PDA

View Full Version : Islam: A "Religion of Peace"?



nicholas
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 01:42 PM
*stolen from http://redwoodreality.blogspot.com/, I also have it on my blog http://nickbravo.blogspot.com/*

August 3, 2006

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. (8:41) 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.)

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."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?"

nicholas
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 01:45 PM
Clearly it is no more a religion of peace than is judaism and christianity.

Anyone know any accurate historical sources on Islam warlike past?

Pervitinist
Wednesday, August 30th, 2006, 03:55 PM
Clearly it is no more a religion of peace than is judaism and christianity.

And what's so bad about non-peaceful religions? All life is war, as the Greeks, the Romans, the Aryans of ancient India and the old Germans knew. The challenge of Islam might help us erase the last remnants of our own christian-pacifist indoctrination.

nätdeutsch
Wednesday, August 30th, 2006, 11:28 PM
the difference between islam and christianity is that the founder of christianity preached pacifism, while the founder of islam preached militarism.

there are violent instances of christianity, and these are all wrong. they have been misguided. the heart of christianity is peaceful, the heart of islam is not.

Gundahar
Wednesday, August 30th, 2006, 11:54 PM
What's interesting is, that Islam was founded by war, as well as the landtaking of the ancient Jewish tribes was done through war and genocide. Christianity contrary was from the start on a philosophy of peace. It was just later during late ancient times and the middle-age transformed into a religion of war. Otherwise it would haver never been able to get a foothold among the warlike Celtic or Germanic societies. I am no defender of Christianity because I am heathen, but thats a significant difference nevertheless.

Muhammad, the prophet and most important person in Islam, was most of his time a merchant, and later a general. He fought against the Meccans, raided their caravans and at the end occupied their city. So fighting with physical violence was never seen as an evil act in Islam, quite contrary. As I said before, Islam was founded on war. Without war, there would have never been an islamic religion. Starting from the occupation of Mecca we can move on in history and see how the Muslims overran Northern Africa and the Middle East. The next step was the invasion in Spain.

In the year 711 AC, the Moors conquered Spain, which was under the christian rule of the Vizigoths. Under their Berber leader Tariq ibn-Ziyad, they landed at Gibraltar on April 30 and brought most of the Iberian Peninsula -except for small areas in the northwest and largely Basque - under Islamic rule in an eight-year campaign. They attempted to move northeast across the Pyrenees Mountains toward France, but were defeated by the Frankish Christian Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732 AC. The Moors ruled in North Africa, parts of Spain and Portugal regions in the Pyrenees for seven hundred years.

On the other side of europe in the east, the Muslims were hindered by the powerful city of Constantinople(Byzantium) for centuries. The city was protected by very high walls, which were practically insuperable with middle-age or ancient warfare. But with the invention of blackpowder that allowed cannon artillery the Ottomans managed to break the walls by cannon fire. The walls were high but not very thick. They were designed to hold of an assault with storm ladders and melee infantry, but not to resist cannon fire. So on Tuesday, May 29, 1453 the Ottoman Empire's forces led by Sultan Mehmed II defeated the last defenders of Constantinople and so the Eastern Roman Empire, which had lasted over a thousand years, had come to an end.

Thus the eastern gate to Europe was knocked open by the muslim invaders, quickly they overrun Eastern Europe, the Balkans. Many Slavic tribes tried to resist against the muslims, but they had no chance.

1529 they stood at south-eastern gate of the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian City Vienna. This was the so called first siege of Vienna. The Ottomans besieged them hard, broke through the walls several times, but they couldnt defeat the defenders. After several weeks of siegeing and attacking the Ottomans had to retreat.

On July the 14th, 1683 the second siege of Vienna began by the Ottoman army commanded by Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha. They besieged the city for two months and then they attacked. This time Vienna would have fallen to the Muslims if not a relief force from Poland and Lithuania led by King Jan III Sobieski had come in time to help the defenders and bring defeat to the Ottomans the second time in front of the walls of Vienna.

After these risky battles and sieges, both at Vienna and Tours and Portiers, the Christians managed to push back the Muslims and reduce their influence on the european continent. In Spain the reconquista took place and threw the muslims out of Al-Andalus. At the Balkan the military campaings of the Holy Roman Empire managed to hold them off from entering central europe.

I have deliberately not mentioned the occupation of christan Jerusalem and the Crusader States by Saladin, because they were formed through christian agression.

So you can see that Islam is everything else than a religion of peace. It was a religion of war, it is a religion of war and it ever will be a religion of war. Today we must not be stupid and make mistakes that our ancestors, who defended our lands against the muslims, havent done. They never underestimated the muslims and they never thought that they were peaceful, and they never thought that they could live peacefully side by side with them.

Jack
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 03:37 AM
Islam is labelled a 'religion of peace' by the Western elites simply because if the truth was widely known, Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' thesis would not only be proved, but taken to another level. Even the liberal degenerates recognise that one cannot tolerate the intolerant - hence why they choose to have fascists and NS locked up. Tolerance is not nor has it even been a theoretically solid stance upon which to build a polity - it is empty. The 'solid' concepts at the core of liberalism - freedom of speech, the press, property and so on - are diametrically opposed to Islam. The 'peace' of Islam is the peace between the Muslim and Allah, not between Muslim and infidel. That would be supreme capitulation - the faithful must reign supreme, Dar Al-Harb must be crushed by dar Al-Islam. If there is going to be a permanent peace, it will be in the form of 'create a desert and call it peace' - ultimately, either the Muslim world is the only civilization left, or Mecca is reduced to ruins and Islam dissolves as a religion. Any kind of 'cease-fire' is necessarily temporary. For that equation to enter the minds of every Westerner would be to get the ball rolling and initiate total war, something which the Western elites - for Middle Eastern and Caucasian oil and natural gas - aren't willing to let happen on such a grand scale.

Not to mention they're deluded by their own lies and misconceptions.

nätdeutsch
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 03:46 AM
peace in islam means that theyve conquered all the infidels.....
not very peaceful for those they hate, is it?

Cedarman
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 06:24 AM
Holy crap people LOL, i mean islam would be a peacefull religion these days if people would just leave it in peace LOL:thumbup

Look who is making a difference fighting against zionism! :thumbup

Nobody else is fighting the zionists and their occupying ways!:thumbup

and im not talking about osama bin fricken laden, he probably works for america and so does his sunni alqueda.

im not spreading islam;) , but i just want to you people to know, that its islam (actually shiah islamic people) who are against the zionist jews and making a DIFFERENCE and some kind of EFFECT.

Im not saying you people should help or agree with me, but in my oppinion i think white europeans should form their own groups and start resisting their corrupt jewish government in europe. Do something besides sitand type on your computer and complain about it and show negroes on videos beating the crap out of swedish people, form your groups and fricken smash them and do whatever you can drive them out.:thumbup

lol actually this whole reply makes islam a warlike religion:D But its just my own oppinion not a religious one.

im seriously still mad at those negroes for beating up those swedish guys, i couldnt even sleep that night i was so angry.:thumbdown

Jack
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 02:01 PM
Holy crap people LOL, i mean islam would be a peacefull religion these days if people would just leave it in peace LOL:thumbup

Look who is making a difference fighting against zionism! :thumbup

Nobody else is fighting the zionists and their occupying ways!:thumbup

and im not talking about osama bin fricken laden, he probably works for america and so does his sunni alqueda.

im not spreading islam;) , but i just want to you people to know, that its islam (actually shiah islamic people) who are against the zionist jews and making a DIFFERENCE and some kind of EFFECT.

Im not saying you people should help or agree with me, but in my oppinion i think white europeans should form their own groups and start resisting their corrupt jewish government in europe. Do something besides sitand type on your computer and complain about it and show negroes on videos beating the crap out of swedish people, form your groups and fricken smash them and do whatever you can drive them out.:thumbup

lol actually this whole reply makes islam a warlike religion:D But its just my own oppinion not a religious one.

im seriously still mad at those negroes for beating up those swedish guys, i couldnt even sleep that night i was so angry.:thumbdown

While it's understandable you hold your position given you're a Shi'ite, you are absolutely wrong. You see, Zionism proper only really causes problems for ragheads, though it is financially backed by the West. Most of the destructive influence of Jews would have no effect whatsoever without the backing of the white capitalist elites. You see, Zionists - real Israeli ones, that is - well, they're actually doing some relative good for the West, in spite of the U.S.S. Liberty. Because A) would you rather the Jews were in Europe?, B) they're surrounded by Muslims, which makes them overly paranoid and militarised, C) they've got more balls than Europe does, right now, when it comes to grinding armies of Muslims down and would most assuredly do something severe if a Muslim country aquired nuclear weapons - and if Israel wasn't in the way, they'd definetly be pointed at Europe, guarenteed.


I mean, shit, Israel would've authorised live ammunition to use on the rioters if the riots in France had've happened across Israel.

Anyone who thinks Muslims hate the West because of Israel is a fool. Israel didn't exist when the Turks hit Constantinople, it didn't exist when the Ottomans raped the Balkans, it didn't exist when the Arabs invaded Spain.

Delenda est Mecca.

nätdeutsch
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 02:07 PM
Holy crap people LOL, i mean islam would be a peacefull religion these days if people would just leave it in peace LOL:thumbup

Look who is making a difference fighting against zionism! :thumbup

Nobody else is fighting the zionists and their occupying ways!:thumbup

and im not talking about osama bin fricken laden, he probably works for america and so does his sunni alqueda.

im not spreading islam;) , but i just want to you people to know, that its islam (actually shiah islamic people) who are against the zionist jews and making a DIFFERENCE and some kind of EFFECT.

Im not saying you people should help or agree with me, but in my oppinion i think white europeans should form their own groups and start resisting their corrupt jewish government in europe. Do something besides sitand type on your computer and complain about it and show negroes on videos beating the crap out of swedish people, form your groups and fricken smash them and do whatever you can drive them out.:thumbup

lol actually this whole reply makes islam a warlike religion:D But its just my own oppinion not a religious one.

im seriously still mad at those negroes for beating up those swedish guys, i couldnt even sleep that night i was so angry.:thumbdown



can you please use a few more smilies? you havent gotten your point across.

islam is a religion of conquering, and muslims are committing the majority of crimes in europe. something like 85% of all rapists are muslims in italy.
i say, how bout they "fix' the middle east before they screw europe and america and canada.

Lusitano
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 03:41 PM
The problem is that islamic wankers just like our forum member Cerdarman are a bunch of liars and hipocrits. The worst is when they use our channels to express their poisenous views of love and peace, while they cheers up the beheading of just another 19 years old russian soldier, the lapidation of a girl who have make love with her boyfriend without being married, or even applaude once again and again the terrorist attacks in european cities.

Let's say it loud and clear, as Pierre Vial wrote recently, those who allign with the islamic lunatics are puting themselves in the field of the enemy and should be dealt properly.

Aptrgangr
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 04:57 PM
The problem is that islamic wankers just like our forum member Cerdarman are a bunch of liars and hipocrits.
The problem is not Cedarman here, he may have his fun and entertainment - the problem are those retards destroying any folkish movement by claiming being pro-Germanic and propose an alliance with Muzzies at the same time. Hipocrits and liars are those bashing Christianity because of it's Jewish roots and accepting worshippers of Quran - a cheap copy of Judaism - at the same time.


The worst is when they use our channels to express their poisenous views of love and peace, while they cheers up the beheading of just another 19 years old russian soldier, the lapidation of a girl who have make love with her boyfriend without being married, or even applaude once again and again the terrorist attacks in european cities.
May they use the channels, other followers of several other poisonous ideologies are allowed to to this as well. As long as it is allowed to debunk them I do not complain.


Let's say it loud and clear, as Pierre Vial wrote recently, those who allign with the islamic lunatics are puting themselves in the field of the enemy and should be dealt properly.
Well said. I can remeber having read books explaining the "Romanic decadence". We Germanics are in the situation now, them of all people, Romanics and Slavs, give us good advices whilst we indulge in our naivety - the same naivety having made us loosing battles against the Roman Empire.

Pervitinist
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 09:00 PM
The problem is not Cedarman here, he may have his fun and entertainment - the problem are those retards destroying any folkish movement by claiming being pro-Germanic and propose an alliance with Muzzies at the same time. Hipocrits and liars are those bashing Christianity because of it's Jewish roots and accepting worshippers of Quran - a cheap copy of Judaism - at the same time.

I completely agree. Islam is our enemy and will always be until its annihilation. Besides, Muslim governments are too corrupt and weak to count as possible allies in the war against the Zionist system. Their hysterical and inefficient style of warfare just like their pathetic and cowardlike terrorism just make me sick ... :throwup And now Europe is supposed to pay for their inability to defend themselves - the second-largest world-religion - against a jewish state with a population smaller than that of Austria! Islam is a hopeless case. :shrug

Cedarman
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 01:32 AM
lol lucifer person, you know that the ottomans were sunni muslims lol and that the ottomans fought with shi'ites in arabia LOL:thumbup for a long time:P :P :P

like i said on other posts 95% of the muslims in europe are sunni.

The middle east would do nothin to europe, i dont know why you people think the middle east or muslims are gonna take over europe, its not gonna happen, i dont even want that to happen if were gonna happen by some odd chance.

look Mr. Lucifer you should be worrying about the JEWS and how they corupted euorpe and america in MANY different ways.

come on you love jews admit it, i can tell you do by your post, you love israel as well right LUCIFER:-O :-O :-O :-O :P :P :P :P :P

Cedarman
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 01:49 AM
I cant beleive you people keep on thinking that israel is defeating the middle east by itself ever since they started as a state illegally 60 years ago from day one!:thumbdown

Israel has never done anything on its own, their technology was provided for them.

yes i agree saudi arabia, yemen, and all other middle eastern countries besides Lebanon, iran and syria are weak and siding america because of their corupt government, and they are cowards.


look at the war in lebanon, the jews started it of course, lebanon does not wish to enter such war.

If you people think Hezbollah started the war, your wrong, Israel has over 1000 lebanese people in their hands in prison, hezbollah has captured israeli soldiers many times in the past to trade and save those lebanese people in israel.

Israel happened to take this oppertunity to blame the war on hezbollah because naive americans would beleive everything jews feed them in their narrow minds (averaGE americans not all of them) and take advantage of then jews take advantage of the situation.

with israel having radar artallary being given to them, tanks on top of tanks, and every israeli soldier carries stealth weapons, israel also has stealth airplanes, battleships.

and yet they cannot defeat or even disarm hezbollah:-O :-O :-O

so that right their shows, that shiah muslim people are very strong hearted.

hezbollah has no tanks, no artillary or air planes or not even a boat.

their weapons are second had russian made weapons, and some from iran.

and still they defeated israel on ground like the chicken hearted people they are!!!:thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup

Jack
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 04:11 AM
lol lucifer person, you know that the ottomans were sunni muslims lol and that the ottomans fought with shi'ites in arabia LOL:thumbup for a long time:P :P :P

I'm aware of this, but claiming this is of any significance would - in parallel - to be ignore the fact Protestant nations in Europe cheered with joy when Catholic Spain backed by the Papacy smashed the Turkish fleet at the battle of Lepanto. When it comes down to it, Shi'ites might be heretics (or Sunnis), but you're all aching to have the West brought to its knees and lorded over by Muslims. You can kill each other all you want, but when there's only one variety of Muslim left, I'll bet cash the first thing after reconstruction will be to take on the rest of the world. And that means the West.


like i said on other posts 95% of the muslims in europe are sunni.

LOL. You think I care what denomination of your desert-demon religion is believed in by these colonists you send over to the homelands of my ancestors?


The middle east would do nothin to europe, i dont know why you people think the middle east or muslims are gonna take over europe, its not gonna happen, i dont even want that to happen if were gonna happen by some odd chance.

LOL. Arabs invaded Spain and France. Turks invaded Greek Anatolia, Greece, the Balkans, Romania, and tried pushing through to Austria. Turks slaughtered millions of Armenians who refused to assimilate to pseudo-Western Turkiye. The only reason your fellow believers failed is because of superior firepower and our capacity to recognise a common enemy.


look Mr. Lucifer you should be worrying about the JEWS and how they corupted euorpe and america in MANY different ways.

LOL. I think a lot of this has to do with Western internal dynamics, and not simply how the evil Jews are conspiring to destroy everything.


come on you love jews admit it, i can tell you do by your post, you love israel as well right LUCIFER:-O :-O :-O :-O :P :P :P :P :P

I certainly do support Israel in its quest to brutally suppress Muslim insurrectionists, and I have several Jewish friends. But the upper-crust Jews who are doing damage are outnumbered by whites who support the same ideas, and none of this destruction would've been possible without the backing of the rich white elites. In any case, Jews aren't the ones pack-raping white girls and burning cars and rioting across Europe.

Oh, and btw: those 'chicken-hearted' Israelis killed over ten times the amount of people than your wog jihad monkeys did.

Cedarman
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 06:42 AM
Well Lucifer, i respect your opinion:thumbup

i do not find you any different than an average american, or possibly some jew trying to spy on skadi (just guessing) ;)

Your opinion on Favoring jews and Israel, well you will live a good and easy life but not an honorable one.:|

actually that opinion on Israel, you dont even have to waste time talking to me:thumbdown

tell your jewish friends, that they will never feel comfortable living in a land they stole:thumbup

And for whatever funny theories (that i respect) you have about islam going to war with Europe, in my own opinion it wont happen and by some tiny chance for whatever crazy reason it does happen, im not fighting europe and im very sure the Shi'ites wont bother either.

our enemy is the occupiers ....the zionists;)

Jäger
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 08:24 AM
And what's so bad about non-peaceful religions?


World history would have taken another course and in this case no man can tell if what many blinded pacifists hope to attain by petitioning, whining and crying, may not have been reached in this way: namely, a peace which would not be based upon the waving of olive branches and tearful misery-mongering of pacifist old women, but a peace that would be guaranteed by the triumphant sword of a people endowed with the power to master the world and administer it in the service of a higher civilization.

I don't see how saying Islam is not peacefull makes it somehow bad. However, that Islam is strong in its values is true, and this makes it easy for them to swollow us, we who are trapped in pacifism and false toleration, and where modern christianity has a lion share of guilt in who brought this to us.


...The problem are those retards destroying any folkish movement by claiming being pro-Germanic and propose an alliance with Muzzies at the same time. Hipocrits and liars are those bashing Christianity because of it's Jewish roots and accepting worshippers of Quran - a cheap copy of Judaism - at the same time.
The question is, what is an alliance with Muzzis? Does this mean everyone needs to take a muslim wife? Or that we need to become muslims? That we invite tons of muslims?
Alliances are for war, and war only, and Islam has proven that they produce capable warriors, and are not reluctant to sacrifice them for a cause. Good allies, bad enemies if you ask me.
I don't want Germany to be christian and I don't want it to be muslim either, but why does this mean I have to neglect everything in Islam and Christianity?

Both have good things and bad things. Right now Islam is a threat, but why? Because of christian toleration or because of jewish influence? Either way, it is not their fault. They didn't go out to conquer, we invited them :(

Lusitano
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 10:58 AM
Both have good things and bad things. Right now Islam is a threat, but why? Because of christian toleration or because of jewish influence? Either way, it is not their fault. They didn't go out to conquer, we invited them :(

In here I totally agree with you...


I don't see how saying Islam is not peacefull makes it somehow bad. However, that Islam is strong in its values is true, and this makes it easy for them to swollow us, we who are trapped in pacifism and false toleration, and where modern christianity has a lion share of guilt in who brought this to us.

Here too...


The question is, what is an alliance with Muzzis? Does this mean everyone needs to take a muslim wife? Or that we need to become muslims? That we invite tons of muslims?
Alliances are for war, and war only, and Islam has proven that they produce capable warriors, and are not reluctant to sacrifice them for a cause. Good allies, bad enemies if you ask me.
I don't want Germany to be christian and I don't want it to be muslim either, but why does this mean I have to neglect everything in Islam and Christianity?

Well, here I have to desagree. Why do we need an alliance with the muzzis? Are we so weak at the point that we need the help of some desert rats? Are our enemies enemy our friend? Are our enemy so strong , so superior, that we need to make an contra natura allaince with the muzzis? Are the muzzis less danger then other enemies?

But the real question is; Does the muzzis ever expressed by word or by actions that they would like to have an alliance with european nationalists? NO, never!

It has been allways the nationalists, in some way reconizing their own weakness, that expressed that wish, that suicide desire, of having an alliance with that islamic scumbags.

As for my case, as portuguese, I do not forget the blood and sacrifice my ancestors made for liberating the territory known today as Portugal from the dominance of those desert snakes, and I am sure that neither do the Spanish, the French, the Serbians, the Greeks and so on.

Pervitinist
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 11:51 AM
and yet they cannot defeat or even disarm hezbollah:-O :-O :-O
so that right their shows, that shiah muslim people are very strong hearted.
hezbollah has no tanks, no artillary or air planes or not even a boat.
their weapons are second had russian made weapons, and some from iran.
and still they defeated israel on ground like the chicken hearted people they are!!!:thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup

I would not quite call that a "defeat" of Israel in the military sense, even though it might very well be a political defeat (not a very lasting one, though).

To me it looked like Hezbollah was on the retreat from the first day of this 'war' (which I wouldn't even call a war but a short series of skirmishes). :fobey: Your Islamic heroes were all the time running and hiding behind their own women and children,:afghan :afghan :afghan :afghan waiting for Israeli bombs to hit them so that they could show off some dead bodies on al-Jazeera and create political pressure against Israel while at the same time avoiding any serious military confrontation on the ground (which they knew they couldn't win outside a few heavily entrenched positions).

That strategy of Hezbollah seems to have worked out quite well. Due to rising pressure from the UN and MR. Kofi :negroid the jews were forced to agree to a ceasefire offered (!) by Hezbollah. Otherwise, the jewish army would have easily advanced to Beirut or even Damascus without taking any serious casualties and at the same time killing every puny Hezbollah militant. Just look at the figures below (or is that all fake, it's from the BBC after all:fpaper: ?):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5257128.stm

I am still waiting for any Arab/Islamic armed force - shiite, palestinian or other - to openly confront Israel with guerilla or military tactics instead of purely symbolic, stupid and useless attacks against civilians. But look at Iraq: Even without the Zionist enemy muslim fanatics tend to be so corrupt and stupid to fight each other instead of their real enemies. :jude :jude :jude

nätdeutsch
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 02:20 PM
those hezbollah cowards hid behind women and children and in their houses and got their rear ends handed to them.

you are gunna go and call lucifer a jew, and claim hes spying on the board? last time i checked you werent Germanic either. there are plenty of non-germanics on this board, but as a rule of thumb, its best not to insult those who are.

Jack
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 02:41 PM
Well Lucifer, i respect your opinion:thumbup

No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't go calling me a Jew, which I'm certainly not.


i do not find you any different than an average american, or possibly some jew trying to spy on skadi (just guessing) ;)

The average American has no idea how dangerous your civilisation has been to the rest of the world. He only knows that your people are fucking crazy and hate America and the West - and they're pretty right on that one.


Your opinion on Favoring jews and Israel, well you will live a good and easy life but not an honorable one.:|

You don't know me. I think several moderators and other staff members might vouch otherwise - I used to be a supermoderator here. I'm overwhelmingly Irish by ancestry, and British-Australian culturally.


actually that opinion on Israel, you dont even have to waste time talking to me:thumbdown

Don't respond.


tell your jewish friends, that they will never feel comfortable living in a land they stole:thumbup

One of them was born in a kibbutz, in Israel, actually. His family feels quite comfortable. Do you think those Palestinian savages feel quite comfortable knowing all it takes is one crazy kid from their village who decides to wrap himself in TNT and then the Israelis will return with 50 times the firepower?


And for whatever funny theories (that i respect) you have about islam going to war with Europe, in my own opinion it wont happen and by some tiny chance for whatever crazy reason it does happen, im not fighting europe and im very sure the Shi'ites wont bother either.

our enemy is the occupiers ....the zionists;)

Oh, they won't, will they? That's pretty damn funny, given tons of military aid given to Bosnians during the Yugoslav wars came from Iran. As for Islam going to war with Europe, perhaps you could pull your head out of your arse and read up on European history. Europe was effectively defined by its wars with Islam.

Cedarman
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 03:21 PM
:| :( alright alright, hey if you guys hate islam and desert rats so much, than its ok with me, i seriously dont blame you people.

maybe your right about hezbollah and that they are cowards and hide behind civilians and try to look kool. I guess we all dont know the truth in politics, because their is so much jewish propaganda out their that just makes me sick.:(

according to that website and what Ive seen on aljazeera, Israel about destroyed half of lebanon, and killed alot of people. My family went back to the south and found their houses destroyed.:(

Lusitano you being portugese, i see what your trying to say from your part, sunni muslims (muslims nonetheless) did invade your country and half of spain. I dont blame you either for hating islam.:(

Lucifer and natdeuscth, i dont blame you both for hating and disagreeing with islam, you guys most of all. Actually I have come to realize why you people disagree.

Im starting to understand even more, that you people even if you are christian, your just trying to be strong and bold against islam, so one day europe wont have to deal with such big numbers of that religion inside it.

I dont think of myself as a desert rat though, Lebanon is the only country in the middle east with out a desert LOL.

Well i think you people are doing a good job, stay strong and i hope one day their would be a new nationalist europe. :) :thumbup

i just hope one day the middle east is in peace and not in wars, and that i can be in mycountry again:( :~(

sorry for the trouble, i didnt know good number of people would disagree with me on this forum and hate islam. On the contrary i was expecting ....well...i guess a different opinion than what Ive been reading lately.

im done arguing about this topic, but i did get one positive thing out of this, i understand even more now why people hate islam. So next time I come across a person like Lucifer one day, i wouldnt waste my time or energy arguing or even talking to that person, because i understand how he feels.:thumbup

Bridie
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 04:07 PM
i just hope one day the middle east is in peace and not in wars,
Me too. :)


i understand even more now why people hate islam.
The reason why most women I know (myself included) hate Islam is because of the way women and girls are viewed and treated. That's all. There's a feeling that if our country was ever to become influenced by Islamic culture etc, or worse still, dominated by Islamic law and culture, our lives would become a living hell, and not worth living anymore.

Lusitano
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 06:24 PM
No one here expressed any hate for you as a person. All the critics here were directed to your views, to Islam, to that detestable religion which has nothing to do with our european way of live, our worldview.

Despite your words saying "oh I understand you guys, I dont blame you", do not expect from me any kind of pity, since I only share solidarity with fellow european and euro descendants, and charity, well, charity has never did any good to anyone.

I suppose your post is a good bye post, if so, I just wish that you may find the way to your homeland and live well, besides my belief we are in different trench and in a non declared war...

nätdeutsch
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 08:53 PM
i agree with most of what you said, but charity is a great virtue. charity is when you are broke on the highway someone stops and gives you a twenty.

i think what might solve conflicts in the world is charity.

to cedarman, i do dislike islam, true. it is just not compatible with western culture, nothing wrong with that.
islam, however, has spawned lots of amazing culture, with a great deal of mathematics stemming from the middle east.

i think you have been brave, taking alot of flak from us, and if i came off as a jerk, i regret that.
i appreciate your interesting our culture, but i dont think jew hating or american hating is the way to do it.

enjoy your stay in america, and may the middle east be delivered from war, and all the world

nätdeutsch
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 08:55 PM
lebanon, is the only country other than israel that i care about anyway. i think its attempts at democracy are noble.

i think eventually, the will of the people makes countries democratic.

the greeks sure had it right.

Pervitinist
Saturday, September 2nd, 2006, 02:04 AM
sorry for the trouble, i didnt know good number of people would disagree with me on this forum and hate islam. On the contrary i was expecting ....well...i guess a different opinion than what Ive been reading lately.
im done arguing about this topic, but i did get one positive thing out of this, i understand even more now why people hate islam. So next time I come across a person like Lucifer one day, i wouldnt waste my time or energy arguing or even talking to that person, because i understand how he feels.:thumbup

:wave Cheer up, Cedarman. I'm sure nobody on this forum wanted to insult you personally, but for some people (including myself) it's becoming increasingly difficult to feel any sympathies for those trying to spread islamist propaganda when at the same time cities like Madrid and London are targeted by islamist bombs and your compatriots - lebanese Shiites! - just tried to blow up commuter trains in Germany a few weeks ago. Not to speak of increasingly aggressive muslim immigration into Europe leading to situations like we saw in the French banlieues last year.

How would you react to such a situation? You are speaking proudly of your country's resistance agains the Zionist enemy -- and that is something you should be proud of, even if they didn't yet succeed and the jewish state is still much too powerful to be challenged by a relatively small group like the Hezbollah alone. They should revise their tactics and change them from terrorism to guerilla and maybe one day - in sha' Allah - they will succeed. I wish them strength, and may the Gods look favourably upon them, even if they serve the wrong religion. But how should Europeans who are just as proud as you and care just as much about their nations' fate react to a threat as big as that of militant Islam? I think it is muslims who are about to ruin the last remaining sympathies they have in Europe.

Let me clarify one thing: When I say that I consider Islam as an enemy and that muslims are acting in a stupid way I don't mean that I simply "hate" or disrespect Islam or its followers. On the contrary. If history had taken a different course, Europe and the Middle East could have been the closest allies (and perhaps they still can be?).

Here are a few facts from the history books: You might happen to know that in WWII there were several Waffen SS divisions consisting partly or entirely of muslims, most notably the 13th Waffen-Gebirgsdivision "Handschar" recruited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Hussayni (here a few pictures).

http://www.patriot.dk/handschar.jpg

http://www.patriot.dk/mufti.jpg

http://2468collectibles.com/militaria/german/insignia/ss-em-handschar-tab/obv.jpg

The Nazis recognized and actively supported the Arab and Muslim struggle for freedom against Zionism and its western supporters (see below):


November 2, 1943 "To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between National Socialist Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory.
Signed: Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

But this is not only a Nazi thing. Even today pro-islamic sympathies are widespread in Europe, even among european nationalists. However, muslim mass-immigration and islamist terrorism are beginning to ruin it all! If this tendency continues, a gigantic backlash against muslims in and around Europe will be inevitable.

Therefore, muslims should know their real enemies, i.e. Israel and the pro-Israeli U.S. administration. If they keep annoying, attacking or even killing the wrong persons, I suppose it will do them no good at all ...:idiotgr

So don't take the theological differences personally and tell anyone you know within the Muslim community and who has anything to say that it is their choice to take the fight to Europe but this sure won't help them in their struggle against Israel ... :platoon :platoon :platoon

Für ein freies Arabien!
http://www.tridentmilitary.com/New-Photos8/frieisar.jpg

nätdeutsch
Saturday, September 2nd, 2006, 02:13 AM
looks like islam still didnt win the war against the jews even with the Nazis approval...
how sad.

Cedarman
Saturday, September 2nd, 2006, 05:29 AM
hey thanks pervitinist, i hope islam doesnt spread even more in europe too:)

yeah i guess from now on, I'll just keep my replies short and simple:|

Aptrgangr
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 01:45 AM
The question is, what is an alliance with Muzzis?
I am referring e.g. to th efact NPD and Muslims are rallying together, NPD chief having been in a mosque - all those contacts in general.
[33:64] GOD has condemned the disbelievers, and has prepared for them Hell.
In fact we only have one possible ally: Our own people.


Does this mean everyone needs to take a muslim wife? Or that we need to become muslims?
In fact Islam does not accept any non-muslims as allies anyway, only fake alliances to kill them later from behind - this anwers the question I think.
Read e.g. Sura 3/54; 4/89


That we invite tons of muslims?
Well, treating them here friendly sure does not awake any desire to return to the homeland again.


Alliances are for war, and war only, and Islam has proven that they produce capable warriors, and are not reluctant to sacrifice them for a cause. Good allies, bad enemies if you ask me.
Capable terrorists you mean, cowards hiding behind women and children, wearing women's clothes, blowing up civilians waiting in a queue.
Muhammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another 48/29
Would you consider e.g. blowing yourelf up nearby a schoolbus transporting US soldier's kids in Augsburg? Why don't you consider Jews as possible allies?


I don't want Germany to be christian and I don't want it to be muslim either, but why does this mean I have to neglect everything in Islam and Christianity?
Germany is not Christian unless you consider these liberal easy-goers as Christians; and the number of Muslims is growing.


Both have good things and bad things. Right now Islam is a threat, but why? Because of christian toleration or because of jewish influence? Either way, it is not their fault.
Islam is an independent operating idology. Of course it is their fault they are a menace.
You will find many Christians coperating with Muslims, none of them have anything to do with pro-Germanic policy.
http://www.crescentandcross.com
You think you could be a possible ally, because you are non-Christian? Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends (5/51)


They didn't go out to conquer, we invited them :(
Both. They are invited to conquer us.
Educate yourself:
http://www.submission.org/suras/sura3.htm
http://www.submission.org/suras/sura4.htm

http://tinypic.com/23hoznr.jpg

USA+Israel=Nazister ...nice allies:P

Cedarman
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 07:21 AM
I agree with you, im beginning to hate my religion for being so radical and evil.

I didnt notice how deceiving it is, and your right muslim people cant take non beleivers for allies it says that in purple in the koran.

as of 2006 muslims are still like muslims a thousand years ago, they are not modern enough to have an alliance with non beleivers, they would rather suffer to death fighting the common enemy by themselves in their ignorant ways.

And only whatever god knows what islam would do next after the destruction of zionism, they wouldnt appreciate the peacefull life that finally would come to them after so many years, they rather just go ahead and destroy and rape europe as perverted their minds are and drive themselves into another war....

because islam doesnt stand for "peace and properity":-O

IT STANDS FOR WAR AND RAPE!

Jäger
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 07:47 AM
In fact we only have one possible ally: Our own people.
Whom does this include?


In fact Islam does not accept any non-muslims as allies anyway, only fake alliances to kill them later from behind - this anwers the question I think.
Read e.g. Sura 3/54; 4/89
Interesting, I think that is a good point.


Would you consider e.g. blowing yourelf up nearby a schoolbus transporting US soldier's kids in Augsburg?
No, I consider it stupid, actually I really wonder a lot why the muslims attack targets which serve no real purpose.
Nevertheless it shows their will for sacrifice.


Why don't you consider Jews as possible allies?
Weird question, because they are the opponent.


Germany is not Christian unless you consider these liberal easy-goers as Christians; and the number of Muslims is growing.
Yes, but mainly because of our politicans the fault is not with muslims using our system legally.


Both. They are invited to conquer us.
You are twisting words here, if we woud not have invited them and had stricter laws, there would be no conquest.


USA+Israel=Nazister ...nice allies:P
In contrast to christianity, not everyone is allowed to interpret the Koran. Therefor the Koran interpreters hold quite some power regarding what to tell the followers, as it was with the Bibel in the dark ages in Europe.
They will tell them what serves their purpose as it seems, afterall muslims in the Waffen-SS are truth.

Lusitano
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 12:13 PM
I agree with you, im beginning to hate my religion for being so radical and evil.

I didnt notice how deceiving it is, and your right muslim people cant take non beleivers for allies it says that in purple in the koran.

as of 2006 muslims are still like muslims a thousand years ago, they are not modern enough to have an alliance with non beleivers, they would rather suffer to death fighting the common enemy by themselves in their ignorant ways.

And only whatever god knows what islam would do next after the destruction of zionism, they wouldnt appreciate the peacefull life that finally would come to them after so many years, they rather just go ahead and destroy and rape europe as perverted their minds are and drive themselves into another war....

because islam doesnt stand for "peace and properity":-O

IT STANDS FOR WAR AND RAPE!

If you are trying to be sarcastic or ironical, well, I have to say you'd never have been more honest in this forum.


Originally Posted by Jäger
In contrast to christianity, not everyone is allowed to interpret the Koran. Therefor the Koran interpreters hold quite some power regarding what to tell the followers, as it was with the Bibel in the dark ages in Europe.
They will tell them what serves their purpose as it seems, afterall muslims in the Waffen-SS are truth.

The argument about the presence of islamic men among the Waffens SS seems to me obsolete, since nowadays issues are quiet different from those in the 40's of the XX century. Islam is with all the words an enemy of Europe and no one in the nationalist area should allow themselves to get mentaly blind just because in the past our ancestors or our political references used or made some agreement with the muzzis. We should avoid dogmathism since it is the worst enemy of a cause that which to prevail and to achieve victory.

Jäger
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 12:37 PM
The argument about the presence of islamic men among the Waffens SS seems to me obsolete, ...
The argument was about the cooperation of muslims with non-muslims, which the Koran prohibits. Therefor it is not obsolete.

Thusnelda
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 12:40 PM
I totally agree with Aptrganga, ally up with Muslims would be a fatal wrong decision! They try to islamisize Europe, and they are already successful in some bigger cities. Its a shame!
Jäger, I think you think like "The foe of my foe could my ally", dont you? In fact, Muslims are fighting the Jews, so an alliance of Western people with Muslims for this reasion would be a good thing - Is that your opinion?

Well, I definately dont think so. Islam is not only a religion! Its an political worldview and an tribal ideology who isnt compatible with our western world. They tried to overtake Europe for centuries. But the difference now is that they are already IN Europe - and rising! Its a threat, our societies are at the cutting edge.

So the only ally we have are, in my opinion, ourselves. And I also think the "Feindbild Jew" is really out of date.

Zyklop
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 01:23 PM
I am referring e.g. to th efact NPD and Muslims are rallying together, Where?


Its an political worldview and an tribal ideology who isnt compatible with our western world. They tried to overtake Europe for centuries. But the difference now is that they are already IN Europe - and rising! Its a threat, our societies are at the cutting edge. What exactly do you mean with "the western world"? The liberal-capitalist crap we have now? How is this compatible with Germanic ideals? What you are calling "the western world" is exactly the reason why we have Muslims settling in our home countries. And honestly, I have no pity for France or Great Britain which are drowning in Muslims right now. That´s the world they fought for in WW2 - you reap what you sow!
It is their influence that invites the dregs of the world to Germany since decades now. Therefore anything that destabilizes "the West" has to be supported.
Islam found fertile ground in our multicultural society and therefore it´s flourishing. If we want to dispose of it, it´s not enough to cut the branches. A different weed would grow back soon enough. We have to eradicate the roots.

Bridie
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 04:13 PM
I have no pity for France or Great Britain which are drowning in Muslims right now. That´s the world they fought for in WW2 - you reap what you sow!

Who reaps what they sow?? The British and French govt's of the day sowed, and now the "average people" must reap the consequences for centuries to come.... possibly longer. Now all average British and French people must pay for the mistakes of their past politicians.

nätdeutsch
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 04:50 PM
I have no pity for France or Great Britain which are drowning in Muslims right now. That´s the world they fought for in WW2 - you reap what you sow!


it doesnt matter which side you were on in world war two.

the nazis employed the help of muslims. Germany is being innundated right now with muslims...how do you explain that?

its not just countries like France and England

Zyklop
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 05:11 PM
Who reaps what they sow?? The British and French govt's of the day sowed, and now the "average people" must reap the consequences for centuries to come.... possibly longer.
Damned causality!

Now all average British and French people must pay for the mistakes of their past politicians.Can´t see the average Brit or Frenchman being really ashamed about their position in WW2 or taking actions against their current governments. But to be fair, I have no pitty for the spineless modern Germans either. It still has to get much worse for people to stand up.

the nazis employed the help of muslims. Germany is being innundated right now with muslims...how do you explain that?
LOL!

Bridie
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 06:09 PM
Damned causality!

What?! Are you trying to say that multiculturalism in Britain and France isn't the result of a random socio-political mutation and therefore is quite possibly a natural evolutionary process initiated by really quite ignorant and short-sighted judgements on behalf of the politicians in the respective countries in the first half of the 20th century?? :fsweat: Oops... sorry. :doeh I'm getting confused with a different argument now... :D ...

(and if you suspect that I have no friggin' idea what I'm talking about, you'd be right.... something about.... evolution???)




Can´t see the average Brit or Frenchman being really ashamed about their position in WW2 or taking actions against their current governments. You could be right there.... I see your point.

Rose of Rohan
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 08:20 PM
There is no way we can EVER have an alliance with Muslims.

I cannot condone in any way their methods of terrorism to gain what they want.

As Aptrganga stated we must look to our own people for this is a fight and it is not one in which we can ally with Muslims.

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 01:37 PM
Whom does this include?
Europids in a broades sense, Germanic people in a narrow sense.


Interesting, I think that is a good point.
Just compare Talmud etc. with Quran.


No, I consider it stupid, actually I really wonder a lot why the muslims attack targets which serve no real purpose.
Nevertheless it shows their will for sacrifice.
Their will to sacrifice for no purpouse? They are zealots, they do what they are ordered to do.


Weird question, because they are the opponent.
Weird is you consider Jews as enemy but not Muslims.


Yes, but mainly because of our politicans the fault is not with muslims using our system legally.
Nevertheless they invade us purposefully. They did so from beginning on, but in the last centuries they were defeated.


You are twisting words here, if we woud not have invited them and had stricter laws, there would be no conquest.
I am twisting words? The conquest again and again was driven back in the last centuries.
What do you think how much sense it makes claiming being a national party (NPD) and supporting conquerors at the same time?


In contrast to christianity, not everyone is allowed to interpret the Koran. Therefor the Koran interpreters hold quite some power regarding what to tell the followers, as it was with the Bibel in the dark ages in Europe.

I am not interested in interpretations. Their speeches speak for themselves.


They will tell them what serves their purpose as it seems, afterall muslims in the Waffen-SS are truth.
Have a closer look at these Waffen-SS divisions. They were notouriously known to be savages, with little exceptions. After it was clear they committed atrocities against Serbians and only wee interested in pursuing own interestes Himmler abandoned these units. Same with Muslim units in the Wehrmacht - not allied armies feared them but French women.


Where?
Just have open eyes and watch so called national demonstrations. In fact "Odin Hu Akbar" is the running gag in Jewish news! [German only]
http://hagalil.org/s4/klick-nach-rechts/gegen-rechts/2002/04/greifswald.htm
Also the contacts between NPD and Hizb ut-Tahir were anything but helpful to attract more voters - it appeased the strong left wing of the NS, but not folkish nationalists.


What exactly do you mean with "the western world"? The liberal-capitalist crap we have now?
Allow me some words here.
"Western world" does not automatically equal with the so called Anglo-Saxon wordlview.
Occident would fit better here.


How is this compatible with Germanic ideals?
It is not. But choosing one of two wrong does not make it right.


What you are calling "the western world" is exactly the reason why we have Muslims settling in our home countries.
The liberal-democratic "west" indeed. Was it not Hitler who said the west must be protected from the mongolic hordes from the east?


And honestly, I have no pity for France or Great Britain which are drowning in Muslims right now. That´s the world they fought for in WW2 - you reap what you sow!
You are wrong, British and French soldiers fought against occupying German forces, and not for the right their granddaughters may marry negroes. In fact, what we reap now are the consequences of the moral bancrupcy of NS.


It is their influence that invites the dregs of the world to Germany since decades now. Therefore anything that destabilizes "the West" has to be supported.
When you would be interested in an destabilizing of this current system you would all yyourself with other European nationalists and not with our enemies.


Islam found fertile ground in our multicultural society and therefore it´s flourishing. If we want to dispose of it, it´s not enough to cut the branches. A different weed would grow back soon enough. We have to eradicate the roots.
Well said - but without being backed by the own people it would not work.

Jäger
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 02:20 PM
Their will to sacrifice for no purpouse? They are zealots, they do what they are ordered to do.
Well, it seems they lack structure and organization.


Weird is you consider Jews as enemy but not Muslims.
That is because I think jews have a share of guilt when it comes to the invitation of muslims, while what muslims do is to take advantage of our current situation. It is like the root problem vs. symptoms.
Furthermore, there are muslims which I consider an enemy, actually I already stated that they have no place in Europe, the ones who reject this idea are my enemies too, the ones who don't, I see no problem with helping each other out.
Honestly, I wouldn't ally with them if not needed.

It all boils down to some people claiming that all muslims want to take over Europe.


Nevertheless they invade us purposefully. They did so from beginning on, but in the last centuries they were defeated.
So did the British, the Polish, the French, etc. With the difference that we didn't defeat them in the last century, and look where we are now.


I am twisting words? The conquest again and again was driven back in the last centuries.
What do you think how much sense it makes claiming being a national party (NPD) and supporting conquerors at the same time?
Yes, indeed, we should drop support for all europeans too then? And btw, how is it with Prussia and Westphalia?


Have a closer look at these Waffen-SS divisions. They were notouriously known to be savages, with little exceptions.
You have to read what I said in context, it was about cooperation eventhough the Koran seems to prohibit it, if it wasn't for back stabbing.

Aptrgangr
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 11:21 AM
Well, it seems they lack structure and organization.
Why don't you join them and train them a little Teutonic precision and organization?


That is because I think jews have a share of guilt when it comes to the invitation of muslims, while what muslims do is to take advantage of our current situation.
So the Jews want us to become islamized? What motive could they have doing this suicidial policy?


It is like the root problem vs. symptoms.
The root and the symptom need to be fought since they are closely connected.


Furthermore, there are muslims which I consider an enemy, actually I already stated that they have no place in Europe, the ones who reject this idea are my enemies too, the ones who don't, I see no problem with helping each other out.
So you also would support anti-multiculti and anti-zionist Jews?


Honestly, I wouldn't ally with them if not needed.
It is not needed. Try to make an alliance with your own people, how's that?


It all boils down to some people claiming that all muslims want to take over Europe.
Of course not all Muslims want this, not all Jews want us to be their goyimish servants either...


So did the British, the Polish, the French, etc. With the difference that we didn't defeat them in the last century, and look where we are now.
Well, they defeated us so to speak. How many times did Germany invade surrounding nations - anyway, don't you think it is time to make friend with your own neighbours?


Yes, indeed, we should drop support for all europeans too then? And btw, how is it with Prussia and Westphalia?
When did I mention to do so?
Prussia is inexistent and a relic of the past.
What is up with Westphalia - tell me.


You have to read what I said in context, it was about cooperation eventhough the Koran seems to prohibit it, if it wasn't for back stabbing.
The current "German" government also cooperates with Muslims - why do you consider this government as traitorous, or - don't you consider them a traitors?
There are not two Islams - one outside you can colaborate with - and on einside being an enemie - thought about that?
http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-88/i.html
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006274.php
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2003/feb/europe_muslims/

Jäger
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 11:32 AM
So the Jews want us to become islamized? What motive could they have doing this suicidial policy?
There are already threads concerning this, in a nutshell, I don'T think they wanted explicit muslim immigration, but it is a side effect of their doctrine.


The root and the symptom need to be fought since they are closely connected.
Yes, but I wouldn't fight symptons which befall the root.


So you also would support anti-multiculti and anti-zionist Jews?
Of course. You seem to be very strange on the conception of "support", do you think this has to mean I have to love jews, now? Or that I don't mind jews living in Germany? Jews who are anti-multiculti, will go to Israel on their on doctrine, why wouldn't I support this?


It is not needed. Try to make an alliance with your own people, how's that?
Insufficient, that's what people have been trying to do since a few years now, and I am not talking about people but about means to take action, (not terrorist attacks). Would you reject e.g. financial aid by Iran simply because Iran is muslim?


Well, they defeated us so to speak. How many times did Germany invade surrounding nations - anyway, don't you think it is time to make friend with your own neighbours?
You said one shouldn't make peace with former conquerors, not me.


When did I mention to do so?
Prussia is inexistent and a relic of the past.
What is up with Westphalia - tell me.
Prussia conquered Westphalia, still "we" came to terms with them.


The current "German" government also cooperates with Muslims - why do you consider this government as traitorous, or - don't you consider them a traitors?
They don't cooperrate with muslims they incorporate with them, that's why they are traitors.

Aptrgangr
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 01:56 PM
There are already threads concerning this, in a nutshell, I don'T think they wanted explicit muslim immigration, but it is a side effect of their doctrine.
If you are regarding to multiculturalism - this is rather a "White" doctrine than a Jewish one.


Yes, but I wouldn't fight symptons which befall the root.
Why not taking advance of the situation and the growing islamohobia? Any critic on Islam makes the ruling in Berlin and Brussels nervous.


Of course. You seem to be very strange on the conception of "support", do you think this has to mean I have to love jews, now?
Noone can cooperate with someone he neither trusts nor likes.


Or that I don't mind jews living in Germany? Jews who are anti-multiculti, will go to Israel on their on doctrine, why wouldn't I support this?
No Jews who are anti-multiculti not necessarily go to Israel. The stay here since they are mosltly anti-zionistic. As soon as you support the idea of Jews going to Israel you get into difficulties with Muslims who want to prevent this...


Insufficient, that's what people have been trying to do since a few years now,
So you give up your people? I expected that to read to be honest. Naive desert people with less education are more easy to impress with conspiracy theories anyway, isn't it so?
Anyway, I wonder why you state you were racist...


and I am not talking about people but about means to take action, (not terrorist attacks).
Interesting - may I ask what actions? Eating a protest kebap? Or is it a secret?


Would you reject e.g. financial aid by Iran simply because Iran is muslim?
First of all I reject financial aid in general, and most definitely I would reject money from this terrorist regime. Why should they give me money anyway- would you accept money from them?


You said one shouldn't make peace with former conquerors, not me.
True, in fact we should go forward with an independent Europe of fatherlands instead of battling each other.


Prussia conquered Westphalia, still "we" came to terms with them.
Well, Prussia conquered much more than just Westphalia - people at that time were fatalistic - better them as the French...


They don't cooperrate with muslims they incorporate with them, that's why they are traitors.
You see a difference between cooperation and incorporation?

Jäger
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 02:46 PM
Noone can cooperate with someone he neither trusts nor likes.
So when Islamists cooperate they actually do like us? I thought they do it for backstabbing only?


No Jews who are anti-multiculti not necessarily go to Israel. The stay here since they are mosltly anti-zionistic. As soon as you support the idea of Jews going to Israel you get into difficulties with Muslims who want to prevent this...
This is indeed a dilemma, then again muslims are not so against jews on their land, but against a jewish ruling of it.


So you give up your people? I expected that to read to be honest. Naive desert people with less education are more easy to impress with conspiracy theories anyway, isn't it so?
Anyway, I wonder why you state you were racist...
I don't see a relation here. I figure you simply have a very different view on what cooperation means.


Interesting - may I ask what actions? Eating a protest kebap? Or is it a secret?
The actions are of course secret :) But it goes to public presentations etc. What we need would be e.g. finacial aid and in some cases asylum.
This would help us alot, and I don't see a probelem here.


First of all I reject financial aid in general, and most definitely I would reject money from this terrorist regime. Why should they give me money anyway- would you accept money from them?
Yes I would accpet money from them, and you might know that Iran came into political preassure, of course they want relieve, supporting specific parties in some countries to make them less hostile to onself is quite old actually.


True, in fact we should go forward with an independent Europe of fatherlands instead of battling each other.

Well, Prussia conquered much more than just Westphalia - people at that time were fatalistic - better them as the French...
You seem to neglect my point. You said cooperation with muslims is not good, because they once came as conquerors.


You see a difference between cooperation and incorporation?
Yes, and it is obvious you don't, therefor this whole discussion is quite useless, because we both have a different premise.

Cedarman
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 09:21 AM
wow what a conflict LOL!

Aptrganga why are you so relentless on such topic?

As if your some average brainwahed american who knows no better but to mix races with a negro:-O

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 05:40 PM
So when Islamists cooperate they actually do like us? I thought they do it for backstabbing only?
For them you are just a useful tool. The pursue their ow plans.


This is indeed a dilemma, then again muslims are not so against jews on their land, but against a jewish ruling of it.
The real dilemma is they are in our lands and won't ever go.


I don't see a relation here. I figure you simply have a very different view on what cooperation means.

If I just would know what youre intentions are...


The actions are of course secret :) But it goes to public presentations etc.
Now I am curious! Will it be a poo on the holocaust memorial?


What we need would be e.g. finacial aid and in some cases asylum.
This would help us alot, and I don't see a probelem here.
I do not see a problem either. Followers of a failed ideology having nothing learned about history and tactics will fail again - so I am not too worried about your actions anyway.


Yes I would accpet money from them, and you might know that Iran came into political preassure, of course they want relieve, supporting specific parties in some countries to make them less hostile to onself is quite old actually.
Accepting Judas Silverlings is not popular among honorable people...
Islam pursues a long term strategy, at the end of this century the pressure on them will having seized anyway - just have a look on the demographic development here.


You seem to neglect my point. You said cooperation with muslims is not good, because they once came as conquerors.
Ever thought about racial matters? Do French or British troops murder nad rape Germans here?


Yes, and it is obvious you don't, therefor this whole discussion is quite useless, because we both have a different premise.
I agree, let's stop it here. But I will watch your stranding with amusement.

Jäger
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 07:11 PM
For them you are just a useful tool. The pursue their own plans.
You just said one has to "trust and like" the ones to cooperate with.
Anyway, for me they are useful tools too, and I admit that openly, even to them, because I don't see anything bad here, as long as both parties can win something.
Cooperating with muslims includes sending the ones who are living here back to their home countries. You could tell me how you would achieve this when their countries of origin just don't take them back?


The real dilemma is they are in our lands and won't ever go.
Yes, and that's why we need cooperation so we can send them back without killing all of them, or do you want that?
Cooperation is two sided.


Ever thought about racial matters? Do French or British troops murder nad rape Germans here?
Yes, they did, and of course race matters, but how is this related to the question of "comming to terms", that this is unfogiveable?


I agree, let's stop it here. But I will watch your stranding with amusement.
There is not much to look at, because afterall we don't have any muslim support, right now.

Amorsite
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 07:17 PM
Of course an alliance with muslims should be welcome , several reasons for it being they could provide:
a)financial aid knowing we are an enemy of their enemy to cause problems inside
b) asylum for political prisoners, many revisionists consider fleeing to Iran today
c)help in the arguing desk, it is much harder to discard you as "racist" if you are arguing with a nonwhite on your side
d)distraction for our enemies, while we take care of things here

also remember that:

a) some arabs are christians
b)most middle easterns are anthropologically white
c) they are people with a far saner society and stronger families. Much closer to the true west than this liberal insanity. Funny the "west" is actually the "east" today to a great extent

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 08:53 PM
You just said one has to "trust and like" the ones to cooperate with.
Yes I said this. Love your enemies is more the stuff for you it seems...


Anyway, for me they are useful tools too, and I admit that openly, even to them, because I don't see anything bad here, as long as both parties can win something.
They are strong and growing, you have no power, that's the difference. I haven't a clue what party you belong to so I can not say you will win something.


Cooperating with muslims includes sending the ones who are living here back to their home countries.
Just ask them to leave - they will happily agree to you proposal and wonder why noone else had this good idea before.


You could tell me how you would achieve this when their countries of origin just don't take them back?
They were not sent here to be taken back! Just educate yourself about "colonialism".


Yes, and that's why we need cooperation so we can send them back without killing all of them, or do you want that?
You refuse to accept the fact the Turkish government (with nice support of the FGR gov of course) and others sent them here to stay.


Cooperation is two sided.
One sided cooperation would be an oxymoron. What do you have for them to offer?


Yes, they did,
Those who did after WWII often enough hanged. Perhaps you have a look to how German troops behaved in France etc...


and of course race matters, but how is this related to the question of "comming to terms", that this is unfogiveable?
What is unforgiveable? The holocaust? It is unforgiveable, but this only counts for those having been involved.


There is not much to look at, because afterall we don't have any muslim support, right now.
You have. Just visit the mosque of your choice. "Mein Kampf" is popular in Palestinia etc. not without a reason...



Of course an alliance with muslims should be welcome ,
Whom do we have here - the next multiculturalist it seems.


several reasons for it being they could provide:
a)financial aid knowing we are an enemy of their enemy to cause problems inside
What are you referring too? The Jews? They will use you with joy for their propaganda - like they wrote "Odin hu Akbar" - knowing most Westerners will be even disgusted by so called NS.


b) asylum for political prisoners, many revisionists consider fleeing to Iran today
So fleeing the country at once is good? What is with those fleeing Muslim countries coming here?
The revisionists can stay where they are since they are not needed here anyway.


c)help in the arguing desk, it is much harder to discard you as "racist" if you are arguing with a nonwhite on your side

Multiculturalism and racism, of course, are mutual exclusive...


d)distraction for our enemies, while we take care of things here
I haven't a clue what you mean to be honest. Muslims are enemies here.



also remember that:

a) some arabs are christians
Arab Christians like Aryan Iranian despise Muslims.


b)most middle easterns are anthropologically white
Why don't you go to PANF? Because Skadi is merely the same? Agreed...


c) they are people with a far saner society and stronger families.
You obviously never have been to a Muslim country.
Africans also have stronger families - increasingly here. Time to make an alliance...


Much closer to the true west than this liberal insanity. Funny the "west" is actually the "east" today to a great extent
West-east, who cares...

Jäger
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 09:32 PM
Aptrganga, the problem is that this discussion is far from rational.
You categorically reject any cooperation and acuse the ones who don't of unconditional subjection to muslims.
If we can get something out of this cooperation than we cooperate, if not then not, and if muslims won't get anything out of this, then they won't cooperate either.
It's quite simple, your point so far was that everything muslims say are lies, only for backstabbing, but with all due respect, just because you say so doesn't make it true.
The only good point was the Koran quote, which needs to be researched further, interpretations of holy writings is a science for itself, maybe I should ask a muslim about it if I have the chance to :)

Cedarman
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 02:13 AM
Aptrganga, the problem is that this discussion is far from rational.
You categorically reject any cooperation and acuse the ones who don't of unconditional subjection to muslims.
If we can get something out of this cooperation than we cooperate, if not then not, and if muslims won't get anything out of this, then they won't cooperate either.
It's quite simple, your point so far was that everything muslims say are lies, only for backstabbing, but with all due respect, just because you say so doesn't make it true.
The only good point was the Koran quote, which needs to be researched further, interpretations of holy writings is a science for itself, maybe I should ask a muslim about it if I have the chance to :)



Whats the question? What Koran quote? I'll be happy to answer:thumbup

Jäger
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 09:08 AM
Whats the question? What Koran quote? I'll be happy to answer:thumbup
Sure 3/54; 4/89

It would be most interesting to see this quotes in context.

I found a site on Sura 3/54 http://www.muslimhope.com/DeceptionInIslam.htm
Which seems quite reasonable. It is in so far even more believable since it speaks about Jews trying to deceive muslims and say no one can outwit Allah and therefor he deceived them too :P SO do you think this site to be true? Or do you know any other interpretations?

Sure 4/89 is quite strange to me, it says "Allah will neutralize the power of those who disbelieve", then again this is when muslims fight against disbelievers

The Qur'an quotes might be not that convincing after all :|