I have always considered Britain as a Christian Nation all my life, perhaps because of my background, my education, my experiences with the Church, and my knowledge of English history. So I was take aback when communicating with an Anglo-Indian living in India who has many relatives living in England to challenge me saying that, “England was not a Christian nation.” He said that he has bad many discussions with his English relatives and they confirmed that Britain was not a Christian nation and that I was wrong. I am only assume that he and his relatives saw England as a “secular nation” and that the English people had now accepted “multiculturalism” as the accepted norm for Britain. The British also are known to have forsaken their churches and their clergy in favour of Sunday shopping, or even having Sunday Family Lunch with some beer at a pub.

Naturally I got rather annoyed, and told him that The Monarch was crowned on Oath to  “maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?”  This is described in greater detain under, “The Coronation and Oath of the British Monarch” detailed below,[3]

and that to say that Britain was not a Christian nation was tantamount to saying that the oath taken by the Monarch was a mockery. I believe I got the point across and the post was deleted. But the thought that people in India and other commonwealth nations could have gained  an impression that Britain was NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION riled me and I decided to write on this issue for the benefit of others. After looking at some of the facts available, I could see why such an impression was easily acquired by those less intimately aware of the history of Britain. But this discussion must necessarily be detailed to cover a wider perspective.

Factors that have Created the Impression that Britain is Secular

The impression Britain gives to the world is that she is a very open, tolerant, generous, and secular is by he behaviour of her people and her government policies. Following WWII and Churchill’s signing of the Atlantic Charter, the European colonial empires were doomed. This in effect opened the world markets to America, and gave unlimited political powers to nations once dominated by European powers. It was also coincidental that the industrialised nations depended on petroleum fuels and most of these fuels were found in Arab countries. After WWII Europe needed labour to rebuild her industries and cheap fuel, and Arab had plenty of both.

The West had never really understood the Arabs or their ideologies in spite of the many long years of the War of the Crusades, and the Arabs realising their backwardness in science, technology, and manufacturing, blamed their disadvantage on having been subjugated and repressed by the West instead of blaming  faults in their own cultural ideologies. So when Charles de Gaulle reached out to the Arabs to form a union to challenge the supremacy of America, the Arabs held all the trump cards. The Arab time had come. Allah has again blessed the Arabs.

The Arabs only agreed to form a union with Europe on condition that the Arab nations and all her peoples were afforded the same citizenship conditions as the Europeans and that Arabs were allowed to promote the Arabic language, Arabic culture, and Arabic religion in Europe, as equal to the European languages, culture, and religions. Both parties seemed to think that this better understanding and cooperation would be no bad thing for both countries. But this union is the cause of disintegration of the Western culture.

France and Arab Countries

When Algeria gained its independence in 1962 (4 years later), De Gaulle set out to reorient France’s policy toward the Arab/Islamic world. He pursued economic and strategic long-range planning designed to unite the European and Arab countries, on both sides of the Mediterranean, into a single, interdependent economic bloc that could oppose America.

Pierre Lyautey, a nephew of Marshall Lyautey, the first French governor of Morocco championed a Franco-Muslim Association. In May 1962 he said,

A French Islamic policy carried out together with the new Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, perhaps linked tomorrow with a North African federation, and with the states of the Middle East, would bring us a prestige which would impress the United States and the USSR.”

De Gaulle shared with his collaborators his wish to build a community with all the Mediterranean countries, different from the American model. This French- Arab policy coalesced with De Gaulle’s greatest ambition, the creation of a unified Europe whose centrepiece was an unprecedented rapprochement between two traditional enemies, France and what was then West Germany.

On November 27th, 1967, De Gaulle announced that French-Arab collaboration would be a fundamental element in French politics.

The Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples”

This conference was held in January, 1969 in Cairo. The chief object of this conference was to demonstrate “European hostility towards Zionism and show solidarity with the Arab Population of Palestine.*” The conference stressed:

“that all information media should be mobilised to enlighten world public opinion, kept in ignorance and confusion by deceitful propaganda on the part of Israel and its supporters.”

“It is an incumbent moral and political duty” of all participants of this conference to reveal the truth and spread it through the press, the radio, television, demonstrations, visits of delegations, and the organisation of seminars and conferences in the West and through all continents.”

Resolution 15*: “The conference decided to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform for promoting support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.”

Resolution 22*: Representatives will organize, on return from the conference, special meetings and publications, and utilize the press, radio, and television media to popularize the conference’s decisions in the most appropriate way for each individual country.

[Not only were the Arabs determined to force the new European partners to demonise the Israelis and Americans, but also to force them to accept the legitimacy of the Palestinian peoples, that was a newly created *political identity since 1945, and to support their demands for their territorial demands, that also was non-existent before 1945. United States cannot claim not to have been aware of the decisions taken at these meetings as they were represented there.]

Of the 54 members of the conference, 43 were from Europe, i.e., France, East Germany, England, Italy, Belgium and Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Poland, and Hungary, and Chile, and the United States. [Appendix 4] [4.p44]

***

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

British Prime Minister: “We are a Christian country”
The Bible has given Britain a set of values and morals which it should actively defend, says David Cameron.

The following is the prepared text of a speech by British Prime Minister David Cameron, delivered at Christ Church, Oxford, last weekend for the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version of the Bible. In it, Mr Cameron says the UK is Christian country and that when Christians are confident of their own identity it provides greater space for other religious faiths too.

It’s great to be here and to have this opportunity to come together today to mark the end of this very special 400th anniversary year for the King James Bible.

I know there are some who will question why I am giving this speech. And if they happen to know that I’m setting out my views today in a former home of the current Archbishop of Canterbury and in front of many great theologians and church leaders they really will think I have entered the lions’ den. But I am proud to stand here and celebrate the achievements of the King James Bible. Not as some great Christian on a mission to convert the world. But because, as Prime Minister, it is right to recognise the impact of a translation that is, I believe, one of this country’s greatest achievements.

The Bible is a book that has not just shaped our country, but shaped the world. And, with three Bibles sold or given away every second, a book that is not just important in understanding our past, but which will continue to have a profound impact in shaping our collective future.

In making this speech I claim no religious authority whatsoever. I am a committed – but I have to say vaguely practising – Church of England Christian, who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith but who is full of doubts and, like many, constantly grappling with the difficult questions when it comes to some of the big theological issues. But what I do believe is this. The King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history. And none of us should be frightened of recognising this. Why? Put simply, three reasons.

First, the King James Bible has bequeathed a body of language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage from everyday phrases to our greatest works of literature, music and art. We live and breathe the language of the King James Bible, sometimes without even realising it. And it is right that we should acknowledge this – particularly in this anniversary year.

Second, just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics. From human rights and equality to our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, from the role of the church in the first forms of welfare provision, to the many modern day faith-led social action projects the Bible has been a spur to action for people of faith throughout history, and it remains so today.

Third, we are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so. Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong. I know and fully respect that many people in this country do not have a religion. And I am also incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make our country stronger. But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend. The alternative of moral neutrality should not be an option. You can’t fight something with nothing. Because if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything.

Let me take each of these points in turn.

First, language and culture.

Powerful language is incredibly evocative. It crystallises profound, sometimes complex, thoughts and suggests a depth of meaning far beyond the words on the page giving us something to share, to cherish, to celebrate. Part of the glue that can help to bind us together.

Along with Shakespeare, the King James Bible is a high point of the English language, creating arresting phrases that move, challenge and inspire. One of my favourites is the line “For now we see through a glass, darkly.” It is a brilliant summation of the profound sense that there is more to life, that we are imperfect, that we get things wrong, that we should strive to see beyond our own perspective. The key word is darkly – profoundly loaded, with many shades of meaning. I feel the power is lost in some more literal translations. The New International Version says: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” The Good News Bible: “What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror”. They feel not just a bit less special but dry and cold, and don’t quite have the same magic and meaning.

Like Shakespeare, the King James translation dates from a period when the written word was intended to be read aloud. And this helps to give it a poetic power and sheer resonance that in my view is not matched by any subsequent translation. It has also contributed immensely to the spread of spoken English around the world. Indeed, the language of the King James Bible is very much alive today.

I’ve already mentioned the lions’ den. Just think about some of the other things we all say. Phrases like: strength to strength, how the mighty are fallen, the skin of my teeth, the salt of the earth, nothing new under the sun. According to one recent study there are 257 of these phrases and idioms that come from the Bible. These phrases are all around us from court cases to TV sitcoms and from recipe books to pop music lyrics.

Of course, there is a healthy debate about the extent to which it was the King James version that originated the many phrases in our language today. And it’s right to recognise the impact of earlier versions like Tyndale, Wycliffe, Douai-Rheims, the Bishops and Geneva Bibles too. The King James Bible does exactly that, setting out with the stated aim of making a good translation better, or out of many good ones, to make “one principal good one”. But what is clear is that the King James Version gave the Bible’s many expressions a much more widespread public presence.

Much of that dissemination has come through our literature, through the great speeches we remember and the art and music we still enjoy today. From Milton to Morrison and Coleridge to Cormac McCarthy the Bible supports the plot, context, language and sometimes even the characters in some of our greatest literature. Tennyson makes over 400 Biblical references in his poems and makes allusions to 42 different books of the Bible.

The Bible has infused some of the greatest speeches from Martin Luther King’s dream that Isaiah’s prophecy would be fulfilled and that one day “every valley shall be exalted” to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address which employed not just Biblical words but cadence and rhythms borrowed from the King James Bible as well. When Lincoln said that his forefathers “brought forth” a new nation, he was imitating the way in which the Bible announced the birth of Jesus.

The Bible also runs through our art. From Giotto to El Greco and Michelangelo to Stanley Spencer. The paintings in Sandham Memorial Chapel in Berkshire are some of my favourite works of art. Those who died in Salonika rising to heaven is religious art in the modern age and, in my view, as powerful as some of what has come before.

And the Bible runs through our music too. From the great oratorios like J S Bach’s Matthew and John Passions and Handel’s Messiah to the wealth of music written across the ages for mass and evensong in great cathedrals like this one. The Biblical settings of composers from Tallis to Taverner are regularly celebrated here in this great cathedral and will sustain our great British tradition of choral music for generations to come.

It’s impossible to do justice in a short speech to the full scale of the cultural impact of the King James Bible. But what is clear is that four hundred years on, this book is still absolutely pivotal to our language and culture. And that’s one very good reason for us all to recognise it today.

A second reason is this.

Just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics. The Bible runs through our political history in a way that is often not properly recognised. The history and existence of a constitutional monarchy owes much to a Bible in which Kings were anointed and sanctified with the authority of God and in which there was a clear emphasis on the respect for Royal Power and the need to maintain political order. Jesus said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

And yet at the same time, the Judeo-Christian roots of the Bible also provide the foundations for protest and for the evolution of our freedom and democracy. The Torah placed the first limits on Royal Power. And the knowledge that God created man in his own image was, if you like, a game changer for the cause of human dignity and equality.

In the ancient world this equity was inconceivable. In Athens, for example, full and equal rights were the preserve of adult, free born men. But when each and every individual is related to a power above all of us and when every human being is of equal and infinite importance, created in the very image of God we get the irrepressible foundation for equality and human rights — a foundation that has seen the Bible at the forefront of the emergence of democracy, the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women – even if not every church has always got the point!

Crucially the translation of the Bible into English made all this accessible to many who had previously been unable to comprehend the Latin versions. And this created an unrelenting desire for change. The Putney debates in the Church of St Mary the Virgin in 1647 saw the first call for One Man, One vote and the demand that authority be invested in the House of Commons rather than the King. Reading the Bible in English gave people equality with each other through God. And this led them to seek equality with each other through government.

In a similar way, the Bible provides a defining influence on the formation of the first welfare state. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says that whatever people have done “unto one of the least of these my brethren” they have done unto him. Just as in the past it was the influence of the church that enabled hospitals to be built, charities created, the hungry fed, the sick nursed and the poor given shelter, so today faith based groups are at the heart of modern social action.

Organisations like the Church Urban Fund which has supported over 5,000 faith based projects in England’s poorest communities including the Near Neighbours Programme which Eric Pickles helped to launch last month. And St Ethelburga’s Centre for Reconciliation and Peace in London’s Bishopsgate a building once destroyed by an IRA bomb but now a centre where people divided by conflict, culture or religion can meet and listen to each other’s perspective.

In total, there are almost 30 thousand faith based charities in this country not to mention the thousands of people who step forward as individuals, as families, as communities, as organisations and yes, as churches and do extraordinary things to help build a bigger, richer, stronger, more prosperous and more generous society. And when it comes to the great humanitarian crises – like the famine in Horn of Africa – again you can count on faith-based organisations like Christian Aid, Tearfund, CAFOD, Jewish Care, Islamic Relief, and Muslim Aid to be at the forefront of the action to save lives.

So it’s right to recognise the huge contribution our faith communities make to our politics and to recognise the role of the Bible in inspiring many of their works.

People often say that politicians shouldn’t “do God.” If by that they mean we shouldn’t try to claim a direct line to God for one particular political party they could not be more right. But we shouldn’t let our caution about that stand in the way of recognising both what our faith communities bring to our country and also just how incredibly important faith is to so many people in Britain.

The Economist may have published the obituary of God in their Millennium issue. But in the past century, the proportion of people in the world who adhere to the four biggest religions has actually increased from around two-thirds to nearly three quarters and is forecast to continue rising.

For example, it is now thought there are at least 65 million protestants in China and 12 million Catholics – more Christians than there are members of the communist party. Official numbers indicate China has about 20 million Muslims – almost as many as in Saudi Arabia – and nearly twice as many as in the whole of the EU. And by 2050, some people think China could well be both the world’s biggest Christian nation and its biggest Muslim one too.

Here in Britain we only have to look at the reaction to the Pope’s visit last year, this year’s Royal Wedding or of course the festival of Christmas next week, to see that Christianity is alive and well in our country.

The key point is this. Societies do not necessarily become more secular with modernity but rather more plural, with a wider range of beliefs and commitments.

And that brings me to my third point.

The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country. Indeed, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible.” Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities these are the values we treasure.

Yes, they are Christian values. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. But they are also values that speak to us all – to people of every faith and none. And I believe we should all stand up and defend them. Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths. And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgement on their behaviour.

I think these arguments are profoundly wrong. And being clear on this is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a people what we stand for and the kind of society we want to build.

First, those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths simply don’t understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity. Many people tell me it is much easier to be Jewish or Muslim here in Britain than it is in a secular country like France.

Why? Because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths too. And because many of the values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths and indeed by people of no faith at all.

Second, those who advocate secular neutrality in order to avoid passing judgement on the behaviour of others fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code.

Let’s be clear. Faith is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for morality. There are Christians who don’t live by a moral code. And there are atheists and agnostics who do. But for people who do have a faith, their faith can be a helpful prod in the right direction. And whether inspired by faith or not – that direction, that moral code, matters.

Whether you look at the riots last summer, the financial crash and the expenses scandal, or the on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world, one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it anymore. Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of the lawlessness we saw with the riots.

The absence of any real accountability, or moral code allowed some bankers and politicians to behave with scant regard for the rest of society. And when it comes to fighting violent extremism, the almost fearful passive tolerance of religious extremism that has allowed segregated communities to behave in ways that run completely counter to our values has not contained that extremism but allowed it to grow and prosper in the process blackening the good name of the great religions that these extremists abuse for their own purposes.

Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. “Live and let live” has too often become “do what you please”. Bad choices have too often been defended as just different lifestyles. To be confident in saying something is wrong is not a sign of weakness, it’s a strength.

But we can’t fight something with nothing. As I’ve said, if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything. One of the biggest lessons of the riots last Summer is that we’ve got stand up for our values if we are to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations.

The same is true of religious extremism. As President Obama wrote in the Audacity of Hope: “…in reaction to religious overreach we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our politics with larger meaning.”

Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values.

But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. We need to stand up for these values. To have the confidence to say to people – this is what defines us as a society and that to belong here is to believe in these things.

I believe the church – and indeed all our religious leaders and their communities in Britain – have a vital role to play in helping to achieve this. I have never really understood the argument some people make about the church not getting involved in politics. To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church and the Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions.

So I don’t think we should be shy or frightened of this. I certainly don’t object to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing his views on politics. Religion has a moral basis and if he doesn’t agree with something he’s right to say so. But just as it is legitimate for religious leaders to make political comments, he shouldn’t be surprised when I respond.

Also it’s legitimate for political leaders to say something about religious institutions as they see them affecting our society, not least in the vital areas of equality and tolerance. I believe the Church of England has a unique opportunity to help shape the future of our communities. But to do so it must keep on the agenda that speaks to the whole country.

The future of our country is at a pivotal moment. The values we draw from the Bible go to the heart of what it means to belong in this country and you, as the Church of England, can help ensure that it stays that way.”

How is religion measured in the UK?

 

Copyright © David Cameron . Published by MercatorNet.com. You may download and print extracts from this article for your own personal and non-commercial use only. Contact us if you wish to discuss republication. [1]

*****

Lord’s Spiritual

26 bishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords. Known as the Lords Spiritual, they read prayers at the start of each daily meeting and play a full and active role in the life and work of the Upper House.

Christian religious leaders have had an active role in the legislative affairs of the country since before the formation of the Church of England.  Prior to the 11th century feudal landlords and religious leaders were regularly consulted by Saxon kings.

In the 14th century, religious leaders and landed gentry formed the ‘Upper House’ (the Lords) as, respectively, the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. Local representatives formed the ‘Lower House’ (the Commons). Apart from a brief interruption following the English Civil war, religious leaders have played an active role in parliament ever since.

The continuing place of Anglican bishops in the Lords reflects our enduring constitutional arrangement, with an established Church of England and its Supreme Governor as Monarch and Head of State.

Although there are 44 dioceses in the present-day Church of England, the Bishopric of Manchester Act of 1847 limited the number of places for Lords Spiritual to 26. In the Upper House today the 26 Lords Spiritual constitute around 3.5% of its membership.

Which bishops become Lords Spiritual?

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, London and Winchester are ex-officio members of the House of Lords. The remaining 21 places on the Bishops’ Bench are not determined by diocese, but are occupied by those English diocesan bishops that have served the longest.

When bishops retire from their see (compulsory at 70), their membership of the House also ceases. Occasionally some have become life peers, and this is usually the case for former archbishops.

What do they do in Parliament?

There is always a Lord Spiritual in the House of Lords when it is sitting, to read prayers at the start of the day and to participate in the business of the House.  Attendance in the House to read prayers is determined by the Lords Spiritual on a weekly rota basis, but bishops also choose to attend the House on an ad-hoc basis when matters of interest and concern to them are before it (the links on this page to individual Lords Spiritual provide more details).

Who do they represent in Parliament?

There is no ‘Bishops’ Party’ and as non-aligned members, their activities in the Upper House are not whipped.

Like other members of the Lords, they do not represent a parliamentary constituency, although their work is often closely informed by their diocesan role.

They sit as individual Lords Spiritual, and as such they have much in common with the independent Crossbenchers and those who are not party-affiliated.

Their presence in the Lords is an extension of their general vocation as bishops to preach God’s word and to lead people in prayer. Bishops provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House and, while they make no claims to direct representation, they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians. [2]

THE CORONATION AND OATH OF A BRITISH MONARCH

Since the Glorious Revolution, the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 has required, among other things, that the Sovereign “Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same”.^[46]The oath has been modified without statutory authority; for example, at the Coronation of Elizabeth II, the exchange between the Queen and the Archbishop was as follows:

The Archbishop of Canterbury: “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?”

The Queen: “I solemnly promise so to do.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury: “Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?”

The Queen: “I will.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury: “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?”

The Queen: “All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.”^[23]

The monarch additionally swears an oath to preserve Presbyterian church government in the Church of Scotland. This part of the oath is taken before the coronation.^[27]

Once the taking of the oath concludes, an ecclesiastic presents a Bible to the Sovereign, saying “Here is Wisdom; This is the royal Law; These are the lively Oracles of God.”^[23] The Bible used is a full King James Bible, including the Apocrypha.^[47] At Elizabeth II’s coronation, the Bible was presented by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Once the Bible is presented, the Holy Communion is celebrated, but the service is interrupted after the Nicene Creed. [3]

References

[1] Cameron’s Speech: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/british_prime_minister_we_are_a_christian_country

[2] Lord’s Spiritual: http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/the-church-in-parliament/bishops-in-the-house-of-lords.aspx

[3] The Coronation of a British Monarch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_the_British_monarch

In order to illustrate some of the ideologies of Islam vis-a-vis other religions, we have gathered some extracts for religious text to illustrate the points that are often missed by the casual reader of religious books. Highlighted and selected by the author. This will be updated with time.

Apostasy in the Quran

Qur’an (4:89) - “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them”

Qur’an (9:11-12) - “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.”

Other verses that seem to support the many Hadith demanding death for apostates are Qur’an verses 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.

[2.217] They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah’s way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever– these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide.
[9.73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
[9.74] They swear by Allah that they did not speak, and certainly they did speak, the word of unbelief, and disbelieved after their Islam, and they had determined upon what they have not been able to effect, and they did not find fault except because Allah and His Apostle enriched them out of His grace; therefore if they repent, it will be good for them; and if they turn back, Allah will chastise them with a painful chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall not have in the land any guardian or a helper.

[88.21] Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder.

[5.54] O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah’s way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah’s Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.

[9.66] Do not make excuses; you have denied indeed after you had believed; if We pardon a party of you, We will chastise (another) party because they are guilty.

Apostasy According to the Hadiths

4:80 of the Quran: “Whoso obeyeth the Messenger obeyeth Allah.”

Bukhari (52:260) - “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “  Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.

Bukhari (83:37) - “Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”

Bukhari (84:57) - [In the words of] ”Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to “the verdict of Allah and his apostle.”

Bukhari (84:58) - “There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, ‘Who is this (man)?’  Abu Muisa said, ‘He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.’  Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, ‘I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.’  Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, ‘Then we discussed the night prayers’”

Bukhari (84:64-65) - “Allah’s Apostle: ‘During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.’”

Abu Dawud (4346) - “Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?”  Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to “repent” under duress.  (The person in question was Muhammad’s former scribe who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine “revelations” upon finding out that he could suggest grammatical changes.  He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).

Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 - “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”  (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).

 According to Islamic Law regarding Apostasy

There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death.  The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the apostate is called a murtadd.

Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: “An apostate…is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those who change their din [religion]‘…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition…prior to his execution.”

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.”

The equivalent, gravely negative implications of the OIC’s Sharia-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims: “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism.” Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the “punishment” of so-called “apostates” from Islam: “[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.; [22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.; [22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.; [22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.” [1]

From Andrew Bostom’s CAIR’s Silence on Pastor’s Apostasy Death Sentence is Deafening

QURANIC VIEWS ABOUT JEWS AND JUDAISM

Jews and Christians reject Islam so Allah transforms them to Apes and Swine

Qur’an 5:59 “Say: ‘People of the Book (Bible)! Do you disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that has come to us and that which came before?’ Say: ‘Shall I point out to you something much worse than this by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom He transformed into apes and swine.”

Qur’an 2:64 “But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you.”

Jews are Evil

Ishaq:240 “The Jews are a nation of liars…. The Jews are a treacherous, lying, and evil people.”

Terrorise and Kill Jews and Banish them

Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.”

Ishaq:250 “The bestial transformation occurred when Allah turned Jews into apes, despised.”

Jews will end up in Hell

Qur’an 59:14 “The Jews are devoid of sense. There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell.”

Ishaq:254
Qur’an 2:96 “We will not remove a Jew from the punishment. They know the shameful thing that awaits them.”

Jews Are HELL

Qur’an 4:55 “Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!”

Qur’an 88:1 “Has the narration reached you of the overwhelming (calamity)? Some faces (all disbelievers, Jews and Christians) that Day, will be humiliated, downcast, scorched by the burning fire, while they are made to drink from a boiling hot spring.”

EXPELLING ALL JEWS AND CHRISTIANS

Bukhari:V4B53N380 “Umar expelled all the Jews and Christians from Arabia. Allah’s Apostle after conquering Khaybar thought of expelling the Jews from the land which, after he conquered it, belonged to Allah, Allah’s Apostle and the Muslims. But the Jews requested Allah’s Apostle to leave them there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits (the land would yield). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘We shall keep you on these terms as long as we wish.’ Thus they stayed till the time of Umar’s Caliphate when he expelled them.”

Judaism and Islam cannot Coexist

Tabari VIII:130 “The Messenger said during his final illness, ‘Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.’ Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: ‘Allah has given permission for you to be expelled; for I have received word that the Prophet said that two religions cannot coexist in Arabia.”

Ishaq:517 “Khaybar was stormed by the Apostle’s squadron, fully armed, powerful, and strong. It brought certain humiliation with Muslim men in its midst. We attacked and they met their doom. Muhammad conquered the Jews in fighting that day as they opened their eyes to our dust.”

Jews are Untrustworthy

Ishaq:524 “We cannot accept the oaths of Jews. Their infidelity is so great they swear falsely.”

Qur’an 59:14 “They [Jews] will not fight against you save in fortified townships. Their hostility and hatred amongst themselves is strong: you would think they were united, but their hearts they are divided. That is because these [Jews] are a people devoid of sense.”

Jews are led by Satan

Ishaq:245 “Do you love Jews and their religion, you liver-hearted ass, and not Muhammad? Their religion will never march with ours…. Jews make false professions about Islam. So Allah sent down: ‘Satan wishes to lead them astray.”

Jews Deny Allah-Doom Awaits Jews

Ishaq:248 “Allah increases their sickness. A tormented doom awaits the Jews. Allah said, ‘They are mischief makers. They are fools. The Jews deny the truth and contradict what the Apostle has brought. I will mock them and let them continue to wander blindly.’”

Jews and Christians are Unbelievers and Idolaters will live in Hell

Qur’an 98:1 “Those among the People of the Book(Bible), who disbelieve (in Allah) and are idolaters, would never have been freed from their false religion if the Clear Proofs had not come to them. An Apostle of Allah came reading out of hallowed pages…. They were commanded to serve Allah exclusively, fulfilling their devotional obligations, and paying the zakat. Surely the unbelievers and idolaters from the People of the Book(Bible) will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.”

Curses on the Children of Israel

Qur’an 5:78 “Curses were pronounced on the unbelievers, the Children of Israel who rejected Islam, by the tongues of David and of Jesus because they disobeyed and rebelled.”

Qur’an 5:80 “You see many of them allying themselves with the unbelieving infidels. Vile indeed are their souls. Allah’s wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.”

Qur’an 5:81 “If only they had believed in Allah, in the Prophet, and in what had been revealed to him.”

Jews and Christians hate Muslims

Qur’an 5:82 “You will find the Jews and disbelievers [defined as Christians in 5:73] the most vehement in hatred for the Muslims.”

Muslims are Forbidden to befriend Jews

Ishaq:262 “Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a Qur’an forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse.”

Qur’an 2:59 “We sent a plague upon the Jews from heaven, for their evil-doing.”

Muhammad Wishes Plague on Israelis

Bukhari:V4B56N679 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Plague is a means of torture sent on the Israelis.’”

Bukhari:V2B23N457 “The Prophet went out after sunset and heard a dreadful voice. He said, ‘The Jews are being punished in their graves.’”

Qur’an 17:7 “We shall rouse Our (Muslim) slaves to shame and ravage you (Jews), disfiguring your faces. They will enter the Temple as before and destroy, laying to waste all that they conquer.”

Muhammad Insults Jerusalem

Bukhari:V1B4N147 “People say, ‘Whenever you sit for answering the call of nature, you should not face the Qiblah of Jerusalem.’ I told them. ‘Once I went up the roof of our house and I saw Allah’s Apostle answering the call of nature while sitting on two bricks facing Jerusalem.”

Racist Inferiority Complex: Jew vs. Arab

Ishaq:239 “About this time Jewish rabbis showed hostility to the Apostle in envy, hatred, and malice, because Allah had chosen His Apostle from the Arabs. The Jews considered the Prophet a liar and strove against Islam.”

Islamic Genocide (7^th Century)

Qur’an 59:2 “It was He [Allah] who drove the [Jewish] People of the Book(Bible) from their [Medina] homes and into exile. They refused to believe. You did not think that they would go away. And they imagined that their settlement would protect them against Allah. But Allah’s [actually Muhammad's] (torment) came at them from where they did not suspect and terrorized them. Their homes were destroyed. So learn a lesson O men who have eyes. This is My warning. Had Allah not decreed the expulsion of the Jews, banishing them into the desert, He would certainly have punished them in this world, and in the next they shall taste the torment of Hell Fire.”

Jewish Rejection of Muhammad (Never Forgiven)

Ishaq:257 “‘O Jews, fear Allah and submit, for you used to hope for the Messiah’s help against the Arabs when we were pagans. You told us that he would be sent and then told us about him.’ A Jew responded, ‘Muhammad has not shown us anything we recognize as prophetic. He is not the one we spoke to you about.’ So Allah revealed, ‘We confirmed what they had, and We sent one they recognized, but they rejected him so We are cursing them.’ The Jews replied, ‘No Covenant was ever made with us about Muhammad.’” “‘Muhammad, you have not brought anything we recognize. And God has not sent down any sign or miracle suggesting that we should believe you.’ So Allah said, ‘We have sent down to you plain signs and only evildoers disbelieve them.’”

Ishaq:257 “The Jews told Allah’s Messenger, ‘Bring us a book. Bring us something down from heaven that we might read it.’”

Ishaq:258 “The Jews used to turn men away from Islam. So Allah said, ‘Many Scripture folk wish to make you unbelievers after you have believed. They are envious. Be indulgent until Allah gives you his orders [to rob them, rape them, sell them into slavery, and murder them.]“

Allah Forbids Muslims to Befriend Jews because Jews rejected Islam

Ishaq:262 “Some Muslims remained friends with Jews, so Allah sent down a Qur’an forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse.” “You believe in their Book(Bible) [though you don't have a clue what it says] while they deny your book (Qur’an), so you have more right to hate them than they have to hate you.”

Abu Bakr loses Temper when questioned about Muhammad

Ishaq:263 “Abu Bakr went into a Jewish school [there is no mention of him ever going into a Muslim school] and found many pupils gathered around Finhas, a learned rabbi. Bakr told the Jews to fear Allah and submit. He told them that they would find that Muhammad was an Apostle written in the Torah and Gospels. Finhas replied, ‘Why does your god ask us to lend him money as your master pretends.’ Abu was enraged and hit Finhas hard in the face [for telling the truth]. Were it not for the treaty between us I would cut off your head, you enemy of Allah. So Allah said, ‘They will taste Our punishment of burning.’”

Bukhari:V5B59N362 “He exiled all the Qaynuqa Jews from Medina.”

Muslims, take not Jews and Christians as friends

Ishaq:364 “Muslims, take not Jews and Christians as friends. Whoever protects them becomes one of them, they become diseased, and will earn a similar fate.”

Reference

[1] Apostasy: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm

LinkCitationEmailPrintFavorite

Islamic Terrorism is more dangerous than the Communism of the last Century

Syed Kamran Mirza

December 22, 2005

A friend of mine has forwarded an article from Washington post written by Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski the renown American foreign policy expert, and the theme of his article was: Is the Communism and Islamic terrorism has anything in common? More precisely, he has stated in his article with firm voice that the �Islamic terrorists are much weaker than communism� hence the west should not take Islamic terrorists so seriously!  

Quite frankly, I do not agree with Mr. Brzezinski�s opinion on several important points of his article which has delved the most important political issues of this 21st century. Mr. Brzezinski is a famous USforeign policy expert and was the security advisor to the American President Jimmy Carter. He was perhaps one of the key persons responsible for creating Osama Bin Laden (the Frankenstein of American foreign politics) in the 80�s by his relentless campaign and ardently teaching of Islamic jihad. By the help of Saudi Islamic crooks he recruited thousands of young Arab jihadis, gave them jihadi training, weapons, money and other logistic supports to fight the Communism (USSR). And now he thinks Islamic terrorism is not as dangerous as Communism of the past. It is only out of ignorance of Islamic zealotry that Mr. Brzezinski�s is making such absurd comments. However, with due respect to Mr. Brezezinski below are my comments against his opinions.

In my view, if Communism was a thousand pounds Gorilla; then the Islamic terrorism is a ten thousand pounds Gorilla.Communism might have had Nukes to destroy the entire planet; but the communists did not dare to even touch one single hair of America(anywhere in the whole world) during 50 years of cold war because it feared retaliation. On the other hand, these devilish ideologically brainwashed Islamic terrorists have already destroyed over a dozen of American Embassies/installations overseas, have killed many hundreds of American abroad, have destroyed the American warships and the American Army installations in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; (By the way all these happened during the reign of two Democratic Presidents: Carter and Clinton) and finally have destroyed the pride of America WTC, and the Pentagon right here in the soil of America�killing over three thousand innocent Americans.

All the above terrorisms happened before the Iraq war. For fifty years Communism made thousands of Nukes but did not have a single suicide bomber. The Islamic terrorism counts with thousands of suicide bombers which are more practical and more efficient than Nukes.

These deadly human bombs are indiscriminately blasting and killing innocent civilians throughout the world. Can Mr. Brzezinski still claim that Communism was stronger than Islamic terrorism? Mr. Brezezinski must be kidding! [Was the mighty communism at all capable of giving such apocalyptic scenery (above) of the destruction of American property right in the heart of America ? ]

Just to refute Mr. Brzezinski�s inaccurate comparison of communism with Islamic terrorism, let me cite a few unparallel examples: To quell the monster of Islamic terrorism , America has already fought and still is fighting two major wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) spending tens of thousands of human lives and hundreds of billions of dollars as well; overhauled many US administrative strategies; created a brand newHomeland Security Department, many other security arrangements worldwide, federal Air marshal etc. spending hundreds of billions of dollars. To handle the communist threat America did not have to do a fraction of that. Yet the control of Islamic terrorism is not in the sight at all.  

Like many other (Democrats and leftists) naive Americans, Mr. Brzezinski does not know Islam not the zealotry of its followers. He thing just because the Islamic terrorists do not have a strong organization as the communists did, they are weak, vulnerable and are not a great threat! Fact is, these Islamic terrorists actually do not have any home or country or any geographical boundary. They are everywhere all over the world including America , and they are like shadow which can not be seen before they blast their deadly bombs. Islamic terrorists have one common home which is the religion of Islam and they get their instructions from the Quran. They are brainwashed and solidly bonded by this deadly ideology. Islamic terrorists are more dangerous and more powerful because of their fanatical faith and because they have no home and can�t be targeted, than the communist that had an identifiable home and organization having only a loosely bonded political theme. Had the Islamic terrorists got any particular home or geographical identity, then it would have been very easy for a super power like America to destroy it completely. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Islamic terrorism.

Like Mr. Brzezinski, President George Bush and British PM Tony Blair also thought initially that Islam/religion was not the factor, or those terrorists are not bonded with the Islamic ideology. They both initially said �Islam is peace�. But now with time they both have been educated well about this menacing threat. Now they are uttering the correct adjectives about these Islamic terrorists. The �murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals�, �Islamic radicalism,� �militant jihadism�, �Islamofascism�, or �Islamic

Caliphate� are the right words for President Bush and PM Blair to use for describing Islamic terrorists. Before, they both used to tell all wrong things about the Islamic terrorists. Because, it has been proven time and again by actions and figures that Islamic terrorism is indeed connected and greatly emboldened by the murderous ideology of Islam.

Mr. Brzezinski�s another na�ve theory is that�it�s the �poverty and oppression� that is creating suicide bombers, and not Islam. He is wrong here too. So far Islamists blasted hundreds of suicide bombs. Not a single case was proven that they did it because of oppressions. I have followed every news about these suicide bombers, and read several dozens of articles about those captured would be suicide bombers (around the world) who were interviewed by various reporters. Almost all  of them vividly and proudly told the reporters that they have done it by religious motivations/convictions, and wanted to become martyrs. None of them said that they did it because of any oppression or due to poverty. They all wanted to enter Islamic lustful heaven by killing innocent human beings. All those Nineteen 9/11 terrorists who destroyed WTC and Pentagon were from affluent rich and educated Arab families, and they were all University graduates. They all left the messages behind that they did it to go to heaven to enjoy 72 virgin houris. Please mind that poverty also do exist in India ,China , and many other countries of Africa and Asia . Those poor Hindus, poor Buddhists, or poor Christians, Animists or poor Pagans do not commit suicide bombings to kill kaffirs. Only Muslims do it. Therefore, it is Islam (religion) the cause, and not any poverty or oppressions. Communism could not create a single suicide bomber to kill any capitalists. But the deadly ideology of Islam can create tens of thousands of suicide bombers world wide.

Please consider the case of Bangladesh today. In Bangladesh Islamic terrorist are blasting deadly bombs everywhere killing innocent peoples almost on daily basis. All those involved in these killings are Islamists (Madrassa students, Madrassa teachers, muftis, maoulanas, Imams, etc.). The poor Bengalis beggars will never commit suicide to kill people even if the beggars are starving for several weeks, unless they are fanatically brainwashed by heavenly bait of Islam. Mind you no human wants to die even for billion dollars; but he will die for a cause.

It�s absolutely incorrect to claim that major religious figures condemned Islamic terrorism. Pope may have done it but not grand mufti of Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic big mullah. Not even 2% Islamic mullahs of the entire world did condemn Islamic terrorism. Their condemnation has the deceitful tactics of fooling the western world. They may condemn terrorism (only externally), but never condemn jihadist Islamists. Actually they call it jihad; how they can condemn jihad? Could they go against the Quran? Virtually all the Muslims from Madrassas, Mosques, Islamic centers vehemently support Osama bin Laden and his Islamic terrorist�s gang whole heartedly. Even the so called moderate or ignorant Muslims do support (clandestinely) Osama�s grand mission of fighting the west.

Mr. Brzezinski�s analogy of IRA terrorism with Islamic terrorism is another sign of naivety and lack of understanding of the real problem of Islamic terrorism. IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland or Basque terrorism in Spain is purely local in nature and their struggle is not to establish or safeguard Christianity or any other religion. IRA or Basque people never blasted their bombs in Indonesia , Philipine, Tunesia or inAmerica . Most importantly, IRA and Basque terrorists did not commit suicide bombings. Islamic terrorists are blasting suicide bombs all over the world. What kind of analogy is it?

This Islamic utopia was started after the rise of Islamic regime in Iranafter the fall of the Shah of Iran. Osama bin Laden saw the victory overUSSR in Afghan war as the victory of Islam over the enemy of Islam�the Russian infidels. He has definitely considered it as the victory of Islam by the Allah�s divine inspirational assistance and never considered American superior weapons/technology any real factor for this victory over Russian Communists. Apparently this was the pivotal spiritually inspirational mindset of Osama bin Laden (according to his famous �fatwa of Osama bin Laden� published after 9/11) which has aroused the divine passions of his chosen al-Qaeda jihadis with the dream of establishing an Islamic Caliphate throughout the entire world, as per the dictum of holy Qur�an.

Therefore, prime and ultimate driving force behind the present Islamic terrorist�s utopia is Islam and religious zeal, and not the poverty. Unless the west understands the ultimate cause of this madness, in way it can defeat this terrorist monster. This is not the time of critiquing or debating why America has gone to Iraq . This is the time to unite and find the way to win this Iraq war�which will leave a strong messageto those Islamic jihadis al Qaeda, which will definitely discourage future recruits of jihadis and will help evaporate their dream of establishing Islamic Caliphate.

The dangerous terrorist ideology must be fought in two fronts:Militarily and ideologically. West must investigate what lies in Islam/Quran that can very easily turn a simple human into a deadly bomb. Mr. Brezezinski�s absurd theory will do no good. Cutting and running from Iraq war leaving the job unfinished will only give the jubilant inspirations to those jihadis which will embolden their Islamic zeal even further to recruit more jihadis to stage more dangerous 9/11 than the one they have already staged in 2001.

If the President Bush listens to Mr. Brzezinski�s absurd theme and withdraws from Iraq without finishing the job, this shortsightedness ofAmerica will leave a dangerous message to those jihadis dreamers. Islamists will declare that they have defeated USSR (one super power) in Afghanistan , and defeated the biggest super power America in Iraq .And credit all that to the divine help from Allah. This will be a devastating defeat for the west and will invite catastrophic terrorisms and untold devastations in the entire western world including America . There will be no power on earth to stop Islamic/jihadis human bombs which will be relentlessly blasting bombs everywhere in the west with much Islamic zeal and a great passion of establishing Islamic caliphate as per Quranic predications by Allah. This will lead to the third world war which may destroy our entire civilization. [1]

Mirza.syed@gmail.com

Do These Two Have Anything in Common?
President Bush has equated Islamic radicalism with communism. Is the comparison sound? Is it wise?

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, December 4, 2005; B02

In a series of recent speeches to the American people, President Bush has sought to equate the current terrorist threat with the 20th-century menace of communist totalitarianism. His case is that the terrorist challenge is global in scope, “evil” in nature, ruthless toward its foes, and eager to control every aspect of life and thought. Thus, he argues, the battle against terrorism demands nothing “less than a complete victory.”

In making this case, the president has repeatedly invoked the adjective “Islamic” when referring to terrorism and he has compared the “murderous ideology of Islamic radicalism” to the ideology of communism.

Is the president historically right in his diagnosis of the allegedly similar dangers posed by Islamic extremism and by totalitarian communism? The differences between the two may be more telling than their similarities. And is he wise to be expounding such a thesis?

By asserting that Islamic extremism, “like the ideology of communism . . . is the great challenge of our new century,” Bush is implicitly elevating Osama bin Laden’s stature and historic significance to the level of figures such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao. And that suggests, in turn, that the fugitive Saudi dissident hiding in some cave (or perhaps even deceased) has been articulating a doctrine of universal significance. Underlying the president’s analogy is the proposition that bin Laden’s “jihad” has the potential for dominating the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions of people across national and even religious boundaries. That is quite a compliment to bin Laden, but it isn’t justified. The “Islamic” jihad is, at best, a fragmented and limited movement that hardly resonates in most of the world.

Communism, by comparison, undeniably had worldwide appeal. By the 1950s, there was hardly a country in the world without an active communist movement or conspiracy, irrespective of whether the country was predominantly Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist or Confucian. In some countries, such as Russia and China, the communist movement was the largest political formation, dominating intellectual discourse; in democratic countries, such as Italy and France, it vied for political power in open elections.

In response to the dislocations and injustices precipitated by the Industrial Revolution, communism offered a vision of a perfectly just society. To be sure, that vision was false and was used to justify violence that eventually led directly to the Soviet gulag, Chinese labor and “reeducation” camps, and other human rights abuses. Nonetheless, for a while, communism’s definition of the future bolstered its cross-cultural appeal.

In addition, the intellectual and political challenge of the communist ideology was backed by enormous military power. The Soviet Union possessed a huge nuclear arsenal, capable of launching in the course of a few minutes a massive atomic attack on America. Within a few hours, upwards of 120 million Americans and Soviets could have been dead in an apocalyptic mutual cross-fire. That was the horrible reality.

Contemporary terrorism — though nasty and criminal, whether Islamic or otherwise — has no such political reach and no such physical capability. Its appeal is limited; it offers no answers to the novel dilemmas of modernization and globalization. To the extent that it can be said to possess an “ideology,” it is a strange blend of fatalism and nihilism. In al Qaeda’s case, it is actively supported by relatively isolated groupings, and its actions have been condemned without exception by all major religious figures, from the pope to the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia.

Its power is circumscribed, too. It still relies largely on familiar tools of violence. Unlike communist totalitarian regimes, al Qaeda does not use terror as an organizing tool but rather, because of its own organizational weakness, as a disruptive tactic. Its members are bound together by this tactic, not by an ideology. Ultimately, al Qaeda or some related terrorist group may acquire truly destructive power, but one should not confuse potentiality with actuality.

But in the meantime, is Bush smart to be making this comparison?

The analogy to communism may have some short-term political benefit, for it can rekindle the fears of the past while casting the president in the mold of the historic victors of the Cold War, from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan. But the propagation of fear also has a major downside: It can produce a nation driven by fear, lacking in self-confidence and thus less likely to inspire trust among America’s allies, including Muslim ones, whose support is needed for an effective and intelligent response to the terrorist phenomenon.

It is particularly troubling that Bush has also relied heavily in his recent speeches on what to many Muslims is bound to sound like Islamophobic language. His speeches, though occasionally containing disclaimers that he is not speaking of Islam as a whole, have been replete with references to “the murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals,” “Islamic radicalism,” “militant jihadism,” “Islamofascism” or “Islamic Caliphate.”

Such phraseology can have unintended consequences. Instead of mobilizing moderate Muslims to stand by our side, the repetitive refrain about Islamic terrorism may not only offend moderate Muslims but could eventually contribute to a perception that the campaign against terrorism is also a campaign against Islam as a whole. They may note that the United States, in condemning IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland or Basque terrorism in Spain, does not describe it as “Catholic terrorism,” a phrase that Catholics around the world would likely find offensive.

Bush’s recent speeches also stand in sharp contrast to his mid-September address to the United Nations, in which he not only refrained entirely from labeling terrorism in any religious terms but also spoke thoughtfully of social “anger and despair” as contributing to the rise of terrorism. He stressed that the war against terrorism “will not be won by force alone. . . . We must change the conditions that allow terrorists to flourish and recruit.” By contrast, Bush recently has dismissed altogether the notion that there could be any “set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed” in order to eliminate the sources of terrorism.

It should be cause for concern to U.S. policymakers that only one major foreign statesman comes close to emulating Bush’s rhetorical emphasis on the Islamic aspects of the current terrorist threat, and that is Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin has deliberately seized upon the theme of Islamic terrorism to justify his relentless war against the Chechens’ aspirations for self-determination. That war has the dangerous effect of generating rising tensions with Russia’s sizable Muslim population.

It certainly is not in the United States’s interest, especially in the Middle East, to prompt a fusion of Muslim political resentments against America with a wider and stronger sense of Islamic religious identity. When the president talks of Iraq as “the central front” in the war against Islamic terrorism, he links Iraqi and Arab anti-American nationalism with outraged Muslim religious feelings, thereby reinforcing the case for bin Laden’s claim that the struggle is, indeed, against “the crusaders.”

That fusion could endow terrorism with fanatical intensity, compensating for the weakness that it suffers in comparison to the organizational and military threat posed earlier by communism. Indeed, the limitations of al Qaeda and similar organizations could change, especially if the president fails to pursue policies that aim at isolating terrorist groups as well as undercutting their recruitment campaigns.

Unfortunately, the military character of our presence in the Middle East may be helping to bring this change about. Robert A. Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, has analyzed the motivations of contemporary suicide-attackers. He demonstrates that in the majority of cases, the attackers’ basic impulse has been hostility toward foreign invaders, and he concluded a recent TV interview by observing that “the longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11.”

America would be better served if Bush avoided semantic traps that create uncertainty about our true motives or fuel the worst suspicions regarding U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Neither Islamophobic terminology nor evocations of the victorious struggle with communism help generate a better public understanding of what policies are needed in order to pacify the Middle East and to speed the fading away of terrorism, whose origins lie mostly in that region of the world. Americans need to hear more of what Bush was saying not long ago to the United Nations and less of what he has been propagating lately in the United States.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. He is a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a trustee of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. [2]

 Reference:

[1] Islam more sinister than Communism: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/skm51222.htm

[2] Islamic Radicalism and Communism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201308_pf.html

Filed under: Uncategorized ]]> http://mbplee.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/islamic-terrorism-is-more-dangerous-than-the-communism-of-the-last-century/feed/ 0 ellex0 Link Citation Email Print Favorite http://mbplee.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/the-standard-poodle/ http://mbplee.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/the-standard-poodle/#comments Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:14:32 +0000 ellex0 http://mbplee.wordpress.com/?p=536 ]]>

LinkCitationEmailPrintFavoriteCollect this page

The true origin of the Poodle is unknown but it was popular in portrait paintings over 400 years ago. Many believe that he was first developed in Germany where he was called the Pudel. He may have come to France by way of German soldiers during early Renaissance times. In France, he is still called Chien Canard or duck dog because his original purpose was to retrieve fowl that hunters had downed in water. Over time three varieties, Standard, Miniature and Toy, were created. The only difference between each variety is the size. All other key characteristics are the same.

The Poodle is an extremely intelligent breed. He is lively, good-natured, friendly and extremely loyal. Although he began as a hunting dog, he has become popular as a circus performer and as a companion. Because the Poodle does not shed his coat, he is an ideal dog for people with allergies.

The head of the Poodle is long, narrow and straight with a slight but definite stop (drop-off between skull and muzzle between the eyes). The teeth come together in a scissors bite. The eyes are dark, almond-shaped and set wide apart. The ears are long, wide and hang close to the face with abundant feathering. The back is short. The legs are straight and muscular. The feet are small, compact and oval shaped with arched toes. The gait is light and springy with the legs moving parallel to one another and the head carried high. The tail is docked and carried erect. The coat is dense and harsh. Although the coat is not shed, it does grow continuously so needs regular clipping and brushing. The coat is profuse with firm texture and curly but will cord when not combed. The coat may be any solid color including black, white, café au lait, apricot, brown, silver, gray or blue. Paricolors do exist but are discouraged by most registries. The coat may be cut in various different styles. The original purpose of trimming the coat was to aid the dog in the water since its profuse coat would become cumbersome and heavy otherwise. Size of each variety is: Standard, height over fifteen inches and weight between 45 and 70 pounds; Miniature, height ten to fifteen inches (USA) eleven to fifteen inches (Great Britain), weight proportional; Toy, height less than ten or eleven inches; weight proportional.

I would not recommend this breed for very small children as their small size can make them vulnerable to injury when a child pulls their hair, hits or kicks them too hard, or falls on them.

They do require a substantial amount of grooming or regular trips to the grooming parlor. They absolutely CANNOT be left ungroomed ­p; they become quite matted and that is very painful for the dog. They also do not shed, and that is a wonderful thing not to have hair all over the house.

I have since owned several Toy Poodles and they are all very smart, very loving dogs. They are Velcro dogs, so if you don’t want a dog that follows your every move, this would not be the dog for you. They are also eager to please and require very little correction &shyp; positive methods only are all that are needed to shape behaviors in these dogs. They do very well in obedience and agility.

The Standard Poodle is, first and foremost, a WORKING DOG FOR A FAMILY. By that I mean, this is an extremely athletic breed that needs a job to do. This is NOT a breed that does well placed outside in a kennel and only interacted with on a weekend outing or hunting trip. Standard Poodles are very intelligent and can also be very hyper and destructive dogs if left alone and bored. Sure, everybody thinks of “their” breed as supernaturally smart, but THIS breed is uncanny. They are also funny as heck, and they like to make you laugh. They like to make anybody laugh, which can be a little problem when they discover that their crazy antics in the obedience trial ring makes the spectators howl. You can be sure they will try that routine the next time.

There are a lot of myths about Standard Poodles and Poodles in general. For the record, they are NOT “hypoallergenic.” They don’t shed, so for some people they may be less prone to sneeze around them, but they still produce dander which is what makes you sneeze. They are not naturally good with children, they must be socialized to them. They are DOGS, not nursemaids, and you shouldn’t get one simply to entertain your kids. They were bred to be hunting retrievers and they like water, but you have to show them how to swim as puppies. Adult Poodles may not take to the water. Their background as gundogs is what drives them to need a job. They are not showpieces.

There are A LOT of Poodles out there and a lot of pretty lackadaisacal breeders who breed for looks only. Do your homework and learn what questions to ask of breeders. Learn about bloat, Addison’s, hip dysplasia, seizures, SA and other inheiritable diseases and disorders. Steer clear of breeders who don’t test their breeding stock or who tell you that they don’t have problems in their lines. A poorly bred Poodle is a shy, snappy and unhealthy nightmare with big hair. A well-bred Poodle is a companion that will steal your heart and test your mind.

My male Standard Poodle is a certified, operational search and rescue dog. He is truly a working dog. I am very proud of his ability to use his rather prominent nose to help people. He is a wonderful ambassador for his breed. So is my female, who is a pet assisted therapy dog. Your Poodle can make you proud, too, if only because of how much they love you.

Any problems with an individual Poodle is usually caused by the fact that they are so much smarter than many owners. One post on here said that the Poodle was hard to housebreak. This does not mean that the Poodle was dumb ­p; just that he outsmarted the owner regularly because he did not want to have to go outside. I have housebroken my last three Poodles in less than four hours, using WeeWee pads. (I live in an area which gets winter snow, and I HATE to shovel the whole backyard for them to have a place to go.)

CAUTION. Don’t get a Poodle if you work away from home all day. It just is not fair to them. They have the intelligence and reasoning ability of a three- or four-year-old child. Would you lock a child in a house alone for ten to twelve hours? Don’t do it to a Poodle, either.

INHERITED BLINDNESS is common in Poodles, especially in the cheap ones bought from newspaper ads or a pet store. There is a new DNA test for the gene that causes most of the blindness. If you are buying a pet, make sure to actually see the results of the test for at least one parent. If one of the parents is classified as an “A” by OptiGen, that guarantees that the puppies cannot get that disease. The puppies can be carriers, but not affected themselves, provided that one parent OptiGened “A.”

He learned toilet training within a few days and has never had an accident. He is not destructive but is very playful and mischievous and likes to tease his other doggie mate. He can be a bit naughty at times but his desire to please you always overrides this tendency. I would recommend a Mini Poodle to anyone who has the time to devote to it, who would expect it to be a part of the family and not leave it in the backyard. If you want love and devotion from your best friend, you’ll get it from your Poodle. If you want to lounge around the house, lie in bed all day, go for a run or swim at the beach, he’ll be there by your side. An added advantage is the non-shedding wool coat &shyp; no doggie smells or hair on your clothes or bedding, just a clip every couple of months, which we do ourselves. Yes, I’ll be a loyal Mini Poodle fan for life. They’re great!

Giantpoodle@excite.com of California writes on 1/5/00:

Excellent pets to be owned by!
Poodles are the best of all breeds! Poodles are not just for decoration. Many people use all three sizes in competitions like conformation, agility, and flyball to name a few. Many Poodles are avid hunters and retrievers. They make excellent rescue dogs, and are perfectly happy being a lap dog for the couch potatoe kind of human. Poodles think they are human, they love their owners faithfully and want to be with them. However a poodle is also a thinking dog, it’s happy to entertain itself and probably a few neighbors…whoever is watching.
Poodles do not shed. Many allergic people find they can tolerate beautiful breed. Toys mature a little faster (about 6 to 8 months) often act like puppies even til an advanced age. Miniatures take a
little longer to reach full maturity (about 1 year) and are as gregarious as the toys. Willing to play, cuddle, or simply snooze by your feet. These are big dogs in little packages. As the largest poodle, the Standards take the longest to mature… some say up to 18 months. Standards have the distinction
of being a big dog in a big package, but not hard to handle. All sizes come in various colors, but if you have a love for a breed you want to look out for it and do all you can to educate others in making the breed BETTER NOT WORSE. Please do not support puppy mills, backyard breeders, or petshops. Parti or multi-colored poodles are NOT
accepted by the AKC. If you are thinking about buying a poodle do as MUCH research as you can.
Buy only from a reputable breeder, read the breed standard, and enjoy! This is SURE to be a breed you’ll love living with.

valeriealdham@hotmail.com writes on 9/23/01:

Excellent breed, extremely intelligent , almost human-like emotions.
I’ve owned various breeds of dogs throughout my life, and hands down the Poodle wins.I’ve never come closer to being emotionally attached to another animal,nor will. I can’t praise them enough. They are sweet, sensitive, and very intellegent. Not only are they in touch with your emotions but they have a personality like no other dog. Give them lots of love and you will never regret it for the rest of your life.

TIMELINE: Indonesian Modern history

LinkCitationEmailPrintFavoriteCollect this page

1800            V.O.C. formlly dissolved; Dutch govt. took over assets, debts 1802            Treaty of Amiens; British returned occupied Malacca, Moluccas to the Dutch 1806            Ministry of Colonies founded in NL 1806            British occupation of Bangka 1807            British occupation of Malacca 1808-1811    Administration of Governor Daendels; reforms 1810            British occupation of the Moluccas 1817            Botanical garden at Bogor established 1817            Currency reform : Dutch East India Guilder introduced 1818            Slave trade on Java ended 1824            Anglo-Dutch treaty; Malacca ceded to the British 1825-1830    Java War 1830            Introduction of the Cultuurstelsel (Cultivation System) 1830            Begin of Indigo cultivation on Java 1830            First steamboat arrived in the Dutch East Indies 1830            Dutch East Indian Army formed 1832            The Dutch deposed the Sultan of Jailolo and annexed Halmahera 1834            Sultan of Jambi recognized Dutch sovereignty 1838            Padri War ended; Dutch annexed Minangkabau 1838            Dutch expedition against Flores 1843            Rajah of Lombok recognized Dutch sovereignty 1845            Begin of vanilla cultivation on Java 1849            Dutch took Palembang 1851            Begin of tin mining on Biliton; Chinese workers brought in 1854            Regulations concerning gvernment (in the colonies) passed by Dutch parliament 1854            Currency reform; Dutch East India Guilder decimalized 1857            First telegraph line in D.E.I. opened, connecting Batavia and Buitenzorg 1859/1863    Slavery in D.E.I. banned 1860            Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekker) published “Max Havelaar” 1860            Dutch annexed Sultanate of Banjermasin 1863            Tobacco cultivation introduced to Sumatra 1863/1866    End of Cultuurstelsel 1864            First postage stamp for D.E.I. issued 1870            Steamer line connecting NL, D.E.I. via Suez Canal began operation 1873/1908    Conquest of Aceh 1873            Begin of railway construction on Java 1876            Rubber cultivation introduced on Java 1880            Coolie Ordinnance regulated treatment of workers 1883            Eruption of Krakatau 1890            Oil production on Sumatra began 1901            Queen Wilhelmina announced an Ethical Policy regarding the administration of D.E.I. 1903            First elections held on Java 1905            First trade union in D.E.I. founded, for railway workers 1907            Royal Dutch Shell formed 1912            Sarekat Islam founded 1914            D.E.I. Army organized an airforce 1916            Koloniale Raad (Colonial Council) established; later renamed Volksraad (People’s Council) 1918            Dutch government promised self-determination for D.E.I., without setting a date 1919            Air connection Batavia-Amsterdam opened by KLM 1920/1924    Communist Party of Indonesia emerged from Indies Social Democratic Association (est. 1914) 1920            PNI founded 1934            Technical Highschool established at Banten (Bandung) 1925            Airmail connection Amsterdam-Batavia opened 1925            New consitution for D.E.I. 1927            First radio station opened in Batavia 1929            Volksraad requested negotiations aiming for self-government 1933            Indonesians gained majority in the Volksraad 1934            Mutiny of the “Zeven Provincien” 1936            Begin of protectionist policy to keep out cheap Japanese imports 1936            The Dutch East Indies left the Gold Standard 1938            Dutch government rejected petition for autonomy for D.E.I. 1940            Autonomy for the D.E.I. rejected a second time by the Dutch government 1940            Netherlands occupied by the Germans; exile govt. formed, D.E.I. loyal to exile govt. 1941            Indonesian militia formed, by Volksraad decision 1942/1945   Japanese occupation 1944            The Japanese, in order to gain support of Indonesians, promised independence 1945            Indonesia proclaimed independence 1945            Bahasa Indonesia declared official language 1945            British landed, establishd British Military Administration 1948/1949    ”Police Actions”; attempt by the Dutch to restore colonial rule against resistance of independence fighters 1949             Dutch East Indies, except for West New Guinea, released into independence; country renamed Indonesia Timeline: Indonesia A chronology of key events: 1670-1900 - Dutch colonists bring the whole of Indonesia under one government as the Dutch East Indies. 1928 - A youth conference pledges to work for “one nation, one language, one people” for Indonesia. 1942 - Japan invades Dutch East Indies. 1945 - The Japanese help independence leader Sukarno return from internal exile and declare independence. 1949 - The Dutch recognise Indonesian independence after four years of guerrilla warfare. 1950s - Maluku (Moluccas) declares independence from Indonesia and fights an unsuccessful separatist war. 1962 - The Dutch agree to transfer West Papua to Indonesia after a period of UN administration. Suharto comes to power 1965 - Failed coup: In the aftermath, hundreds of thousands of suspected Communists are killed in a purge of leftists which descends into vigilantism. 1966 - Sukarno hands over emergency powers to General Suharto, who becomes president in March 1967. 1969 - West Papua formally incorporated into Indonesia, becoming Irian Jaya Province. 1975 - Portugal grants East Timor independence. 1976 - Indonesia invades East Timor and incorporates it as a province. 1997 - Asian economic crisis: Indonesian rupiah plummets in value. 1998 - Protests and rioting topple Suharto; B J Habibie becomes president. East Timor independence vote 1999 - Ethnic violence breaks out in Maluku. Free elections are held in Indonesia. East Timor votes for independence in UN-sponsored referendum, after which anti-independence militia go on the rampage. East Timor comes under UN administration. Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) becomes president. FLASHPOINT: ACEH 15,000 died in 30-year separatist conflict 2000 - Two financial scandals dog the Wahid administration: Buloggate (embezzled funds from the state logistics agency), and Bruneigate (missing humanitarian aid funds from the Sultan of Brunei). The corruption case against former President Suharto collapses. Irian Jaya separatists become more vocal in demanding a referendum. 2001 - Ethnic violence in Kalimantan as indigenous Dayaks force out Madurese transmigrants. Mass political demonstrations by Wahid’s supporters and opponents. IMF stops further loans citing lack of progress in tackling corruption. Megawati sworn in 2001 July – Parliament dismisses President Wahid over allegations of corruption and incompetence. Vice President Megawati Sukarnoputri is sworn in as his replacement, even as Wahid refuses to leave the presidential palace. FLASHPOINT: PAPUA 2002 January – Indonesia inaugurates human rights court which is expected to test government’s willingness to hold the military accountable for atrocities in East Timor after the 1999 independence vote. Irian Jaya province granted greater autonomy by Jakarta, allowed to adopt locally-preferred name of Papua. 2002 May – East Timor becomes independent. 2002 August – Constitutional changes are seen as a step towards democracy. For the first time, voters will be able to elect a president and vice president. Bali attacks 2002 October – Bomb attack on the Kuta Beach nightclub district on Bali kills 202 people, most of them tourists. Muslim Cleric Abu Bakar Ba’asyir is arrested shortly after the bombings. He is accused of plotting to overthrow the government as the alleged spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah (JI), the group thought to be behind the Bali bombing. Remembering the victims of the 2002 Bali bombings 2002 December – Government and separatist Free Aceh Movement (Gam) sign peace deal in Geneva, aimed at ending 26 years of violence. The accord provides for autonomy and free elections in the Muslim oil-rich province of Aceh; in return the Gam must disarm. 2003 May – Peace talks between government and Gam separatists break down; government mounts military offensive against Gam rebels. Martial law is imposed. 2003 August – Car bomb explodes outside the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, killing 14 people. 2003 August-October – Three Bali bombing suspects are found guilty and sentenced to death for their roles in the 2002 attacks. A fourth suspect is given life imprisonment. Abu Bakar Ba’asyir is cleared of treason but jailed for subversion and immigration offences. The subversion charge is later overturned. 2004 April – Parliamentary and local elections: Golkar party of former President Suharto wins greatest share of vote, with Megawati Sukarnoputri’s PDI-P coming second. 2004 July – First-ever direct presidential elections; first round narrows field to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and incumbent Megawati Sukarnoputri. 2004 September – Car bomb attack outside Australian embassy in Jakarta kills nine, injures more than 180. Former general Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono wins second round of presidential elections, unseating incumbent Megawati Sukarnoputri. 2004 November – End of two-year process under which 18 people were tried by Indonesian court for human rights abuses in East Timor during 1999 crisis. Only one conviction – that of militia leader Eurico Guterres – is left standing. Tsunami; Aceh deal 2004 December – More than 220,000 people are dead or missing in Indonesia alone after a powerful undersea earthquake off Sumatra generates massive tidal waves. The waves devastate Indian Ocean communities as far afield as Thailand, India, Sri Lanka and Somalia. 2005 March – Court finds Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Ba’asyir guilty of conspiracy over 2002 Bali bombings, sentences him to two-and-a-half years in jail. He is freed in June 2006. A powerful earthquake off Sumatra kills at least 1,000 people, many of them on the island of Nias. The quake triggers tsunami alerts around the Indian Ocean. 2005 August – Government and Free Aceh Movement separatists sign a peace deal providing for rebel disarmament and the withdrawal of government soldiers from the province. Rebels begin handing in weapons in September; government completes troop pull-out in December. 2005 September – Airliner crashes on take-off from Sumatran city of Medan, killing more than 100 passengers and around 50 people on the ground. 2005 October – Three suicide bombings on the resort island of Bali kill 23 people, including the bombers. 2006 January – East Timorese report accuses Indonesia of widespread atrocities during its 24-year occupation, holding it responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 people. 2006 February-March – Deadly protests at a major US-owned gold and copper mine in Papua province follow attempts to remove illegal prospectors from the site. 2006 May – A powerful earthquake kills thousands of people on Java. 2006 July – A tsunami, triggered by a large undersea earthquake, kills more than 500 people on Java. 2006 December – First direct elections held in Aceh province, consolidating the August 2005 peace accord. Former separatist rebel leader Irwandi Yusuf elected governor. Counter-terror efforts 2007 June – Police capture the alleged head of the militant group Jemaah Islamiah (JI), Zarkasih, and the leader of the group’s military wing, Abu Dujana. 2007 August – Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir holds international conference in Jakarta calling for creation of single state or caliphate across Muslim world. 2007 December – Alleged Jemaah Islamiah leader Zarkasih goes on trial in Jakarta. 2008 January – Former President Suharto dies. 2008 July – Final report by joint Indonesian-East Timorese Truth Commission blames Indonesia for the human rights violations in the run-up to East Timor’s independence in 1999 and urges it to apologise. President Yudhoyono expresses “deep regret” but stops short of an apology. 2008 November – Three Islamic militants convicted of carrying out the 2002 Bali bombings executed. 2009 February – Visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says Indonesia will have a critical role in the new Obama administration’s foreign policy. 2009 April – President Yudhoyono’s Democrat Party increases its vote in parliamentary elections, making it the strongest party in terms of forming a viable coalition. 2009 July – President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono wins re-election. Bombs rip through the JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta.

LinkCitationEmailPrintFavorite

I had read the original of this article some time ago, but when I attempted to locate it again, I had trouble finding it. Now I observe that the original source in http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
is no longer available or has been moved. It is an essential for the understanding of Muslim demographics and its psychological effects on the resident native populations. I will therefore reproduce it here in full so that I have it for future reference:

The Muslim Take over of the West

[Quote] Note from Radarsite: For anyone who may still have lingering doubts about the real danger of the Muslim onslaught of the West, this may be the most revealing analysis of the threat of the Islamic Jihad that you will ever read. The reasoning is impeccable and the conclusions reached are both obvious and startling.

“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.” — Leon Uris, “The Haj”

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called “religious rights.”

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to “the reasonable” Muslim demands for their “religious rights,” they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works — percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book
(2007).

The Behaviour of Muslims as a Group according to their Numbers  (Percentage of Population)

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colourful uniqueness:

Around 1% Muslims are law-abiding

United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

Around 2-3% Muslims will recruit the Disaffected

2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% They will Push for Halal Foods and some Sharia Laws

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

Reaching 10% Demonstrations and Lawlessness

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

At 20% Hair-trigger Rioting, Jihad Militancy and Burning of Churches

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% Widespread Terror Attacks and Jihad Militia will operate

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% Unfettered Persecution of non-Muslims, Sharia Law and Jizya

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% Dar es-Salaam or Peace

100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.” — Leon Uris, “The Haj”

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centred around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.[Unquote] [1]

Reference:

[1] Muslims will rule the world: http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/03/muslim-takeover-of-west-how-it-works.html