The Science of Islam-Based Terror
A number of important advances made in the past decade are now helping us to put together a scientific model or theory of the phenomenon of religion-based terror. This has ranged from new studies on the contrasting evolution of India and Pakistan, to a recent statistical analysis of Islamic doctrines and an analysis of the impact of the propagation of Islam funded through Middle Eastern petrodollars. On the side of tackling terror, insights have been gained on the origin of terror and its propagation. We are also able to better understand how a broad coalition of people and nations could be mobilized to tackle terror. Some ideas have been developed on how, by advancing rational thinking, one might wean away educated Muslims from terrorist ideologies.
The context of studying the relative evolution of India and Pakistan is that although the majority religions in these two nations are different, they share language, culture, ethnicity, and culinary habits, and yet Hindu-majority India has managed to create wealth and focus on development but Islamic Pakistan has turned into a major fountainhead of religion-based terror.
Statistical analysis is a useful tool for deciphering the character of an entity or ideology that sends out mixed signals, perhaps to camouflage its true intent.
It is now increasingly realized that there are specific political objectives behind the religion-based terror war called jihad. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden outlined a condition for terror attacks against America to cease: “I invite you to embrace Islam.” During the past sixty years most non-Muslim minorities in all Muslim-majority regions of South Asia were terrorized into leaving for nearby non-Muslim-majority lands. Those who stayed behind were subjected to state-sponsored discrimination and exclusion, so that they would either convert to Islam or leave the country. All of this points to conquering — even during contemporary times — land and people for Islam.
If conquest is the ulterior motive then terror should be just one of the — albeit important — means of achieving the objective. Indeed, in Muslim-minority nations such as India, Islamists are seen to gain access to power through their control of the Muslim vote block and then promote or advocate policies that advance their agenda. This may be called a non-violent form of jihad.
From where does the passion to conquer come?
A recent groundbreaking statistical examination of Islamic doctrines appears to overwhelmingly identify the roots of the motivation to conquer with the doctrines themselves. About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. While there might be some subjectivity to this analysis, the overwhelming thrust of the inferences should be taken note of. This new analysis sheds light on not only understanding the roots of terror, but also on how to address Islamic radicalism.
Even if conquest is emphasized in the doctrines, if the structure of a religion itself allows room for personal growth, the focus of its adherents will likely be oriented constructively inward.
What is now commonly known as Sharia or Islamic law deals with many aspects of day-to-day life. This “divine” law was formulated over a thousand years ago and reflects the customs and traditions of Arab tribes of a bygone era. Just about all communities in Muslim-majority nations find themselves under different degrees of the Sharia — and, as a result, are hard-pressed to embrace a modern way of life, including modern education. This is the likely reason that, despite oil wealth, in the Human Development Index (HDI) published each year by the United Nations — a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living — of the 32 countries rated “high” in 2006, not one was a Muslim-majority country. However, of the 30 countries rated “low,” 16 were Muslim countries.
In other words, Sharia makes the process of wealth creation — the basis of building modern civilizations — difficult for Muslim communities to achieve and indirectly helps channel Muslim energies toward the outlet of the adventure of conquest through jihad. Besides the theological grounds, the cover for waging a multi-front jihad is derived by associating unbelievers with certain “injustices” perpetrated on Muslims. The perception of the so-called injustices created and sustained relentlessly can be viewed as the primary mode of building up anger and hatred in the minds of Muslims.
Yet an ideology alone is not capable of making a transnational impact unless it has resourceful and committed backers. The main backing comes from Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and a nation that uses Islamic doctrines in place of a constitution — and is very well endowed with oil. This free or unearned wealth has shielded the flaws of the Sharia-based system there from being exposed. By many accounts, the Saudi Arabian government alone has spent billions of dollars since the mid-1970s to propagate Islam around the world as a conduit for advancing its interests. In addition to distributing Islamic doctrines, substantial amounts have been spent on constructing new mosques, staffing them, and producing propaganda material.
This funding has coincided with an increase in violent extremism directed at non-Muslims and a regressive outlook seen in Muslim communities all over the world. If the Islamic doctrines and their subsequent interpretations are overwhelmingly and violently disposed toward non-Muslims and emphasize the importance of adhering to outdated customs, their propagation will inevitably lead predominantly to the abovementioned characteristics. In retrospect, we now realize that attacks such as the one on 9/11 — or what are yet to come — are an inevitable consequence of this long-term funding and indoctrination process.
How could the terror threat be mitigated?
On the side of ideology that generates the passion for jihad sit the clergy and mosques. However, execution of jihad has to involve educated Muslims. After all, without modern education, the tools of the modern world — from weapons to other kinds of infrastructure — could not be effectively used to conduct terror. Yet this critical segment of the Muslim population is also susceptible to rational ideas. A nuanced, science-based analysis and articulation of ideas, designed to deemphasize the importance given to Islamic scriptures and to loosen the vice-like grip of the clergies, has to be part of any logical approach to winning the war of ideas. This could be among the critical missing pieces in unraveling the terrorism jigsaw puzzle.
For instance, if available evidence suggests that an ancient scripture was taken down and stored in an unreliable manner, then one could arguably conclude that the scripture couldn’t be taken literally.
A war of ideas makes the war on terror similar to the Cold War between the Soviet-based communist ideology and American-led liberal democracies. The West won the Cold War as a non-occupying power — and brought liberty and development to the former communist states by vigorously undercutting the ideology of its former adversaries.
In the context of the model of terror discussed here, some of the most talked-about ad hoc strategies of neutralizing terror — “backing the moderate Muslims,” “promoting democracy in the Muslim world by familiarizing the success of the Western democracies in Muslim communities,” “protecting populations from terrorists (in Iraq and Afghanistan),” or “bringing forth economic and educational development” — may be seen as either not focused enough or not efficient enough to undercut the ideologies that are spawning religion-based terrorism.
Terrorism continues to exact a huge toll on human lives and diversion of scarce resources. The sheer scale might make these acts a crime against humanity. As discussed before, much of the ideology behind the terror was propagated around the planet by nations in the Middle East. Even the so-called non-state outfits such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, or Hamas have their funding sources and ideological guidance traced to nations in the Middle East or South Asia.
A multi-pronged approach to tackling terror has to involve taking certain nations to task on the grounds of sponsoring crimes against humanity, for backing certain terror outfits and other entities. However, this has become particularly complicated because a broad ideology-based movement located in these nations is behind terror funding and sponsorship. Hence, this undertaking is necessarily massive and calls for a broad coalition of nations. Building up, on the basis of grievance, a coalition of states that are victims of terror, including ones from the developing world — India, Thailand, the Philippines, to name a few — is called for. In particular, a large and strategically located nation such as India, a perennial victim of religion-based terror and the next-door neighbor of Pakistan, gives the West some compelling ideological, political, and military options.
what about defeating it by military means? trying to reason with an absolutist ideology has worked when in the history of the world? the jihadis have the koran practically, if not completely, memorized so unless there is a concerted effort to use the koran in its entirety to refute the violent jihad way and offer in place a coherent, real, and encompassing non-violent interpretation of the koran, any talk is a waste of time.
if violent jihad is shown to be a failure in its aims, then maybe muslims will know that the path of aggression is a dead end.
As a student of world religions I don’t need any scientific analysis to tell me the end product of various dogmas and religious structures. A look at the state of the world today should be tell-tale enough of what Islamic ideology has earned it’s followers and it’s bystanders.
Is a “cold war” on Islam the right strategy? It’s better than pandering and self defeat which seems to be our current strategy and will likely remain that way with Obama in office.
Kudos, with observations…
“The West won the Cold War as a non-occupying power — and brought liberty and development to the former communist states by vigorously undercutting the ideology of its former adversaries.”
If only it were true. Alas, the cold war was won by the west winning the balance of dollars. E.g., we spent X on research for a Star Wars system that (irrespective of whether it worked at the time) caused the Soviets to try to spend 10X to get around it. They spent themselves into (albeit temporary) oblivion.
Also, as others in the PM family have noted, America presently suffers its political woes precisely because the old haggard ideas of the Soviets were NOT defeated in the cold war. They are presently taught in our schools!
Otherwise, I both credit and debit the author’s thesis for its rationality. I fear the world is not so rational as to respond as the author suggests we must. But there are good ideas here, and I applaud him for their presentation.
For instance, if available evidence suggests that an ancient scripture was taken down and stored in an unreliable manner, then one could arguably conclude that the scripture couldn’t be taken literally.
That’s where Gerd R. Puin’s study of the Sanaa Manuscripts of Mein Qurampf (that book known as the Glory-ass Quran in politically-correct speak) could really come in handy (and it will):
http://theforceofreason.com/2009/06/20/but-but-i-thought-it-came-from-a-magical-sky-troll/
Know your enemy.
http://WWW.jihadwatch.org
This is a typical belief that all humans are reasonable, implying that through reason they will change or alter their views, denying that reason can’t be divided further into good and evil, right or wrong, believing that to reason is to choose good, when in fact humans often choose evil.
The problem with Islam, is it’s ability to be a chameleon, that is, change and adapt when it needs to. Evidence of that would be Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia using photo opportunities to show convicted terrorists being reprogrammed by showing us what we want to see. We see Muslims painting on canvas as therapy, we calm down and continue to buy their product that we helped develop. Pesky videos surface showing a sheik or prince running over a fellow Muslim, pouring sand down his mouth, inserting cattle prods in him etc., and likely not a day before or after, shaking hands with some western influential figure making a mutually beneficial deal.
We know that many of these figures have been exposed to other paths of thought, yet still choose this way of life. Civil behavior a thin veneer over the much more powerful and faster way to the top, barbarism and fear.
This would be considered ‘reasonable’ Islam for those who have embraced it ‘freely’ as a way of life that suits them, as opposed to the majority who became Muslim by the sword and remain Muslim by the sword. So the leaders of the countries like Saudi Arabia get to profit from the west, yet still teach, promote, and pay for a doctrine that calls for the destruction of the west. Is this unreasonable to us? Yes it is, yet very reasonable to Islam.
This article speaks as if the regular man and woman on the street needs to be reasoned with, when in fact, it is those at the top who have profited the most by the ideology of Islam and are acting very reasonably using self-preservation and self-profit to prosper. It is not in their interest for the common man to advance, since it would likely mean that their position on the pinnacle of power would be threatened and in their minds it would not be reasonable to expect them to cooperate.
They don’t care if the rest of mankind does well unless it threatens their doing well. If they think what they are doing is pleasing to their god, and also profits them at the same time, why would they want to change? We are helping them by agreeing with our President that the ‘evil’ west is the culprit in their loudly voiced complaints. We let them redirect the people’s anger at us, and they are still living quite nicely with their feet dipping in both worlds, enjoying themselves immensely.
Sounds reasonable to me, for them anyway. Your question should be what if they don’t care about being reasonable (good), what if they choose the one who calls for your destruction, so think it is doing their duty to destroy you and your way of life. It is their product we need, and we will need it whether we are their dhimmis or equals, it doesn’t matter to them.
Take away all the religions of the world and ‘evil’ still remains, and it seems to not be swayed by reason.
I know many many extremely nice Mohammedans hell I am even married to one and I have lived in quite a few Mohammedan countries most of them corrupt inefficient cesspits. I have also read the Koran a few times so I feel able to comment with a certain amount of personal knowledge. My comment is its not Mohammedans that are the problem its ISLAM that’s the problem the CULT itself is evil and celebrates death it does not follow the Golden Rule and is full of misogyny, antisemitism, violence and Arab Supremacism . Individual Mohammedans can be quite nice people Islam is NEVER nice.
Well, we could always use nuclear weapons.
I found this article illuminating, but only to a point, because it so skillfully maneuvers around the question of the accomplishments of the Judeo-Christian tradition versus the paucity of results of the Islamic tradition, at least in contemporary terms.
Before evaluating this, it is worthwhile to look at the cold war, as brought up by Anonymous (comment #3): The case is interesting because the natural resources of both protagonists were rather well matched (comparable population, comparable territory, comparable mineral resources, etc…)
As a matter of fact, the question of whose ideology was best was eventually arbitrated by attrition over a half-century: When it came to the costly strategic competition known as “the arms race”, the Soviets ran out of rubles while attempting the maintenance of parity, when America still had enough dollars for other things, simple as that! This means that America was more productive, whereas the only contrasting difference was ideology, on one side capitalism, property rights and individual freedom, including freedom of religion, on the other side, the systematic denial of all these values, in the name of a superior sense of collective responsibility.
So there it was! clearly: The society based on judeo-christian values was proven superior to the society based on their denial. This is where it gets interesting: In many ways, Islam is extremely different from communism, but we easily miss a point of little academic value, but great practical value: Islam is also based on the systematic denial of judeo-christian values, not in the name of a superior sense of collective responsibility, but rather on the arbitration of a God with absolute privilege, even the privilege of reneging on his word without justification! In contrast with this, the Judeo-Christian theology professes a rational creator, i.e. one whose ways can be ultimately discovered and understood, i.e. under whom science is possible! The other major difference is of a chronological nature: Islam was founded roughly 14 centuries ago, whereas communism started less than 3 centuries ago, but their expansionist zeal is equally systematic, and equally opportunistic.
So, why are the muslims so flummoxed today, now that the soviets have been discredited? Some of them enjoy cell phones, cars, satellite receivers and all kinds of western conveniences, including airplanes(!) Their sacred book affirms their commanding and ultimate superiority, but they live under tyrannies, abuse their women, don’t learn science, do not contribute inventions, and their literary production is very thin, in contrast with the western abundance and creativity!
So, those muslim with access to information, knowledge and/or money are confronted with a stark dilemma: either learn to respect and implement individual rights in general and women rights in particular, teach science to their children, and prosper within free societies (difficult to reconcile with pride), or pursue the ultimate vindication of the axiomatic superiority of Islam, litterally by the book: Jihad! Hence our modern challenge: Terrorism!
Historic footnote: September 11 was also the date of the last significant defeat of the Ottomans when the siege of Vienna was lifted in-extremis thanks to the intervention of John the King of Poland in the year 1683. The probablity that this particular date is important again would be just a coincidence is… well, one in three hundred sixty-five, simple as that!
Science above all is evidence based ( or at least was once supposed to be). In the case of Islam, there is no shortage of what it really intends:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
maintains the daily body count of the “Religion of Peace”.
The early Christians were prescient; “By their fruits ye shall know them”.
I commend the author for delving into Jihad, and his scientific methods for discovering the violent supremacist doctrines of Islam. But the notion the educated, rational Muslims will do Anthony to help us turn the tide of Islamic terror is ludicrous on its face. These educated ratio al Myslims, after all, have shown themselves since 9/11 to be fully in invested in a massive campaign to deflect attention. Away from. Implicating Islam in all the mayhem.
We are systematically lied to by these educated rational Muslims. They put great energy into depicting the terror storm troopers of Islam as “misunderstanders” of Islam who have hijacked their “peaceful” religion. In the next breath we are informed by these rational educated Muslims that not only are the mass murders by their misunderstanding brethren un-Islamic, it is OUR actions which have “radicalized” those Jihad murderers, NOT the doctrines of Islam itself. In short, these educated rational Muslim interlocutors do everything in their power to lay the blame for Islamic Jihad at our feet. We are told we have not done enough for the Muslims, this is why they are angry. We are told that Jihad is more a result of our own misunderstanding of Islam. We are assured that whenever we make a link between the doctrines of Islam and the terror it engenders that WE are expressing “Islamophobia”, and cause thereby more “radicalization” among tye otherwise peace loving Muslims of planet earth.
Educated rational Muslims are also waging Jihad against us. Their lies and deflections have furthered the goals of a conquering Islam. They abet their violent brethren and keep the enemy camp of “infidels” confused and stupid.
Central to the doctrine of Islam is the spread of Islam through Jihad. Muslims wage jihad against the infidels by colonizing his lands, birthing Muslim babies, having bake sales for the local “Islamic community center”, extracting concessions and loot from infidels under every imaginable pretext, exploiting the secular laws of the West to subvert the West, and by strapping on bombs to murder and terrorize. Only the violent forms of Jihad seem to bother most Westerners, while the equally insidious infiltration and subversion of the West gains ib momentum.
Until we infidels realize the full extent of the cancer of Islamic Jihad being waged by murderers and their educated rational Islamic abettors, we are doomed to suffer ongoing Jihad in all its grotesque forms.
Very sorry for typos — posting on a tiny mobile hand held which doesn’t scroll for proof reading.
Delusional.
“War cannot be avoided; it can only be postponed to the other’s advantage.”
Niccolo Machiavelli
Italian dramatist, historian, & philosopher (1469 – 1527)
Nothing in history can be offered as proof of your theory. The cold war was not ‘cold’. There is a long black wall in Washington D.C. that gives the lie to that sorry old story.
“Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.”
Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourse upon the First Ten Books of Livy
As accurate a statement as any man has every put on paper.
“Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
The key here is to avoid being forced to make the choice between fear and love. That is what a diplomat does.
Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If Bush had withdrawn from the NPT, the Geneva Convention and offered to nuke a Muslim city every time there was a terror attack, the GWOT would be over.
Dubbau didn’t have the sand for that, so now we are about 8 years into another 100 years war. The west won’t surrender and the Muslims don’t take prisoners so this is a fight to the death. After a generation or two, the USA will face that fact and exterminate the Muslims. After we withdraw from any treaty prohibiting genocide.
“Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
“The key here is to avoid being forced to make the choice between fear and love. That is what a diplomat does. ”
That is what a pandering ninny like Obama does.
“War does not decide who is right but who is left.”
George Bernard Shaw
If Jihad wants it, they can come and get it.
We must fight this war so that our children don’t have to. They will be busy enough with their own wars.
“This is a war universe. War all the time,
There may be other universes
but ours seems to be based on war and games.”
William S. Burroughs
#11. Good points. Sadly thus far Westerners have been too stupid or self-absorbed to realize the subversive and insidious ways that Jihad is waged on the infidel. The western tradition of “standing and fighting” does not enter into the brain of these bullies and cowards.
1. rob: what about defeating it by military means?
Its quite difficult to defeat a hostile population by military means except by genocide (unacceptable).
So the alternative is occupation(oppression), or as we might prefer law enforcement. Honest cops can go a ways in taking the teeth out of Jihadist murderers. But that doesn’t solve the problem.
Jihad is an idea, and can only be killed by replacing it with another. Ideally we’d like it to be replaced by mutual respect and personal responsibility, but life isn’t ideal.
Kill’em all isn’t a morally defensible course of action. for either us or them, unfortunately their morals see things a little differently.
Peace,
~e
It would be wonderful if Islam were subject to the same forces that toppled communism, but it is a, “faith”, by definition irrational. Moreover, it is immutable. The Suras and Hadiths from 900 a.d. cannot be reinterpreted. Reinterpretation is not allowed by any Islamic sect.
Modern Islam functions according to rules proclaimed when violence was commonplace. It presumes the existence of international chaos and the Koran tells Muslims how to preserve themselves and their faith in that instability, by violence.
Because of the canon that states that everything that can be said about Islam was said by 900 a.d., it will never change. The best nations can do is recognize the irrationality, intractability and the readiness to resort to violence of Muslims who are their countrymen and compel them to obey those laws that create the conditions for an orderly and happy society. “Cultural sensitivity”, should never include permitting Muslims to behave in ways that violate the rights of every citizen.
The studies which the author cites are interesting but of little practical value.
The most powerful and feared weapon that the Saudis have is the oil weapon. The way around that is the development of PEACEFUL nuclear power.
The Russians had the natural gas weapon and also a powerful oil export business. We know that the KGB was active in promoting the anti-nuclear movement in the West under Communism.
I bet if one looked hard enough, one would find Saudi money behind the opposition to more rational US energy policies.
Did you know that a project to develop a reactor capable of making gasoline from coal and water has been drastically scaled back by the Obama Administration?
I would like to thank all of you who have responded to my analysis.
Military option in a focused, limited and devastating way is a must, of course. I have argued that the West needs to leverage a large nation like India which is on a death-fight with nations and Islamic forces. If the West plays its cards right, India could become a front-line state in an offensive counter-jihad. More details in the references.
Educated Muslims are the main executors of both violent and non-violent (stealth) jihad. As I have argued in my book, they have been brainwashed by clerics into becoming what they are. The analysis I have outlined in my book indicates that it is eminently possible to liberate them, and to drive a wedge between them and the clerics.
Mr. Muthuswamy — I agree that India is our natural ally against Jihad, but I still question the likelihood/feasibility of severing those “educated” Muslims from the doctrine of Islam. You seem to be suggesting that the clerics have somehow gotten their Islam wrong! How is this possible?
Also, who becomes the new arbiter for this new-and-improved Islam for the wrongfully indoctrinated rational educated Muslims?
Westerners?!
Hindus?!
Perhaps arbiters would arise from those reviled (among mainstream Muslims) “moderate” Islamic sects such as Amahdis or Sufis???!!! But they are often as despised by Muslims as any infidel or Jew!
Being replete with paranoic prohibitions against the evil designs of unbelievers and apostates and against all “unbelievers”, Islam proves particularly immunized against reformist currents such as those which have “reformed” other world religions. Sadly for the world (and this includes those enslaved under Islam itself) Islam’s trends towards reformation will probably always look more like al Qaida than the Christian or Jewish reformations. Any reformer who we’d find comforting in the West or in India will be ruthlessly exterminated by the Islamic hive.
15 – military defeat in no way equals occupation/genocide. surely you are aware of that.
you take the teeth out of an ideology that is convinced it will forcibly conquer the world by defeating it which, by definition, shows that the ideology is a failed one. other competing non-violent interpretations of the koran can then have a stronger claim to orthodoxy. or you can continue to try to convince the zealot who terrorizes dissentors to be more open-minded, which has worked where in the history of the world?
The ‘bull in the China shop’ which everyone, the author of the piece included, is avoiding is the Koran. This is what drives the CULT and the ideology and much as they try Mohammedans cannot deflect us from looking at it. It is an antisemitic, misogynistic, violent, illogical , self contradictory, Arab Supremacist book of Hate and War. Unfortunately Mohammedans have painted themselves in to a corner by declaring it the ‘actual UNALTERABLE word of God’ . So they have no room for compromise and no way of reforming it. Any talk about reforming Islam MUST take this ‘show stopper’ in to account.
The one point missed by those commenting about the Islamic war we are in, the power of the Islamic Clergy. The Clergy is fighting a death struggal with their own people. They will kill their own people to enforce complience. (This is forbidden in the Koran.) They are ruthles and are willing for millions of their own people to die in order to control them. We in our own beliefs trust that the religious clerics to be good honest people and will allow the Clerics to immigrate to any country, where they can proceed to force compliance to their own beliefs. Forceing the clerics back to their own contries would reduce the influence off Islame
17 Whitehall — exactly what I thought as well. This article was a very interesting expose of some underlying truths in Islam, but drew an illogical conclusion based on the premise that you can get educated people to act rationally — if that worked, liberals would not be running our universities!
The way to defeat Islam, IMHO, is to recognize that there is no way to systematically reason with them, but there are many ways to prevent their control over parts of the US economy — by drilling, baby, drilling, and by building more nuclear power plants. The first will sustain us while more efficient means for exploiting electricity are developed, and the second will give us a nearly-unlimited supply of electricity for all those new technologies. Who needs Saudi Arabia if we don’t need their oil? The Middle East exports nothing else of serious value to us.
I suspect that’s exactly why liberals do everything they can to block those two sources of energy, while pushing ridiculously inefficient and inconsistent “green” sources. I would love to know exactly how much Saudi blood money soils the hands of liberal politicians and organizations.
Mr. Morton
The clerics certainly got their Islam right!
The figures from the statistical analysis (and other data) compellingly tell us that the dominant intent of Islam is indeed conquest and control.
Even now, text books in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan continue to reinforce what is said in the Islamic doctrines — which is jihad directed at unbelievers and repression of Muslim societies through sharia.
Reforming or moderating Islam, given its focus, appears unrealistic.
The “brainwashing” I mentioned earlier is the clerical claim of utopia if Islam is followed, when in reality, Islam’s propagation and practice brings adversity.
This is what we have failed to counter thus far meaningfully, and should be focusing on!
I thought that this articloe was spot on. Islam can be beaten, recently a German researcher finished copying a early Yeman version of the Koran which is different to the version which Muslims believe to be the unchanging word of god. If we can get enough of them to see that and at the same time remove the Islam enforcers then we can deal with Islam, however it requires the right sort of people in charge of the West, and quite frankly this load of rubbish who seem to think that global warming is man made are certainly not up to it. Problem is that the West is now run by a bunch of lemmings…, so its all going to end in a massive bloodfeast, sadly.
Actually there is a way to change the prescriptions (“fatwas”) of the ruling islamic clerics: Defeat the jihadists on the battlefield. Just kill as many of them as possible, and simply rout them. Such defeats are recognized in the Islamic tradition as valid manifestations of the will of Allah, and can be taken seriously, and heeded.
There are other options for us in the west, of course: convert to Islam, of accept dhimmitude. The advocates of these choices are not stating them quite so transparently. Instead they talk about “understanding, respect, overtures toward the clenched fists”, etc… The message is not too hard to decode.
Solution is;
A special bomb that reboots everyone’s brains within 1000 miles of Mecca. Dollowed by dropping millions of copies of the ‘Teachings of the Quakers’ or somesuch
The lies inherent within Islam is their Achillies heal, faith once broken is a very powerful weapon, this Yeman version of the Koran is really important.
Very good observations, David H.
I wrote the book because I truly believe that we can win this war, even with the kind of leadership we have. I have discussed how we could do that (certainly not by staying in Iraq or in Afghanistan, for that matter).
Enemy’s weaknesses have been identified more clearly than ever. We can and we will win this war of ideas.
The bottom line is, in my view as a scientist sociologist, our civilization is a capable problem-solving one, and their’s, is not (other than creating more of them).
@ # 15.
“Genocide” such a scary word filled with negative connotation and heavy with White/Euro guilt.
1) Why is it not morally acceptable to utterly destroy an enemy that is out to do the same to you?
2) Islam is like a cancer upon humanity, look at history an you will see it is true, why is it wrong to utterly destroy a cancer that will ultimately destroy its host?
3) Wars driving back Muslim gains or subjugating Islamic lands are merely kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with, see #2.
4) Tribes, nations, and religions have been destroyed before, many less belligerent and oppressive than Islam, why does Islam and its adherents deserve to continue their ways?
I do not believe in the winning the war of ideas. In this case the idea of Islam is so vile and nasty, it should be put to death. Not over come, not argued, not sanitized, just put to death.
The problem is not at the top. The core problem is at the bottom. As many times as you contain the problem at the top, the bottom will always give birth to a new generation of unfits. So our children will always have to deal with the core problem, unless we put it to death for good.
I do not hate anyone, but how many lives will it cost to come to the end? How many of our future childrens lives will be lost?
Lets look at the real figures in strategy. Figures projected over 30 to 50 years of the blood cost to us, not kill it.
Thank you for further exposing the lies that Islam is a legitimate religion.
When there is no freedom of conscience and the leaders and scriptures are not subject to criticism, then you have what is basically a first-rate example of what is commonly known as a cult.
Add to that the fact that Islam and its leaders have had over 1,300 years of perfecting their techniques of brainwashing and you have tyranny of the first order.
No modern political movement has ever succeeded in keeping 1/4 of the world’s population in check, but Islam does.
Not even “moderate” Muslims dare raise their voices against the terrorists among them, since it is built into their religion that jihad must be accomplished by any means necessary.
May the west, truth, equality, democracy and justice prevail.
To make the win more-or-less permanent, the ideology should be neutralized to the core, as was the case with Nazism.
This is the context of using the war of ideas, which by no means minimizes to use of decisive and devastating military force.
Beyond the ridiculous notion that the Koran is the direct, immutable word of the Islamic god, there is another foundation of Islam that needs to be brought down with a wrecking ball.
The Koran fetes the “prophet” of Islam as “an excellent model of conduct”. Muslims consider Muhammed “al-insan al-kamil” or “the perfect man”, whose actions are to be emulated.
We must tear down the myth of Muhammed, for far from being an excellent model of conduct or the perfect man, Muhammed was perhaps one of the most vile men in the pantheon of human history.
Muhammed was a sadistic sociopathic megalomaniac, a murderer, a mutilator, an amputator, a decapitator, a slave master, a human slave trafficker, a rapist, a misogynist, a looter and a thief, a liar, a paedophile rapist, a sexual deviant, terrorist, a genocidist motivated by unquenchable greed, power and lust.
Are ANY of these actions the actions of a perfect man? Are ANY of these actions worthy of emulation? Absolutely not.
Muhammed lived a life antithetical to every virtue and value held sacred in the modern world. Muhammed was nothing more than a successful Charles Manson, and like Manson, Muhammed should be reviled not revered. He should have been icarcerated, not venerated.
Muslims forbid any discussion, criticism or representation of Muhammed, and go into an uncontrollable rage any time this happens (recall the Muhammed cartoon riots & the Muhammed teddy bear event).
They do this because they know Muhammed was an evil barbarian, and this is the only way they can defend the indefensible actions of their “prophet” – by scaring people into not talking about him.
We MUST talk about him, however. Muhammed must be exposed, and Muslims must be confronted with the truth about this savage. We must defame, demistify and un-deify Muhammed by simply educating people about what he did, and we must make Muslims defend their barbarian prince.
This is a direct and simple way to destroy the foundation of Islam.
Please help expose the truth about Muhammed.
~ The Infidel Alliance
20. rob:
My previous post doesn’t disagree with you. Taking the teeth out of militant Islam attacks its very idea.
30. Scott:
Genocide is NOT an acceptable option and the US doesn’t practice it (at least not since smallpox blankets were distributed).
But what does the military do? Kill people, break things, take prisoners, or threaten to do so.
Our troops have the LOAC or Law of Armed Conflict. I won’t go over it but the gist of it is protect yourselves first, shoot bad people, try not to kill people who don’t need to die, but do what you gotta do. The fact that we have and follow the LOAC makes us the most highly respected in the world.
When the baddies are off in the wilderness our troops can fight them much like they would a traditional army. However when they are hiding among a civilian population that may be somewhat hostile and coerced against cooperation by threats of violence by baddies its a whole new pie. The pretty word is law enforcement. But if you had a police force circle your neighborhood daily and kick in your door to check for baddies a few times a year. You might feel a ‘little’ oppressed. And you might be a little dissuaded to share what little information you know after you heard about the family, children and all, a block away that was murdered by baddies for being seen near a passing patrol. Oh, and your gun you might have kept for defense has been confiscated temporarily for safety reasons, not to mention the whole day you spent downtown explaining why you had it.
Law enforcement to protect civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan are working. Its not pleasant to police or live under, even if the harsher restrictions can be eased and incorruptible locals can take over much of the gruntwork.
One of the main reasons Nazi ideology was “neutralized to the core” was that Nazi Germany was completely defeated, occupied, and some ten percent of the population killed in the process. For an ideology that held “night makes right” this defeat was a convincing proof that the ideology was wrong.
The jihadists believe, along with almost all other Muslims, that the whole world should be ruled by Muslims and no other religion allowed, except perhaps some few dhimmis living in a condition of Apartheid. You don’t need statistical analyses of Qur’anic passages to show that. You need only pay attention to what Muslims say and write.
People talk about a Muslim Reformation. It has already happened. The Wahhabis in Arabia are the Reformation, and have spread their narrow, bigoted form of Islam thorughout the world. It is the latest of several “reformations” of a similar ilk. A puritanical sect arises, generally in some marginal desert area, and conquers the more civilized portions of the Umma in the name of bringing about a return to pure Islam. The best known examples in the West are the Almoravides and the Almohades in Spain in the 11th-13th Centuries. There are others though. Ibn Khaldun recognized this as a recurring pattern in Islamic history. Now similar types are coming for Europe and the rest of the world.
It will not be easy to cobble together an alliance against the Jihadist threat. Countries like Russia and China (and France) see it as a good way to curb the power of America, not foreseeing any problems for themselves, or shrugging it off if they do. That’s for later, they tell themselves.
In the war of ideas realm, that is just what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. The jihadists have their Big Idea, world conquest, the establishment of a new Caliphate where Muslims will swagger about as Uebermenschen and lord it over the wretched dhimmis. Against that we pit our Big Idea: liberty and prosperity in the modern world. By actually being there we provide the choice, for without us Iraq at present will fall back into tyranny or be captured by the jihadists. After a few more years we can probably withdraw and Iraq be able to stand on its own. 2013 is my target date for that, roughly ten years. Now is too early. But it is not so much occupation as support for those who want to move into the modern world. Without that they will be cowed by jihadists and ulema, and become more of those “moderate Muslims” who by their silence endorse jihad de facto. Afghanistan is a different problem, and should be treated differently, with a consensual government based on local customs, not attempts at Westminster-style democracy.
Michael:
There is a little chance that any previous approach is exactly applicable with our fight with Islamic forces. Just about all of the questions you have raised are addressed in my book.
I will try and address some of your main points.
The importance of statistical analysis is that one can use the language of science to articulate, convince and mobilize people against this threat. This analysis tells us that not just the Wahhabi Islam, the core of the Koran itself probably is bigoted.
No puritanical sect in some marginal desert area can spread its influence in the modern times, without the resources (oil in this case). Wahhabism is not reformation, it is a Saudi framework for conquering and controlling the world, much like the Nazism or the Soviet-based Communism.
Countries like India are on a death-fight with Islamic forces. If the West can help them, they will fight and impose an asymmetric warfare on our enemies. The main military fight is between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran on one side vs. America, Israel and India on the other.
Lastly, we won the last cold war, not by occupation, but by discrediting the Communist ideology and by showing off our own system based upon liberty and capitalism. Occupation, support whatever one may call it (be it in Iraq or Afghanistan), is just a bad idea when the real problem is with the theology itself.
You just can’t reason with a group that believes that a 5 year old kid has been living in a well for hundreds of years and will emerge when the world is in turmoil. [see 12th Imam]
Islam is a political system which does repress anybody.
In Iran a high mullah has spoken out that it is allowed to rape boys in prison, this is not an homosexual act, but a way to break them. It is not allowed to execute virgins so prison-guards do marry the victims the night before their execution and while they rape them they must say prayers. Islam is so sick, so ill that you can discuss nothing with muslims. The only way is to bring them back from Europe and USA to where they do belong to their desert in Arabia. There they belong not here, throw them out better yesterday than tomorrow, all of them out.
The first issue is that people keep saying we won the cold war, OK, the USSR is no more, but the ideology is alive and kicking and those people brainwashed by this ideology are in positions of power throughout the West. One being your own President, these people are likely to be using Islam to break the cohesian of the West and therefore are unlikely to act against Islam in the near future.
I would not say that the core of the Koran is probably bigoted, it is bigoted.
A faith or religion like Islam can only by beaten if you destroy the faith and also remove those that enforce its rules by terror. I think that with the Yeman scrolls we have something that can show that the Koran was changed, the second part is to remove those that are likely to block this message from getting heard. I would be very hard with those people, but the majority of Muslims I feel are slaves to this religion.
When you said that our society is a problem solving one, yes the West as it was was that, but this West we have now is not the same, Europe is a prime example of that.
I am optimistic for one important reason, the people are now starting to get it, and soon those senseless elits will be unable to ignore it or will do so at their own peril…
So what’s the hard core of Islam? It’s around 25% of the Muslim population anywhere. The rest will sail whichever way the wind moves. This hard core comprises the clergy and two-thirds of well-off husbandmen. This core has to be bumped off. The rest will fall in line by impact. But as we all know that it’s easier said than done, the civilized world would have to find ways to expedite the process. Some serious crisis involving Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey all at once or one at a time, would have to “emerge”. The first in line obviously is Pakistan and I want this not just because I’m an Indian but because Pakistan has beaten all the rest of the rogues to the “finishing pole” hands down. It deserves to be the first. In fact, I believe something to this effect is already cooking up. It’s sad that the subcontinent will bear the full brunt of this World War III if I may call it so, and my country, India, would be pushed to the brink of hell but that’s how things are going to be like. As a resident of Mumbai, I’ll be among the first Indians to get roasted as my city will be the first irresistible target of the Pakis. If our air-defences stave off these attacks we might live to tell the tale. Whatever it is, we’ll win. For us and for the rest of the civilized world.
What Does “Islam” Mean?
The word “Islam” itself means “Submission to Allah.” The religion of Islam is not named after a person as in the case of “Christianity” which was named after Jesus Christ, “Buddhism” after Gutama Buddha , “Marxism” after Karl Marx, and “Confucianism” after Confucius.
Similarly, Islam is not named after a tribe like “Judaism” after the tribe of Judah and “Hinduism” after the Hindus. The Arabic word “Islam” means the submission or surrender of one’s will to the will of the only true god worthy of worship, “Allah” (known as God “the Father” in Christianity).
Anyone who does indeed submit to the will of Allah as required by Islam is termed a “Muslim,” which means one who has submitted to the will of Allah. Many people in the West have developed the sad misinformed trend of calling Islam “Muhammadenism” and it’s followers “Muhammadins.” This is a totally foreign word to Muslims and unrecognized by them. No Muslim has ever called his religion “Muhammadenism” or called himself a “Muhammadin.”
What Is The Basic Concept of Islam?
Islam teaches us that this life is a life of worship. We are placed on this earth in order to worship Allah and obey His command. During this earthly life we are subjected to a series of trials. We have the option of enduring these trials and conforming to certain laws, and our reward will be great in the next life, or we may decline to endure these trials and choose to not conform to the law, then we will be made to regret it in the next life.
Each person will be solely and completely responsible for their own final reward. We are also told that God has designed these laws to make this life a better, safer, and more tolerable one for us. If we elect to conform to them then we will see the result in this life even before moving on to the next.
We are told that the earthly life is a life of faith and work, and the next life is one of reward and no work. We have been placed on this earth to worship God, fast, pray, be industrious, good, kind, respectful, and a source of uprightness and morality. We are told that God has no need of our worship. Our worship can not increase the kingdom of God nor add to His power, however, it is in our best interests both in this life and the next that we do.
Unlike some other religions which claim that God entered in a covenant with a certain group of people and that this group is genetically better than all other human beings, or closer to God, Islam on the other hand teaches that no color, race, tribe, or lineage is better than any other. Islam teaches that all humans are equal in the sight of Allah and that the only thing that can distinguish them in His sight is their piety and worship.
“O humankind! Verily! We have created you from a male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Verily! the noblest among you in the sight of Allah is the most God-fearing. Verily! Allah is The Knower, The Aware.” The noble Qur’an, Al-Hujrat(49):13.
Learn quran because it’s the best way to feel Islam learn quran online, learn quran http://www.learningquranonline.com learn quran online, learn quran
God says in the Quran”Defend evil with what is better,then there will be between whom there was hatred turn about as close friends.None will be able to attain that bliss except the patient,none will attain it except the fortunate.”It was when the pagans of Quraysh didnot let the believers practise their religion,when they would take out their slaves in the hot sun,put a huge rock over them and swear to do so until they renounce The One God,when they would take out a mother,a father and a son,crucify them and martyred his parents in front of the son and torture him till he renounces his Lord that believerd fled for their faith.Even after leaving, the unbelievers wouldnot leave them alone,but kept betraying them.This was the time God gave the believers permission to fight.We just want to be able to practse our religion and spread it.Being an Indian myself I do love my place of birth and defend it ,also we are free to practsie our religion and spread it.
Moorthy,
I wish that more Indians like you step foward and present there theories of lies to the West. I believe that the war being waged on Muslims by the West will have a disastours outcome.
The following quote sums up why this war will fail;
“We must never confuse the situation as it stands with the one we desire, least we risk our credibility”.
The West has no credibility in the Islamic World and therefore its call for peace will fall on deaf ears.
Looking forward to reading your book…..
Regards,
Muhammad Qasim
An educated Muslim
Because bees will release an alarm pheromone if threatened, beekeepers are very careful to avoid accidentally harming bees.
Bees sting multiple times if threatened but only attack when the hive or swarm feels threatened. Since bees sting when threatened, the best way to avoid getting stung is to avoid them.
Bees normally do not mind being closely observed as long as they aren’t touched or threatened. The best course of action is to leave them alone.
Beating on a bee nest with a stick is not recommended.
Let us try the following scientific experiment: All US troops are withdrawn from Islamic countries and no force is used against these countries for anything other than to defend itself against direct attack from said countries. If the Muslims continue to be violent then I might agree that Islam is a violent ideology. If the violence stops, as I suspect it will, then I’d ask you to kindly shove your scientific experiment up your arse!
Having said that, Islam is a stupid religion that borrows directly and heavily from another stupid religion called Judaism. Maybe you heard of it? So, might one ask, why don’t we have “scientific” experiments done to show us why the Israelis are such violent buggers? Because we are not at war with the Israelis, that is why.
Just because the US defeated the Soviet Union during the cold war does not mean that Communism is necessarily an obsolete idea. Likewise, if Islam defeats the US and the US empire goes the way of the Soviet Union it will not mean that Islam is a good idea.
Science? What science? There’s no science here. This is playing with statistics to show the world that we are superior to them therefore we are justified in bombing, killing, maiming, destabilizing, stealing, and generally speaking pissing all over the ME.
To the educated Muslim posters here.
Your postings and by many of us here have mistakes, even with the assistance of modern technology. Is it not against common sense to believe that the Koran doesn’t have any errors?
Infidel #1:
You need to read (in my book) about the ongoing violent jihad in South Asia. It has been imposed on non-Muslims there, whether they like it or not.
Mr.Moorthy Your animosity towards Pakistan is real you are trying to convert people to the hate you have for Pakistan and for muslims and I accept that but your statistical analysis is somewhat dead wrong UN Human development Index thru which you measure muslim countries’ performance is a creation of a muslim by the name of Mahboob ul Haq who was former Finance Minister of Pakistan, and Director of World Bank. Mr. Moorthy your hate towards muslims is understandable and I hope that you ask your fellow Tamil brothers to please leave developed Muslim contry Malaysia and go back to India as well as benifiting from the arabs petrodollars in Middle-East places like Dubai, Muscat, Kuwait why are they abandoning the gr8 ‘standard of living’ in India and going to Middle-East, also please explain the persecution new hindu converts to christianity in south India sorry to say you cannot blame this fact on muslims as they aren’t many of them there. Ignorant Americans can also google person by the name of Fazlur Khan who designed America’s once tallest building the Sears Towers and Hancock building these mozlems are so primitive first update your knowledge about them who exist around you then myou mite realize their personal growth. Also may talk about Koran there is book of Sion in the Bible please read that too. Also Hindus consider any non-hindu a maleech the lowest when it comes to caste,we muslims dont follow the caste system another form of racism
Animosity, or at least aversion, toward Pakistan should be embraced by everyone who believes in civilized values. Pakistan is an artificial country, never existed in history, and is based on the “ideology” of Islam. At least they do not lie about that point. But as Islam is not just a religion but a political ideology, had the Pakis succeeded in their genocide, succeeded in exterminating more (over 100.000 murdered, according to some estimates) of the Bangla people fighting for their liberty against Paki-Urdu linguistic/cultural colonization and Muslim Punjabi economic imperialism in the 1970s, men like Muhammad Yunnus might have been dead, as were those Muslim students and Muslim professors slaughtered by the Muslim Paki army at Dhaka University in 1972. Yunnus was co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, with the non-Sharia Grameen Bank. He founded the bank mainly for poor women, of all creeds, in Bangladesh. Yunnus did not undertake this venture because of Islam but because he was and is a great humanitarian, contra Islam, which denies basic dignity to non-Muslims, unless they convert or pay the toll-tax (jizya).
As for Fazrul Khan, another American of Bengali origin, he would never had the opportunity to contribute to the advancement of structural engineering in the 1950s had be gone to a Madrassa. Fazrul’s achievements were, contra Islamic education, possible because he worked in the center of world technological innovation, the United States. He availed himself of the opportunity to work with some of the best engineers, visionary architects, and inspiring designers in the world at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. And they hired him because he was talented and bright, not because he was Muslim. In Pakistan, with a few token exceptions, you cannot get a decent job in government or business unless you are Muslim. In India, an “untouchable” (dalit) was the last president of the country, and the chief minister of one of biggest states in North India (Uttar Pradesh) was a dalit woman called Mayawati.
Indians were brought to Malaya, as indentured laborers, to work on British-owned rubber plantations. Many Indians were shipped to the Caribbean as well, to work in sugarcane plantations upon the end of the slave trade in the British Empire in 1832. Some Indians, including many Indian Muslims, go to the Gulf to work as guest workers, not because they love it there (immigration is restricted) but for a wage. Many leave before their contracts expire, because they are subjected to some of the vilest Arab racism north of the Suez. Their motives for going to the Gulf is unlike the motives of some Pakis, who go to the Gulf to plot jihad, to launder money from the opium trade in Afghanistan, to secret away stolen American funds intended for the War on Terror, and last but not least, to sleep with “impure,” white Kaffir prostitutes from countries of the former Soviet Union.
The caste system is banned under the Indian constitution; jihad is not banned in any countries occupied or ruled by Muslims. The late Benazir Bhutto’s father, the same fellow who was hanged by his Muslim brethren in the Paki army, and was responsible for the Bangladesh genocide, proclaimed a 1000-year jihad against India in 1972. If he was not a mleccha, then he was worse than a Hun, or a barbarian–to use the Hellenic term for the Persians who invaded Attica and burned down the Temple of Athena on the Acropolis in ancient times. The Greeks called this crime sacrilege. Bhutto would have called it jihad. This Paki Muslim war criminal of course forgot that this is the second millennium of jihad being waged against the peoples of India by the Pakis, who guided by their nefarious ideology, are now giving the atom bomb (the new plutonium-based version, thanks to the Chinese) to Saudi Arabia, from whose soil, as we well know, most of the 9/11 terrorists came to America, to spread the Islamic message of peace, love, and brotherhood. Iran now wants to do something similar, as an act of Muslim charity: it wants to spread the Islamic message of peace to Israel.
Irony aside, Muthuswamy knows the score, unlike many Indians who blindly vote for the dhimmi-socialists and communists, who were paralyzed by the recent Muslim Paki-based armed jihad attack on Mumbai, more so because they have no clue about what Islam really stands for. Muthuswamy should be commended and honored for his tireless work in defence of civilization. Let us hope the White House of the most powerful nation on planet earth today gives up more of its dhimmi attitude and stands up and fights for the free world, not by giving sophisticated arms to terrorist nations like Pakistan, which are going to be used against India, but by curtailing, uprooting, dismantling the ideology that gives rise to jihad, which is mental foundation upon which this artificial country, this base of al-Qaeda, this epicenter of world terrorism called Pakistan, is based.
PS. About Christians, a case of the kettle calling the pot black.
See http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/07/22/pakistan-clerics-threaten-to-kill-christian-for-marrying-muslim-christian-girls-kidnapped/
Infidel # 1, Israel has all along reacted to violence committed against her. Yes, you might wonder why the Jews don’t take the violence lying down like we here in India do. You must also have noticed that the “dreaded” Hamas doesn’t fire their rockets into Israel anymore after the last pounding. Well, we unfortunately don’t have the same flexibility as the Israelis have since the Pakis are said to have nukes. But then, there’s a point beyond which our compulsion will apparently run thin. What then? See here mate, nobody gives a damn whether Islam is a stupid religion or not because all we know about Islam is death and destruction and that seems more alarming than stupid. At least here in South Asia, this bloody juggernaut has to be stopped at all costs. It’s another matter that we’ll never be able do it till we change our approach which is what you can call stupid and against the very tenet of what our tradition says. Right now our leadership is caught in the stupid Arjun dilemma if you can call it that and we’re waiting for the Lord to kick in some sense into those flabby and senile heads that run the country.
IPM, the Paki-generated holocaust in East Bengal did not kill a mere 100,000 innocent Bengalis. That load of nonsense is dished around by commie historians just as they’ve been upholding the book of British colonial lies that had turned our ancient history into a fantastic fable. The “White Aryan” race that overran the “Black Dravidian” race in around 1500 BC and what have you. Just imagine…this load of rubbish even gave birth to a robust sectarian political movement in Tamil Nadu, in Southern India that swears by “Dravidian” pride. Coming back to the point, the correct figure of the East Bengal holocaust was over 3 million dead and nearly half a million raped and over 80% of the victims were Hindus. We also know that a good measure of race related hatred had gotten mixed with the Jihadi fervour of the perpetrators of this colossal crime during that tragic period in East Bengal. Apparently, the Punjabi dominated Paki solders considered themselves racially superior to the “lowly Bengalis of the Bengal lowlands”. Bengali Hindus who wonder why their Muslim counterparts have chosen to be as fanatically inclined as the very Paki devils that spanked them, would do well to remember that it was the Hindus who bore the brunt of Paki butchery. It’s impossible that the matter would have been ignored by the world media, especially Indian media, had the majority of the victims of this tragedy been Muslims. Do the Indian media talk about the ethnic cleansing of half a million Hindus from the Kashmir valley? It’s a live example. And just compare that to the number of times Gujarat is referred in the same Indian and world media? In terms of scale, what happened in Gujarat is miniscule compared to East Bengal and Kashmir let alone, the colossal ethnic cleansing that wiped out Pakistan’s minority and is now wiping out Bangladesh’s minority.
http://www.islamicnet.com is a website for all kids, Muslims and Non-Muslims which allows everyone get free Quran lessons for Quran recitation, Tajweed, Translation, be it simple reading and learning or Scholarship programs, Islamicnet is helping everyone learn Quran online at home.
Anwarulquranonline.com is an learn online quran center for providing online Quran Tutoring service that enables you/your kids to learn to read the holy Quran with learn Tajweed Quran Recitation online in one to one Quran classes with live Male and Female Quran teacher. Students of all ages ranging from 4 to 70 years can take these Quran learning classes. All you need is a computer with headphone and internet connection