What a weak and sickly world we live in when a leader can espouse annihilation of another country and pursue efforts to create nuclear and ballistic missiles while we in the west sit back and watch. Hope has never been a good replacement for reality.
John Bolton: Israeli Attack is Only ‘Iranian Option’
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Follow Israel news on Twitter and Facebook.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s policies have left an Israeli attack on Iran the only option in preventing the Muslim country from obtaining a nuclear weapon, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton wrote in The Washington Post Thursday.
In an article headlined “Time for an Israeli Strike?” Bolton answered his own question by stating, "Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever… Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities.”
Iran's Nuclear Threat "Never in Doubt"
A long-time supporter of Israel and a harsh critic of the U.N., Bolton claimed that the Iranian nuclear threat “was never in doubt“ during the American presidential campaign, but is even more certain following the apparent failure of the resistance movement in Iran.
“With no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not,” Bolton wrote.
He chastised the Obama administration for strategic and tactical flaws by continuing its effort to negotiate with Iran. Bolton declared that American officials think Iran will be more anxious than ever to be “accepted” following the alleged rigged victory of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last month’s election.
John Bolton “Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith,” Bolton maintained. “It hasn't [done so] for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now… Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.”
Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
Bolton expressed fears of President Obama’s “Plan B” that would allow Iran to proceed with its nuclear program for peaceful purposes while publicly stating it has no military objectives. “Obama would define such an outcome as 'success,’ even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now,” the former ambassador continued. “Anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election.”
Bolton wrote that negotiations with Iran would place Israel in “an even more dangerous trap."
Failure to stage a pre-emptive attack on Iran means that the world must “be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred,” Bolton reasoned. “That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.”
(IsraelNationalNews.com)
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Is Islam a Threat?
From Gates of Vienna
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/oskar-freysinger-is-islam-threat.html#more
Monday, October 18, 2010
Oskar Freysinger: Is Islam a Threat?
I reported last week on the difficulties faced by Oskar Freysinger, the leader of the Swiss People’s Party, when he attempted to give a lecture in Brussels. Twice denied a private venue, he eventually gave his talk in the Flemish Parliament, thanks to the intervention of Vlaams Belang leader Filip Dewinter.
Mr. Freysinger gave his speech in French, and it has now been translated into English, thanks to the dedicated efforts of our French correspondent l’échappée belle. It is an excellent exposition of the extensive damage inflicted by mass Muslim immigration on the legal systems and national cultures of Europe.
Oskar Freysinger and Filip Dewinter
Oskar Freysinger: Is Islam a threat?
Conference in Brussels October 9, 2010
To preface, allow me to note that at the end of this first decade of the 21st century, questions and debate have become a challenge in the EU.
First, the Diamant Conference Center in Schaerbeek closed its doors to me under pressure from the mayor and the police on the leaseholder of the room, and then it was the turn of the Crowne Plaza Hotel to deny me a room. Its owner had at least the elegance, after having first accepted and then rejected the conference, to meet us, Marcel Castermans and me, to express his embarrassment of being unable to fulfill his commitment. “However,” he advised during this interview, “The Crowne Plaza is no exception as to its rejection. Currently, you will not find any hotel room in Brussels prepared to welcome you, as political pressures are too great. You see, I am a businessman, and cannot go against the system “. The manager of the Crowne Plaza didn’t know how right he was, because the owner of a third venue, who originally gave his approval, recanted just this morning.
This is why Europe is running adrift: Not because of fanatics who occupy the land, but because of cowards who let them do it.
I am, however, happy with the outcome of this matter, which sees me now speaking in French in a Flemish parliament hall. Thanks to Philip Dewinter, the only person this morning to support free speech in this city of Brussels which has been placed under the wet blanket of an anti-liberty clique.
Intolerance and censorship are now the preserve of those who have only the words “openness” and “tolerance” on their lips. Paradoxically, our fight for freedom, is also conducted for them and their children, despite the fact they are trying to muzzle us.
For now, I’ll try to summarize in three quarters of an hour the argument that prevailed when we, Switzerland, decided to give a strong signal to Islam by banning the construction of minarets. Is Islam a threat? If yes, in which areas and in which ways? These are questions I will try to answer without any animosity toward Muslims as individuals, because they are often the first victims of a pitiless dogma leaving them little choice in managing their lives.
1. All religions on an equal footing
At the beginning of this reflection we should ask ourselves how any rule of law protects the religious peace within the state. This can be accomplished via a secular legal regime that places itself above religious dogma and which guarantees equal treatment to all faiths. The protector must be placed above the protected so that its protection is effective and granted in the same way to all.
Religious faith is inherently unprovable and therefore beyond any checks. That means for a legislator ensuring equal treatment to all religions, that faith X and faith Y are necessarily at the same level, and that men are free to choose their religion, so as to be able to move from one religion to another. Religious freedom is also the oldest fundamental right of any modern constitutional state.
However, once religious faith is politicized, the dogmatization of policy threatens. One religion then influences policy to the point that it eventually bans, isolates or oppresses all other religious beliefs (see Iran, Afghanistan, etc.), while at the same time imposing a dogma (unprovable and unchanging).
Let me point out some instructive cases related to the blasphemy law introduced some time ago in Pakistan, which presents itself as a democracy:
* The family of a 26-year-old woman from the Punjab, Rubina Bibi, the mother of three children, who was charged and imprisoned on false charges of blasphemy. Due to her desperation, she now believes she has come to an agreement with her accusers: the withdrawal of charges, and thus freedom, in exchange for her conversion to Islam. In March 2010, Rubina was accused by a Muslim trader following a discussion on the sale of a food product. Court hearings took place under heavy pressure from Islamic extremist groups. To reach an out-of-court settlement, the court told the Rubina family that charges would be dropped if she converted to Islam.
* In February 2010, Qamar David, a Christian from Lahore, in prison since 2006, was sentenced to life imprisonment for blasphemy. For three years his family and his lawyer have been subjected to threats and intimidation. “The conviction is based solely on the statements and testimony created artificially, the fruits of hatred and prejudice,” says the lawyer Parvez Choudry.
* In January 2010, Imran Masih, 26, from Faisalabad, was sentenced to life imprisonment for blasphemy. A neighbor accused him of burning a copy of the Koran. The young man was the victim of a trap: while cleaning his shop, he wanted to get rid of some books written in Arabic (a language he does not understand) and asked the advice of one of his neighbors who first authorized him to do so and then accused him of blasphemy.
* In early July 2010, the Christian Zahid Masih of Model Town, not far from Lahore, was forced to flee and hide with his family after being accused of blasphemy earlier in the month by the Muslim Manat Ali, who stirred up a fundamentalist lynch mob. Zahid is alleged to have used as a bathmat a panel on which are inscribed some verses from the Koran.
Recognizing this, the problem that Islam poses to Western democracies is not primarily theological in nature, but above all political and legal.
2. Competing conceptions of law
In Switzerland, as in any democracy worthy of the name, every law is democratically legitimized. This means that our laws can change, unlike Islamic religious law, which is irreversible and autonomous because it is considered of divine origin: it is given once and for all, and is not accountable to anyone. Sharia is based on the Koran, which was given to the prophet Muhammad in a state of mystical ecstasy. The Koran exists as an uncreated law in heaven and was made accessible to humans by Mohammed. Sharia law is based on yet another source, the hadith, which by their source value are placed at the same level as the Koran and comprise information and actions taken from the prophet’s life. There are, according to Koranic schools, various viewpoints at this level. Certain hadith are accepted by some and rejected by others. Within the religious texts a great variety is found which leads to opposing views and practices.
Finally, all contradictions in the Koran as well as areas that are not resolved are set by the Ijma which represents a consensus of self-appointed lawyers (the scholars) who makes fatwa (legal rulings). The problem is that the alim (scholars, plural) are said to be the ones who “know”, and are therefore knowledgeable when it comes to scientific matters of faith. Thus we understand why faith is regarded as knowledge in Islam, that is, a scientifically verifiable area. This view is hardly reconcilable with our idea of faith, and leads to serious consequences in practical life. As opposed to the inhabitants of the 57 member countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference, the Swiss people may, under our conception of law, broadly participate in the political process through the instruments of direct democracy. We could, for example, delete the reference to the Almighty in the Federal Constitution. In contrast, the populations of the Islamic countries mentioned above do not have the right to challenge Sharia, which in these countries is equal to immutable scientific knowledge, equivalent to the Swiss admitting the fact that earth is round and revolves around the sun. The time when the church tried to ban this knowledge is gone; Galileo virtually represents the beginning of the emancipation of modern science from religion.
The Turkish Constitutional Court has come to a decision, upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, that Sharia is the antithesis of democracy and intends to usurp the state’s role as guarantor of individual rights and freedoms. In this context, the following statement by Dalil Boubaker, former president of the French Council of the Muslim community, is remarkable: “Islam is simultaneously religious, community, law and civilization.” The Organization of the Islamic Conference of States — which as mentioned, includes 57 states — has made a similar observation: “Islam is religion, state, and complete organization of life.” Under this principle, the Organization of the Islamic Conference of States accepts the General Declaration of Human Rights only to the extent that it does not conflict with Sharia.
It is precisely this tendency of Islam to control both private life and the public organization of society, and thus its overall influence on the design of people’s lives, which distinguishes Islam from other religions.
Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. practice religion primarily as an individual conception of life without a significant legal and political component. They respect politics and the law, but also the sciences and the arts as autonomous “systems”, while writers and artists who criticize Islam should expect violent reactions from the guards of the Islamic religion. Remember the death sentence against Salman Rushdie by the Iranian head of state, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989, or the destruction of Danish property in Muslim states after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in 2006.
Kurt Westergaard, a Danish cartoonist, lives in hiding under the threat of a fatwa. Having survived three attacks, he often changes his town and country, never leaves home without armed escort and turned his home into a fortress. This hell has lasted five years. Enough to discourage other practitioners of “misplaced” humor.
3. Historical roots of Islamic law
The religious texts of Islam are not only ethical and moral, but also seek to influence the formation of the state. The Koran was compiled and written after 800 AD when the conquests of Islam spread to Spain. This expansion required the establishment of a set of normative legal rules to organize clans and tribes, which at that time did not qualify as Muslims, but rather Saracens. Contrary to what is commonly thought, mosques are not comparable to our churches, they are more civil registries because they deal mostly with legal proceedings and civil law.
There is a special relationship between the Muslim and Allah through Sharia, Islamic norms. In Islam, morality is based on the law while in our conception of law is the law based on morality. An example to illustrate this: here, a moral principle decrees that it is wrong to kill, but the law resulting from this moral principle must take into consideration that, in the case of self defense, a human may kill another without being punished afterwards. It is still wrong to kill, but the legislator admits legitimacy in certain emergency situations. It is quite different in Islam. Sharia rules define precisely when, under what conditions, and exactly how some people may be killed or not. Morality simply requires that this catalog is followed; conversely, it is immoral to ignore this code. Morality is derived from the statutory standard, so comes after the law, which is logical in the conception of Islam as the law is divine and is therefore not created by man; it is immutable.
When a Muslim recites the Quran, he recites a text that is somewhat similar to our Civil Code. The difference is that the laws of Islam are of divine origin and therefore immutable. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Muslim who renounces his faith is subject to the death penalty and that 94% of the sins that the Koran punishes by hell concern doubt or criticism of Muhammad or Islam.
By themselves, these contradictory conceptions of the origin of law show how the coexistence of both views is difficult and almost impossible to achieve in practice.
4. Territorial problems
If compatibility problems between Islamic and Western culture are not religious, but legal, it is because Sharia precedes the formation of the state and is essentially the foundation on which an existing state is built (the Islamic nomocracy). Islam distinguishes three territorial situations: in the Dar al Islam (land of peace), Islam has triumphed and reigns supreme; in the Dar el Harb (land of war), the infidels are in power; and in the Dar el Suhl (which can be translated as land of armistice), Islam is still a minority and therefore must adapt, but every Muslim who lives there must do everything possible to make his religion triumphant someday. In this understanding, minarets, separate cemeteries, as well as Koranic schools and mosques become small extraterritorial regions in impure land, beachheads of Islam in the territory which, even if modest, only Islamic law applies.
In Dar es Islam, the holy land where Islam has previously been established, no law competing with Sharia — for example, our criminal and civil law — is allowed. This “holy land” of Islam in Europe now includes many urban neighborhoods in France, Great Britain and Germany. Muslims there are the majority, they have their own cemeteries, their mosques and their Koranic schools. These places are spread throughout the West and grow in number and size. The minarets are furthermore symbols of this penetration, in the image of the little flags that generals stick on their maps to mark the progress of their troops. The word minaret comes from “Al Manar”, the lighthouse. However, these “lighthouses of jihad” or the “bayonets of Islam,” in the words of the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, are not required by the Koran and play no role in the religious ritual of Islam. The muezzin was invented much later, but his presence is often justified by a questionable parallel with the bells of Christian churches. In fact, the minaret is the foremost symbol of a conspicuous total submission to a doctrine and related intolerance — even if the latter is controversial among different Islamic currents. If we tolerate the construction of minarets on Swiss territory, the conflicts that take place in the East, for example between the Ottoman and Alawite Muslims will happen here. Instead of encouraging mutual tolerance and religious harmony, we stir up conflicts in the great doctrinaire diversity of Islam. Indeed, for the Alawi or secular Muslims, the minarets are an affront and a sign that a certain expression of Islam seeks to position itself as the only representation of this religion in Switzerland.
In the universal design of radical Islam, all the world regions that were once Muslim should be Muslim again. The way to achieve this goal is jihad, which in 97% of instances where it appears in the Koran, means “holy war against infidels”, whereas in only 3% of cases may this word be understood as an “internal battle, a “spiritual cleansing” or “research”. Every place where a minaret is visible and each region which can be seen from a minaret must become Islamic. Faced with this demand, we understand that this building, frequently underestimated by the Europeans, plays a much bigger role than is commonly attributed to it.
A 21-meter-high minaret is currently under construction in Poitiers, a city where Charles Martel put the Saracens to flight in 732. Speakers will be installed. But they have promised the public that they will remain silent. So why have they been installed? The fact is that in many places where the construction of a minaret was authorized, the voice of the muezzin sounds now several times a day. This applies, for example, in Grenada, Bosnia, Oxford, London, New Delhi, and even in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. Resistance occurs elsewhere, and for understandable reasons: the purpose of this movement is to install Islamic norms worldwide, and the minarets are only the visible — and often loud — manifestation of this invasion. The Islamic Council of Great Britain made clear in March 2008: “The call to prayer will become an integral part of life in Britain and Europe.” But this call announces the following principle five times a day: “Allah is greatest. I testify that there is no God but Allah. I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Come to prayer. Come to felicity. Allah is greatest. There is no other true God but Allah “. Alongside this profession of faith, the bells of our churches are remarkably neutral — especially since they serve mainly to indicate the time.
5. The practice of religion is not an absolute right
The free exercise of religious practices — such as the ritual slaughter — are only permitted in national and international law within the limits of the law. Restrictions are quite possible. Article 9 para. 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 29 para. 2 of the Charter of Human Rights the UN and Article 36 of the Federal Constitution permit a limitation of religious freedom if this restriction is in the public interest and is appropriate to the situation. For this reason, the [Swiss] Federal Council and Parliament were forced to admit that the initiative against minarets is not against the law and should therefore be submitted to the people.
However, we now find that the government cares little for the clearly expressed will of citizens in the vote that followed, as it did not intend to oppose the construction of a minaret in Langenthal under the false pretext that the building application was filed before November 29, 2009. Yet on the evening of the vote, the Minister of Justice said out loud that the people’s will would be respected and that minarets will no longer built in Switzerland. Even worse: In the government’s response to the European Court of Human Rights on 15 September 2010, the Federal Council indulged in a reckless disregard of the concept of sovereignty and ignored the will expressed by popular vote to affirm that “the recent decisions of the Federal Court are examples admitting the primacy of international treaties (and a federal law) against a provision of the Constitution.” And a little further: “This law could be applied to the relationship between international and constitutional standards, particularly since that article 190 Cst. does not mention the Constitution as the relevant law.” Thus, direct democracy and universal suffrage are giving way to a “democracy of judges” whose democratic legitimacy is much less, since they are co-opted by the system. In this way, the system can silence the people by declaring democracy undemocratic and the political process illegal wherever they contradict the orthodoxy of globalization.
6. Dhimmitude and integration
Because the U.S. state of Michigan no longer requires that veiled women uncover themselves during identity checks, it has created a competing legal situation on its own territory. On behalf of postmodern legal pluralism and tolerance, the territorial legal regime is gradually diluted. The same thing occurred in a school in the Oise, which allows teens to take their final exams covered with a full veil (Le Figaro, 19 June 2010). The Appeals Committee with regard to an asylum case decided that “Swiss law could not hold itself higher than a foreign law”; based on this statement, it accepted a marriage concluded with a minor in the absence of the husband. A particularly striking example of legal pluralism: in Germany, a judge refused to grant a divorce “because in Islam, the corporal punishment of the wife is permitted.” These examples show that Western democracies are now ready to tolerate on their territory a different and competing legal system to the detriment of their own regime.
Respect for ourselves and caution should encourage us to prevent the spread of laws in our land which are opposed to the Swiss legal system and based on a totally different conception of human rights. As noted by the European Court of Human Rights, Sharia is incompatible with our conception of law particularly in the areas of marriage law, human rights and criminal law. The acceptance of the veil by Muslim teachers or segregated swimming lessons for Muslim children are examples of concessions justified by the tolerance of foreign cultures, which seem unimportant, but in fact open Pandora’s Box in terms of law. These apparently modest changes of laws and rules are intended to recognize a parallel right in Switzerland which is totally alien to ours. Regarding such arranged marriages of minors, it is recognized that fundamental rights (the right to marry) will be violated on behalf of other humanitarian rights (the right to religious freedom).
But a society where the fashionable practice of dhimmitude – this sensitive prophylactic servility to keep the wrath of Allah off our backs – is not encumbered by reflections on the scope of our concessions to Islam. Have we not seen Mr. Delanoë, the Mayor of Paris, congratulating Muslims for Ramadan and the National Councilor Hugh Hiltpold do the same in Geneva? Never have we heard these same people congratulating the Christians for Lent. And we never will we see them congratulate the participants of a “sausage-plonk” street party!
However, this “dhimmitude” (submission by the “infidels” to Islamic demands) is not only the reality in European countries. So when I heard (Le Temps, 28 May 2010) that Morocco has intensified the expulsion of foreign Christians, I can not help but think that this exercise is a concession by the king to the Islamists, whose influence is growing. After these concessions, he too, as kingly and Moroccan as he is, may find a caliphate in place of the nation state. It is not in pretending to be more Islamic than the Islamists, that he will succeeds in curbing their growth, because the fanatics do not care about gestures; they are blinded by the demands of dogma.
7. Cultural ghettos, individualistic society and clan system
This paralleling of two different legal systems in the same state is particularly dangerous because of the increasing isolation of certain ethno-religious groups in ghettos. Since the Enlightenment our society has been built on the principle of individualism; society is therefore not prepared to welcome and integrate groups that function as quasi-inaccessible enclaves. Individualism encourages the free formation of opinions, and thus the innovative force characteristic of Western societies. Meanwhile, it slows nepotism by weakening the clan system. Individualism, in freeing the individual from the grasp of his clan, allows each person to approach another who would previously have been considered foreign. The ultimate consequence is that the general interest, the well-being of all citizens, is placed above the interests of clans. But this system only works in a more or less homogeneous society whose members know and respect the general rules. In addition, the state must be ready to impose these rules. The problem is that most non-European societies operate on a completely different principle, the interests of clans and families are placed above the general interest, which is an abstract concept in such a framework.
The higher the number of immigrants coming from countries with a pronounced clan structure, the more problems our society has. For example, it is shocking that we therefore allow, under the pretext of “family reunification”, which refers to the core of the European family, not only the wife and children, but also brothers, sisters, grandparents and cousins to join the EU area. The biggest problem of modern European states is the fact that uncontrolled immigration and the weakening, even removal of external borders causes the emergence of many internal borders, sometimes invisible.
If we refuse to seek answers to such problems, if we make them taboo in order not to deal with them, the EU, a promising area of freedom, is likely to become a region of societies in conflict. Switzerland is no exception to this trend, because the cumulative impact of Schengen/Dublin, the free movement of persons and the influx of asylum seekers barely allows us to control our border crossings.
This has resulted in the importation of behavior that is difficult to assimilate and is protected by regrouped clans.
That’s how polygamy has reappeared almost everywhere in Europe. I recall here the emblematic case of Lies Hebbadj, who made the headlines April 23, 2010, for having publicly challenged the ticket given to one of his companions for driving while wearing the niqab. On June 9, Lies Hebbadj was indicted for welfare benefit fraud — “de facto polygamy” allowing him to benefit from unfair state aid — fraud and unreported employment. Since then, he was again indicted for aggravated rape. Stay tuned.
In hospitals too, fundamentalist customs are appearing: husbands refusing to let their wives be treated by male doctors, refusal of treatment etc. This leads to absurd situations. In Liberation on July 7, 2010, Isabelle Levy recounts the case of a patient who was never examined during her pregnancy and who went to the emergency room because she had contractions. She refused to be examined by male doctors, and she left with her ongoing contractions. Suddenly, the staff heard screams. The woman was giving birth on the lawn. The nurse told her: “You refused to be examined by a man, but you have just given birth in front of a hundred people!”
Yet the list does not stop there. The social and cultural conflict can take even more dramatic forms. What about the tragic case of young Swera, 16, a Swiss citizen of Pakistani descent who speaks “Schwyzerdütsch” like her classmates, killed by her father for stealing cigarettes, which he felt to be his duty to cleanse with blood, according to his religious beliefs? The blood of his blood? To uphold honor, to avenge the insult. But behind this terrible incident, how many girls are muzzled, put under guardianship, beaten? The code of silence reigning in the clan environment is total. Transgression is lethal.
Based on these findings, I would like to conclude this presentation by making the following recommendations:
1. Our state law has a duty to require immigrants to be in full compliance with our legal system and to avoid any concessions, however modest they may appear, which could encourage, if only vaguely, the establishment of parallel legal systems. Recognizing that the segregation of groups, particularly the Islamic population, through exceptional rights such as separate cemeteries, general exemptions from swimming lessons, and forced marriages, we prevent them from experiencing our cultural heritage, such that the vaunted integration is nothing more than useless posturing.
2. Although we may risk interfering with residential freedom, we must prevent the formation of ethnic ghettos, and thus the emergence of parallel societies indifferent to each other. The parallel lives of ethnic groups have nothing to do with integration.
3. We must prevent fanatical religious leaders from getting their hooks in certain ethnic groups by speaking more harshly against these extremist leaders.
4. We must endeavor to limit the flow of immigration, to welcome immigrants in lower numbers, but to integrate them better.
Finally, it is hoped that Islam may reform itself in the years to come and that it goes through a sort of Enlightenment, which puts a definitive end to fanatical Islamism. As this is not yet the case, we have a duty to protect our state against all forms of subversion. It is not acceptable that our liberal principles of rule of law are being used as the instruments for its disintegration, and ultimately its destruction. This also concerns the freedom and security of Muslims themselves, especially those who truly seek to integrate with us. Let me remind you of the sad fate of the imam of Drancy Chalgoumi Hassan, who has spoken publicly for banning the full veil in France. Since then, all the prayers he leads are disrupted. The 43 believers he had collected in 2009 at the conference of imams in France to promote “dual cultural and Republican mission of the imams” exempted themselves one after the other. Now Chalgoumi is increasingly isolated and lives under state protection, threatened for a few words spoken against fundamentalism and anti-Semitism. To fight against the excesses of Islam in Christian lands is perhaps above all to protect the Muslims from their “brothers”.
— Oskar Freysinger
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/oskar-freysinger-is-islam-threat.html#more
Monday, October 18, 2010
Oskar Freysinger: Is Islam a Threat?
I reported last week on the difficulties faced by Oskar Freysinger, the leader of the Swiss People’s Party, when he attempted to give a lecture in Brussels. Twice denied a private venue, he eventually gave his talk in the Flemish Parliament, thanks to the intervention of Vlaams Belang leader Filip Dewinter.
Mr. Freysinger gave his speech in French, and it has now been translated into English, thanks to the dedicated efforts of our French correspondent l’échappée belle. It is an excellent exposition of the extensive damage inflicted by mass Muslim immigration on the legal systems and national cultures of Europe.
Oskar Freysinger and Filip Dewinter
Oskar Freysinger: Is Islam a threat?
Conference in Brussels October 9, 2010
To preface, allow me to note that at the end of this first decade of the 21st century, questions and debate have become a challenge in the EU.
First, the Diamant Conference Center in Schaerbeek closed its doors to me under pressure from the mayor and the police on the leaseholder of the room, and then it was the turn of the Crowne Plaza Hotel to deny me a room. Its owner had at least the elegance, after having first accepted and then rejected the conference, to meet us, Marcel Castermans and me, to express his embarrassment of being unable to fulfill his commitment. “However,” he advised during this interview, “The Crowne Plaza is no exception as to its rejection. Currently, you will not find any hotel room in Brussels prepared to welcome you, as political pressures are too great. You see, I am a businessman, and cannot go against the system “. The manager of the Crowne Plaza didn’t know how right he was, because the owner of a third venue, who originally gave his approval, recanted just this morning.
This is why Europe is running adrift: Not because of fanatics who occupy the land, but because of cowards who let them do it.
I am, however, happy with the outcome of this matter, which sees me now speaking in French in a Flemish parliament hall. Thanks to Philip Dewinter, the only person this morning to support free speech in this city of Brussels which has been placed under the wet blanket of an anti-liberty clique.
Intolerance and censorship are now the preserve of those who have only the words “openness” and “tolerance” on their lips. Paradoxically, our fight for freedom, is also conducted for them and their children, despite the fact they are trying to muzzle us.
For now, I’ll try to summarize in three quarters of an hour the argument that prevailed when we, Switzerland, decided to give a strong signal to Islam by banning the construction of minarets. Is Islam a threat? If yes, in which areas and in which ways? These are questions I will try to answer without any animosity toward Muslims as individuals, because they are often the first victims of a pitiless dogma leaving them little choice in managing their lives.
1. All religions on an equal footing
At the beginning of this reflection we should ask ourselves how any rule of law protects the religious peace within the state. This can be accomplished via a secular legal regime that places itself above religious dogma and which guarantees equal treatment to all faiths. The protector must be placed above the protected so that its protection is effective and granted in the same way to all.
Religious faith is inherently unprovable and therefore beyond any checks. That means for a legislator ensuring equal treatment to all religions, that faith X and faith Y are necessarily at the same level, and that men are free to choose their religion, so as to be able to move from one religion to another. Religious freedom is also the oldest fundamental right of any modern constitutional state.
However, once religious faith is politicized, the dogmatization of policy threatens. One religion then influences policy to the point that it eventually bans, isolates or oppresses all other religious beliefs (see Iran, Afghanistan, etc.), while at the same time imposing a dogma (unprovable and unchanging).
Let me point out some instructive cases related to the blasphemy law introduced some time ago in Pakistan, which presents itself as a democracy:
* The family of a 26-year-old woman from the Punjab, Rubina Bibi, the mother of three children, who was charged and imprisoned on false charges of blasphemy. Due to her desperation, she now believes she has come to an agreement with her accusers: the withdrawal of charges, and thus freedom, in exchange for her conversion to Islam. In March 2010, Rubina was accused by a Muslim trader following a discussion on the sale of a food product. Court hearings took place under heavy pressure from Islamic extremist groups. To reach an out-of-court settlement, the court told the Rubina family that charges would be dropped if she converted to Islam.
* In February 2010, Qamar David, a Christian from Lahore, in prison since 2006, was sentenced to life imprisonment for blasphemy. For three years his family and his lawyer have been subjected to threats and intimidation. “The conviction is based solely on the statements and testimony created artificially, the fruits of hatred and prejudice,” says the lawyer Parvez Choudry.
* In January 2010, Imran Masih, 26, from Faisalabad, was sentenced to life imprisonment for blasphemy. A neighbor accused him of burning a copy of the Koran. The young man was the victim of a trap: while cleaning his shop, he wanted to get rid of some books written in Arabic (a language he does not understand) and asked the advice of one of his neighbors who first authorized him to do so and then accused him of blasphemy.
* In early July 2010, the Christian Zahid Masih of Model Town, not far from Lahore, was forced to flee and hide with his family after being accused of blasphemy earlier in the month by the Muslim Manat Ali, who stirred up a fundamentalist lynch mob. Zahid is alleged to have used as a bathmat a panel on which are inscribed some verses from the Koran.
Recognizing this, the problem that Islam poses to Western democracies is not primarily theological in nature, but above all political and legal.
2. Competing conceptions of law
In Switzerland, as in any democracy worthy of the name, every law is democratically legitimized. This means that our laws can change, unlike Islamic religious law, which is irreversible and autonomous because it is considered of divine origin: it is given once and for all, and is not accountable to anyone. Sharia is based on the Koran, which was given to the prophet Muhammad in a state of mystical ecstasy. The Koran exists as an uncreated law in heaven and was made accessible to humans by Mohammed. Sharia law is based on yet another source, the hadith, which by their source value are placed at the same level as the Koran and comprise information and actions taken from the prophet’s life. There are, according to Koranic schools, various viewpoints at this level. Certain hadith are accepted by some and rejected by others. Within the religious texts a great variety is found which leads to opposing views and practices.
Finally, all contradictions in the Koran as well as areas that are not resolved are set by the Ijma which represents a consensus of self-appointed lawyers (the scholars) who makes fatwa (legal rulings). The problem is that the alim (scholars, plural) are said to be the ones who “know”, and are therefore knowledgeable when it comes to scientific matters of faith. Thus we understand why faith is regarded as knowledge in Islam, that is, a scientifically verifiable area. This view is hardly reconcilable with our idea of faith, and leads to serious consequences in practical life. As opposed to the inhabitants of the 57 member countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference, the Swiss people may, under our conception of law, broadly participate in the political process through the instruments of direct democracy. We could, for example, delete the reference to the Almighty in the Federal Constitution. In contrast, the populations of the Islamic countries mentioned above do not have the right to challenge Sharia, which in these countries is equal to immutable scientific knowledge, equivalent to the Swiss admitting the fact that earth is round and revolves around the sun. The time when the church tried to ban this knowledge is gone; Galileo virtually represents the beginning of the emancipation of modern science from religion.
The Turkish Constitutional Court has come to a decision, upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, that Sharia is the antithesis of democracy and intends to usurp the state’s role as guarantor of individual rights and freedoms. In this context, the following statement by Dalil Boubaker, former president of the French Council of the Muslim community, is remarkable: “Islam is simultaneously religious, community, law and civilization.” The Organization of the Islamic Conference of States — which as mentioned, includes 57 states — has made a similar observation: “Islam is religion, state, and complete organization of life.” Under this principle, the Organization of the Islamic Conference of States accepts the General Declaration of Human Rights only to the extent that it does not conflict with Sharia.
It is precisely this tendency of Islam to control both private life and the public organization of society, and thus its overall influence on the design of people’s lives, which distinguishes Islam from other religions.
Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. practice religion primarily as an individual conception of life without a significant legal and political component. They respect politics and the law, but also the sciences and the arts as autonomous “systems”, while writers and artists who criticize Islam should expect violent reactions from the guards of the Islamic religion. Remember the death sentence against Salman Rushdie by the Iranian head of state, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989, or the destruction of Danish property in Muslim states after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in 2006.
Kurt Westergaard, a Danish cartoonist, lives in hiding under the threat of a fatwa. Having survived three attacks, he often changes his town and country, never leaves home without armed escort and turned his home into a fortress. This hell has lasted five years. Enough to discourage other practitioners of “misplaced” humor.
3. Historical roots of Islamic law
The religious texts of Islam are not only ethical and moral, but also seek to influence the formation of the state. The Koran was compiled and written after 800 AD when the conquests of Islam spread to Spain. This expansion required the establishment of a set of normative legal rules to organize clans and tribes, which at that time did not qualify as Muslims, but rather Saracens. Contrary to what is commonly thought, mosques are not comparable to our churches, they are more civil registries because they deal mostly with legal proceedings and civil law.
There is a special relationship between the Muslim and Allah through Sharia, Islamic norms. In Islam, morality is based on the law while in our conception of law is the law based on morality. An example to illustrate this: here, a moral principle decrees that it is wrong to kill, but the law resulting from this moral principle must take into consideration that, in the case of self defense, a human may kill another without being punished afterwards. It is still wrong to kill, but the legislator admits legitimacy in certain emergency situations. It is quite different in Islam. Sharia rules define precisely when, under what conditions, and exactly how some people may be killed or not. Morality simply requires that this catalog is followed; conversely, it is immoral to ignore this code. Morality is derived from the statutory standard, so comes after the law, which is logical in the conception of Islam as the law is divine and is therefore not created by man; it is immutable.
When a Muslim recites the Quran, he recites a text that is somewhat similar to our Civil Code. The difference is that the laws of Islam are of divine origin and therefore immutable. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Muslim who renounces his faith is subject to the death penalty and that 94% of the sins that the Koran punishes by hell concern doubt or criticism of Muhammad or Islam.
By themselves, these contradictory conceptions of the origin of law show how the coexistence of both views is difficult and almost impossible to achieve in practice.
4. Territorial problems
If compatibility problems between Islamic and Western culture are not religious, but legal, it is because Sharia precedes the formation of the state and is essentially the foundation on which an existing state is built (the Islamic nomocracy). Islam distinguishes three territorial situations: in the Dar al Islam (land of peace), Islam has triumphed and reigns supreme; in the Dar el Harb (land of war), the infidels are in power; and in the Dar el Suhl (which can be translated as land of armistice), Islam is still a minority and therefore must adapt, but every Muslim who lives there must do everything possible to make his religion triumphant someday. In this understanding, minarets, separate cemeteries, as well as Koranic schools and mosques become small extraterritorial regions in impure land, beachheads of Islam in the territory which, even if modest, only Islamic law applies.
In Dar es Islam, the holy land where Islam has previously been established, no law competing with Sharia — for example, our criminal and civil law — is allowed. This “holy land” of Islam in Europe now includes many urban neighborhoods in France, Great Britain and Germany. Muslims there are the majority, they have their own cemeteries, their mosques and their Koranic schools. These places are spread throughout the West and grow in number and size. The minarets are furthermore symbols of this penetration, in the image of the little flags that generals stick on their maps to mark the progress of their troops. The word minaret comes from “Al Manar”, the lighthouse. However, these “lighthouses of jihad” or the “bayonets of Islam,” in the words of the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, are not required by the Koran and play no role in the religious ritual of Islam. The muezzin was invented much later, but his presence is often justified by a questionable parallel with the bells of Christian churches. In fact, the minaret is the foremost symbol of a conspicuous total submission to a doctrine and related intolerance — even if the latter is controversial among different Islamic currents. If we tolerate the construction of minarets on Swiss territory, the conflicts that take place in the East, for example between the Ottoman and Alawite Muslims will happen here. Instead of encouraging mutual tolerance and religious harmony, we stir up conflicts in the great doctrinaire diversity of Islam. Indeed, for the Alawi or secular Muslims, the minarets are an affront and a sign that a certain expression of Islam seeks to position itself as the only representation of this religion in Switzerland.
In the universal design of radical Islam, all the world regions that were once Muslim should be Muslim again. The way to achieve this goal is jihad, which in 97% of instances where it appears in the Koran, means “holy war against infidels”, whereas in only 3% of cases may this word be understood as an “internal battle, a “spiritual cleansing” or “research”. Every place where a minaret is visible and each region which can be seen from a minaret must become Islamic. Faced with this demand, we understand that this building, frequently underestimated by the Europeans, plays a much bigger role than is commonly attributed to it.
A 21-meter-high minaret is currently under construction in Poitiers, a city where Charles Martel put the Saracens to flight in 732. Speakers will be installed. But they have promised the public that they will remain silent. So why have they been installed? The fact is that in many places where the construction of a minaret was authorized, the voice of the muezzin sounds now several times a day. This applies, for example, in Grenada, Bosnia, Oxford, London, New Delhi, and even in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. Resistance occurs elsewhere, and for understandable reasons: the purpose of this movement is to install Islamic norms worldwide, and the minarets are only the visible — and often loud — manifestation of this invasion. The Islamic Council of Great Britain made clear in March 2008: “The call to prayer will become an integral part of life in Britain and Europe.” But this call announces the following principle five times a day: “Allah is greatest. I testify that there is no God but Allah. I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Come to prayer. Come to felicity. Allah is greatest. There is no other true God but Allah “. Alongside this profession of faith, the bells of our churches are remarkably neutral — especially since they serve mainly to indicate the time.
5. The practice of religion is not an absolute right
The free exercise of religious practices — such as the ritual slaughter — are only permitted in national and international law within the limits of the law. Restrictions are quite possible. Article 9 para. 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 29 para. 2 of the Charter of Human Rights the UN and Article 36 of the Federal Constitution permit a limitation of religious freedom if this restriction is in the public interest and is appropriate to the situation. For this reason, the [Swiss] Federal Council and Parliament were forced to admit that the initiative against minarets is not against the law and should therefore be submitted to the people.
However, we now find that the government cares little for the clearly expressed will of citizens in the vote that followed, as it did not intend to oppose the construction of a minaret in Langenthal under the false pretext that the building application was filed before November 29, 2009. Yet on the evening of the vote, the Minister of Justice said out loud that the people’s will would be respected and that minarets will no longer built in Switzerland. Even worse: In the government’s response to the European Court of Human Rights on 15 September 2010, the Federal Council indulged in a reckless disregard of the concept of sovereignty and ignored the will expressed by popular vote to affirm that “the recent decisions of the Federal Court are examples admitting the primacy of international treaties (and a federal law) against a provision of the Constitution.” And a little further: “This law could be applied to the relationship between international and constitutional standards, particularly since that article 190 Cst. does not mention the Constitution as the relevant law.” Thus, direct democracy and universal suffrage are giving way to a “democracy of judges” whose democratic legitimacy is much less, since they are co-opted by the system. In this way, the system can silence the people by declaring democracy undemocratic and the political process illegal wherever they contradict the orthodoxy of globalization.
6. Dhimmitude and integration
Because the U.S. state of Michigan no longer requires that veiled women uncover themselves during identity checks, it has created a competing legal situation on its own territory. On behalf of postmodern legal pluralism and tolerance, the territorial legal regime is gradually diluted. The same thing occurred in a school in the Oise, which allows teens to take their final exams covered with a full veil (Le Figaro, 19 June 2010). The Appeals Committee with regard to an asylum case decided that “Swiss law could not hold itself higher than a foreign law”; based on this statement, it accepted a marriage concluded with a minor in the absence of the husband. A particularly striking example of legal pluralism: in Germany, a judge refused to grant a divorce “because in Islam, the corporal punishment of the wife is permitted.” These examples show that Western democracies are now ready to tolerate on their territory a different and competing legal system to the detriment of their own regime.
Respect for ourselves and caution should encourage us to prevent the spread of laws in our land which are opposed to the Swiss legal system and based on a totally different conception of human rights. As noted by the European Court of Human Rights, Sharia is incompatible with our conception of law particularly in the areas of marriage law, human rights and criminal law. The acceptance of the veil by Muslim teachers or segregated swimming lessons for Muslim children are examples of concessions justified by the tolerance of foreign cultures, which seem unimportant, but in fact open Pandora’s Box in terms of law. These apparently modest changes of laws and rules are intended to recognize a parallel right in Switzerland which is totally alien to ours. Regarding such arranged marriages of minors, it is recognized that fundamental rights (the right to marry) will be violated on behalf of other humanitarian rights (the right to religious freedom).
But a society where the fashionable practice of dhimmitude – this sensitive prophylactic servility to keep the wrath of Allah off our backs – is not encumbered by reflections on the scope of our concessions to Islam. Have we not seen Mr. Delanoë, the Mayor of Paris, congratulating Muslims for Ramadan and the National Councilor Hugh Hiltpold do the same in Geneva? Never have we heard these same people congratulating the Christians for Lent. And we never will we see them congratulate the participants of a “sausage-plonk” street party!
However, this “dhimmitude” (submission by the “infidels” to Islamic demands) is not only the reality in European countries. So when I heard (Le Temps, 28 May 2010) that Morocco has intensified the expulsion of foreign Christians, I can not help but think that this exercise is a concession by the king to the Islamists, whose influence is growing. After these concessions, he too, as kingly and Moroccan as he is, may find a caliphate in place of the nation state. It is not in pretending to be more Islamic than the Islamists, that he will succeeds in curbing their growth, because the fanatics do not care about gestures; they are blinded by the demands of dogma.
7. Cultural ghettos, individualistic society and clan system
This paralleling of two different legal systems in the same state is particularly dangerous because of the increasing isolation of certain ethno-religious groups in ghettos. Since the Enlightenment our society has been built on the principle of individualism; society is therefore not prepared to welcome and integrate groups that function as quasi-inaccessible enclaves. Individualism encourages the free formation of opinions, and thus the innovative force characteristic of Western societies. Meanwhile, it slows nepotism by weakening the clan system. Individualism, in freeing the individual from the grasp of his clan, allows each person to approach another who would previously have been considered foreign. The ultimate consequence is that the general interest, the well-being of all citizens, is placed above the interests of clans. But this system only works in a more or less homogeneous society whose members know and respect the general rules. In addition, the state must be ready to impose these rules. The problem is that most non-European societies operate on a completely different principle, the interests of clans and families are placed above the general interest, which is an abstract concept in such a framework.
The higher the number of immigrants coming from countries with a pronounced clan structure, the more problems our society has. For example, it is shocking that we therefore allow, under the pretext of “family reunification”, which refers to the core of the European family, not only the wife and children, but also brothers, sisters, grandparents and cousins to join the EU area. The biggest problem of modern European states is the fact that uncontrolled immigration and the weakening, even removal of external borders causes the emergence of many internal borders, sometimes invisible.
If we refuse to seek answers to such problems, if we make them taboo in order not to deal with them, the EU, a promising area of freedom, is likely to become a region of societies in conflict. Switzerland is no exception to this trend, because the cumulative impact of Schengen/Dublin, the free movement of persons and the influx of asylum seekers barely allows us to control our border crossings.
This has resulted in the importation of behavior that is difficult to assimilate and is protected by regrouped clans.
That’s how polygamy has reappeared almost everywhere in Europe. I recall here the emblematic case of Lies Hebbadj, who made the headlines April 23, 2010, for having publicly challenged the ticket given to one of his companions for driving while wearing the niqab. On June 9, Lies Hebbadj was indicted for welfare benefit fraud — “de facto polygamy” allowing him to benefit from unfair state aid — fraud and unreported employment. Since then, he was again indicted for aggravated rape. Stay tuned.
In hospitals too, fundamentalist customs are appearing: husbands refusing to let their wives be treated by male doctors, refusal of treatment etc. This leads to absurd situations. In Liberation on July 7, 2010, Isabelle Levy recounts the case of a patient who was never examined during her pregnancy and who went to the emergency room because she had contractions. She refused to be examined by male doctors, and she left with her ongoing contractions. Suddenly, the staff heard screams. The woman was giving birth on the lawn. The nurse told her: “You refused to be examined by a man, but you have just given birth in front of a hundred people!”
Yet the list does not stop there. The social and cultural conflict can take even more dramatic forms. What about the tragic case of young Swera, 16, a Swiss citizen of Pakistani descent who speaks “Schwyzerdütsch” like her classmates, killed by her father for stealing cigarettes, which he felt to be his duty to cleanse with blood, according to his religious beliefs? The blood of his blood? To uphold honor, to avenge the insult. But behind this terrible incident, how many girls are muzzled, put under guardianship, beaten? The code of silence reigning in the clan environment is total. Transgression is lethal.
Based on these findings, I would like to conclude this presentation by making the following recommendations:
1. Our state law has a duty to require immigrants to be in full compliance with our legal system and to avoid any concessions, however modest they may appear, which could encourage, if only vaguely, the establishment of parallel legal systems. Recognizing that the segregation of groups, particularly the Islamic population, through exceptional rights such as separate cemeteries, general exemptions from swimming lessons, and forced marriages, we prevent them from experiencing our cultural heritage, such that the vaunted integration is nothing more than useless posturing.
2. Although we may risk interfering with residential freedom, we must prevent the formation of ethnic ghettos, and thus the emergence of parallel societies indifferent to each other. The parallel lives of ethnic groups have nothing to do with integration.
3. We must prevent fanatical religious leaders from getting their hooks in certain ethnic groups by speaking more harshly against these extremist leaders.
4. We must endeavor to limit the flow of immigration, to welcome immigrants in lower numbers, but to integrate them better.
Finally, it is hoped that Islam may reform itself in the years to come and that it goes through a sort of Enlightenment, which puts a definitive end to fanatical Islamism. As this is not yet the case, we have a duty to protect our state against all forms of subversion. It is not acceptable that our liberal principles of rule of law are being used as the instruments for its disintegration, and ultimately its destruction. This also concerns the freedom and security of Muslims themselves, especially those who truly seek to integrate with us. Let me remind you of the sad fate of the imam of Drancy Chalgoumi Hassan, who has spoken publicly for banning the full veil in France. Since then, all the prayers he leads are disrupted. The 43 believers he had collected in 2009 at the conference of imams in France to promote “dual cultural and Republican mission of the imams” exempted themselves one after the other. Now Chalgoumi is increasingly isolated and lives under state protection, threatened for a few words spoken against fundamentalism and anti-Semitism. To fight against the excesses of Islam in Christian lands is perhaps above all to protect the Muslims from their “brothers”.
— Oskar Freysinger
Ten Obvious Reasons Why Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace
TheReligionofPeace.com
Ten Obvious Reasons Why
Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace
#1 14,000 deadly terror attacks committed explicitly in the name of Islam in just the last eight years. (Other religions combined for perhaps a dozen or so).
#2 Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had people killed for insulting him or criticizing his religion. This included women. Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.
#3
Muhammad said in many places that he has been "ordered by Allah to fight men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger." In the last nine years of his life, he ordered no less than 65 military campaigns to do exactly that.
Muhammad inspired his men to war with the basest of motives, using captured loot, sex and a gluttonous paradise as incentives. He beheaded captives, enslaved children and raped women captured in battle. Again, Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.
#4
After Muhammad died, the people who lived with him, and knew his religion best, immediately fell into war with each other.
Fatima, Muhammad's favorite daughter, survived the early years at Mecca safe and sound, yet died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only six months after her father died.
Fatima's husband Ali, who was the second second convert to Islam and was raised like a son to Muhammad, fought a civil war against an army raised by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife - and one whom he had said was a "perfect woman." 10,000 Muslims were killed in a single battle, waged less than 25 years after Muhammad's death.
Three of the first four Muslim rulers (caliphs) were murdered. All of them were among Muhammad's closest companions. The third caliph was killed by allies of the son of the first (who was murdered by the fifth caliph a few years later, then wrapped in the skin of a dead donkey and burned). The fourth caliph (Ali) was stabbed to death after a bitter dispute with the fifth. The fifth caliph went on to poison one of Muhammad's two favorite grandsons. The other grandson was later beheaded by the sixth caliph.
The infighting and power struggles between Muhammad's family members, closest companions and their children only intensified with time. Within 50 short years of Muhammad's death, even the Kaaba, which had stood for centuries under pagan religion, lay in ruins from internal Muslim war...
And that's just the fate of those within the house of Islam!
#5 Muhammad directed Muslims to wage war on other religions and bring them under submission to Islam. Within the first few decades following his death, his Arabian companions invaded and conquered Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands.
A mere 25 years after Muhammad's death, Muslim armies had captured land and people within the borders of over 28 modern countries outside of Saudi Arabia.
#6
Muslims continued their Jihad against other religions for 1400 years, checked only by the ability of non-Muslims to defend themselves. To this day, not a week goes by that Islamic fundamentalists do not attempt to kill Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists explicitly in the name of Allah.
None of these other religions are at war with each other.
#7 Islam is the only religion that has to retain its membership by threatening to kill anyone who leaves. This is according to the example set by Muhammad.
#8 Islam teaches that non-Muslims are less than fully human. Muhammad said that Muslims can be put to death for murder, but that a Muslim could never be put to death for killing a non-Muslim.
#9
The Qur'an never once speaks of Allah's love for non-Muslims, but it speaks of Allah's cruelty toward and hatred of non-Muslims more than 500 times.
#10
"Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"
(The last words from the cockpit of Flight 93)
ReligionofPeace.com Home Page
Ten Obvious Reasons Why
Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace
#1 14,000 deadly terror attacks committed explicitly in the name of Islam in just the last eight years. (Other religions combined for perhaps a dozen or so).
#2 Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had people killed for insulting him or criticizing his religion. This included women. Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.
#3
Muhammad said in many places that he has been "ordered by Allah to fight men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger." In the last nine years of his life, he ordered no less than 65 military campaigns to do exactly that.
Muhammad inspired his men to war with the basest of motives, using captured loot, sex and a gluttonous paradise as incentives. He beheaded captives, enslaved children and raped women captured in battle. Again, Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.
#4
After Muhammad died, the people who lived with him, and knew his religion best, immediately fell into war with each other.
Fatima, Muhammad's favorite daughter, survived the early years at Mecca safe and sound, yet died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only six months after her father died.
Fatima's husband Ali, who was the second second convert to Islam and was raised like a son to Muhammad, fought a civil war against an army raised by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife - and one whom he had said was a "perfect woman." 10,000 Muslims were killed in a single battle, waged less than 25 years after Muhammad's death.
Three of the first four Muslim rulers (caliphs) were murdered. All of them were among Muhammad's closest companions. The third caliph was killed by allies of the son of the first (who was murdered by the fifth caliph a few years later, then wrapped in the skin of a dead donkey and burned). The fourth caliph (Ali) was stabbed to death after a bitter dispute with the fifth. The fifth caliph went on to poison one of Muhammad's two favorite grandsons. The other grandson was later beheaded by the sixth caliph.
The infighting and power struggles between Muhammad's family members, closest companions and their children only intensified with time. Within 50 short years of Muhammad's death, even the Kaaba, which had stood for centuries under pagan religion, lay in ruins from internal Muslim war...
And that's just the fate of those within the house of Islam!
#5 Muhammad directed Muslims to wage war on other religions and bring them under submission to Islam. Within the first few decades following his death, his Arabian companions invaded and conquered Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands.
A mere 25 years after Muhammad's death, Muslim armies had captured land and people within the borders of over 28 modern countries outside of Saudi Arabia.
#6
Muslims continued their Jihad against other religions for 1400 years, checked only by the ability of non-Muslims to defend themselves. To this day, not a week goes by that Islamic fundamentalists do not attempt to kill Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists explicitly in the name of Allah.
None of these other religions are at war with each other.
#7 Islam is the only religion that has to retain its membership by threatening to kill anyone who leaves. This is according to the example set by Muhammad.
#8 Islam teaches that non-Muslims are less than fully human. Muhammad said that Muslims can be put to death for murder, but that a Muslim could never be put to death for killing a non-Muslim.
#9
The Qur'an never once speaks of Allah's love for non-Muslims, but it speaks of Allah's cruelty toward and hatred of non-Muslims more than 500 times.
#10
"Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"
(The last words from the cockpit of Flight 93)
ReligionofPeace.com Home Page
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Peace with Palestinians who honour murderers....
The Palestinians are almost as low on the morality scale as the Taliban. Both these groups honour the most unsavoury acts carried out be human beings....
PMW Bulletins
Abbas turns 3 latest terrorists into Palestinian heroes
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Dec. 29, 2009
Rabbi Meir Avshalom Hai - a 45-year old Israeli and father of seven children - was killed in a drive-by shooting last Thursday. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, part of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, took responsibility for the killing. On Friday night, Israeli forces located and killed three of the terrorists involved in the attack. The fourth surrendered to the PA police.
The response of the PA has been unequivocal support and backing for the terrorists. Since Friday, the leadership of the PA, the heads of Fatah, the heads of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the PA-controlled media have continuously portrayed the killers as Palestinian heroes and Shahids -- holy Martyrs -- while describing Israel's killing of the three terrorists as "murder in cold blood" and "assassination."
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas declared the killers "Shahids" (holy Martyrs) and sent his personal emissary to visit the families:
"Secretary General of the President's Office, Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim, conveyed condolences on behalf of President Mahmoud Abbas to the residents of Nablus and to the families of the three Shahids [Martyrs] for the Martyrdom of their sons, who were assassinated by Israeli occupation forces yesterday morning. He conveyed to the fighting families letters of condolences from the President [Abbas] and updated them as to [Abbas's] decision to declare them as Shahids [Martyrs] of the Palestinian revolution..."
Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim: "Without doubt, what the [Israeli] occupation authorities have carried out is a wild and barbaric act and a deliberate, malicious assassination in cold blood."
[PA TV (Fatah) News, Dec. 27, 2009]
PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad went even further, personally visiting the families of the terrorists along with other senior PA officials.
"Prime Minister visits Nablus and conveys condolences to the families of the Shahids (Martyrs). Prime Minister Dr. Salam Fayyad today visited the city of Nablus in the wake of the Israeli military operation, and presented condolences to the families of the three Martyrs who were murdered by the occupation forces.
Dr. Fayyad was accompanied by Internal Affairs Minister Dr. Said Abu Ali, leaders of the security agencies, and Police Director-General Major General Hazem Atallah, and they visited the house of mourning, which was held in the Trade Unions compound in the city... The Prime Minister condemned the Israeli military operation in the city."
[WAFA news agency, Dec. 26, 2009]
The Fatah movement is glorifying the terrorists:
"Mahmoud Al-Aloul, member of the Fatah Central Committee, said that the occupation murdered these three young men as well as another three in Gaza, in cold blood. He described them as '[military] commanders, brave heroes, and fighters.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 27, 2009]
PA TV focused on the Fatah poster (above), signed with condolences of PA Chairman Abbas, honoring the three terrorists. The following is the text on the poster with pictures of the terrorists:
"With honor and admiration to those who are more honored than all of us."
[Reference to supreme honor of Shahids - Martyrs in Islam]
"The Palestine Liberation Organization, Fatah, accompanies to their wedding:"
[Reference to Islamic belief that Martyrs marry virgins in Paradise]
The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Rassan Abu Serah
The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Ra'ed Al Aschregi
The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Anan Sobh
The Director General of the Presidency expresses condolences to the Nablus Martyrs - in the name of the President [Abbas]
It's important to note that in condemning Israel's killing of the terrorists, the PA is not denying that those killed were responsible for the murder of Rabbi Hai:
"The Shahid Imad Mughniyeh group [named after Hezbollah terrorist] of the [Fatah's] Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has denounced the [Israeli] crime of the assassination in Nablus, killing three Fatah activists, including Anan Sobh, who, according to the [Fatah's Al-Aqsa] Brigades, planned the Tulkarem operation which led to the death of the settler in a shooting operation."
[Ma'an News Agency, Dec. 26, 2009]
In the official announcement right after the terror attack, Fatah took responsibility, while calling the killers "Jihad Fighters" and warning of more "quality operations":
"A group announcing that it belonged to the Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for the shooting... 'The Jihad Fighters confirmed that the person who was in the car had taken a direct hit, and praise to Allah - the Jihad Fighters escaped unharmed...' The announcement said that 'this action is part of a series of operations; you can expect more quality operations [terror attacks] from us.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 25, 2009]
After the terrorists were killed, Fatah changed from threatening more "quality operations" to warning that it would avenge the killing of the "Jihad Fighters":
Headline: "The occupation murders three residents of Nablus in cold blood... the President's [Abbas's] Office denounces the Israeli crime..."
"The [Fatah's] Al-Aqsa Brigades announced: 'By the act of murdering an elite group of our Jihad Fighters in Nablus and in Gaza, the occupation is opening for itself the gates of Hell.' They threatened that 'our activists will not stand idly by while the blood of Jihad Fighters is spilled... The enemy will hear nothing from us but the language of blood and fire, and our Shahada [Martyrdom] Seekers will go out to [the enemy] from every place in order to turn his days into nights, and he will come to regret his crime. We shall not sleep over the blood of our Jihad Fighters, and our response will be swift... We affirm the continuation of our choice of blood and Martyrdom. The only choice, in the face of the repeated attacks against our people in the towns and villages and refugee camps of the occupied homeland. We shall turn the spilled blood of the Martyrs and the commanders into a torch of fury that will burn the forces of evil and aggression.''
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 27, 2009
PMW Bulletins
Abbas turns 3 latest terrorists into Palestinian heroes
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Dec. 29, 2009
Rabbi Meir Avshalom Hai - a 45-year old Israeli and father of seven children - was killed in a drive-by shooting last Thursday. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, part of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, took responsibility for the killing. On Friday night, Israeli forces located and killed three of the terrorists involved in the attack. The fourth surrendered to the PA police.
The response of the PA has been unequivocal support and backing for the terrorists. Since Friday, the leadership of the PA, the heads of Fatah, the heads of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the PA-controlled media have continuously portrayed the killers as Palestinian heroes and Shahids -- holy Martyrs -- while describing Israel's killing of the three terrorists as "murder in cold blood" and "assassination."
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas declared the killers "Shahids" (holy Martyrs) and sent his personal emissary to visit the families:
"Secretary General of the President's Office, Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim, conveyed condolences on behalf of President Mahmoud Abbas to the residents of Nablus and to the families of the three Shahids [Martyrs] for the Martyrdom of their sons, who were assassinated by Israeli occupation forces yesterday morning. He conveyed to the fighting families letters of condolences from the President [Abbas] and updated them as to [Abbas's] decision to declare them as Shahids [Martyrs] of the Palestinian revolution..."
Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim: "Without doubt, what the [Israeli] occupation authorities have carried out is a wild and barbaric act and a deliberate, malicious assassination in cold blood."
[PA TV (Fatah) News, Dec. 27, 2009]
PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad went even further, personally visiting the families of the terrorists along with other senior PA officials.
"Prime Minister visits Nablus and conveys condolences to the families of the Shahids (Martyrs). Prime Minister Dr. Salam Fayyad today visited the city of Nablus in the wake of the Israeli military operation, and presented condolences to the families of the three Martyrs who were murdered by the occupation forces.
Dr. Fayyad was accompanied by Internal Affairs Minister Dr. Said Abu Ali, leaders of the security agencies, and Police Director-General Major General Hazem Atallah, and they visited the house of mourning, which was held in the Trade Unions compound in the city... The Prime Minister condemned the Israeli military operation in the city."
[WAFA news agency, Dec. 26, 2009]
The Fatah movement is glorifying the terrorists:
"Mahmoud Al-Aloul, member of the Fatah Central Committee, said that the occupation murdered these three young men as well as another three in Gaza, in cold blood. He described them as '[military] commanders, brave heroes, and fighters.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 27, 2009]
PA TV focused on the Fatah poster (above), signed with condolences of PA Chairman Abbas, honoring the three terrorists. The following is the text on the poster with pictures of the terrorists:
"With honor and admiration to those who are more honored than all of us."
[Reference to supreme honor of Shahids - Martyrs in Islam]
"The Palestine Liberation Organization, Fatah, accompanies to their wedding:"
[Reference to Islamic belief that Martyrs marry virgins in Paradise]
The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Rassan Abu Serah
The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Ra'ed Al Aschregi
The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Anan Sobh
The Director General of the Presidency expresses condolences to the Nablus Martyrs - in the name of the President [Abbas]
It's important to note that in condemning Israel's killing of the terrorists, the PA is not denying that those killed were responsible for the murder of Rabbi Hai:
"The Shahid Imad Mughniyeh group [named after Hezbollah terrorist] of the [Fatah's] Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has denounced the [Israeli] crime of the assassination in Nablus, killing three Fatah activists, including Anan Sobh, who, according to the [Fatah's Al-Aqsa] Brigades, planned the Tulkarem operation which led to the death of the settler in a shooting operation."
[Ma'an News Agency, Dec. 26, 2009]
In the official announcement right after the terror attack, Fatah took responsibility, while calling the killers "Jihad Fighters" and warning of more "quality operations":
"A group announcing that it belonged to the Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for the shooting... 'The Jihad Fighters confirmed that the person who was in the car had taken a direct hit, and praise to Allah - the Jihad Fighters escaped unharmed...' The announcement said that 'this action is part of a series of operations; you can expect more quality operations [terror attacks] from us.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 25, 2009]
After the terrorists were killed, Fatah changed from threatening more "quality operations" to warning that it would avenge the killing of the "Jihad Fighters":
Headline: "The occupation murders three residents of Nablus in cold blood... the President's [Abbas's] Office denounces the Israeli crime..."
"The [Fatah's] Al-Aqsa Brigades announced: 'By the act of murdering an elite group of our Jihad Fighters in Nablus and in Gaza, the occupation is opening for itself the gates of Hell.' They threatened that 'our activists will not stand idly by while the blood of Jihad Fighters is spilled... The enemy will hear nothing from us but the language of blood and fire, and our Shahada [Martyrdom] Seekers will go out to [the enemy] from every place in order to turn his days into nights, and he will come to regret his crime. We shall not sleep over the blood of our Jihad Fighters, and our response will be swift... We affirm the continuation of our choice of blood and Martyrdom. The only choice, in the face of the repeated attacks against our people in the towns and villages and refugee camps of the occupied homeland. We shall turn the spilled blood of the Martyrs and the commanders into a torch of fury that will burn the forces of evil and aggression.''
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 27, 2009
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Difference between Jews & Muslims
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the worlds population.
They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz
Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai
Economics:
(zero)
Physics:
(zero)
Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
TOTAL: 7 (SEVEN)
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN
MILLION or about 0.02% of the world’s population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991- Nadine Gordimer
World Peace:
1911- Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L. Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
Medicine:
1908 - ElieMetchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Ben Acerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996 - Lu Rose Iacovino
TOTAL: 129!
The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.
The Jews don't traffic in slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.
Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.
Muslims must ask what they can do for humankind before they demand that humankind respects them.
Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part, the following two sentences really say it all:
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel ."
Benjamin Netanyahu
General Eisenhower Warned Us:
It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps, he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.
He did this because he said in words to this effect:
Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.
Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it offends the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated while the German people looked the other way.
Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be a myth, it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.
How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center NEVER HAPPENED because it offends some Muslim in the United States?
They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz
Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai
Economics:
(zero)
Physics:
(zero)
Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
TOTAL: 7 (SEVEN)
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN
MILLION or about 0.02% of the world’s population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991- Nadine Gordimer
World Peace:
1911- Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L. Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
Medicine:
1908 - ElieMetchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Ben Acerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996 - Lu Rose Iacovino
TOTAL: 129!
The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.
The Jews don't traffic in slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.
Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.
Muslims must ask what they can do for humankind before they demand that humankind respects them.
Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part, the following two sentences really say it all:
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel ."
Benjamin Netanyahu
General Eisenhower Warned Us:
It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps, he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.
He did this because he said in words to this effect:
Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.
Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it offends the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated while the German people looked the other way.
Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be a myth, it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.
How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center NEVER HAPPENED because it offends some Muslim in the United States?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
