Posted on 04/26/2005 7:55:09 AM PDT by jan in Colorado
What steps should Western border agencies take to defend their homelands from harm by Islamists?
In the case of non-citizens, the answer is simple: Don't let Islamists in. Exclude not just potential terrorists but also anyone who supports the totalitarian goals of radical Islam. Just as civilized countries did not welcome fascists in the early 1940s (or communists a decade later), they need not welcome Islamists today.
But what about one's own citizens who cross the border? They could be leaving to fight for the Taliban or returning from a course on terrorism techniques. Or perhaps they studied with enemies of the West who incited them to sabotage or sedition. Clearly, the authorities should take steps to find out more about their activities, especially given the dangerous jihadi culture already in place in many Western countries, including Canada.
This question arose in late December 2004, after a three-day Islamist conference, "Reviving the Islamic Spirit," took place in Toronto. The event, boasting a host of high-profile Islamist speakers such as Bilal Philips, Zaid Shakir, Siraj Wahhaj, and Hamza Yusuf, alarmed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), America's new border agency..
Excerpt... Read more at http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
(Excerpt) Read more at JewishWorldReview.com ...
"Your first post on this thread and you are tired of me allready ? How do you stay wake reading AAC's ?"
Awww RS, rimshot. I know you can do better than that.
Is this a short enough post for ya?
Excellent work AAC; I love reading your posts!
"Perhaps you've never encountered the concept of illustrating absurdity by being absurd? "
OH - NOW I get it... all this time you have been illustrating the absurdity of people who engage in simple dialoge by writing 1000 word essays, expecting people to hang on their every word and not need any source material for things in contention that they present as fact.
All this time you have simply been illustrating how absurd someone who WOULD use the phrase "You seriously underestimate who you're dealing with in me, obsequious twit." is.
You're a regular Al Franken aren't you ? Ha Ha ha
>"You're a regular Al Franken aren't you ?"<
To be precise: no.
>"expecting people to hang on their every word and not need any source material for things in contention that they present as fact."<
Now that would be a pretty low set of expectations indeed.
Since you are apparently reluctant to accept:
1) innumerable historical instances of violence and war committed by thoroughly mainstream muslims,
2) innumerable historical examples of the duplicity of muslims who effected conquest by deceit, initially flying a flag of peaceful coexistence and tolerance of other religions/cultures only to rip away the masque and prosecute war against the infidels with a savage vengeance,
3) innumerable verifiable verses cited from the Qur'an, which make crystal-clear alla-uzza's unwillingness to tolerate another religion or god than himself, or allow any of his believers to so tolerate in their proximity (when they can effect any change)
4) a plenitude of citations of other holy script and Sharia law widely accepted by (minimally) a simple majority of mainstream muslims which affirm, support, or augment the intolerant proscriptions of the Qur'an.
5) Islam's longstanding historical record of Qur'an-based oppression, disregard for, and disenfranchisement of women
as factual source material...
There's really no reasoning with you.
You're a regular Henri-Phillippe Petain, aren't you?
Ha ha ha
A.A.C.
So let's see -
Unless you're being absurd again, a simple pronouncement of "innumerable", "plenitude" or "longstanding" turns statements into facts.
Is this a variation of the " Because I say so " explanation ?
Protected Person Act a la Islam: (Original Version!)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html
The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule
After the rapid expansion of the Muslim dominion in the 7th century, Muslims leaders were required to work out a way of dealing with Non-Muslims, who remained in the majority in many areas for centuries. The solution was to develop the notion of the "dhimma", or "protected person". The Dhimmi were required to pay an extra tax, but usually they were unmolested. This compares well with the treatment meted out to non-Christians in Christian Europe. The Pact of Umar is supposed to have been the peace accord offered by the Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria, a "pact" which formed the patter of later interaction.
We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."
from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.
Interesting post Fred, I hadn't seen it before -
a little digging turned up this -http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2002/jul26.html
This link from it might interest you since it much more recent -
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1772-jewsinislam.html
It's called "Proof by Assertion" but don't think AAC gets credit for originating it--it's quite common in liberal circles. Bet he picked it up at DU or somewhere else his intrusive-government, anti-Constitution types hang out.
What's this? A brochure extolling the benefits of migrating to an islamic country?
"They are forbidden to build new churches, chapels, or monasteries in any Muslim land. We should destroy everything that is of new construction in every place, such as Cairo, for instance, founded under the Muslim religion, for it is said in a tradition of Umar: 'No church shall be built in Islam.' They shall no longer be permitted to repair the parts of these [post-Islamic] buildings which are in ruins. However, the old buildings [of pre-Islamic times] which are found in a land whose population had embraced Islam need not be destroyed. They shall not, however, be enlarged by means of repairs or otherwise. In case the tolerated peoples [Jews, Christians, etc.] act contrary to these provisions we will be obliged to destroy everything that has been added to the original size of the building. [Only pre-Islamic churches and synagogues may be repaired; new ones must be torn down.]
"Entrance into Muslim territory by infidels of foreign lands under the pact guaranteeing protection to the tolerated peoples is permitted only for the time necessary to settle their business affairs. If they exceed this period, their safe-conduct having expired, they will be put to death or be subject to the payment of the head-tax.[Jews and Christians of foreign lands must pay a special head-tax if they wish to remain permanently in Muslim lands.] As to those with whom the ruler may have signed treaties, and with whom he, for whatever motive, may have granted a temporary truce, they form only the smallest fraction. But they, too, must not pass the fixed limit of more than four months [without paying the tax], particularly if this occurs at a time when Islam is prosperous and flourishing. The Most-High has said [Qu'ran 2: 2341: 'They should wait four months,' and he has again said [47:37]: 'Do not show any cowardice, and do not at all invite the unbelievers to a peace when you have the upper-hand and may God be with you.'
fascinating site, so much info, can't thank you enough:
Submitting to Islam—or Dying
Ceasefires and peace talks bow to greater powers in Sudan.
By Jeff M. Sellers | posted 10/08/2003
CHATYOUT NYDANG is the leader of a Muslim militia that helps the Sudanese government wipe out Christians in southern Sudan. In July relief-and-development agency director Dennis E. Bennett spoke with an elderly southern Sudanese man in the eastern Upper Nile about life in territory that Nydang patrols.
"Routinely, anyone Chatyout's men catch walking to church is beaten and told to convert to Islam, or next time they'll be beaten harder or killed," the approximately 65-year-old Nuer tribesman, Jon Giang-giang, told Bennett.
After finding a Nuer Bible in his backpack, Nydang's men recently beat Giang-giang until he was unconscious. Bennett, executive director of Servant's Heart, says they left Giang-giang in a pit for more than two days.
Little information about abuses in the Longochok area of the eastern Upper Nile surfaced until Servant's Heart began working there five years ago. Until two years ago, before government-allied forces lost ground to southern troops, Nydang's men would ask women they encountered on isolated roads one question—are you Christian or Muslim?
"If she answered 'Muslim,' she was set free," Bennett says. "If she answered 'Christian,' she was gang-raped by 10 to 20 soldiers. Then they would cut off her breasts to leave her to bleed to death, as an example to others that this is what will happen to you unless you convert to Islam."
The government of Sudan uses such local militias in its campaign to wipe out Christians and to secure their oil-rich lands in southern Sudan. It has begun pumping oil from a well in the eastern Upper Nile.
Two decades of civil war between Sudan's Muslim north and its Christian and animist south have left 2 million people dead. Government forces regularly target civilian villages and churches.
Sudan signed a ceasefire agreement with the southern Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) in October 2002. The government has violated it with major military offensives in the oil-rich Upper Nile since December 31.
"Attacks have continued unabated in both eastern and western Upper Nile despite the signing of a second and supposedly more comprehensive [ceasefire] in February 2003," says Richard Chilvers of Surrey, U.K.–based Christian Solidarity Worldwide.
The October 2002 Sudan Peace Act requires the Bush administration to help monitor ceasefires and sanction violations of them. Bennett says such U.S. action has been tragically lacking.
I couldn't help but notice the last line; It's all Bush's fault.
Referencing my prior posting Point number 1)...history of mainstream muslim aggression...(apologies to those with the attention span of a five year old. This is a somewhat lengthy account. Please note the writing is NOT MINE...)
The very first Muslim attack on India had taken place nearly 500 years earlier in Sindh in the year 715 C.E. These Muslim invaders were Arabs led by Mohammad Bin Qasim. They had displaced Raja Dabir who ruled Sindh from his capital Deval (near modern Karachi). The actual reason for this invasion was that Raja Dabir was aiding the Iranian (Zoroastrian) princes in trying to overthrow the Arab Rule in Persia. This seems to be a fact as many Sassanian nobles from Iran had taken refuge in Sindh and were plotting for the liberation of their country from the Arab yoke.
But the pretext given by Arab historians for the Arab invasion of Sindh is that Raja Dabir's navy had detained an Arab merchant ship. To avenge this detention of a merchant ship, the Arabs overran the entire kingdom of Raja Dabir as also the neighbouring kingdom of Mulasthana (Multan).
They even unsuccessfully tried to attack Malwa (Malibah in Arab records)!
The second surge of the Muslim aggression began in 980 C.E. and lasted till 1020 C.E. This was the time when the Shahi Kings of Punjab grappled with the invaders. By the year 1020 C.E. Muslim rule had been established in Afghanistan, Paktoonistan (NWFP) and West Punjab. These Muslim invasions were led by Mahmud of Ghazni. The Rajputs ruling North India resisted further Muslim aggression.
The third wave of a successful Muslim invasion led by Mahmud Shabuddin Ghori (or Ghauri) took place between 1191 C.E. and 1255 C.E. This was the time the Muslims extended their occupation to Delhi. The lead role in resisting this invasion was played by Prithviraj Chouhan. This Muslim surge brought East Punjab, the Ganges Valley (Uttar Pradesh and Bihar) and Bengal under Muslim Occupation. This invasion reached up to Bengal where the last Hindu kingdom ruled by Laxman Sena was overrunn by the Muslims.
But the Muslims were checked and repelled when they tried to invade Orissa, where the Hindu King Narasimha Deva defeated Tugan Khan who invaded Orissa from Bengal. To commemorate this victory, Narasimha Deva erected the Sun Temple at Konark.
The next surge of the Muslim Invasion was launched from Delhi by Allah-ud-din Khilji in the year 1310 and was led by his general Malik Kafur. This invasion trampled the Hindu Kingdoms of the Yadavas of Devgiri in Maharashtra, the Kakatiyas of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh, the Hoysala of Belur-Halebid in Karnataka and the Pandyas of Madurai in Tamil Nadu. This invasion lasted till the year 1328 and with this invasion, except Orissa and Assam, the whole of India passed under Muslim Occupation.
Thus the struggle of the Hindus to resist the Muslim aggression into India was spread over a period of 600 years from 715 C.E. up to 1328 C.E.The Muslims could not subjgate India with ease. And even after subjugating different parts of the country, they were never able to rule it enitrely. The next 400 years from 1328 up to 1720 was marked by a valiant and ceaseless struggle for independence by Hindus to deliver India from Muslim tyranny.
The very first act of the Muslim invaders was to pillage the well endowed Hindu temples at Somnath, Thanesar, Mathura, Kannauj; and other places. By this, with one stroke, the riches concentrated in the hands of these temples through many centuries of grants from Hindu rulers, fell into the hands of the Muslim invaders from Ghazni and Ghori.
The Muslims aimed to totally destroy the Superstructure associated with the Hindu period. The term Superstructure** which the Muslims aimed at destroying included a wide spectrum of aspects of social life including Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism), language (Sanskrit and its various vernaculars), universities (like Nalanda), traditions of learning (ashramas, gurukulas), architectural symbols (temples, Chaityas, Viharas, Stupas), etc. The policy during the 700 years of Muslim occupation of India was to totally replace the superstructure of the Hindu period with a typical Muslim one.
Towards this end the Muslim invaders undertook the desecration of places of worship, destruction of universities like Nalanda, the wholesale slaughter of the monks and priests to wipe out the intellectual bedrock of the people they overran. Such were the tyrannical polices which the Muslim rulers followed since their rule was established in 1194 C.E.
Contrasts between non-Muslim Invasions and the Muslim Aggression of India
Though the new rulers built upon the same feudal economic foundations of the Hindu period, they aimed at total destruction of the super-structure as it then existed. In the early days of their reign the Muslim rulers unleashed a reign of terror the kind of which India had never experienced before in its history.
Before, the Muslims, India had been invaded by the Greeks (Yavanas), Huns (Hunas), Shakas and Kushanas, but what contrasted their invasions from that of the Muslims was that, after their initial collision with Indian society, the previous invaders were completely absorbed into the existing Indian society.
But the barrack-like lifestyle of the Muslims along with an attitude of contempt for everything associated with this country was to leave a split in India's national character when a significant part of the Indian population went over to the invaders by giving up their ancestral faith and embracing Islam.
But the fierce conflict that featured the early days of the Muslim occupation of India, was in its hidden essence a conflict for domination, of which religion was only one aspect. This struggle was primarily between the Muslim nobility (Amirs) led by the Muslim Monarch (Sultan) on one side with the Hindu nobility and general Hindu population on the other.
To quote D.D. Kosambi , a contemporary historian, "The monarch's regulations were so strictly carried out that the Khuts, Mukaddims or Chaudhuris (Hindu noblemen and village headmen) were not able to ride on horse-back, they were not allowed to carry weapons or even to indulge in betel. These classes were brought to such a state of obedience that one revenue officer would string twenty Khuts, Mukaddims or Chaudhuris together by the neck and enforce payment by blows.
(D.D. Kosambi Introduction to the Study of Indian History)
The Lower Castes (Classes) Bore the Worst Burden - Religious Persecution in Addition to the Existing Economic Exploitation
The tactics of the Muslim monarchy were aimed at breaking the hold of the erstwhile Hindu feudal nobility on the society and the economy. At its core, the Hindu-Muslim struggle was a brutal effort of a new ruling class of the Muslim conquerors in expropriating an older and established ruling class of its accumulated surplus along with the right to appropriate in the future.
The exploited classes of the former Hindu social structure did not experience any change in their economic position, but they now bore the additional burden of repression on religious grounds, the payment of Jazia (penalty tax which the Hindus had to pay for refusing to convert to Islam), the waves of forced conversions, where they, like their more fortunate noblemen and upper caste fellow countrymen, were made to submit to 'Islam' at the point of the Sword, the destruction of their places of worship, and the arbitrary humiliation of the honour of their womenfolk, in addition to the discrimination in legal matters and a general status of being second class citizens. It was for these tyrannical policies that the Muslims were looked upon by all Indians as Mlechha (commonly pronounced as Mlench) - which in Sanskrit means "barbarian".
But in all frankness, it should be said that despite Muslim tyranny, the lower castes of the Vaishyas and Shudras continued to be a tillers of the land with an obligation to part with a share of the crop to the state - whether Hindu or Muslim. Under Muslim rule their economic position did not change, but their social position became worse.
In addition to being economically exploited, as they were earlier during the Hindu period, they were now also socially tyrannized along with the rest of their countrymen, by their new intolerant rulers - the Muslims.
Even the brief revival of slavery that took place under the Delhi Sultanate was in no way comparable to the institution which existed in the ancient Greco-Roman world. The Mohammedan rulers enslaved the subjugated native population in the form of domestic servants at their palaces. This institution of domestic slavery did not represent a productive organisation as it was in the world of antiquity. During the Sultanate, whenever the slaves under the Mohammedan feudal chieftain became too numerous the heads of these favoured servants were cut off without mercy and were made into heaps in front of the darbar" (court).
This showed the low importance given to both human life and to the practice of slavery in the productive process. Had slavery occupied an important place in day-to-day production, such a massacre without impunity could never have taken place. Apart from the low importance attached to slavery, the massacres also reflect the ruthless mentality of the Islamic Sultans of Delhi.
After Mahumd Ghori's victory over Prithiviraj in 1192 and over Jaichandra in 1194, he left his Governor Kutub-ud-din Aibak to rule the conquered territories. After Ghori's death Kutub-ud-din set up an independent kingdom in 1206 and his dynasty is called the Slave Dynasty - after the background of Kutub-ud-din as a slave of Mahmud Ghori. The Slave Dynasty was succeeded by the following Muslim Dynasties viz. the Sayyeds, the Khiljis the Tughlaks and the Lodis. Between them they ruled Delhi and UP from 1206 C.E. up to 1527 C.E.
Ibrahim Lodi, the last ruler of the Lodi line was defeated and killed by Babar who invaded India in 1527.
(excerpted from www.hindubooks.org/budheer_birodkar/hindu_history/...)
(my writing follows...)
So that is a well-catalogued 700 year plus history of primarily Arab muslims bringing uniquely ruthless conquest, religious intolerance, economic and cultural destruction to India. (unless you wish to dispute the veracity of the historical accounts)
A.A.C.
But surely all that could only have happened to poor old India because she didn't have a powerful constitution? LOL!
Didn't look at through it yet, so I'm not really sure what you're saying - where did you get these ? ... but the quotes at the end
? can't find 2:2341 , it only goes up to 2:286
The wording and meaning is different in the other one -
[47:35] Therefore, you shall not waver and surrender in pursuit of peace, for you are guaranteed victory, and GOD is with you. He will never waste your efforts.
Are you unable to distinguish between political insurgence and military conquest? I expected more of you.
Of course it's always Bush's fault.
But then again, I admit wishing he DID take more interest in monitoring the Sudan. While it's not his fault (it's the militant Muslims and warlords), inaction doesn't help the situation.
Your narrow POV evidently eliminates all else including humour.
Go tell it to the UN.
"fascinating site, so much info, can't thank you enough: "
Yeah it does have a lot of stuff to go through -
"The government of Sudan uses such local militias in its campaign to wipe out Christians and to secure their oil-rich lands in southern Sudan."
Looks like the Sudan government is reving up the local fanatics to make a few bucks. Hard to tell if there would have been any "religious" problems there if there wasn't any oil money to be gotten.
Hey, they were your links. Thanks. I'm not into hair splitting, seek and you shall find? Read it all, its' there.
Oh, it's definitely all about oil and nothing to do with religion...any fool can see that!
"Little information about abuses in the Longochok area of the eastern Upper Nile surfaced until Servant's Heart began working there five years ago. Until two years ago, before government-allied forces lost ground to southern troops, Nydang's men would ask women they encountered on isolated roads one question—are you Christian or Muslim?
"If she answered 'Muslim,' she was set free," Bennett says. "If she answered 'Christian,' she was gang-raped by 10 to 20 soldiers. Then they would cut off her breasts to leave her to bleed to death, as an example to others that this is what will happen to you unless you convert to Islam."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.