Monday, June 25, 2007

“For a Mohammedan-Free Denmark”

UPDATE: YouTube has removed the Mohammed-burning video, but it has now been posted at Google Video. The embed below now references the new location; let's hope it works.

If it doesn’t, click here.


The burning of Mohammed

I mentioned on Saturday that a group in Denmark was planning to burn an effigy of Mohammed (instead of a witch) at the traditional midsummer festival.

Since then the group that burned the Prophet has contacted SIAD, who kindly uploaded the video for us.

The Danes made quite a production of the bonfire — the soundtrack has “Light My Fire” on it…


The intro is in Danish, and it goes by too fast for me to translate easily. Maybe some of our Danish readers can give us the gist of it.

But the last thing you see before the action rolls is this:

For a Mohammedan-free Denmark!

Hold on to your helmets, Vikings. You’re in for a wild ride…


Update: CVF operative flyboy has translated the Danish text for us:

We declare:

Saint Hans’ Eve has always celebrated the tradition of burning away the evil, in earlier times symbolized by the witch, who was supposedly directly connected to Satan. And if the witch was not burned then the harvest could not be safely brought into the house.

Now a new evil has arrived in Europe, an evil that lies and kills in the name of their so-called God. An evil that springs from the so-called Prophet Mohammed. Therefore, in our time, it is he who symbolizes evil and it is not just one harvest that will disappear, but all of Western Europe’s future that will vanish if this evil is not dispatched to Hekkenfeldt [i.e. Hell, literally the Hekla volcano in Iceland — BB].

Therefore will we burn the so-called Prophet Mohammed, on June 23, 2007, in three nameless places.

We burned Mohammed in three different places across the country. We now release the video from the first burning. The next videos will be released on July 23 and August 23.

For a Mohammed-free Denmark!!!


[Nothing further.]

87 comments:

Dymphna said...

Those Danes are sooo polite.

No raging faces, no signs threatening curses on the Caliphate, no burning of the various Islamic flags...

...I don't know, maybe we have to have that real edge of envy and narcissism to carry it off. I mean, what is this with the laughter and enthusiastic clapping? Where are the bombs? the Molotob cocktails? the taunts? the rapes?

Mere amateurs, I tell you!

But the Intel ripoff at the end was just right.

Dymphna said...

oops...that's Molotov cocktails.

Sorry, Vyacheslav old boy -- next time I'll get your name right

sugiero said...

The text (their manifesto) says they burned two more and that they will publish the vids 23 july and 23 august.

I assume they wanted to put in enough (?) space and time for some seething...

MikkelA said...

A quick'n'dirty translation.

[PAGE 1]
We declare:
On Saint Hans' Eve it has always been custumary to burn evil - in the days of yore symbolised by the witch whom, it was claimed, had a direct connetion to Satan himself. And if not burned the witch would ensure that the harvest was ruined.
[PAGE 2]
Now a new evil has decended upon Europe which is allowed to lie and kill in the name of their so-called deity. An evil which orginated from the so-called prophet Mohammed.
Therefore it is he who in our time symbolises evil, and it is not only a harvest that will dissappear but the future of all of Western Europe, if thie evil is not banished to hell.
[PAGE 3]
On Saint Hans' Eve, 23rd of June, we will therefore, on three undisclosed locations, torch the greatest evil of our time - the so-called prophet Mohammed.

We will torch Mohammed on 3 locations in the country. We now relase the video of the first torching. The other 2 torchings will be released on the 23rd of July and the 23rd of August.

For a Moslem-free Denmark

Craig H said...

Satan inside? NICE TOUCH!

Urban Infidel said...

Most Excellent!

Go DANES! Show 'em how it's done!

DMartyr said...

It takes Danes to show America how to stand up to Islamofascists.

Good for you, Denmark!

Ron said...

Yes yes yes!! Take that Islamic Rage boy! :) Maybe with enough of this, the vermin will leave Scandinavia. Unfortunately they would probably just go to the UK, and the UK would take them in from colonial guilt and to show how nice they are to the lazy mohammedians

Baytown Bert said...

Three cheers for the gutsy Danes!

Richard said...

Bravo to the Danes. It gives me hope not all is lost. Buy Danish products.

Mikael said...

A quick translation:
Screen 1:
We declare: On Midsummer night it has always been the tradition to burn the Evil, in times past symbolized by the witch claimed to have direct links to Satan. And if it [the witch] were not burned, the harvest would not be salvaged.

Screen 2:
Now there has come a new evil over Europe that can lie and kill in the name of their alleged God. An evil that spawns from the so called prophet Mohamed.

In our time, it it therefore him who symbolizes evil and it it not one harvest that will be lost, but the entire future of western Europe will vanish if this evil is not sent to Hell.

Screen 3:

This is why we on midsummer night June 23 2007 in three undisclosed places we will burn the worst evil in our time, the so called Prophet Mohammad.

We burned Mohammad in three locations throughout the country. We now release the video of the first effigy. The second and third effigies will be released on Juli 23 and August 23.

For a Muhammadan-free Denmark. [end translation.]

And that last salute was the nail that just blew my tire. In Denmark, Muhammadan is used by the Extreme Right. Kinda like the N-word would be used by the KKK in the States.

It's stupid, it's perceived as racist, and I'll have nothing of it!

If the people behind this are so frigging brave, why don't they go to Karachi and burn an effigy of Mohammed?

Many of you on this forum know my views, either from my comments here or from my blog. No one is more concerned with the decay of Europe than I am, but stunts like these are not only childish, they are counterproductive.
All the MSM has to do is look the word "Muhammadan-free" and it's all over. Just another bunch of losers on the Neo-Nazi fringe.

Not especially helpful.

Baron Bodissey said...

Mikael,

I didn't know that about the word "Muhammedaner". In English the word "Mohammedans" has no special connotation, except for being somewhat archaic (although not as archaic as "Mussulmen").

Maybe some of our other Danish readers want to comment on this...? I'll have to ask Anders what he thinks.

shell said...

Mmm.. not quite. "Mohammedan" was used by Christians to describe Muslims, the former operating under the assumption that Muhammad represented the same thing to Islam that Jesus did to Christianity. Since there is one God &c &c, ascribing divinity to M is considered offensive, and has been since long before the rise of political correctness. As per my webster's 1913:

Mohammedan \Mo*ham"med*an\, n.
A follower of Mohammed, the founder of Islam (also called Islamism or Mohammedanism); an adherent of Islam; one who professes Mohammedanism or Islamism; a Muslim; a Moslem; a Musselman; -- this term is used mostly by non-Moslems, and some Moslems find it offensive. [Written also Muhammadan}, {Mahometan}, {Mahomedan}, etc.] [1913 Webster +PJC]

The proof of the non-PC-ness of this definition can be derived from the extent to which it contradicts itself, indicating that some find the term offensive while calling the religion itself "Mohammedanism."

I don't know about Danish, but in English a case can certainly be made.

MikkelA said...

Baron:
The Danish term "muhammedaner" certainly is generally percieved as a derogatory term in the Danish public debate. In itself it has no intrinsic derogatory meaning (it just means a follower of Mohammed, as Christian or Jesuit means a follower of Christ/Jesus...), but due to usage and the linguistic developments in Denmark (and much related to the usage of the term by a Danish politican named Mogens Glistrup) it has attained - deservedly or not - a negative connotation. In effect, it is probably somewhat comparable to the term "nigger" in English, though in my view "muhammedaner" has no direct racist connotations. It's indeed a derogatory term, but only related to the religion and not the skin-colour of the group referred to.

jmuchow said...

The word Muhammedaner is (yet another way of saying) a Muslim.

The video (and the promised two to follow) are from SIAD,
the resistance movement Stop Islamiseringen af Danmark (Stop the Islamization of Denmark).

While I understand Mikael's comments, I can't say that I entirely agree... or rather, I find them surprising. It should not be unexpected that when people are lied to, misled, villified, and harassed by their "betters", the politicians, the media, the academics, and the so-called intellectuals, that at some time there would not be an over-reaction.

When one follows the ridiculous lengths to which these so-called elites have hounded the Danish People's Party and the vile, horrendous things they have said about its leader, Pia Kjaersgaard, how could anyone expect less of a pushback than videos like this and groups like SIAD.

There is a parallel going on in the US with the immigration bill and the villification of those opposed.

Fortunately, Joe Sixpack and his Danish counterpart are the two least likely guys to knuckle under when pushed hard enough.

Mikael said...

Baron & Shell,

You'll have to forgive me, but it's 2:30 am. here in Denmark, so I'll give you the short explanation. :-)

"Muhammadans" used to be a common word to describe Muslims many years ago in Denmark. However, with the influx of Political Correctness, it was replaced by "Muslims" as more and more - what shall I call them, Believers in Allah, perhaps, migrated to Denmark. The connotation of the word "Mohammedan" over time shifted to describe a Muslim to describe the user of that word as a primitive racist. So to speak.

This is why I objected to that word in the video. In this day and age, the word "Mohammedan" is exclusively fringy. (Is that a word?)

Shell,
have you tried to look up the word "nigger" (there, I said it!)in your 1913 edition of Webster? Are you sure that word have the same connotation today as it had back then?

Yorkshireminer said...

Thank you Denmark you get a A+ you can now go to the next level. I especially like the South Park touch. I have personally been to few St Hans aftens plenty of Carlsberg and a barbecue. I like it. For Dinner tomorrow I am going to cook Braendende Kaerlighed it seems so appropriate and drink your health with a large glass of medicinal Aalborg. You have made my day.

Always On Watch said...

Good on Denmark for striking back! Anti-dhimmitude is refreshing, isn't it?

Always On Watch said...

I just linked to this.

whiskey_199 said...

Seeing as how Muslims call us non-Muslims "kaffirs" which literally translates to "unclean" I have no problem calling Muslims "Mohammedans." Particularly since they object to it.

Those who are truly offended of course have the traditional option of leaving for Muslim lands. Where no Christians or non-Muslims of any kind exist to trouble their egos in any way.

That word in and of itself can and should be used, to push back against PC and mark the cultural divide between those who adhere to individual freedom and those who consider themselves Slaves of Allah and demand slavery for everyone else, including non-Mohammedans.

Watcher said...

I really like the Danes. Now more than ever.

Linked to this post.

joe said...

I actually prefer the English word mohammedan, but not because I imagine that it is derogatory in itself.

(I don't know Danish).

There are some derogatory terms for those folks that are pretty obviously meant to be so. I don't use them.

My preference is based on the fact that "mohammedan" is an English word.

There is tendency to regard the use of foreign words and the native pronounciation of those words as being somehow more respectful, or indicating a greater familiarity with the subject.

This has been enthusiastically adopted by the PC crowd which, regardless of what country it operates in, loves to spit in the eye of it's own culture.

Hence we see Beijing replace Peking in nearly every publication. Etc ...

I will add that in it's PC manifestation, the privilege of native pronounciation seems to be reserved for more inimical or at least more alien cultures. So, in the US, it's Beijing, but not Munchen for what the Americans call Munich.

If I get to distance myself and spit on PC fashions at the same time I'll stick to mohammedan.

Hell, I may even adopt mussulman or mahometan.

joe said...

Oh, and bravo to the Danes.

Jason_Pappas said...

Well, at least the Danes have some good music. Like the old saying – if I can’t dance I don’t want your jihad – it’s the music that makes the difference. OK, that wasn’t jihad in the original. But you get the point!

Karridine said...

Good on, Denmark!

Now PUBLICLY and LOUDLY tell the Muslims about Baha'u'llah, the Holy One of Muslim prophecy, that by telling them you:
1/empower Muslims to become Baha'is;
2/disempower their clergy;
3/catalyze Muslim entry into THIS Day;
4/carry forward an ever-advancing CIVILIZATION, Danes!

Thomas said...

Great. How long until DhimmiTube takes it down?

Tushar said...

Baron,

If you'd be so kind as to engage me in a discussion :) I feel that every aspect of the performance was fine, but I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the "Mohammadan-FREE" Denmark. It is akin to kaafir-free Arabia as Muhammad directed his followers to achieve.

Why not Jihad-free Denmark? or Sharia-free Denmark?

Do you seriously not feel that this is a dent in the Counterjihad's armor as this is a targeting of a group of people - Muslims, instead of Islam or Sharia?

Please Baron, think about this, we need to contact SIAD and plead them to get back to anti-ideology movement not anti-individual or anti-group which will simply push the whole counterjihad to the fringes.

Baron Bodissey said...

Tushar,

You'll notice that I don't take a particular stand on this issue. I like SIAD, I like Anders Gravers, and I like the Danes. But I don't understand Denmark thoroughly enough to say what should be done or not done. That's for the Danes to say.

I think the best idea would be for you (or anyone else who wants to give an opinion) to write directly to SIAD, kontakt@siad.dk. Anders will probably be the one who reads and responds, and his English is good.

The West needs to be galvanized, to be woken up. Whether I agree with the tactics of this or not, it's important to remember that it's OK for them to do it, since people can put Christ in a cup of piss or turn the Star of David into a swastika and nobody bats an eyelash.

This is so mild and tame by comparison -- why should they not do it?

Baron Bodissey said...

Sorry that email link doesn't seem to work. Apparently blogger doesn't allow href=mailto: tags in comments.

You'll just have to cut and paste.

SIAD: kontakt@siad.dk

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

A new evil, indeed.
I hope the irony isn't lost on the Muslims.
(Lousy Christmas-ruiners...)

George said...

It is worthwhile to remember that Denmark was the only country in Europe to undertake a deliberate and concerted effort to save its Jewish population from the Nazi Holocaust. Not only did they refuse to "turn over" their Jews, they publicaly repudiated Nazi law and ultimately organized a mass escape for the Jewish population to Norway.
This admirable protest against Islamic fascism in the burning of an effigy of Mohammad is simply another step in the Danish fight against tyranny and violent oppression.
Well done.

Carl in Jerusalem said...

This reminded of a cartoon done by a lady named Tatiana Soskin (which I reproduced in my post in which I linked this post here). But given YouTube's penchant for removing anything derogatory about Islam, I suggest that they cross-post the video to LiveLeak.

Snake Oil Baron said...

Rage at "blasphemy" is not healthy. While I do not sympathize with their focus on supernatural "evil" these people are helping to expose the mindset of those who feel that criticism or insults or disrespect entitles them to murder and burn and destroy. It must not only be exposed to those who do not yet understand this belief system but to the children who are only part way through the indoctrination period that in most cultures is called childhood. It is important for educated, urban Muslim kids to see the mindset of faith at its worst. This means showing them not just terrorists who can be written off as not representative or products of conspiracies but that their parents and community leaders will take to the streets to call for people to die for drawing cartoons, leaving their religion or burning an effigy of their prophet. It is best for them to see this before the doctrine of Islam has hardened into faith. Even if they do not change their thinking now, it plants the seeds (Ayaan Hirsi Ali was once a committed Muslim). One of the first stages of leaving a belief system involves thinking about what you actually believe and what that means. This is often not done until a person's ability to rationalize is perfected.

Before people criticize these Danes for insulting and disrespecting Islam, it might be helpful to ask whether Islam has earned any insults or disrespect. Lots of people (myself included at times) say things which many Christians would consider insulting and disrespectful yet when some of them demand "protection" for their religion they are rightfully rebuffed. A religion in need of protection is one in need of extinction.

Profitsbeard said...

*~@):~{> !

Dante did the same to Mohamet in The Inferno.

A classic of Western literature.

Bravo, Danes!

Snake Oil Baron said...

Also, rage can only be maintained for a time before desensitization begins to set in*. Offending Muslims should be considered to be mental therapy.

(*Either desensitization or sudden Jihad syndrome and since emotion interferes with planning and forethought they are less likely to succeed in killing anyone if they are extra high on rage)

Phanarath said...

Tushar

You asked: "Why not Jihad-free Denmark? or Sharia-free Denmark?"

In Denmark the biggest problems with Islam comes from areas that have become dominated by Muslims. Those areas become more and more unsafe for non-muslims. It would be dangerous for a Jew to go there with visible jewish symbols, non-muslim girls get attacked and raped. Our population of greenlanders also gets harassed very much, because they are seen as easy victims - small rather weak tribe.

These problems are generally seen as problems that comes from Islam as a whole. When an area gets a large muslim population they begin. Its the same picture other places in Europe. And the problems mostly comes from young people who wouldn't be able to understand an Islam without Jihad and Sharia, most likely they wouldn't understand what you meant other than that you where somehow insulting them and being a dirty kufr who pretended he was clever.

The gold must be have Islam reduced to a personal faith that cannot be allowed to organise in its current form. All the violent verses should be banned along with all forms of visual Islamic symbolism. From there we should be able to start solving the problems in the ghettos and restore them to being safe places. If the problems continue, we must make harder adjustments.

Personally I would be happy to live in a country free of Muslims, as I Imagine most people with personal experience with muslim areas would.

So why is it that a Muhammedan free Denmark makes you EXTREMELY uncomfortable ?

If the people who made that Video makes you uncomfortable you don't need to associate with them and you can distance yourself from their views. I am pretty sure that they will not change their agenda to make you or anyone else comfortable. And I most definitely wouldn't want them to.

Whats happening in Denmark and many other places in Europe can best be described as a tribal war on demographics. It cannot be solved by abstract experiments with ideological recipes.

Steen said...

"Muhammedan free Denmark" - its more, how on earth should that be accomplished ? With Maersk liners ?


I liked the comment on LGF : The music should have been by Cat Stevens :-)

Robert Muñoz said...

Wasn't that song a cover by Type O Negative?

Type O Negative!

TON!

TON FTW!!!!!!!!

ln said...

"Behead the Danes in the Name of Peace."
- - - - - - - - - - -
at LGF--Jason Papas said:
"I think you are going to confuse Muslims. Creating an image is blasphemous. Destroying the image should be halal. Oh, they'll never figure that out ... burn away!"
- - - - - - - - - -
at GoV--Mikael said:
"For a Muhammadan-free Denmark."
[...]
"And that last salute was the nail that just blew my tire. In Denmark, Muhammadan is used by the Extreme Right... Just another bunch of losers on the Neo-Nazi fringe. "
- - - - - - - - - -
What does Mikael mean with Extreme Right? -- I think he most probabely must mean Dansk Folkeparti and its leader Pia Kjaersgaard and other commandebly outspoken male members of that party?

What no one from Denmark mentions is that the the former Danish politician 'Mogens Glistrup' was the first wellknown person in DK who warned the Danish nation about the growing number 'Mohammedaner', (phonetic: Mohammedáaaner) and I guess good old Mogens today is looked upon as a persona non grata.

In Swedish "mohammedan-er" was quite 'halaal' to use untill 'muslims' arrived in greater numbers. As 'allah' seems to be a less importent figure in comparison to the magnificent and superhuman 'mohammed' -- allah only being more or less a 'deputy' for mohammed, it should be OK to use 'mohammedan-s' as a denomination of those who have the bad taste to worship and adore this fishy character.

KG said...

Mohammedan, Muhammedan, muslim..who cares?
The important thing is to not let these people set the limits of outrage.
With their carefully concocted and stage-managed flag and effigy burnings, with their murders and rioting at the slightest provocation they've managed to cow the West into treading very softly indeed.
Self-censorship is now almost the norm and who could have imagined that even twenty years ago?

Burn it, Danes and bless you for your courage.

KGS said...

Thanks to the Baron for keeping us informed on it, I also posted it at the Tundra Tabloids.

I am interested in seeing what (if any) noise it drums up here in Finland.

*L* KGS

Darrin Hodges said...

I hope they used 'flame of allah' brand matches!.

Mikael said...

In,
What does Mikael mean with Extreme Right? -- I think he most probably must mean Dansk Folkeparti and its leader Pia Kjaersgaard and other commandebly outspoken male members of that party?

No I don't. Actually The Danish Peoples Party (DF for short) is a rather socialist party, firmly rooted in the Welfare State. Sort of old fashion Social Democrats. (They are not getting my vote!) It's only on the immigration issue that the party can be conceived as hard-line "right wing".

I don't think I've ever heard anyone from that party utter the word Mohammedan.

My point was, that the use of the word "Mohammedan" is simply bad taste. Its use is associated with skinheads, hooligans, "trailer trash" (and Mogen Glistrup which only proves my point.)


Instead of torching some sorry excuse for an effigy in someones backyard, why not go much more public?

Form an "collective of artist" and apply for monetary support. Ask for permission to burn Mo on the city square as an artistic expression of freedom of speech, or whatever.

I mean, in Denmark we've had Jesus on the cross pictured as a matchstick man with a hard-on, live goldfish in blenders, stuffed puppies displayed i a church etc etc. All of these "artists" were showered with tax-payers money because of their "courages and provocative" art.

Make it known in the press that you're seeking public support for making a display of Mo shagging a camel or something. (Not 9-year old Aisha, that would be kiddie-porn and you'll all go to jail!)

Just an idea.

Phanarath said...

Mikael I would go the other way on this issue.

Mohammedan is what we used to call it.

Now Muhammedanisme is called Islam and Muhammedaner is called muslim.

The new words are used as a sign of respect. But there is no respect between Muhammedans and people of other faiths, there is only war or the submission of the unbelievers.

So you want us to submit ?

ln said...

at Mikael,

I am sorry to have made an incorrect assumption concerning 'Dansk Folkeparti', however, had you Mikael been a Swede with typical Swedish opinions, I would most certainly have been right.
My assumption that Mogens Glistrup is persona non grata seems to be corret, although he still must be looked upon as an esteemed pioneer with his battle-cry:"Beware of the Mohammedáaans!"

Art to the people!
Your suggestion that Mo should be burnt in a grand spectacle on the city square I find excellent. Is it feasible?

Art to the people!
The performance artist 'Itziar Okariz' from New York recently appeared at the 'Opera of Norrland' in Umeå, Sweden just standing and pissing in front of a paying public. She was paid SEK 10000 for the stunt.

Peter Ravn said...

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but noone knows about this "happening" in Denmark. I did not hear about it until I saw a link at bigpharaoh.com. The cartoon-crisis has not been forgotten i Denmark, but this video is just too childish.
PS: I know my spelling sucks.

Georgia Kafir said...

Awesome... I wonder if he smells like chicken.

Mikael said...

@ Phanarath,

of course I don't want us to submit. I really don't see how you can read that out from my comments.

As I tried to explain in a previous comment, it's how the word "Mohammedans" will be perceived in the Mainstream Press. There's a lot of PR in this, why not state "for a Sharia-free Denmark" No bad connotations with that word!

BTW Have you read this essay? It expresses my views on Islam (or Mohammedanism if you insist) exact. (link is in Danish)


@in,
Your suggestion that Mo should be burnt in a grand spectacle on the city square I find excellent. Is it feasible?

Of course it isn't feasible. Do you think I'm naive? Then again, the artist can always claim that the application for public support is a work of art in its self.

The performance artist 'Itziar Okariz' from New York recently appeared at the 'Opera of Norrland' in Umeå, Sweden just standing and pissing in front of a paying public. She was paid SEK 10000 for the stunt.

See :-)
In Denmark we have an artist, Uwe Max Jensen who recently pissed on a public building, claiming he was painting "with natures own brush and paint". He was arrested and later fined for indecent exposure.

He's not a bad guy, though. He's an artist not out on the fringe. (Can't really think of anyone else.)
here's an article by him i Sappho. (In Danish.)

had you Mikael been a Swede with typical Swedish opinions, I would most certainly have been right.

That's because the Establishment in Sweden have decided that any peep of skepticism towards unlimited immigration is to be compared Nazism. Your journalists and commentators project that attitude to 'Dansk Folkeparti' in Denmark without having a clue.
I pity you. One day we might have to blow up the bridge between Denmark and Sweden to block the jihads escape route when the Swedes finally take the matter into their own hands. It won't be a pretty sight!

UKpatriot said...

DOES IT NOT MAKE A REFRESHING CHANGE TO SEE THIS, RATHER THAN TO HAVE TO EXCEPT, DUE TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, THE STARS AND STRIPES, THE UNION FLAG, AND OTHER EUROPEAN NATIONAL FLAGS BURNT AND DEFILED..
THE ONLY PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS GROWING ISLAMAPHOBIA IS THE MUSLIMS THEM SELVES..WAR IS ON THE CARDS, ON A GLOBAL SCALE AND LIKE EVIL STATES BEFORE, ISLAM WILL BE CRUSHED AND DESTROYED...PEOPLE OF WUROPE UNITE, THE TIME IS NOW....LET US GO FORWARD TOGETHER

Redneck Texan said...

Burn Baby Burn.

This oughta get the Islamo-retards in Pakistan worked into a frenzy.....which is usually a good thing.

ln said...

To all that read scandinavish,

Here is an excellent, well written and balanced document (pdf-1.3MB) in Swedish about Islam's encroachment on Sweden. The publication that is a bit old, is the only one of its kind in Sweden. It was published to the election in 2002.
The more than wellknown 'Göran Greider', journalist and editor and high priest for the social-democratic medial offering and maybe also the most frequently occurring political commentator in the State Public Service Radio, expresses his loath: "...it is scaring how they dare to walk around distributing their racial propaganda stating that you are not an racist if you want to stop immigration." -- That they just dare, these so called neo-nazis!

David M said...

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 06/25/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

David M said...

Ignore the previous comment, Link Corrected

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 06/26/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

enuff said...

A note to our Danish comrades: Take extreme care as the EUstapo will not look kindly on, what is fully sanctioned and permissible ONLY by Mohammadan's, blasphemous European Infidels acting outside the limits of Sharia as dictated by its Charter of Fundamental Rights with prosecution secured by the Supreme European Public Prosecutor and their Extra-Euro police force.

In short: You are apt to be hunted down and do prison time, if not killed outright by Islamofascists. Take great care.

Phanarath said...

Mikael

I know your views and I know your blog, that I have enjoyed reading. My question wasn't meant as a serious question.

I meant is as: "You don't want to submit now, do you? :-)"

I am just sick and tired of always having to please people who do nothing to deserve it, for example the political left. I will not modify myself for their benefit, they will just have to get over themselves. Their ideas, their values and their rhetoric's have proven to be useless. Their days of defining whats whats are soon gone - The party is over. They have already lost, but they are so far gone from reality that they haven't noticed.

Enuff
Thanks for your concern. But if we get to see EU behave like moronic bully's once again, that will simply be a very welcome bonus :-)

Archonix said...

I have to add, there are very logical reasons to refer to them as Mohamedans rather than Muslims. Try insulting allah to the face of ione of his followers and he'll shrug it off; Allah cannot be insulted, because Allah is unknown, unknowable and ieffable. Now try insulting Mohammed. you'll be lucky to survive. On that basis alone it'[s obvious they place Mohammed on a higher pedestal than their own god. They worship and venerate Mohammed in a way that they don't Allah.

Now, simply because a word has been assigned by political correctness to 'far right' groups shouldn't prevent you from using it. If you let others alter your language in the name of political correctness, you lose something. I once fell for that trap when I begn avoiding certain words after they were hijacked for PC uses well beyond their original meaning. Part of the goal of PC is to diminish meaning in language, and restricting the language a person can use by coercion is part of that goal.

They venerate Mohammed and home him up as the 'perfect man' to be emulated by all men. Therefore they are Mohammedans.

Take back the word. Take back the language.

Lao said...

Baron and Dymphna,

I'm sure you guys realize that RAGEBOY is not going to be pleased.


Lao

Ulf of Denmark said...

Hi
Why is Mohammedan so bad. Christians follow the law of Christ, Buddists the law of Budda, Mosaics the law of Moses and Taoists the law of Tao.
Why the f... should we change our language
Kindly Ulf of Denmark

Beach Girl said...

"Tushar said...
Baron, If you'd be so kind as to engage me in a discussion :) I feel that every aspect of the performance was fine, but I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the "Mohammadan-FREE" Denmark. It is akin to kaafir-free Arabia as Muhammad directed his followers to achieve..."

And what is wrong with a Kaffr-free Arabia, I ask you? When did the West have to grab its ankles and kiss its culture good-bye? Hmm...

Where can I find a list of Dannish products exported to America? My money is on the Danes. If they can stir up a little "difference" of opinion through publishing a few cartoons, then this should get a few peoples' attention.

In America, terrorists can build compounds, send money to Pakistan, blow up folks, and nobody minds as long as it doesn't interfer with the cold beer and hot meatloaf; and for goodness sake, don't do anything to wake us up! Blow up a few towers, plow into the Pentagon, kill a few Jewish ladies at their center, but for goodness sake, do NOT wake us up!

Yorkshireminer said...

Why don't you just use the old word for them, Mussulman, Muselmand på dansk. Better still the Bungalow people, because they don't have a second floor only a vacant loft. You sound like the Roman Senate, arguing while the Ostergoths where banging on the gates of Rome.

muzicphiles said...

are you guys still trippin on this stuff. phew i thought religon wuz from the dark ages.

scared to see that people from the west also act like dumb extremists

sad but you are feeding the same gutter which the extremists fed when the catoons on the cans cames up
grow up people ....there is loads to be done.like grow more trees and figure a way to fight global warming

KG said...

muzicphiles, I'm not too good around children, having had none of my own but I guess all that's needed is to keep it simple:
get a brain

muzicphiles said...

i guess its obvious that blockheaded idealogies prevail around the globe.

i never understood why would did we ever invade lands when we did we were happy with what we had. ?

the brits invaded india and took away all the resources , now today when all asaians go to foriegn lands for work oppurtunities etc. why do they feel that its not right .. were the elderly wisely men then not thinking of mixing of races and people then.

getting a bran is easy kg ..using it the right way is difficult

muzicphiles said...

i am completely in motion of freedom of expression.
if i was to express i would not care about a few hardliners anyway and i have complete respect for the fact that if danish govt. wishes to exile all the muslims or any one else who don't want to live by the danish guidelins. as is it is the land of thier elders. but to fuel a crisis is not what will help.

Foehammer said...

I feel like cheering at the site of that burning. Good for those brave Danes.

None of us are lapdogs to Islam. Fear not, just be prepared to fight when the time comes.

Chip Ahoy said...

Well, at least the Danes have some good music.

Yeah, Danes have some good music, "Light My Fire" by The Døørs.

whats in the name said...

how far such immature acts go ??
rather make economic sanctions.or tell extremists to stay in their own corridors.move out the western liberal and democratic nations

this is surely an expression, but an expression out of a ' look here look here ' vibe.
there is no g

Yorkshireminer said...

Dear Muziphile,
get a brain is not bad advice, or at least read a bit of History. The Brits did not invade india. I will say this again because you might not have understood it the first time. THE BRITS DID NOT INVADE INDIA. The East India Company was founded in 1603 in the reign of Elizabeth I. It was incorporated to trade with the spice islands, these made up a portion of what is now Indonesian. In 1623 the Dutch East India company fearing for there monopoly and their monopoly profits, they instigated a Massacre on the island of Ambon. I wont go into the details, but it forced the British East India Company to search for profits elsewhere. This they did by moving up into the Gulf of Bengal. They established trading treaties and established trading post at Madras and Calcutta on the condition that they did not interfere in the politics of the country. Please cut the bullshit about invading. These they keep to for nearly 140 years. The only reason they broke them was that the Moghul MUSLIM empire was in a state of disintegration, and they feared for the trade. The actions of Robert Clive at the battle of Plessey in 1757 when 5,000 company troops defeated an Indian Army of 50,000 which enabled them to stabilize Bengal. Any expansion after that was on an ad hoc basis and was determined by the profit motive and not by politics. I am not saying that politics didn't play a role, I am just saying that the directors of the firm in Leadenhall street who determined policy were more interested in profit than colonies. One other thing I would also like to point out is that the Brits did not colonise India in the way we colonize Canada or Australia or New Zealand Colonists were not allowed to emigrate to India. I am almost certain that the Brits were not even allowed to own land. We ran it as a going concern. We might have done a few nasty things over the years but we ran an empire which consisted of 2/5 of the globes land area with an Army smaller than what Egypt has got now, not only that we kept the world peace for nearly 100 year from 1815-1914 on literally a shoe string. India even at the hight of so called imperial domination never had more than 40,000 British troops or administrators ruling it. We must have been doing something right. Yes we did take wealth out of India but we also gave it many other things. We unified India we gave it a road system canals a railway system put down Suttee and the Thuggies and what is more we gave it peace something it never really had under the Moghuls. All that disappeared when we left in 1947-48. You of cause being a muslim lover, for that is what Musiphile means, could never blame Jinha for demanding that India was partitioned. Next time you make such bold statements learn the fact.

Deep regards

Yorkshire miner

whats in the name said...

york.. i agree with most of what you say. but there is political correction in your post like
putting the blame on east indian company .
India was left as 400 provices .and lala lajpat rai was the man who unified this diverse country .

the brits discriminated the indians and in most of the public places put signs like
dogs and indians not allowed.

ruthless public massacre like the jaliawala bagh where they did not spare women children or oldies.

economic exploitation

beating and shooting at masses when quit india movement began..you say east india company made thier own guns too ?? were not supplied by the british empire.

tax laws were imposed which were completely outrageous

when gandhi asked indian to weave thier own cloth. he was jailed and called a traitor and terrorist

when they went to extract salt from the unclaimed water they were lathicharged..

1857 revolution happened due to religous outrage .

these are only a few accounts.

and more horror stories which we still dont know of .

who was the gateway made for ??
the queen.
if you say brits had nothing to do with. i guess you are blindfolded.

you read but depends who wrote what you read .
deep regards
and brits did invade india ..

Archonix said...

all asaians

Do you know, a lot of hindi and sikh indians are incredibly insulted if you refer to them as asian? The term asian is a label used to hide the distinction between a dozen or more different nationalities. They see it as lumping them in with people who are currently trying to kill them.

markofegypt said...

I'm a copt which means a christian native egyptian & i'm so glad to read this news.
My country & a lot of the so-called islamic countries nowdays were once christian & civilized, before muslims came & turn them to what they are today. we still blame ourselves for not kicking muslims out of our countries when we had the chance to do so. But you still have the chance to keep your country clean & most important to keep it yours, you just have to wake up before it's late & before you find yourselves in our position which is not a nice position by the way.

for contacting
markofegypt@hotmail.com

Larry said...

Wasn't it the King of Denmark who appeared in public wearing the Star of David the day after the Nazis ordered all Danish Jews to wear the star?

God (and Allah) bless the Danes!

Tushar said...

Phanarath,

Why the hostility?
Fine, we agree to disagree. What made me uncomfortable was NOT the muhammad-effigy-burning. Hell that made my day!! the "muhammadan-FREE" part bugged me, and nothing you said addressed that point besides "Frankly Id be happy to live in a muhammadan-free denmark." Well so would i! But it appears to be rank amateurism akin to throwing the movement down the gutter to target a group of people. Hell even say "Islam free" even THAT would be mighty fine. But muslim- free just does not cut it. I dont know why people can't see that.

Baron
You said its mild compared to their standards. So we are comparing ourselves to the jihadists now? Thank you.

Beach girl
So kaafir-free arabia is mighty fine for you. I see. We have nothing more to talk about.

Sccott said...

nice video
Iam Indian and iam glad the british occupied India.

1 Imagine british hadnt invaded india..then perhaps we would be still 540 princely states fighting among ourselves or in a deadly civil war like in some african nations

2 They brought ENGLISH to india which helped the IT revolution..English became a common language among indians to communicate since india has around 1500 native languages.

3 British brought modern educational practices which has helped indians so much.modern thought and rational thinking.technology railways roads.

4 They were much more peaceful rulers than the Moghuls.

joe said...

Regarding a mohammedan free Denmark:

The mohammedans of this world have collectively become a serious quality of life problem for everyone else around, most particularly for the people living near large concentrations of mohammedans.

The fact is that if all the mohammedans magically disappeared, the world would immediately become a safer, better more livable place. Whole populations would be able to put their arms down, heave a sigh of relief and go back to working on their private lives.

Not to mention the vast fortunes the rest of us have to spend defending ourselves from hostile mohammedans! All that money could be turned to productive, positive purposes.

Whatever this might remind the reader of is irrelevant. I am not speaking in poetry. It is just a fact of our lives.

Neither am I proposing that the rest of the world go on a mohammedan-mudering rampage.

But the facts have to be faced, stated, thought about and acted on.

And they are facts.

Denmark without mohammedans would be a better safer place.

Pretending otherwise changes nothing.

Let the mohammedans themselves come up with solutions to that problem.

So far they have had nothing to suggest but either willful ignorance or sharia.

And to judge by the quality of life in the hell-holes ruled by sharia today, that idea doesn't work so well.

Phanarath said...

Tushar

I am sorry. I get exited over these matters.

The place my grandfather used live and where I sometimes played as a child, now lies within a muslim area. Today its a very unsafe place with the problems I described above and much more, smaller things like gender separation, halal this and haram that and constant demands for special treatment for the mostly unemployed population of the area.

The only group of people behaving in this destructive way, are Muslims. And its not just a few, as some might think, its a collective pattern that they repeat everywhere, where they become a local majority. The visible troublemakers might only be a small percentage, but the collective pattern always seems to be the same.

Its Islam itself as a whole that creates these problems, and for most common people this is obvious. I get so tired of intellectuals who try to find ways to explain this simple fact away. And many have tried.

There are lots of muslims who are kind and peaceful as individuals, that's true. But they still show the same collective patterns when enough of them get together. They start to see themselves as opposed to the non-muslims around them.

To target Jihad and Sharia as the real reason for the problems is just one more clever way to try to excuse Islam. And while intellectuals play mind games, teenage girls get raped. And yes it makes me hostile as it should do, but I am sorry for directing it at you.

The essence of the problem comes from the muslim identification as being in opposition to other groups. If we somehow make all muslims sign a treaty or a contract, saying that they reject Jihad and Sharia and we let them keep the identification as muslims, they will simply hide their belief in Jihad and Sharia from us and keep it to themselves until they feel ready to confront us. As long as they can identify themselves as muslims, it will be used to control the behavior of people within their system, and at the same time time tell us what we want to hear.

Therefor we must strike at this identification, by banning muslim organisation, symbolism and garments that are used to signal that people are muslim. By doing this we can remove the iron grip the muslim community have over its members, and then it be will possible to slowly start to make things more positive and peaceful for everyone. I am pretty sure that many of those we call moderates would be happy about this, secretly at first.

Or we can sit on our high moral horses and wait for the whole thing to blow, while we argue details about how many peaceful muslims there are or what verses we think are the most evil. We can let our children and people who don't have the resources to relocate be the foot soldiers in a war, they never asked for and that we refuse to even acknowledge, while we convince ourselves that this somehow makes us better then others.

If I didn't address your question now, then its because I don't understand it.

Khalid said...

I'm Muslim and I found this rather silly.

First of all, they're burning the infamously racist Danish cartoons, not anything that actually represents Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him. If any Muslim had these cartoons, they would probably burn them too. The irony has escaped the Danish rednecks in this video... hilarious!

Second, reasonable people in West will see this video and be reminded of the witch-burnings and KKK bonfires which are strangely unique to "Western Civilization" and realize that these dark trends still exist amongst us, and that Islamophobia is a real, not imagined or exaggerated, phenomenon.

I hope this video gets a lot of publicity!

Younghusband said...

Redirected my classroom in the centre of Beijing today listening to Churchill's speeches. His Fulton speech seems apropos here with Islamofascism replacing the Soviet threat.
http://imperialflags.blogspot.com/2007/03/my-collection-of-flags-on-display-in-my.html
My biggest flag is a Danish one my colleague brought back for me. When I get a new camera I'll take a picture of it.

Jason_Pappas said...

This has got to be your most popular post if we judge from the number of comments. You must throw more parties like this!

Tushar said...

Phanarath,

Of course you are 100% right! Therefore to make myself even clearer I added that even "ISLAM-FREE" would be fine and cool. This is what your position seems to support. That identification with Islam causes all these problems, and of course its Muslims who identify with Islam. But from the above comment of yours, I do get the impression that "Islam-free" would solve it, rather than "muslim-free". The principal here is the same. Communism-free not Russian-free, and yes i know there are differences, but thats my general point.

Hope that clarifies it further.

Phanarath said...

Thanks Tushar

I am glad we are in agreement.

And please believe that Arabs or Persians or any other group is in no way a target here.

We have freedom of religion in the west. That means that no one can be born to a religion or in any other way have it forced on them. We need to insist on this or we can kiss freedom of religion goodbye.

All the talk about "race" in this context, is also just a weak attempt to excuse Islam, by trying to imply that people somehow cant help themselves and should therefore not be held individually responsible.

Dymphna said...

Phanarath said --

We have freedom of religion in the west. That means that no one can be born to a religion or in any other way have it forced on them.

But i think we are born into a religion or belief...or lack thereof. And then as we make our way in the world, we either choose to stay with our family's religious sensibilities or we develop our own, using some of our family's structure, rejecting other parts.

One of my favorite philosophers, Gabriel Marcel, was born into an atheist family and was one himself until his thirties, when he converted to Catholicism. Same with Thomas Merton. One can describe their journeys in psychological terms, but that limits their meaning. "the heart has its reasons, etc."

IOW, we are born into a social structure that makes us human. What we do with that as we grow up and move out of our family of origin is up to us -- at least in the West. That is both our strength and our weakness...it can be extended to a reductio ad absurdum until it stretches into meaninglessness.

The various "piss Christ" images are examples of that extremity when it comes to our aesthetic sensibilities. Those "works" impress no one but people who like to look at naked emperors and pretend they are gloriously attired. To the rest of us, they're insipid and boring.

This reminds me of meeting the Baron and discovering he was an artist. My children asked carefully, "what kind of artist is he?" When they saw his pictures, all skillfully done landscapes or still lifes, they let out a sigh of relief. "I thought he might paint those awful things you'd have to explain to us," said one. Another said, some years later, "you know, he changes the way you see things once you've studied his pictures."

I wandered off topic: families matter when it comes to the building blocks of our belief. They give us the raw material and we build our lives with it, either transcending their limits or staying within them.

And there is something to be said for both ways.

Phanarath said...

Dymphna

Ah yes. You are right and I agree.

I was thinking about "in the eyes of the law". We have the personal right to chose, and therefore also have the personal responsibility for the religion or ideology we follow.

So even though we might naturally follow the religion of our parents or our people in general. It doesn't mean that religion should ever be compared to something we have no control over like race or birthplace. At least not in the eyes of the law.

And so being a Muslim can never be compared to being a German or a Russian. And while we could fight Nazism or Communism and make peace with Germans and Russians. We cannot stop Islam without opposing Muslims. That would be like trying to stop Nazism without opposing Nazis. It makes no Sense.

Nabil said...

Mikkela, the greatest job of Satan is Islam.
How do you suggest that we deal with it?
The I eslamists are using the FEAR tactics. If we submit, I assure you, they will take over in no time ata all.
I am not suggesting that we behave barbaric like them, but, we definitly use any measure to conqure this evil.
I was born and raised in Islamic country in the ME. I know, as a Christian, the extreme hate and viciousness of Islam.
I salute the danish.

Nabil said...

Trinity and Monotheism
The first principle of the doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one, true, eternal, living Being who is God by nature and Maker of heaven and earth.
Trinitarians do not believe that the Father, Son and Holy Sprit are three separate gods.
“I am the Lord and there none else.” (Isa.45:18b)
“There is one God.” (1Tim.2:5)
The evidence is so overwhelming that even the demons understand that there is only one God (James 2:19). Yet, such cults as the Mormons teach that there are billions of gods.
Mohammad had the mistaken idea that the Christians worshipped three gods-the Father, the Mother and the Son (surah 5:73). He assumed that when Christians referred to God as “the Father”, this meant that the father was an exalted male deity who had a divine consort named Miriam. They had sexual intercourse and she conceived and gave birth to a son called Jesus. WHAT NONSENSE.
Given the pagan background of Mohammad, he erroneously assumed that the Trinity was composed of a male and female deity and that Jesus was the fruit of their sexual intercourse. What else one can expect from a man with his way of life?!
Yet the Koran states, “She said: “O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.” He said: “So (it will be) for Allah creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: “Be!”-and it is.” Surah 3:47
Christians do not believe that God the Father is a male deity. They do not believe that Mary was his female consort. He was supernaturally conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit:
Luke 1:31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32”He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His Father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.”
Christians believe: The Father (God), His Word (His Mind) and His Spirit (His soul) are three in One. One cannot imagine a Mighty God who created the earth and heaven and everything in them, has no mind and no soul. Christians believe in a Live God (has Spirit) and has a Mind with which He can create and control His creation. The Word was incarnated in the flesh and became Man (Jesus).
Jesus IS GOD, the only God.
That is what Christians believe for over 2000 years, REGARDLESS OF WHAT OTHERS SAY.
Simple? It is if one believes that The Mighty God can do anything, and nothing is beyond His power, He CAN incarnate His word in the flesh and come to earth to save us and teach us peace and love.

:
The misunderstanding that Christians worship 3 gods. Mohammad use this unfounded idea to get back at the Christians for the way they treated him in Mecca.

richardjohnpurvis said...

Great stuff! Well done, Danes! All that was missing was a copy of the koran with a pork chop stuck in the middle, it would've burned beautifully! LOL At any rate, screw islam and the mindless monkeys that claim it as a religion!

All the best from Canada!

Reggae Warrior said...

This essay below explains why we find burning Muhammad in effigy so rewarding.

ISLAM: IS IT A RELIGION OF PEACE?

by Andrew J. Stunich

One of the enduring and seemingly impossible to resolve threats to World peace and safety is terrorism carried out by Muslims who claim that Islam authorizes their conduct. In response to that terrorism, a host of Islamic experts, celebrities, and politicians such as Dr. Aziz (HSU professor), Oprah Winfrey, and President Bush, have opined that Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists are distorting Islamic teachings to justify their conduct. Americans were inundated with this message post- 9/11/2001 to such an extent that it has become conventional wisdom and anyone who challenges that conventional wisdom is often labeled a racist or a bigot. This is true even though Muslims are hardly limited to any particular race. Arabs, for example, comprise less than twenty-five percent of the World's Muslims.

Given the consequences of rendering any opinion that challenges the proposition that Islam is a religion of peace, it is not pleasant to feel compelled to voice a different conclusion. This is especially true about a religious topic that engenders such an extreme emotional response in so many people. However, it is important that we all know the truth so that we can properly exercise our democratic rights. It is ultimately the will of the majority (at least the majority of those who vote) that determines the long-term direction of a democratic society and if we are misinformed our votes will be equally misinformed and misguided.

It is, therefore, crucial that we have an accurate understanding of Islamic terrorists and what motivates them. This is especially true given that Islam is not just a religion, but is a combined religious, political, and social system. Understanding the true nature of Islam is so important because there is a marked difference between a threat that is based on false religious teachings and a threat that truly derives from the actual doctrines of one of the World's most widespread religious faiths. The latter is more likely to cause the threat to endure and spread and to defy resistance.

After intensely studying the question of Islam, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that Islamic doctrine easily supports terrorist activity and offensive (not limited to defensive) warfare. It is patently an error to assert that Islam is universally a religion of peace. I reached my conclusions by, amongst other endeavors, simply reading the Koran and hadiths (Muhammad's recorded life and deeds), both of which are universally accepted as the basis for Islamic doctrine.

My opinion that Islam is not universally a religion of peace does not mean that I believe all Muslims are terrorists. Obviously, most Muslims are not terrorists. I further believe that most Muslims want peace; however, there is a marked difference between certain Muslims as individuals and Islamic doctrine. A writer named Theodore Dalyrymple, in a June 4, 2006, article writing for City Magazine, eloquently assessed the difference between moderate Muslims and Islamic doctrine as follows:

"It is important, of course, to distinguish between Islam as a doctrine and Muslims as people. Untold numbers of Muslims desire little more than a quiet life; they have the virtues and the vices of the rest of mankind. Their religion gives to their daily lives an ethical and ritual structure and provides the kind of boundaries that only modern Western intellectuals would have the temerity to belittle."

Despite the peaceful and sometimes beneficial application of some parts of Islam to some Muslims' lives, it is simply untenable to argue that peace is the main characteristic of the faith of Islam and that Islam offers no true support for some of the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam. The opposite is true. Muslims become moderate by either being unaware of the teachings that comprise Islamic doctrine, by ignoring those doctrines, or by attributing strained meanings or interpretations to the teachings of Islam and Islamic history. Because Islam does in fact support terrorism, many "moderate" Muslims respect the fundamentalists as true Muslims and are afraid to speak out against them. I also acknowledge that fear is often a factor. However, regardless as to the fear or other reasons for not speaking out, it is hard for moderate Muslims to speak out because the undeniable fact is that Islam alone among the World's religions commands the Muslim faithful to wage war against non-Muslims until they submit to Islam.

Consider the following verses from the Koran translated from Arabic by Yusuf Ali:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans [Idolaters or polytheists] wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Koran chapter 9, verse 5)

"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle [Muhammad], nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Koran chapter 9, verse 29)

To summarize the verses, collectively they mean that Pagans (some Koran translations say idolaters) must convert to Islam or be killed and Jews and Christians must, at a minimum, submit to Islam as the dominant religion, government and social order, and pay a tax, or convert to Islam or be killed. This doctrine comes from Islam's holiest book and, as shown below, there are other aspects of Islamic doctrine that command the same violent and intolerant approach.

These Sword Verses (some call verse 9:29 the "tribute" verse) quoted above speak strongly to Muslim fundamentalists. Because most people in the West are secular, it is often difficult for Westerners to appreciate how deeply religious belief can impact individuals and society. The impact of devout religious belief is magnified in the Islamic World because of the duel nature of Islam as a religious and political system that permeates nearly all aspects of life in most Islamic countries. Try to understand how the foregoing verses would affect you if you believed they were literally the word of God and you lived in a society wherein Islam dominated your religious, political, business and social pursuits. The Koran is the holiest book in Islam. Muslims believe that the Koran is not just inspired by God, but that it is literally the Word of God as revealed by God to Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (Islam's revered seventh century Prophet or Messenger); consequently, verses contained in the Koran impact Muslims' behavior in ways that Westerners have difficulty grasping. The Koran lists four seemingly contradictory ways in which God allegedly revealed his Word to Muhammad: Directly by God (Koran chapters 53 and 81); by God via the Archangel Gabriel (Koran chapter 2); by the Holy Spirit (Koran chapters 16 and 26); and by an Angel (Koran chapter 15).

Regardless as to how they believe the revelations were accomplished, Muslims universally revere the Koran as the literal word of God and they revere Muhammad as God's Prophet and his life and sayings, along with the Koran, complete the core of Islamic doctrine. The University of Southern California's Islamic web site teaches Muslims that Mohammad's deeds and words were literally inspired by God. When Muhammad's life history is studied, it is easy to see why Islamic fundamentalists can justifiably say that Islam supports their actions.

It follows that in order to understand Muslim fundamentalists, we must understand something about the Koran and the life of Muhammad and the roles both play in establishing Islamic doctrine. The Koran differs greatly in format from the Bible and the Koran tends to surprise Western readers because the Koran is not written in a narrative form, it is not in any chronological order, it has very little prophecy, no miracles, very little history, no geography, no parables, and no biography of anyone other than a limited insight into the character and life of Muhammad. The Koran is simply a relatively small book (smaller than the New Testament) of seemingly random verses of positive and negative commandments and dire warnings that Muhammad claimed were revealed to him over a twenty-two or twenty-three year period. One Islamic scholar, Reza Aslan the author of No god, but God, aptly calls the Koran a rule book for living.

Exactly what some of those Koranic rules for living are astonish or even offend most readers who adhere to the type of Western values set forth in the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The following paraphrased examples of the teachings in the Koran are some of the most difficult for Westerners to accept:

* There is no separation between Church and State. (Koran chapter 2, verse 193)
* Fighting is prescribed for Muslims. (Koran, chapter 2, verse 216)
* Wives are a field to be used by their husbands as they desire. (Koran, chapter 2, verse 223)
* Men are superior to women. (Koran, chapter 2, verse 228)
* Women have half the rights of men in court as a witness. (Koran, chapter 2, verse 282)
* A man may marry up to four wives at the same time. (Koran chapter 4, verse 3)
* Women have half the rights of men in inheritance rights. (Koran chapter 4, verse 11)
* A man may beat his wife. (Koran chapter 4, verse 34)
* No opposition parties are allowed. (Koran chapter 4, verse 59)
* Stealing is punished by the amputation of the hands. (Koran chapter 5, verse 38)
* A Muslim must not take a Jew or a Christian for a friend. (Chapter 5, verse 51)
* Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to Islam. (Koran chapter 9, verses 5, 29)
* A Muslim apostate (one who leaves the faith) must be killed. (Koran chapter 9, verse 12)
* Muslims must make war on non-Muslims. (Koran chapter 9, verse 73)
* Adultery is punished by public flogging. (Koran chapter 24, verse 2)
* The Koran attributes many negative characteristics to Jews, such as "falsehood" (3:71) and "distortion." (4:46)
* Among other things, the Koran teaches that the Jews have been cursed by Allah, David, and Jesus. (2:61; 5:78-82)
* Allah was so disgusted with Jews that he transformed them into apes and pigs. (5:60-65; 2:65; 7:166)

The life of Muhammad also has a major impact on Islamic doctrine as Muslims are taught that any ambiguity in the Koran is resolved by looking to Muhammad's words and deeds, which, as noted above, Muslims are taught were inspired by God. The Koran expressly admonishes Muslims in several verses to not only obey God, but to obey his Messenger or Prophet, Muhammad. (See, e.g., 3:32, 3:132, 4:59, 5:92, 8:1, 8:20, 24:47) Hence, following what Muhammad said and did is mandated by the Koran.

Accordingly, the Koran is just a part of Islamic doctrine. The hadiths are the reports of Muhammad's words and actions that complete the core of Islamic doctrine. The Koran and the hadiths are the foundations for later Islamic legal rulings known as Sharia Law. The role of the hadiths in Islam is properly explained in the University of Southern California's web site:

"In Islam, the Arabic word sunnah has come to denote the way Prophet Muhammad (saas), the Messenger of Allah, lived his life. The Sunnah is the second source of Islamic jurisprudence, the first being the Qur'an (another way Koran is spelled). Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them. The Arabic word hadith (pl. ahadith) is very similar to Sunnah, but not identical. A hadith is a narration about the life of the Prophet (saas) or what he approved - as opposed to his life itself, which is the Sunnah as already mentioned."

The hadiths, which set forth much of the life and deeds of Muhammad, offer no refuge to those who would try to give Islam a softer image outside the Islamic World by labeling it a religion of peace. One of the most widely accepted hadith collectors and editors is Al Bukhari. According to Bukhari:

Mohammed said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, and whoever says, None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, his life and property will be saved by me." (Al Bukhari Vol. 4:196)

Mohammed's last words at his deathbed purportedly were: "Turn the pagans (non-Muslims as that was the practical application) out of the Arabian Peninsula." (Al Bukhari, Vol. 5:716)

Mohammed said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed). " (Al Bukhari, Vol. 1:35)

Mohammed once was asked: what was the best deed for the Muslim next to believing in Allah and His Apostle? His answer was: "To participate in Jihad in Allah's cause." (Al Bukhari Vol. 1: 25)

If anyone believes that I am simply taking a few negative portions of Islamic doctrine from a sea of more enlightened Koranic verses, consider the additional verses from the Koran set forth below. Once again, to try to best understand Islam, imagine as you read these verses that you believe they are not only commandments from God, but literally the word of God as revealed to Muhammad whose words and deeds you also believe to be inspired by God.

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not." (2:216)

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, . . . And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith." (2:190-191)

"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." (2:193)

"Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers." (9:14)

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!" (9:30)

"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, - an evil refuge indeed.." (9:73)

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that God is with those who fear Him." (9:123)

"The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" (5:33)

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.' This because they contended against God and His Apostle: If any contend against God and His Apostle, God is strict in punishment." (8:12-13)

"In order that God may separate the impure (non-Muslims) from the pure, put the impure, one on another, heap them together, and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost." (8:37)

"Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah." (8:60)

"Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. . ." (48:29)

"When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly." (17:16)

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks [chop their heads off]; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God, - He will never let their deeds be lost." (47:4)

Nicholas Berg was kidnaped in Iraq and later beheaded in May 2004 by Islamic militants. Remember all those so-called Islamic experts that, following the Nicholas Berg beheading, said there was no support within Islamic doctrine for the cutting off of heads? Apparently the experts forgot about chapter 47, verse 4, and chapter 8, verses 12-13 from the Koran.

With respect to the verses regarding Jihad, note that Jihad is an Arabic word which translates to English as "struggle." Jihad can mean striving to be a better Muslim (known as the greater Jihad). The most well known meaning, however, is fighting for Allah (also known as the lesser Jihad). In this sense, Jihad is the struggle for the cause of spreading Islam using all means available to Muslims, including force and deception (Islamic doctrine known as Al Takeyya). The lesser Jihad is what has become to be known as "Holy War." Some critics describe the greater Jihad as trying to find peace after engaging in violent Jihad.

Concerning Jihad, the Koran guarantees Paradise to those who fight for Allah. (4:74) The Koran promises instant Paradise for those who die fighting to advance Islam. (9:111 and 47:5-6) Dying for Allah is presented as preferable to living: "And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass." (3:157)

Martyrs are promised a secure, sensual (sensual is expanded to erotic in the hadiths) and luxurious life in paradise with beautiful women. (44:51-56; 52:17-29) For example, chapter 44, verse 54 promises: "So; and We shall join them to Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes." Some disrupted homicide/suicide bombers have freely admitted that it was the Koranic and hadith promises of virgins in paradise that motivated them.

Based on the foregoing, one can begin to understand why Islamic homicide/suicide bombers are willing to sacrifice themselves. In a culture wherein women and men are largely kept separated, it is not difficult to see how young men might become highly motivated by the foregoing teachings. Muhammad Atta, for example, had a wedding suit packed in one of his carry-on suitcases when he boarded what he knew to be a suicide flight on 9/11 as he believed he would be marrying virgins in paradise. We know this because the carry-on bag was not allowed on the plane and it was subsequently searched by the FBI.

In the hadith, Mohammed also urges Muslims to practice Jihad. (See, Bukhari 4:196, 5:716, 1:35, 1:25)

It is the foregoing Koranic verses and others, as well as numerous hadith based on Muhammad's life and words, that have led to the Islamic world view that divides humanity into two opposing spheres: Dar al-Islam, House of Islam where Islam rules and Dar el Harb, the House of War against non-Muslims. This world view mandates that war will continue between these competing ideologies until the supremacy of Islam is fully established everywhere. Jihad in Islamic theology is one of the instruments to bring about the end of Dar el Harb. That is why we so often hear terrorist leaders stating their goals as follows:


1. Overthrow the secular or partial secular rulers of Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Note that Saudi Arabia and Iran are currently the only two nations that have imposed full Sharia Law. Saudi Arabia is nonetheless targeted because its rulers (Saudi Royal Family) are not religious leaders and even though their support of fundamentalist Islam is nearly as complete as the Caliphs of old, that is not considered good enough.

2. Exterminate Israel. (Drive the Infidels into the sea is a popular way to express the sentiment in the Islamic World.)

3. Force the rest of the world to submit to Islam.

The foregoing goals were articulated by the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, a Shiite religious leader. In 1998, Osama Bin Laden, a Sunni Muslim, stated the same goals. (Sheikh Usamah bin-Muhammad bin-Laden, "Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans," published by Al-Quds al-Arabi on February 23, 1998. (Posted on the Internet at www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm.)

Osama Bin Laden also defiantly declared that the United States is the prime obstacle to the achievement of the foregoing goals and called on Muslims everywhere "to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it."

As can be seen, both Shiite and Sunni Islam have both incited some of the exact same beliefs and goals in Islamic fundamentalists. The reason is the Islamic doctrine set forth above.

So far I have made my case for the proposition that Islam is not a religion of peace by citing Islam's own doctrines and showing how even opposing branches of fundamentalist Islam adhere to and accept the Koran as God's rules for living. However, a more secular analysis supports the same conclusion. Consider the following:

1. Polls indicate that high percentages of our supposed allies in Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia support Osama Bin Laden and his terrorists acts. (The higher percentages are in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.) How could a religion of peace engender such support for random acts of murder and violence in two of the more Islamic fundamentalist countries of the World?

2. Post 9/11/2001, the name, "Osama" has attained a favored name status for newborn male children in several Muslim nations. Why would a religion of peace allow its adherents to honor such a man?

3. Numerous Mosques in Islamic states purportedly exhibit the photo of Bin Laden as a hero of the faith. While I was watching news about the Tsunami relief efforts, I personally saw Osama Bin Laden tee-shirts worn by children.

4. In many nations where Muslims constitute a large percentage of the population, the Islamic faithful gather in the streets yelling "Allah Akbar" (Allah is greater or God is great) every time America or Israel suffers from an Islamic terrorist attack. These street demonstration occur in the West Bank and Gaza strip in Israel, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Sudan, Nigeria, and the Philippines. In America, some Muslims have been observed doing the same. One translator of Iranian descent working at the FBI reported that even FBI translators celebrated 9/11 at work.

5. Some Muslim spokesmen who in public spoke against 9/11 were recorded in private supporting terrorism or terrorist acts. Some so-called moderate leaders say the right buzzwords in English and then express their true sentiments in Arabic when they think they will not be exposed. Yasser Arafat was famous for such deceptive tactics.

6. Polls in England show that at least half of the Muslim population would like to impose Sharia Law as the law of the land.

7. The leaders of the terrorists and or their religious advisers seem to invariably come from backgrounds wherein intense Islamic study was undertaken.

Islamic history also offers support and inspiration to Islamic terrorists. Muhammad, the revered Prophet of Islam and the man whose words and deeds are believed by Muslims to have been inspired by God and his life held out as the perfect example for living, raided caravans for booty and even asserted that one fifth of the booty was his with the rest to be shared by his warriors. Chapter 8 of the Koran is actually titled "Booty."

Muhammad attacked Arabian tribes who would not voluntarily submit to Islam and slaughtered hundreds of captives. After one Jewish tribe surrendered and sought Muhammad's mercy, he ordered 600-900 of the men beheaded and the women and children sold into slavery except for the women he and his followers took as "wives." Muhammad's aggressive tactics continued after any significant resistance to Islam was eradicated on the Arabian peninsula. Jewish tribes fared the worst which, along with very negative verses about Jews in the Koran, is the genesis of the seemingly ubiquitous, extreme anti-Semitic Muslim view toward Jews.

Muhammad had critics and rivals alike assassinated. In fact, the word assassin derives from a Muslim sect that specialized in terrorizing the Muslim elite of their day with politically motivated assassinations. The assassins were renowned for their willingness to sacrifice their life for their cause. Sound familiar?

Muhammad ordered the execution of some people for nothing more than satirical statements about him. There are currently web sites that expressly advocate the killing of anyone that criticizes Muhammad. Is it really surprising then that a devout Muslim named Mohammad brutally murdered Theo van Gogh in 2004? (Theo van Gogh was a controversial and inappropriately cruel and harsh critic of Islam and Muslims who was killed by Mohammad Bouyeri who then left a five page note that threatened Western governments and Jews.)

It should be parenthetically noted that there are several excellent sources for the history of Muhammad. The oldest and most accepted history of Muhammad was written by a devout Muslim named Ibn Ishaq. What has been saved of Ibn Ishaq's work can be read in an easy to read abridged version at http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/. William Muir's history of Muhammad is also an excellent source and can also be found online, but its language has become dated. Robert Spencer's book, The Truth About Muhammad, is also an excellent source and it is very accurate and well supported.

The hadiths also show that Muhammad accepted one man's story that he murdered his own wife and gestating child because the man alleged his wife had blasphemed Muhammad. Muhammad ordered that the man should not be punished. (This incident was recorded in a hadith.)

Before he died, Muhammad made preparations to attack Syria. After his death, his followers, some of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Caliphs means successors to Muhammad) as Islam calls them, spent ten years fighting to force all of the Arabian tribes to covert to Islam or to return to Islam when they tried to abandon Islam after Muhammad's death. Muhammad's followers eventually conquered the Holy Land and other parts of the Byzantine Empire (last of the Romans) and what remained of the Persian empire. Muslims eventually conquered Spain, parts of France, Constantinople, and, with some setbacks along the way such as the loss of Spain, continued to conquer and subdue until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

One of Muhammad's generals, Walid Khalid, who also served some of the successors to Muhammad known as the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, was known as the Sword of Allah and was renowned for his military prowess and his brutality. Even the highly regarded Saladin slaughtered captives at Hatin (the battle that preceded the Muslim re-conquest of Jerusalem) and motivated his warriors by having the Koranic verses set forth above read to them. The exploits of Saladin, Muhammad, and Walid Khalid are well known to Islamic fundamentalists and they draw inspiration from their recorded actions. Osama Bin Laden seems assured of eventually taking his place amongst these revered Islamic icons.

Critics of my position will argue that there are many verses in the Koran that advocate peace and tolerance. They are correct. However, the Koran was not presented as a complete book by Muhammad and to understand it one must realize how the verses came into existence.

Koran literally means "recite" or "recitation" in Arabic. Muhammad alleged that the angel Gabriel told him to recite. At no time did Muhammad say that he was ordered to write nor was he ever compelled to write down and collect his alleged revelations. He never presented his complete revelations at one time as a complete rule book for living. Rather, the Koran was created approximately twenty years after Muhammad's death. Arab society in the seventh century was an oral society with little writing. Most of the people, and perhaps Muhammad himself, were illiterate. Hence, Muhammad verbally revealed verses sporadically over a period of at least twenty-two years. The verses were revealed based on the circumstances of the time and what Muhammad hoped to accomplish.

The most famous peace verse in the Koran which states, "[t]here is no compulsion in religion," was revealed while Muhammad was in Mecca still trying to convince the people of Mecca (mostly polytheists) to voluntarily convert to Islam. He had very little success and he and his followers were eventually driven out of Mecca to Medina. When Muhammad came to power in Medina, his entire approach changed from trying to persuade others to convert solely by voluntary means and he began to reveal the harsher verses of the Koran. These subsequent verses were meant to replace early verses. "When We substitute one revelation for another, - and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." (Koran, chapter 16, verse 101) "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?" (Koran, chapter 2, verse 106)

It follows that what was happening within the Muslim community at the time verses were revealed plays an important role in interpreting the Koran. Sadly, that history, as briefly set forth above, overwhelmingly supports the fundamentalists' interpretation and leads to violence as terrorists mimic the life of Muhammad that they are taught was inspired by God and which constitutes the perfect example for living. The Sword Verses were some of the last verses revealed by Muhammad and it is difficult to convince fundamentalists that earlier verses revealed in Mecca before the Hijrah (transfer to Medina) should guide their behavior.

Regarding the interpretation of the Koran, to put the entire matter into perspective by way of analogy, imagine a student telling a teacher that, following a lecture, an order to take a test was ambiguous because earlier in the day the teacher had said to pay attention to the lecture. We would all agree such a position is strained at best. Those who advocate that the harsher verses of the Koran are unclear because of the earlier peaceful commands are simply ignoring how the Koran came into existence and their position is equally strained.

Based on the foregoing, notwithstanding the diversity of belief in the Islamic World, including those like Dr. Aziz that advocate a peaceful interpretation of Islam, there will always be fundamentalists who adhere to the "true faith" and advocate violence until the whole World submits to Islam. Can we then honestly claim that Islam is universally a religion of peace?

With so much Islamic terrorism in the World, and an entire nation such as Saudi Arabia with at least nineteen million inhabitants in which militant Wahabbi Islam (A Sunni branch of Islam) is the law of the land, does it not seem logical that something within the Islamic religion is inspiring terrorism? Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals wherein fundamentalist Islam is the only religion allowed. If the militancy and terror generated by Wahabbi Islam is an aberration with no relation to true Islam, then why is it that Shiite Islamic theology in Iran has produced the same militant type of Islam and terrorism even though the two sects are quite hostile to one another? Why were the Taliban so intolerant and militant even though their very name derives from them being students of Islamic theology? Why is there so much Islamic militancy in Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Lebanon, and the Aceh province in Indonesia? Why did the Armenian genocide occur in which nearly one and a half million Christians were slaughtered or deported in 1915 under Turkish Ottoman rule (now Turkey) in the 20th century? How can Islamic militancy in such diverse parts of the World be explained if it does not, at least in part, derive from Islamic doctrine?

It seems, at least to me, simply too plain for argument that Islam promotes violence and cannot be said to be a religion of peace given that it inspires so much terror and intolerance. That Islamic terrorism threatens us daily. As technology and the capacity for terrorists to cause mass destruction increases, the stakes are going up and we must understand what the true root of the problem is if we are to have the best possible chance of defending ourselves.

Many diverse individuals have reached similar conclusions. Salman Rushdie, a renowned liberal, wrote the following in 2001:

"‘This isn't about Islam.' The world's leaders have been repeating this mantra for weeks, partly in the virtuous hope of deterring reprisal attacks on innocent Muslims living in the West, partly because if the United States is to maintain its coalition against terror it can't afford to suggest that Islam and terrorism are in any way related.
The trouble with this necessary disclaimer is that it isn't true. If this isn't about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why did those 10,000 men armed with swords and axes mass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, answering some mullah's call to jihad? Why are the war's first British casualties three Muslim men who died fighting on the Taliban side?
Why the routine anti-Semitism of the much-repeated Islamic slander that "the Jews" arranged the hits on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with the oddly self-deprecating explanation offered by the Taliban leadership, among others, that Muslims could not have the technological know-how or organizational sophistication to pull off such a feat? Why does Imran Khan, the Pakistani ex-sports star turned politician, demand to be shown the evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt while apparently turning a deaf ear to the self-incriminating statements of Al Qaeda's own spokesmen (there will be a rain of aircraft from the skies, Muslims in the West are warned not to live or work in tall buildings)? Why all the talk about American military infidels desecrating the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia if some sort of definition of what is sacred is not at the heart of the present discontents?
Of course this is ‘about Islam.' The question is, what exactly does that mean? . . ."

Through the centuries, other independent thinkers have arrived at the same conclusion that Islam is not a religion of peace. Alexis de Tocqueville, a nineteenth century political thinker, commentator and historian, purportedly said:

"I studied the Kuran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."

The following quote from the sixth American President, John Quincy Adams, (1825-1829) is revealing. Cited in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer, page 83:

"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab . . . [i.e., Muhammad], [.....] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men."

(Note that Robert Spencer's book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), notwithstanding the politically polarizing title, is an excellent source for understanding the darker side of Islam. It is accurate, well written, and interesting.)

The foregoing is just a small sampling of the people who have all reached the same inescapable conclusion that Islam is not a religion of peace. So many educated people from highly diverse backgrounds who formed their opinions about Islam centuries apart have come to the same conclusion for a reason. The reason is that Islam is simply not a religion of peace and we must have the courage to say so and deal with the problem in the most effective, humanitarian way that we can.

In a World where Iran, a universally acknowledged terrorist state under Sharia Law, is on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons and has vowed to share those nuclear weapons with the Islamic World, we must ponder, as Mr. Rushdie did: "Of course this is ‘about Islam.' The question is, what exactly does that mean?"