,
puppets, etc.
Thus "Saudi" Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, Emirates, Egypt, ...
are basically US Zionist puppets, who will kill even their own
people if they recived orders from their masters. Such was the
case of "Black September", more than 20 years ago, when Zionist
puppet, King Hussein of Jordan, executed tens of thousands of
his own subjects, after he was ordered to do so by his masters.
All forces that are trying, that will try to liberate themselves
and other fellow muslims from that subservience and tyrany
imposed on them by Zionist masters, are called "Islamic threat".
While the new system of governing (domestic policies), as
recommended by Sudan, Iran, et al, is not neccessarily better or
really beneficial to the people, it is true that at least on
geostrategic global level it is a movement towards independence
from the western colonial masters and their tools in the
Middle East and elsewhere.
That is the meaning of "islamic threat" label. It is a "threat"
to "One World Government" and its tool and partner: the Zionists.
Kambiz Iranpour
(A very interesting book)
"The Islamic threat Myth or Reality ?" published by the
Oxford University Press (1995) and written by
John L. Esposito (ISBN 0-19-510298-3) is a well-written book on
the recent revival of political Islam, the Islamic
intellectual currents, the reactions in the West,
the politics of the Middle East
with explanations on the recent events (including Iran.)
The book challenges Huntington's socalled clash of
civilizations and tears down the simple myths
covering the truth on many fronts. It is a work
of research. It also discusses people like
Shariati or Sayyid Qotb and the reasons why people like them
became influential in the Islamic intellectual
resilience we have wittnessed in the last 3 decades.
I recommend the book as a guide to the recent
history and the contemporary thinking in the
Islamic world. The book discusses the reasons behind the
failure of secular nationalism (Pan-Arabism),
it discusses Nasserism, Qadafi's social experiment
and his reinterpretation of Islam, it discusses Turkey
and its secular experiment and it takes up the history of
many Islamic movements like FIS, brotherhood, Jemaat Islami,
etc. I really recommend this book as a real work
of research both for the Islamic and secular people
in the Islamic countries and also to the non-Middle
Easterners (Americans or Europeans or otherwise.)
Regards
Kambiz Iranpour
-Surensoy,E.
If a person claims that Islam vs Christianity vs Judaism vs
you name it is not a "clash of civilizations", he either is
trying to make a fool out of you or himself. If really there
were no such "clash of civilizations", there would never be
a need or reason to invent the three Abrahamic religions which
are fundamentally identical to each other.
In article <4tcs7q$s...@ratatosk.uio.no),
Kambiz Iranpour <m.k.ir...@fys.uio.no) wrote:
)
) (A very interesting book)
)
)
)"The Islamic threat Myth or Reality ?" published by the
)Oxford University Press (1995) and written by
)John L. Esposito (ISBN 0-19-510298-3) is a well-written book on
)the recent revival of political Islam, the Islamic
)intellectual currents, the reactions in the West,
)the politics of the Middle East
)with explanations on the recent events (including Iran.)
)The book challenges Huntington's socalled clash of
)civilizations and tears down the simple myths
)covering the truth on many fronts. It is a work
)of research. It also discusses people like
)Shariati or Sayyid Qotb and the reasons why people like them
)became influential in the Islamic intellectual
)resilience we have wittnessed in the last 3 decades.
)I recommend the book as a guide to the recent
)history and the contemporary thinking in the
)Islamic world. The book discusses the reasons behind the
)failure of secular nationalism (Pan-Arabism),
)it discusses Nasserism, Qadafi's social experiment
)and his reinterpretation of Islam, it discusses Turkey
)and its secular experiment and it takes up the history of
)many Islamic movements like FIS, brotherhood, Jemaat Islami,
)etc. I really recommend this book as a real work
)of research both for the Islamic and secular people
)in the Islamic countries and also to the non-Middle
)Easterners (Americans or Europeans or otherwise.)
)
)
)
)
)Regards
)Kambiz Iranpour
)
Kabeer Punjabi
Y Rapido wrote:
>
[ Garbage deleted ]
> That is the meaning of "islamic threat" label. It is a "threat"
> to "One World Government" and its tool and partner: the Zionists.
The guy thinks that the origin of this article cannot be traced because
eskimo.com does not exist. Well! Here is the trace:
Path:
ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!
info.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ac.net!
pacifier!mvb.saic.com!eskimo!news
Y Rapido
Kabeer Punjabi wrote:
>
> Y Rapido wrote:
> >
> [ Garbage deleted ]
rap: Punjabi "kusra" thinks that he is entitled to qualify people's
postings as "garbage". The only garbage about it is behavior of Punjabi
"kusra".
> The guy thinks that the origin of this article cannot be traced because
> eskimo.com does not exist. Well! Here is the trace:
[deleted]
rap: Who gives a damn about a "trace" ?! This is an open forum where
I post what I wish! Wow, Internet "traces" can be seen by a smart high
school children. Go get a life, kusra!
Jochen Katz
In article <4telvn$l...@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, en...@ihgp1.ih.att.com (-Surensoy,E.) writes:
>
> If a person claims that Islam vs Christianity vs Judaism vs
> you name it is not a "clash of civilizations", he either is
> trying to make a fool out of you or himself. If really there
> were no such "clash of civilizations", there would never be
> a need or reason to invent the three Abrahamic religions which
> are fundamentally identical to each other.
I agree that there is also much clash of civilization which goes on under
the name of religion. But 'religion' and 'culture' are not identical.
And the above comment only shows that you have not studied Judaism, Christianity
and Islam in any depth. There are worlds between them. The similarities between
Christianity and Islam are there but they are superficial, in the core they
have a very different understanding of just about everything, the nature of God,
the nature of sin, the nature of man, the nature of salvation. What can be
more central to any religion?
Jochen Katz
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Islam/
Kambiz Iranpour
|>
|> If a person claims that Islam vs Christianity vs Judaism vs
|> you name it is not a "clash of civilizations", he either is
|> trying to make a fool out of you or himself. If really there
|> were no such "clash of civilizations", there would never be
|> a need or reason to invent the three Abrahamic religions which
|> are fundamentally identical to each other.
|>
|>
Well, Huntington's socalled "clash of civilization is very
popular with those in the West who are trying to highten the
tension and find a new enemy. As I wrote John L. Esposito's
book "The Islamic threat Myth or Reality ?" challenges this
theory eloquently.
Best regards
Kambiz Iranpour
Pota alok Ashwin
Islam - A soon to be extinct religion
--
------------------------------------
Very funny Scotty !
Now Beam down my clothes !
Capt.James T.Kirk
------------------------------------
Kambiz Iranpour
In article <4tffvf$n...@ratatosk.uio.no>, m.k.ir...@fys.uio.no
(Kambiz Iranpour) writes:
Actually a couple of years ago I wrote on the topic of Huntington's
theory on another newsgroup. I would have written it slightly
differently today, but here is what I wrote at the time :
It was Samuel Huntington who in his article "The clash of civilizations"
in 1993 wrote that the future conflicts will be the conflict between
the three major civilizations. He divided the world in three
major civilizations, Confucian, Islamic and Christian. He preaches that
cultural conflicts will be the major source for the conflicts of
the next century.
Recently people like Willy Claes the NATO secretary general who is now involved
in corruption scandal in Belgium have seized the opportunity to define a new
enemy and a new role for NATO. Islamic fundamentalism is said to be this
new enemy.
There are forces on both sides which are trying to create a new enemy
image instead of tackling the north-south conflict thus trying to disguise
the whole problem to harvest for their other agendas. The agenda is clear.
NATO and the military industrial complexes get a new role and are
rescued from a certain demise. To some extent it seems funny that
poor undeveloped countries can pose any threat to industrialized countries
through a military confrontation. Their industrial base is too weak
to be able to cope with a military build-up which can pose any threat.
Their technologies are backward. It is enough to look at the Gross National
Products of these countries and see the comic in this hysteria build-up.
Any military muscle in these countries are imported from the same
industrial countries and their economies are not capable to
sustain on their own without trade with outside world. Their
economies are raw material exporting economies. Also the war in Iraq
showed that the so-called 4th greatest army in the world wasn't
anything more than a paper tiger and a shame for the ranking it occupied!
When Newt. Gingrich defines Iran as the utmost threat to the western
hegemony it becomes more clear that they are trying to make Iran
an enemy because they need an enemy to fill the vacuum which defines
many of the traditional structures and rhetoric left idle from the
cold war. Iran can not be a real threat to enormous military and
economical power in the west and even the rhetorical mullahs in Iran
know that! They too seek their other agendas by jumping on this
adventurist fire-play. They define their existence through their
orations!
To equate the military threat of the fundamentalist movements with that
of the gone communists is nothing more than a demagogical and theatrical
play to
define a new outward enemy. The problems which are driving the growth
of fundamentalism is a result of no civilizational conflict but classical
human hopelessness due to the bleak prospect for the future,
corruption and ineptitude of third world leaders, lack of democracy
and rapid break-down of traditional moral value
system and economical relations. Also the psychology of the Israelie-Arab
conflict and the sabotage of democratic movements by western interventions
during the recent history has compelled part of the intelligentsia in these
countries away from seeking a secular democracy and towards
extremist solutions.
But what are the more exact achievements of tension-creating policies on
both sides, what are the dangers and what can be done to counteract them?
As I remember it was during Berzhinsky, the security adviser of Carter that
U.S. actually saw a benefit in helping the fundamentalist movements! Soviet
was seen as the main threat and its southern border muslim population was
seen as a weak link in its empire. An Islamic belt under its soft point
was argued, could increase the centrifugal tension and create headache for
the Russians. A 60 million muslim population then in the southern Soviet
republics could try to break loose. Later in The Afghan-Soviet war Americans
supported the most fundamentalist groups like Golbedin Hekmatyar
against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. At the same time
Saudies paid for the Islamic zealots in other Arab countries like Algeria
which in foreign policies were often opposed to the conservative Saudies.
These Islamic groupings were later radicalized due to the social tensions
in those countries. The hard core of the Algerian anti-government groups
are called Afghans as they are the Algerians fought in Afghanistan and
pay-rolled by Saudies. Also in Pakistan American friendly regime of Zia
soke implementing Islamic laws like the blasphemy law which is the same
law applied against the 14 year old boy in Pakistan recently. Strangely
enough, the whole case ended up with Sunnies attacking and killing Shia-s
in Karachi!! This proves how this form of fanatism may get out
of the control of those who in the first place have encouraged it to
consolidate
their power base and can eventually threaten to throw a whole country
in civil war.
Religion has become an easy way out for the rulers in the region. Even
Saddam has gone away from his solely pan-arabic rhetoric to a religiously
colored one. He has started to implement harsh Islamic laws against
the small crimes which are driven by the current hopeless situation
Iraqi people are encountering due to the sanctions.
TV images like the one of small Christian boys in Sudan chained
and forced to learn Quran makes the adrenaline to go to new heights
among the populace on the other side of the globe. The adventurists on
both sides are the winners of this hate campaign in devising their
domestic policies. Humanists and those who seek to solve the real
problems and conflicts are the losers. Cases like Rushdie has compelled
the western intelligentsia which previously was inclined to left and
critical of their governments, to take part in the campaign on the
side of their governments. The plot is perfect. An outward enemy which
threatens the whole value system is the perfect enemy for both sides.
Many may believe that in the world of ethnic cleansing, religious revengism
and unbridled nationalism of small nations and the great propaganda
machinery of those who create the images, there are actually few hopes that
humanist voices can reach any ear. But still instead of feeling impotence,
it is our duty to warn our own people not to go along with this dangerous
scenario building and to counteract the inhuman image which some are
trying to create of the people in Islamic countries. We have to also
warn the policy makers in our home countries to avoid adventurist policies
and avoid lashing up religious fanatism.
What happened to Iraq proves that these policies don't exactly bring
prosperity and development to our respective countries. We have
also to warn western
policy makers to see the consequences of creating an enemy out of
the one billion muslim population. A very great majority of these
people are seeking prosperity and peace for themselves and their
children. Demonizing a fifth of the world's population is not to anybody's
benefit. West's urge for cultural hegemony at any price is also as fanatic
as the other side's fanatism. We should see the growth of fanatic and
extremist movements as a south-north conflict framed under many classical
consequences of poverty plus a too rapid break-down of the traditional
social and economical values, norms and human interrelations
in these countries.
We do not benefit of a new crusade and any magnification or promotion
of schism between civilizations.
Best regards
Kambiz Iranpour
Jochen Katz
In article <4thq9d$3...@ustsu10.ust.hk>, al...@uxmail.ust.hk (Pota alok Ashwin) writes:
>
> Islam - A soon to be extinct religion
As much as I am a convinced Christian and do not believe in Islam,
I don't think it is realistic to expect anything like that.
Islam has been around for 1400 years and it is probably going to
be with us until the return of Jesus Christ. Hinduism and Buddhism
has been around for a long time too, and they aren't gonna disappear
either by just "crumbling".
I don't think any of the big world religions will be able to
completely overcome any other because most people don't hold
their beliefs up for critique and are not at all touched if
they are "logically lacking", whether in internal coherence or
harmony with the observed facts of history, science and
general "reality".
Jochen Katz
Answering Islam: http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Islam/
John
Kabeer Punjabi wrote:
>
> Y Rapido wrote:
> >
> [ Garbage deleted ]
> > to "One World Government" and its tool and partner: the Zionists.
>
> eskimo.com does not exist. Well! Here is the trace:
>
> ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
> swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!
> info.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ac.net!
> pacifier!mvb.saic.com!eskimo!news
What would you do by tracing, I say so too, I don't think it is a myth
it is a threat!
John
Muslim
From: Mohammad Afzal <m.as...@ic.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Muslim Student Expelled in so called "free" United Kingdom
Date: 28 Jul 1995 20:00:59 GMT
Assalamu Alaikum,
Regarding the expulsion of the Muslim from Brunel University. This
took place earlier on in the year when after organising a debate on the
existence of God, the Islamic society was suspended from carrying out
any activity and the President was taken before a disciplinary hearing
and eventually expelled from the university.
Shocking? Well it is what you would expect anyway. Anyone who observed
this years National Union of Students conference in Blackpool would
know very well the stance that students unions have taken towards
Muslim student societies in the UK. And this has little to do with group
activities. Just look at the article in the Muslim News and statements
issued by FOSIS concerning the conference to realise that the target of
the NUS is not restricted to this or that group of Muslims, but any
Muslim (per se) who does not fit in with their criteria. i.e. one who
keeps himself to himself and make no attempt at any sort of public
activity.
Anyone familiar with NUS politics will know that a large majority of
its activists are from the far left and the UJS (just look at who had
the largest stall at the NUS conference). There has been a concerted
campaign against Muslims at University and College campuses throughout
Britain. Most of it initiated by Jews supposedly 'frightened' of the
supposed 'anti-semitic' views that Islam holds. They have used their
lobbying power at educational institutions to admittedly good effect.
Brunel being one example. The result has been suspension of brothers
because of wanting to pray Jummah or the five daily prayers, banning of
talks and the banning of debates between Muslims and Non-Muslims.
On the topic of the expulsion of the brother - what threat does the
topic 'Existence of God : Myth or Reality' pose? This was a _debate_
between a Muslim and and atheist, the editor of the New Humanist
magazine in fact, about whether God exists or not. You wouldn't witness
a similar reaction to a Muslim-Christian debate so why a Muslim-Athiest
debate?
Christianity is no longer looked upon seriously here, since most people
couldn't be bothered less. But maybe a debate on the very fundamental
basis of their belief as to whether God exists or not holds something
more sinister? Allahu Alim.
In the context of what is happening in Europe, the fact that this
expulsion took place is not surprising. The sort of pressure that
Muslims are facing in Europe simply for being Muslim, by not only
far-right groups, but by governments themselves is testament to a
policy of heavily clamping down on the Muslim population of Europe.
France being probably one of the more advanced countries when it comes
to oppressing its Muslim population. Anything goes wrong and the first
people to get blamed are the Muslims. There is a long bread hatred of
Islam and Muslims which is now coming to light in Europe.
On the question of "Freedom of Speech" from what I see around me I can
only see this as laughable. There is no such thing as 'freedom' of
speech. It is just a facade. It is something that the West wants the
rest of the world believes exist but doesn't. Just like the rest of the
so-called 'freedoms'. On closer examination these can simply be
equated to
"You are free as long as you obey the rules"
Rather like Henry Ford saying "You can have any colour you like as long
as it is black".
And who makes up these rules? The people at the moment running the
world. The West. They come up with the rules and you have to play by
them or else... The rules are all set to their advantage.
And this is what can be seen in the expulsion of this brother. You play
by the rules or else. The only thing being in this case that there are
no rules covering such student activity so it is a case of "make it up
as you go along."
The concept of 'freedom of speech' is fundamentally flawed in that it
makes the human the arbiter in lawmaking. As Muslims we believe that
our Creator is both unlimited and independent and hence being
all-knowing knows what is best for his creation that human beings.
Someone with infinite knowledge is in a much better position to lay down
laws than someone who has very limited knowledge, and not only that is
influenced by his environment and time and place and is subject to
contradictions. That is why as Muslims we fundamentally disagree with
the concept of 'freedom' of speech (which does not exist anyway)
because of its dependence on the limited brain of human beings. Allah
(swt) is in the best position to make laws and judge.
Regarding the point of being hypocritical when calling for the
'freedom' to express yourself in this country while not allowing the
others the same 'freedom' in Muslim countries. Well there is a very
simple answer to this. No country on the face of this earth represents
Islam. And this includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Sudan. THESE
ARE NOT ISLAMIC STATES.
So whatever goes on in those countries cannot be automatically be said
to be representative of Islam. None of the Muslims countries implement
Islam and need to be overhauled comprehensively so that they are in
accordance with Islam. So please do not use example like Iran or Sudan
and think that every Muslim agrees with the system in those countries,
we DON'T.
The reason this expulsion was brought out into the open is not that we
agree with the concept of 'freedom' of speech but that this case
exposes the hypocrisy of the system being implemented in the west. On
the one hand they go around calling for the 'freedom' of speech for
people like Salman Rushdie but when we Muslims raise our voices to air
our opinions we are subject to bannings and expulsions. If that isn't
hypocrisy and a fundamental flaw in the system I don't what else could
be. So it is not us who are the hypocrites but those who call for the
'freedom' of speech. We are just exposing the flaw, we are not calling
for the flaw.
Is this the sort of thing you want us Muslims to implement in our
countries?
Anyway, I think this is enough for know. Any thoughts and comments
would be more than welcome. It is good that such concepts are being
discussed, things which affects our lives directly, and do not just
concern ourselves with individual, although important, aspects.
Wasalaam
Your brother in Islam,
Mohammad Afzal
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INDIA STATE TERRORISM AND GENOCIDE OF KASHMIR
http://www.ummah.org.uk/kashmir/
http://www.ummah.org.uk/kashmir/atroc - atrocities list -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gan
On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, ad...@netcom.com (Muslim) wrote:
>Assalamu Alaikum,
[Story about expulsion of Muslim student deleted]
>only see this as laughable. There is no such thing as 'freedom' of
>speech. It is just a facade. It is something that the West wants the
>rest of the world believes exist but doesn't. Just like the rest of the
>so-called 'freedoms'. On closer examination these can simply be
[.....]
>And who makes up these rules? The people at the moment running the
>world. The West. They come up with the rules and you have to play by
>them or else... The rules are all set to their advantage.
[.....]
>simple answer to this. No country on the face of this earth represents
>Islam. And this includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Sudan. THESE
>ARE NOT ISLAMIC STATES.
>So whatever goes on in those countries cannot be automatically be said
>to be representative of Islam. None of the Muslims countries implement
>Islam and need to be overhauled comprehensively so that they are in
>accordance with Islam. So please do not use example like Iran or Sudan
>and think that every Muslim agrees with the system in those countries,
>we DON'T.
Fair enough, but in your earlier paragraphs, you too were guilty of
generalization. You accused the entire Western world of conspiracy. A
bit over the top, don't you think?
>Wasalaam
>Your brother in Islam,
>Mohammad Afzal
Regards,
Gan
(an atheist who happens to believe in free speech)
BABU RAMABADRAN
If muslim did not give up their anit-national (islamic ) activites
in INdia. India will have to follow the example posted by Muslim.
think you muslim for timely reminder for Indian Muslims,
regards,
babu ramabadran
Kabeer Punjabi
Gentleman,
Why not hold this debate in Saudi Arabia that supports freedom of speech?
Kabeer
> -- Help to stop Islamic terrorism. Boycott Terrorists. -----------
> Visit the Kashmir Web site at:http://webusers.anet-dfw.com/~kashyap/Kashmir.html
http://webusers.anet-dfw.com/~koausa/koa.html updated 3/2/96
>
Muslim
bab...@ix.netcom.com(BABU RAMABADRAN) writes:
> If muslim did not give up their anit-national (islamic ) activites
>in INdia. India will have to follow the example posted by Muslim.
Bal Thacerky, the racist hindu nationalist in India says that
what happened to the Jews of Nazi Germany, will happen
to the Muslims of India also.
Muslim
Kabeer Punjabi <Kab...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Why not hold this debate in Saudi Arabia that supports freedom of speech?
Regarding the point of being hypocritical when calling for the
'freedom' to express yourself in this country while not allowing the
others the same 'freedom' in Muslim countries. Well there is a very
simple answer to this. No country on the face of this earth represents
Islam. And this includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Sudan. THESE
ARE NOT ISLAMIC STATES.
So whatever goes on in those countries cannot be automatically be said
to be representative of Islam. None of the Muslims countries implement
Islam and need to be overhauled comprehensively so that they are in
accordance with Islam. So please do not use example like Iran or Sudan
and think that every Muslim agrees with the system in those countries,
we DON'T.
Mohammad Afzal
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.islam,hawaii.nortle,soc.culture.kashmir
Subject: Re: Kashmir is a Part of Kashmir (NOT India's)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3203A1...@ix.netcom.com> <adam3Dv...@netcom.com> <320558...@ix.netcom.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Keywords:
Kabeer Punjabi <Kab...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>Can you tell me then, why he is not charged for blasphemy in Pakistan?
>
Pakistan is run by feudal lords, and hypocrites. Pakistan is far
from being an Islamic State.
To Mr.Kabeer, ANYONE who writes or speaks anything against
Islam/Muslims becomes "reliable", "valid", and "authentic".
Mr.Kabeer often doesn't bother to check on his sources,
but blindly accepts and propagates them. His hatred,
racism and propaganda against Muslims is by far obvious,
and his jealousy and envy for Quran's powerful statements
is manifested by his ignorant and stupid (to say the least) statements.
Such people desire to extinguish the Light of Allah with puffs
from their mouths and Allah refuses His consent to their desire
but wills to perfect His light, even though the disbelievers
may hate it.
YOUR MOTHER'S LOVER
Muslim wrote:
>
> From: Mohammad Afzal <m.as...@ic.ac.uk>4
> Regarding the expulsion of the Muslim from Brunel University. This
> took place earlier on in the year when after organising a debate on the
GOOD RIDDENCE, THEY SHOULD HAVE EXPELLED ALL
PITY THEY PICKED ONLY ONE
Sameer Ashok Datar
On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Muslim wrote:
> Kabeer Punjabi <Kab...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >Why not hold this debate in Saudi Arabia that supports freedom of speech?
>
> Regarding the point of being hypocritical when calling for the
> 'freedom' to express yourself in this country while not allowing the
> others the same 'freedom' in Muslim countries. Well there is a very
> simple answer to this. No country on the face of this earth represents
> Islam. And this includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Sudan. THESE
> ARE NOT ISLAMIC STATES.
>
> So whatever goes on in those countries cannot be automatically be said
> to be representative of Islam. None of the Muslims countries implement
> Islam and need to be overhauled comprehensively so that they are in
> accordance with Islam. So please do not use example like Iran or Sudan
> and think that every Muslim agrees with the system in those countries,
> we DON'T.
>
> Mohammad Afzal
>
If these are NOT Islamic states, then shouldn't the net-mullahs try and
improve conditions there? After all it seems that non-Islamic states
masquerading as Islamic states should be more of a threat to Islam than
secular states. Since you guys believe that apostasy is the greatest sin,
why don't you try and bring the rulers of these states to justice? No
wonder your cries of discrimination against Muslims etc. sound more like
the guy who cried wolf. All religions suck, yes even Buddhists who share
some responsibility for the mess in Sri Lanka, but right now what is
being called Islam seems to have the most fruity adherents.
Sameer
FWIW I am an atheist.
Ross Haight
bab...@ix.netcom.com(BABU RAMABADRAN) wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>Regarding the point of being hypocritical when calling for the
>>'freedom' to express yourself in this country while not allowing the
>>others the same 'freedom' in Muslim countries. Well there is a very
>>simple answer to this. No country on the face of this earth represents
>>Islam. And this includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Sudan. THESE
>>ARE NOT ISLAMIC STATES.
>>
>>So whatever goes on in those countries cannot be automatically be said
>>to be representative of Islam. None of the Muslims countries implement
>>Islam and need to be overhauled comprehensively so that they are in
>>accordance with Islam. So please do not use example like Iran or Sudan
>>and think that every Muslim agrees with the system in those countries,
>>we DON'T.
>>
<snip>
With respect, how else should we judge how persons live together under
Islam and, more importantly, the potential effects of Islamic
influence but in those countries where people professing Islam hold
the majority?
Kamal J Southall
In article <32057C...@ix.netcom.com>,
Kabeer Punjabi <Kab...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
->Muslim wrote:
->Why not hold this debate in Saudi Arabia that supports freedom of speech?
Real dumb question, because they would arest us, thats why.
Duh.
What is the problem with most of the people here ? Do they think that
most muslims actually agree with the policies of Saudi ? As if all
muslims were some sort of borg like entity with one mind...
And don't give that bloody ' be grateful that you live here bla bla, if you
don't like it here go back home were you have no freedom bla bla' crap; I
was borne here. Supressing the freedom of speech is a bad thing, period.
->Kabeer >
Student
Kamal J Southall wrote:
> What is the problem with most of the people here ? Do they think that
> most muslims actually agree with the policies of Saudi ? As if all
> muslims were some sort of borg like entity with one mind...
But that is what the muslims claim an ideal muslim society
will be - a borg like entity. And if the major islamicised
regions of the world are not an example of what future muslim
influence will bring, then what is ?
Fatima Ibrahim Al-Shirawi
Sameer Ashok Datar (sad...@jove.acs.unt.edu) wrote:
: If these are NOT Islamic states, then shouldn't the net-mullahs try and
: masquerading as Islamic states should be more of a threat to Islam than
: secular states. Since you guys believe that apostasy is the greatest sin,
: why don't you try and bring the rulers of these states to justice?
Oh, yes. The ol' "if you don't change things, you suck" principle.
Ever taken a good look at the underlying causes behind the state
of affairs in most Third World countries? If you were to
do so instead of indulging your fascination for fruitiness, you
may stumble upon the insight that it is simplistic and ignorant
to blame Islam for the problems which exist in so many Muslim
countries.
Do you blame Islam for the state of affairs in Cuba or North
Korea? Or does another bogeyman come onstage there?
: Sameer
: FWIW I am an atheist.
An atheist is merely an individual who has yet to meet an epiphany.
Saif Al-Shirawi.
Kabeer
Gentleman,
Quick change to your statement. They claim so when convinient. When not
convinient, they issue disclaimer immediately. This is what is is
called flip-flop, i.e., bit becoming one or zero.
Kabeer
RUPSICE
In article <4u7s39$4...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>, fa...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
(Fatima Ibrahim Al-Shirawi) writes:
>Oh, yes. The ol' "if you don't change things, you suck" principle.
>Ever taken a good look at the underlying causes behind the state
>of affairs in most Third World countries? If you were to
>do so instead of indulging your fascination for fruitiness, you
>may stumble upon the insight that it is simplistic and ignorant
>to blame Islam for the problems which exist in so many Muslim
>countries.
Well who is to blame for the problems in Muslim countries? Yeah yeah
yeah! We've heard it all before. Israel, USA, Great Britain, etc. etc.
etc.
>
>Do you blame Islam for the state of affairs in Cuba or North
>Korea? Or does another bogeyman come onstage there?
Whaddya think Saif? Get your head out of the sand!
I'm a man of leisure, no one wants my opinions so don't think they are
anyone elses!
Chris Williams
In article <adam3Dv...@netcom.com>, ad...@netcom.com says...
>Anyone familiar with NUS politics will know that a large majority of
>its activists are from the far left
If only, mate. If the 'far left' is so powerful, how come Jim Murphy
succeeded in getting through a 'loans not grants policy at the last NUS
conference?
>and the UJS (just look at who had
>the largest stall at the NUS conference).
>There has been a concerted
>campaign against Muslims at University and College campuses throughout
>Britain. Most of it initiated by Jews supposedly 'frightened' of the
>supposed 'anti-semitic' views that Islam holds. They have used their
>lobbying power at educational institutions to admittedly good effect.
I think that you too are generalising. You generalise 'the West' as a
monolith. You generalise 'Muslims' as a monolith also.
My own experience of the issues of free speech on UK campuses and Islam came
when a representative of Hizb-Ut-Tahrir spoke at Sheffield Hallam
University. At the meeting, he said that he thought the Nazi Holocaust of
the Jews was a myth. I don't know what he said after this, because I walked
out. However, several members of the UJS who were present stayed. I then
attempted to get the SHU Students' Union to ban HBT (*not* all muslims) from
speaking. However, to my knowledge, no members of UJS attempted to do this.
You are right that elements within Labour Students have used the activities
of HBT to justify a motion against 'extremists' which do not mention HBT.
When this motion was introduced, I spoke against it since I saw it as
anti-Muslim.
But you make the same error when you conflate 'the West' into one.
>The concept of 'freedom of speech' is fundamentally flawed in that it
>makes the human the arbiter in lawmaking. As Muslims we believe that
>our Creator is both unlimited and independent and hence being
>all-knowing knows what is best for his creation that human beings.
Yes, but I've only got your word for it that the limits you suggest are from
God. What if my god tells me something different? As far as I can make out,
your God speaks only through humans. I find it a lot easier to attrtibute to
them human motives.
Personally, if anybody is advocating denying the Holocaust, I'm all in
favour of denying them the ability to speak. I don't believe in an absolute
right to free speech. I don't think that you do either.
Chris
Matthew J Smith
> >its activists are from the far left
>
> succeeded in getting through a 'loans not grants policy at the last NUS
> conference?
I was there and I suspect that the reason JM managed to
get this moronic motion through was because certain
big colleges don't have sufficient participation, forming
policy through elected councils rather than General
Meetings. People vote Labour students onto these
councils thinking they are socialists. Then they go
to conference and vote for a bunch of careerist arseholes
like Murphy, Gwilym Morris, Doug Trainer etc who then
use their clout to "stage-manage" conference with people
in the balconies to make hand signals to tell people how
to vote.
IMHO there is practically no-one in the NUS now who cares
about students; they are all either pushing a Trot
agenda or a right-wing Labour one, and the latter are
also hoping to end up with seats in Parliament or on local
councils.
>
> >and the UJS (just look at who had
> >the largest stall at the NUS conference).
I think it was Labour's front, "New Solutions", who nicked
the Lesbian/Gay rainbow flag much to their annoyance, since
they had always voted for free ed.
>
> >There has been a concerted
> >campaign against Muslims at University and College campuses throughout
> >Britain. Most of it initiated by Jews supposedly 'frightened' of the
> >supposed 'anti-semitic' views that Islam holds. They have used their
> >lobbying power at educational institutions to admittedly good effect.
>
> I think that you too are generalising. You generalise 'the West' as a
> monolith. You generalise 'Muslims' as a monolith also.
>
> My own experience of the issues of free speech on UK campuses and Islam came
> when a representative of Hizb-Ut-Tahrir spoke at Sheffield Hallam
> University. At the meeting, he said that he thought the Nazi Holocaust of
> the Jews was a myth. I don't know what he said after this, because I walked
> out. However, several members of the UJS who were present stayed. I then
> attempted to get the SHU Students' Union to ban HBT (*not* all muslims) from
> speaking. However, to my knowledge, no members of UJS attempted to do this.
>
> You are right that elements within Labour Students have used the activities
> of HBT to justify a motion against 'extremists' which do not mention HBT.
Yes it did, it mentioned HuT, the British National Party
and an organisation called the "Church of Christ cult".
Strangely, no mention of the Jewish extremists who've
been sending threatening letters to Islamic societies
throughout the country. I think that this and the
free ed fiasco are linked, since the UJS stall (sensibly
located right near the Palestinian Students' stall!!!)
prominently featured pamphlets criticising left and
Socialist Worker anti-Semitism, presumably in an attempt
to slag the left groups who were fighting to keep the
free ed policy.
Frankly I don't see why anyone stays affiliated to that
awful "Union", it's nothing more than a grooming centre for
future Labour politicians. As soon as I get back to college
I'm going to try and get the Union to write a letter to
Glasgow papers warning locals of Jim Murphy's record (he
is now standing as a Labour candidate in a Glasgow seat)
and telling them not to vote for him.
Matthew J Smith.
Alan Horowitz
C.A.Wi...@shef.ac.uk (Chris Williams) writes:
>Personally, if anybody is advocating denying the Holocaust, I'm all in
>favour of denying them the ability to speak. I don't believe in an absolute
>right to free speech. I don't think that you do either.
The man who doesn't believe the Holocaust happened, is mis-informed.
He is ignorant.
You had an opportunity to educate him. You prefer to silence him. You are
dangerous.
No wonder England is about to come under the EC hegemony of France and
Germany. American troops won't bleed out their lifeblood again to keep
you free. Enjoy your fate.