My Blog, about Islam and Muslims

As you may guess, I have a problem with Islam, for two reasons:
1. Islam is very intolerant, about which Muslims are in denial. They refuse to face the fact that Islam, wherever it dominates, oppresses other religions, not to mention women and other minority groups. The issue here is the word "tolerance" which to me means basically the same as "equality". To Muslims, "tolerance" means they will let you live and maybe practice another religion as long as you don't offend them in any way. Gee thanks, but no thanks.
2. The second problem is related to the first. The followers of Islam have a very definite inability to discuss issues with which they are uncomfortable, even if they are very simple, historical facts. Muslims have a tendency to twist and redefine things, ignoring the obvious, or worse, they have a certain propensity to resort to violence. This is sad, and the most hurt by this are the Muslims themselves.

Here is a small post that I left on several Muslims sites, as well as on the Islam Section of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) religious discussion board.

I would like to share my thoughts on tolerance in Islam. In almost all Muslim web sites, Islam is portrayed as tolerant and peaceful, without any analysis of the situation of non-Muslim minorities in those countries.
The facts present a very different reality. There is not a single country were Islam dominates in which non-Muslims have the same rights as Muslims. This is pure hypocracy and intellectual dishonesty on the part of Muslims, and you and your web site are guilty of this. When Muslims talk of intolerance, almost always they are referring to their situation in the West, never to the sorry situation of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, etc… in Muslim countries. I am sure that non-Muslims in Islamic countries would love to have the same liberties and respect that Muslims have in the West.
FYI, I had friends in Lybia working in the oil industry, as well as relatives in Iraque during the 80s. I have also talked to an Egyptian Coptic priest (a Christian sect) that travelled thoughout the Middle East. The persecution of Christians and other religions in most Muslim countries is a well known fact, widely reported in newspapers during the last 30 years. You can't just build a church in most Muslim countries, you can't publish Christian newspapers, or preach or do anything except suffer in silence. An Arab Christian, or even any Arab who has extensive contact with Christians, may be subjected to extreme forms of persecution, including prison, torture and murder. Not to mention women, gays, Jews, etc...
I have never heard Muslims in America speak up for those non-Muslims who are persecuted in Muslim dominated countries. If anybody could help them, it would be the American Islamic and Arab communities. I guess they don't care, and neither do you. The only reasonable conclusion derived from these facts is that most Muslims don't care about human rights, and that "there is no compulsion in religions" is just a big lie written to please the politically correct fools who also don't care about human rights either. Shame on all of you!
We must treat Muslims with dignity and respect in the US. It is our way. We should not tolerate any discrimination or abuse aimed at them as people. Otherwise we become like them. However, we owe to those who suffer to speak up and about the situation of non-Muslims in Islamic societies.
For this very moderate expression of opinion, I received no thanks - much to the contrary. Anybody who has argued with Muslims knows that sooner or later - usually sooner - the threats will fly. Another fact is that very often any posting that is critical of Islam will be deleted.

This is the message I got back from the BBC moderator:
Dear Contributor, Thank you for posting a message to a BBC Message Board. We very much appreciate your interest in the message board, but are sorry to have to tell you that your message has had to be removed. Sorry but we feel that parts of this message will be offensive to Muslims. The specific religion boards are really for discussion about those religions and not comdemnation of them - perhaps you might like to take this point to the Religion and Ethics General board. Again, thank you for your time and interest. We hope we will hear from you again very soon. Best wishes, BBC Message Board Moderator. Yeah, write something they like and agree with and they might just accept it. Now, there's tolerance and free speech for you!

The Problem...

This may sound strange, but I have a bigger problem with the so-called moderate Muslims than the so-called radicals. The radicals, at least, are honest. They say what they mean and the mean what they say. No excuses. Read the following words of Mr. Fawwaz bin Muhammad Al-Nashami, commander of the Al Quds Brigade, which took "credit" for the 2004 May 29 massacre in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. Translated from Arabic by the Middle East Media Research Institute, the original interview was posted on Sawt Al-Jihad, a Web site with ties to al-Qaida:

"We tied the infidel [a Briton] by one leg [behind the car] . . . Everyone watched the infidel being dragged . . . The infidel's clothing was torn to shreds, and he was naked in the street. The street was full of people, as this was during work hours, and everyone watched the infidel being dragged, praise and gratitude be to Allah . . . We entered one of the companies' [offices], and found there an American infidel who looked like a director of one of the companies. I went into is office and called him. When he turned to me, I shot him in the head, and his head exploded. We entered another office and found one infidel from South Africa, and our brother Hussein cut his throat. We asked Allah to accept [these acts of devotion] from us, and from him.
"We went from the company [offices] and found our brother, Nimr the hero, standing at the entrance to the company and guarding us, drinking a little water as though he were on a hike. [He acted this way] because of his great courage - may Allah have mercy on him . . .
"At the same time, we found a Swedish infidel. Brother Nimr cut off his head, and put it at the gate so that it would be seen by all those entering and exiting. We continued in the search for infidels, and we slit the throats of those we found among them . . . )
"We found Filipino Christians. We cut their throats and dedicated them to our brothers in the Mujahideen in the Philippines. [Likewise], we found Hindu engineers and we cut their throats too, Allah be praised. (pulled from "Common Sense and Wonder" blog, August 6
I think we can safely classify this charming person as a radical. I think these people are very clear about their beliefs. No "Islam means peace" bullshit here. The trouble today is that the West, suffering from a mental disorder called "multiculturalism", is unwilling to face the fact that radical Islam is out to destroy them, and moderate Islam can do nothing about it, except make petty excuses. Fact: When a 'radical' and a 'moderate' meet and argue about Islam, the radical always wins.

As long as... Tolerance is not equality!

Here is another view from a Muslim site at www.alinaam.org.za/misc/statues.htm about the ancient Giant statues that were destroyed by Islamists. The Imam is explaining (in a question and answer format) why they had to go and also expressing his opinions of all non-Muslims:

Question: The primary argument presented is that the destruction of idols is offensive to the religious convictions of certain communities. Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims.
Answer: It is wrong to say that Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. To respect the beliefs of others means to respect kufr and shirk. This is totally unacceptable.
Yes, what we do respect is their right to practice their religion. In other words, despite the fact that we intensely abhor their beliefs, should they wish to practice on those beliefs, we will grant them the freedom to do so. This too is on condition that it does not conflict with our interests.
... Statues have been severely condemned in numerous verses of the Holy Quráan and an abundant number of Ahaadith of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam. To mentioned these in detail would require a few volumes. We suffice here with a few examples.
... There cannot be anything more abhorrent in Islam than statues and idols. It was one of the primary duties of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam to destroy idols. He was sent for this purpose. He instructed Hazrat Ali (Radiyallahu anhu) not to leave any statue standing. At the very first opportunity, he demolished the idols found in Makkah Mukarramah. Therefore, any person with a clear mind, unclouded by ramblings of those that deny Allah, can understand that there can be no place whatsoever for idols in Islam. It is the very antithesis of Islam. The very doctrine of the Deen is in diametrical opposition to the keeping of statues and idols. Question: The primary argument presented is that the destruction of idols is offensive to the religious convictions of certain communities. Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims.
Answer: It is wrong to say that Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. To respect the beliefs of others means to respect kufr and shirk. This is totally unacceptable.
Yes, what we do respect is their right to practice their religion. In other words, despite the fact that we intensely abhor their beliefs, should they wish to practice on those beliefs, we will grant them the freedom to do so. This too is on condition that it does not conflict with our interests.
As far as our attitude being offensive, well, if the truth be told, the whole of Islam is offensive to some of the kuffaar. Even our kalimah is offensive to the mushrikeen. Our kalima denounces all deities besides Allah Ta’ala as false. This emphatically implies that the gods of the mushrikeen are false.
So are we going to abandon our kalima because it is offensive to some of the kuffaar? Certainly not! In the same light there are numerous teachings of Islam which are offensive to one community or the other. Are we then going to discard these teachings merely because someone is offended? Are we then going to court the pleasure of the kuffaar at the expense of earning the displeasure of our Creator Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta’ala?
It is obvious that by acting on the law of Allah Ta’ala we will be earning the rebuke of the kuffaar, for Islam and kufr are two diametrically opposed ideologies. There is thus no surprise in their criticism.
From the very first day of Islam they have been ridiculing and rebuking Muslims, then this has continued through the ages, and will continue until Qiyaamah. Thus these criticisms will not deter us in the least. Regarding the true Mu’mineen, Allah Ta’ala says in the Holy Quráan: “And they do not fear the rebuke of any rebuking person”. (Surah An’aam Aayat 54)
What we Muslims should only be concerned with is whether our actions are within the laws of Allah Ta’ala. Thus the offense of the kuffaar holds no weight with us.

So there you have it. The feeling of Non-Muslims mean nothing to Muslims. On the bright side, Non-Muslims can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't offend Muslims. This is the famous "Tolerance" that Muslims in the West are so proud of. Well, take your 'tolerance' and stick it where the sun don't shine. What hypocracy!

The teaching of this Iman continues on the same site (www.alinaam.org.za). Here you will find him explaining the concept of "freedom of religion" under Islam...

Question: The Islamic State extracts a tax from the non-Muslim citizens of the state. By virtue of this tax they are granted complete freedom of religion. Thus if their religion supports idols, we have no right to interfere with the idols for this will be in conflict with the freedom of religion which they are guaranteed.
Answer : Firstly, let us not be fooled by the term “freedom of religion”. There is no absolute “freedom of religion”. There is not a single state on earth that grants it’s citizens absolute freedom of religion. Even though such clauses appear in the constitutions of many States, it is a relative term. Should anyone’s personal religious convictions and practices conflict with the interests of the state, then such religious practices will be outlawed. So just as every other state on earth gives preference to its own interests over the religious convictions of any citizen, similarly too does the Islamic state give preference to its own objectives. An Islamic state is established with the sole purpose of establishing the Deen of Allah Ta’ala on Allah’s earth. The prime object is to entrench Islam in the land. Should any individual’s personal interests be in conflict with this objective, preference will obviously be given to the Deen. The Islamic State is established for the Deen, and not for any particular individual or group. This will apply to even Muslim citizens. Should their personal ideals be in conflict with that of Islam, the ideals of Islam would reign superior.
While the non-Muslim citizens do have the right to practice their religion in Daarul Islam, this is subject to certain conditions. The need for these conditions arises from the fact that, should they be granted absolute freedom, some of their actions would come in conflict with the objectives of the State. Some of these conditions will be discussed below... While the conditions under which non-Muslims are granted citizenship of Daarul Islam are many, at this juncture we refer to only those that are relative to our discussion.
Some of these conditions are: They may practice their religion within the privacy of their homes; They may not build any new churches, synagogues etc; Should any church, synagogue etc. be destroyed or require repair, they may repair or rebuild such buildings; They may not celebrate any religious festivals in public; They may not display in public any item having particular religious purport, e.g. Bible, Cross, statue, etc; Such items should also be removed from the exterior of their places of worship i.e. No idol, Cross etc may be displayed on the outside of their places of worship; They may not ring the church bell, nor read their religious books so loud that it is audible in public; They may not invite towards their religion.
The reason for these conditions is that the purpose of Daarul Islam is to entrench Islam on the earth. Thus the salient features in religion must only be that of Islam. No features of other religions may be observable in public. It is only when Muslims firmly enforced such laws that Islam reigned superior on earth. Thus the object for which Daarul Islam was established had been achieved.

This guy is a bigot, but - believe it or not - he isn't even a radical one. He is basically a moderate, everyday, run of the mill, average Joe Islamist. This set of rules which he describes is know as the 'Pact of Umar' and it is over a thousand years old. For many centuries it governed relationships between dominant Islam and other minority religions. The average Muslim in Islamic countries would probably agree with every word above. Once again, the Muslims in the West prefer to ignore these attitudes, pretending that they don't exist, or dismissing them by saying they don't represent the 'real' Islam.

Yet, on the other hand, Muslims in the West want us to believe that Islam is a tolerant belief. This is why it is very important, when talking to Muslims, to make what Muslims actually do the bottom line, not what they say. Not only that, the issue must be what Muslims do where they dominate, not in the West. It is easy for Muslims to talk about tolerance in the West, they prefer to forget about it in Islamic countries. Only when non-Muslins have all the same rights as Muslims do can they say that Islam is tolerant. Of course, That never happens, and by their own theology, there is no separation of church and state, so non-Muslims can never be full and equal citizens in a society dominated by Islam. Period. When you talk to Muslims, express these issues. Be nice and smile. They will not be happy, but it is for their own good.

History is history, like it or not!

The second issue mentioned above is the fact that Muslims are very selective about history. They like to talk about the crusades, but forget about Jihad (yes, it means "Holy War" except when explainning it to a Westerner....) and the armies of Islam attacking Europe several times in several centuries. They like to talk about the Western occupation of Muslim Countries, but prefer to ignore the hundreds of years of Muslim occcupation of India, or Spain, or Central Europe. I don't blame any Muslim for the massacre of Armenians and I am not responsible for what the Crusaders did or didn't do. Get over it.

Likewise, history is be taken as it is. One can argue the facts as we understand them, but some things are very clear. One of these things that is very clear is that Islam's great prophet was not a very nice guy. Based upon dozens of accounts written by Muslims themselves, Mohammud was a rather bad individual. He fought dozens of battles, most of them not in self-defence. Later in life, as a ruler, he executed hundreds of people. So much for "mercy". And there is the fact that Muhammud was a slaver, big time. Yes, he captured people and make them his slaves. He also bought and sold human beings like cattle. These facts are beyond dispute, and Muslims consider this guy a shinning example. Let me be very clear: Anyone that traffics in human bodies, and so contributes to the pain, suffering and death of men, women and children, is scum. That is the way it is, and there is no excuse to say otherwise. Don't blame it on the culture or the times. Be honest and face the facts. I'll stop here. I've said enough about this guy and his religion. There are other issues, but I've reached my quota today.

Main Page. Return to list of topics in Klog/Blog or click here to go to a general page on Islam, or even click here to return to my page on Islam and Europe.
Marriage to Saudis (12/2004). I found this old page on my hard drive and decided to post it here. It is a webpage from the US State Department about the problems of Americans that marry Saudi nationals and the issues they often face. It was removed by the US Government because of Saudi pressure, because there is a certain negative tone to the information provided, even if basically true. I am posting it here as a public service.