Dear friends of Mekka err... of WorldCommunityGrid, I'm finally back !


Aucune chance ! I was just busy...watching tv, burning some cars and danish flags (the new national sport it seems)



Yes, your're correct...
_________________________________



Thanks for the definitions We do agree that the "tolerance" buzz word is a powerful way to mislead citizens to think that the "root of all evils" is the free speech. Using emotions, i.e tolerance (2) , to limit free speech is an obvious contradiction, as those free-speech limiting laws and censorship are discriminatory, and contradict with Equality (from justice POV) , another fundamental democracy concept, perhaps the most important as we can rebuild all other principles as tools and means to protect Equality.
_____________________________________________



Once again I can only agree with you. This is because these countries applied the flawed "tolerant democracy " (or electoral democracy, or populist democracy...) , tolerating ennemies of democracy (as they claim officially : no to the state-of-law, religion prevails, no to individual freedom of faith etc etc).

You know, I think the best analogy of democracy is another genious greek inventon : olympic games (now all games are somewhat based on these same principles) :

- There are different and potentially illimited games.

- Everyone is free to watch OR participate in any game. But this is an individual decision and only THIS individual is responsible for what he chooses. If for ex I like soccer , I have no moral right to OBLIGE my childrens to have the same perference. However I can try to educate them to love soccer. But they remain free.

- The rules should be known to ALL for a particular game.

-When somebody chooses to play a game, he have the obligation to ACCEPT and RESPECT the few rules of the game, either he likes them or not. If he wants to contest, he have no MORAL right to do this. Instead he must create a new game with new, even slightly, changed rules if he wants.

- there is a referee (arbitre) that ensures the fair play is respected. And ideally, he is NEUTRAL.

- The judgement about a game is based on result, merit, not on any discriminatory other factor.

SO, if we try to apply these rules to the "tolerance ideology", we will have ridiculous results, here are some examples:

-I like soccer, so I invade a baseball "nation" and try to oblige them to play with foot. Because I'm right and baseball should be played that way...

-I like to win in basket. So every time i'm loosing, I change the rules to soccer.

-I'm a "special" human (which means, and this is the irony, that i'm not human), and I want "special" rules to be applied to me, and only me.

-I hate cricket , so I blakcmail/threaten all cricket players/fans worldwide so that they stop that "stupid" game.

-My tribe plays only golf. I feel obliged to play golf or I risk being excluded from my tribe, or even killed.
....
Ridiculous and tragic. And it's not a coincidence that the same ppl that invented maths, philosophy, rationality, state-of-law (in an advanced form for that time, and still compared to the 95% of countries at present time) invented also these olympic games/spirit
________________________________________


Very Very important and briliant question . Strangly, The scientific/objective answer is a big YES.

what I tried to tell in my first posts, is that the islamic tragedy are moslems themselves (more than koran).

-To understand, we have to differentiate between islam as an object (the books, the history), and islam as a religion (the object + mix with local cultures, geopolitical transformations etc etc : What is living inside ppl brains at a certain time in a certain place).

1 - As an object, islm/koran is full of contradictions, local arabian and only arabian historical events, linguastically complex sourates, poetically complex sourates and linguistically straight and clear sourates.

The actual order of koran does NOT correspond to the historical order and the order you will choose to read the book can change everything ! If you want to focus on war, you find what you're looking for. Morality ? , freedom of koran interprations ? peace ? male/femate inequality ? male/female equality ? social justice (socialim like) ? Capitalist individualism ? You can find ANYTHING !

Even the hadith is not sacralized by koran, and the prophet of islam is described as a NORMAL man that done even some errors ! more contradictory, Jesus and Moses, especially Jesus, are described as more idealized than mahomet (in islam Alah has no son) !

And this is the problem ! Islam rely in reality FULLY on interpration, there is special old books (Tafsir, the explanation) that, for every sourate :

Tell the historical events and context that occured before the sourate (sabab al-nuzul, the reason of the revealation), the prophet's interpretation of the sourate, if that exists, or how he applied or did NOT apply it and why.

Then the hadith that enforces the interpration or cancels it (yes, there are even phrophet's hadith that cancels systematically the penality (hadd, plural hudud) applied to thieves : cutting hands , and considers that if there are thieves, there should be social injustice that have to be first repared...welcome to islam 'socialism' ).

And if none of that exists, the old imams interpretation (ijma'a).

You said complex and fuzzy ? and this is just koran ! there is still hadith (same process and much more fuzzy) and ijmaa (the more you get distant from koran, the more it becomes crazy...).

So, to summarize with a simple and good example : officially, there is no church. It is clearly forbidden by koran because every moslem is idividually responsible of his own acts, and the clerics have no special powers, are not preffered by god and not a cast (welcome to the 'individualist' side). However, the complexity of the religion, in part, produced the contrary of that, i.e a powerful cast of clerics (mostry ethnically ME-arabs) that have all powers and dictates ITS interpretations.

If christians have churches, moslems had and still have mafias.

2 - As a religion, what happens is that the local cultures, depending on prior characteristics and civilizations, SELECTS what it want from islam.

That produced different realistic , healthy versions, even considered 'heretical' :

Druze in lebanon rejecting the prophet as an example, ismaelites in pakistan having a hindus-like spirituality,

Malekist and zawaya is north africa having an orthodox lightweight juridiction-oriented interpretations,

Shiaa inventing another prophet, the mahdi messiah, focusing on social order and spirituality,

And our best friend, WHAHABISM in Sarabia, having a racial arabity approach, a salafist (salaf, ancestror) orientation, traditionnalism, orthodoxy, supremacism, expansionnism and absolute-monarchism as fundamental principles, and considering every other islam as an ennemy and an heresy.

Today, wahabism rules woldwide, and only shiaa (that behave more and more like sunna) produce an invisible effect from the west : iran/persia vs alqaida/Sarabia/talibania. The main pb we have now is the petro$ that gave to wahabism it's anormal artificial power. not to expand, but to change (arabize à la arabia) all countries that belong to the arab-organization (first founded by egypt nassereans and old ba'ath as a laic socialist modernist anti-islamic organization).

Nowadays, there is no more real difference in minds between an arab (the 19th and 20th modern concept invented by christian lebanese, not the ethnical one) and a moslem. And this arabization served, and is still serving in "resisting" cultures, as a trojan horse to wahabism (presented efficiently as the only REAL islam).

So where is the hope in all that ? We see that religious islam, as it exists in everyday life, is mainly a cultural phenomenon. The weakness of nationalisms (as it is an european invention that was perverted into a strong "militarism" that gave the bloody WW1&2...) and the asymetrical power, as no one can fight against petro$ even the US or UK, gave and still give wahabism the advantage.

Counter attacking the globalization effects and local identities can limit it's expansion.

For an historical (and hided and defamed systelmatically) example of rational POV INSIDE islam, see : Al mu'utazila http://www.reemahijazi.com/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi?AlMutazila and here http://www.ismaili.net/histoire/history04/history427.html and here
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ei/mu-tazila.htm (islamspam )
______________________


Perhaps i base my "political tolerance" definition on what i see in french politics.

It is systematically used to hide or negate sad truths about the immigration (crime, unemployment etc and these ppl are living in one of the most developped contries in the world), mostly north african , which prevents taking strong, decisive and democratic decisions.

Every time a politician wants to reform the immigration policy, he is accused to be facist ou inhuman !

The result of that "politique politicienne" as frenchmen call it, is that the exreme-right wing Front National is now considerd as the LAST resort to save france !

This is unsane but frankly, if I was french, I would myself (in a 50% proportion) vote for the FN.

One other "collateral damage" is that in french culture, ALL north africans are irremediably considered as their co-citizens, as the majority have still the double-nationality, which is by itself a tolerance product and a democratic failure (french call us by the informal widespead pejorative word "bougnoule").

PS: the immigration from northafrica is a complex subject if one wants to study it scientifically/objectivly. Some examples :

- After the independances, the Nafrican workers have immigrated to Europe as coherent groups, or as "tribes/clans" if you want. This had produced that local European experiences with some "moors" are generalized to other different (this is subtle for a foreigner) "moors", and produces a kind of "copy-paste" national solidarities => "moors" become more fanatized, communitarists and lose their original differences uniformizing to the most radical and 'spectacular' indentity.

- here is how: at the begining, and as far as we go back in history, christians ('nassrani' plural 'nassara', nazareans , nazareth) symbolized in the figure of Jesus were highly respected as an ethical and "humanist" people, and were systematically used to compare the "arabs" (that were given bad characteristics as tribalists, arrogant, stupid, hypocrites or xenophobes) to the nassara (intelligent, 'beautiful', respectful, honorables). With the colonialism, this image began to change but still kept some truth (as the french, spanish and italians are much more developped than us). However :

1) the end of colonialism

2) the fabrication of the wolrd-wide-leftist-arab identity (and the IL-PL conflict)

3) this 20th century "arab" identity, will be, after the arab nationalism crisis, transformed later to the araboislamic worldwide identity, that itself will be Wahabized, then definetly attached to SArabia/talibania thanks to the globalozation , both of $$$ and the mass sat-tv and mass-(un)education. These transformations aimed to "revive" (thanks, history...) the good old days of the islamic empire, that itself never existed as such.

(there was only local empires, Western from Morocco/berbers and Eastern from iraq/"arabs" except for the othmanian/turkish empire which is not arab in any case and is an embarassement for the wahabists)

4) the most spectacular effect is that the immigrant community became (and is still in this transformation process) more radicalist and orthodox than their co-nationals ! This was amplified by the fact that the MOST radical elements that were exterminated (syria ba'ath killed at least 15 000 islamists, bombing 3 syrian cities !) have been welcomed in US, UK and FR !

This result to something we can see right now: the riots are directed to CHRISTIANS ! (Knowing that insulting Jesus (and christians) and Moses (and jews) in the Koran is stictly considered as an insult to moslems themselves)

5) the protection of western countries to islamofacists (they were the founders of modern wahabism etc etc) is seen by the majority of arab-leftists intellectuals (for whom islam is a problem for the modern arab identity) as a complot against :

*the arab nationalism (the rational-declared ennemy of IL),

*the arab progress (the fear of the western countries of having developped and modern nations in the same zone of influence),

*and the arab-world (now dead as a concept and replaced by the arboislamic world in facts, whatever the used label and designation are...)

as islam is reactionnary and can only be a "joke" compared to modern-rational countries ( whatever moslem number is, some well designed mass destruction weapons can exterminate them all. And even if petro$$$ allow talibania/umma to buy these weapons, the technology behind, the strategy, the intelligence and "the art of war" cannot be bought ).

The REAL modern history of the "islamo-arab-world" , as opposed to the mediatic one, is rich and full of "strange" events that can let a democratic rational citizen understrand the stupid (or macheavelic ?) error the Western has made...and prepare a better future by indentifying the REAL movements behind what's happening today.
_____________________________


Exactly jd and this is what I mean by the rhetorical use of "tolearance".
____________


No problem, if you accept to be my 4th wife [:P]

By the way, the polygamy is FORBIDDEN in Koran ! the COMPLETE sourate (i don't remember the references) : "Allah allow you to marry 1 , 2 3 or 4 IF you have justice in your heart (nota : for your women), and Allah KNOWN THAT YOU CAN'T "

Which mean, if i beleve in allah and in koran, and he said me that the condition cannot be respected, I should not marry more than one. The tafsir says in part that it is allowed because arab-tribes used blood-ties to stop the tribal wars...and it was a widespread tradition (however not universal) among tribes.
Welcome to the 'feminist' (or something like) side



The BIG problem with acceptance is that it is vehiculed as an IMPORTANT moslem (i.e wahabist or at least sunna) value. This means passivity and obedience. A fundamental tribal and nomad value indeed. And islam means also "submission and obedience" to Alah. Abdu alah , plural ibadu Alah, means also SLAVES of god. This is how moslems proudly call themselves.

Alah is in reality an abstract word to hide the power of those that have, or have been given, the authority and the legitimacy to speak in HIS name, to interpret what HE said, and to defend HIS "interests";

Hence the necessity of the history/propaganda to arabo-centralize this authority, arabizing means essentially Sarabia/peninsula and ALL the unconditionnal arabized allies that consider themselves as "arabs" .

We can call them the islamic "aristocracy", as it is the upper class in all theocracies, an hereditary class, a corrup and perverted (by all the meaning you want) class and as an oligarchy.



Yes ! or the "counsellors" (conseillers) oligarchy, as they are not accountable... or the reality-tv democracy or better... the JerrySpringer school of politics, !! perhaps one day...
_______________________________


RESTART



I was trying to describe the mental process inside the -majority- immigrants' brains :

The democratic countries are called rich countries. and are considered as such. democracy is like a "secondary" characteristic, and nobody asks himself how such POOR nations (yes the west is the poorest of all earth, including it's sensitive geostategical place...) have achived such a power, wealth and values.

So even a well integrated immigrant (rich, or having a respectable post) continues to see democracy as an IMPOSED over-complex or even artificial structures, as he/she sees it from his own POV, as he have been educated :

*West is 'christian', and sometimes zionists (so NON-moslem which means as 99% of arabomoslem think in binary ANTI-islamic, yes you're with us or against us ).

*West is depraved and pervert.

*West is machiavelic.

*Democracy is the invention of these infidels, that EVEN tolerate homosexuals ! they have no moral, no pesonnality, no more civilization.

*If they are kind with us, it's because they want to convert us, or let us forget about something (here "something" is a variable that changes depending of the region, it can be colonialism, the reconquista, the crusades, the religion/islam etc etc)....

(these are not clearly stated, belong more to a kind of collective unconsciussness forged by anti-X/pranoia tradition )

Of course not all immigrants think this way. But the great majority have at least some of these blind stubborn prejudices (préjugés). This is a mental process, a kind of education firewall. The more I think about it the more i believe it's pavlovian. moslems have ALWAYS a good answer to any problem. So what can be done ? a réeducation...



Ooops ! syntax error i meant, "There is, however, a minority that immigrates to live FOR democracy and freedom"

These are the REAL immigrants that should be considered as potential citizens.



I tried to explain above some modern arab history (about the islamofacist refuges).

And as you already summarized, jd, " Glad to govern; but too timid to lead." is visible in the attitude of the politicians that do NO SINGLE effort to understand THOROUGHLY the moslems in particular (and the immigrants in general), in an objective manner (i.e the +++ and the --- of the moslems). The leadership is based on knowledge and intelligence, not on folklorik clichés about the world, the democracy and the humans.



This is to encourage the libertarians and free minds inside their own countries and outside. The reformists exist, but they see how the West sends ambiguous messages about EVERYTHING, and have already lost trust in the west as an allied-reformist power (some definetly consider the west as hypocrite). Just some examples :

- "we are against islamic imperialism" : so why the most powerful/rich wahhbists/salafists live in UK, US, FR and Switzerland (tariq ramadan, one of the MOST dangerous and MOST intelligent moslem/salafism/ thinker. his "theories" are not well understood by the west, and are simply against the FOUNDATIONS of the west, more than the primitive anti-west and anti-christians. He's anti-greek. However he is TOLERATED encouraged and applauded ! stupid or machiavelic ? )

- "we are against terrorism" : what means the US support for SA, knowing that it's talibania ? petrol$$$ is much more powerful than justice, even for the most powerful country (now empire ?) in the HISTORY.

- "we protect democracy" : why not criticize also china ? N korea ? and take strong resolutions ?



I rely on french politics where tolerance is a "magical" word.
___________________________


Sure. however, philosophy (dressed in theology) is safer than history.

In my opinion, it's not about the knowledge/information but about the process/the method/the state of mind.

None of the latter can be achieved through history, as it is a politicized (for ex the shoa history is SACRED, no place for questions), dramatic (the underlying process is not well shown, focus of personnalities, accidents) and subjective (a nation's, era, religion, POV) tool.

In science (thus philosophy and rationnality), the question is : HOW , not who, what or when. or even why.

How = the mechansim => the 'lessons of history'

All other question belong to litterature/poetry and politics. (or as some of my friend call it "intellectual pornography[TM])

The democracy have been achieved by these questions :

0 - Freedom as an axiom. (renaissance philosophy, unique to europe).
1-How to guaratee freedom ? choice
2-How to guaratee choice ? justice (moral)
3-How to guaratee justice ? equality
4-How to guaratee equality ? state-of-law
5-How to guaratee state-of-law ? justice (power) independance
6-How to guaratee justice independance? division/independance of ALL -powers (including economic and religious)
7-How to guaratee division of ALL powers ? transparency
8-How to guaratee transparency ? ABSOLUTE free speech
9-How to guaratee ABSOLUTE free speech ? national TOTAL sovereignty

You see , if you replace the scientific "how" of any of these simple questions (that exist NO WHERE outside european philosophy), you will end up with a tragical movie (why ! why ! ), a non-answer (when ? when god decides so) and infinite "intellectual" rant (what ? ).
__________________________________


Simply said, YA ! (in berber)



Great metaphore ! no, the BEST methaphore. Simply.

But you know, there are "miracles" that give physical exceptions to some



Thank you thank you !
_________________________________



Viva la revolucion ? the more the bureaucracies are centralized, the more difficult it becomes to reform them. Perhaps, and only perhaps, that the recent centralization trends in US, UK and others (in the name of rationalazing) are a kind of "organizationnal inertia", a kind of self-defence where bureaucracies KNOW that they will be obliged to change to adapt, and apply the principle " the best defense is attack", to stop the coming reforms in ADVANCE...
_________________________


Potentially, all non arabian societies (arabized but with a different nationnal heritage) can play this role. Lebanon is one living example of the complexity of REAL arabian countries (except in SArabia, really i don't hate them. Just CONVERT to islam and go for a journey...good luck). You have inside :

-arab christians : the original founders of the left-arab-laic identity, that no more exists (the identity).
-"phoenician" nationalists : "we are not arabs, lebanon is phoenicia" national distinct identity. Far-right ? or patriots asking for repect on THEIR land ?
-druze : sunna heretics. lebanese-only identity
-arameans : christians. lebanese-identity.
-Amal (hope) : laic shiaa, lebanese identity, anti-"arabs", best's christians and "phoenicians" friends. Massacred by syria and hezbollah.
-hezbollah : shia pro-theocracy. anti-Amal and anti-"phoenicians". neutral about the others (negative neutrality "your time will come when we will finish the job with IL")
-sunna : growing number (also palestinian refugies), arabo-islamic identity. a BIG problem for the majority of lebanese which are nationalist.

SArabia controls ALL (99%) the media (ahh petro$$) including "officially" christian and independant media.

When talking about Jordan, it is preferable to keep in mind that there is 2 Jordans : the modern official one (including 'old' jordanians) and the new 'jordan' palestinian refugess, wich are for the most part pro-Hamas.

Do not forget also that Syria have a problem with IL which is the Golan, a Syrian land. Also; Syria is anti-SA, pro-iran and is the latest "arab-nationalist" country/dictatorship in the region. If Syria disapears, SA wil be totally FREE in the region.

(i'm not pro syrian system, but the ME is SO messy and NOBODY is innocent. What can happen there if the SA get stronger will have WORLDWIDE reprcussions...)
_________________________

Guten Nacht

Yes, blindingly obvious of course, bb. But the obvious is so obvious in this case that it has become marginalized into practical irrelevance. Everyone who participates in these discussions inevitably manages to lose track of the fact that they are really discussing the strategy of attempting to "cure the symptoms without treating the disease."

These (centralist/de-centralist) funding policies are not presented in a complete package as:
1. Here are our specific transitional 'xyz' short-termed strategies;
2. which we will now demonstrate are the best tools for accomplishing our 'abc' long-term strategic solutions to the fundamental problem itself.

Not just the political parties, but all of the stakeholders consistently fail to structure their immedite proposed solutions within the framework of the long-term resolution of the fundamental problem itself. This is the only way to evaluate their true economic/social value. Short-term solutions enacted with short-term strategic planning invariably result in long-term failures - no matter how profitable the short-term results.

My point is simple. The cart has a broken axle. Yes, I agree that it will do no good to beat the horse to death by forcing the poor beast to pull a broken cart. But for God's sake we are only 50' from the barn. So please stop debating about the best way to get the bloody horse to pull the bloody cart; and start getting busy finding some way to fix the bloody axle once we get there!

In a change to their schedule this lunchtime BBC Radio 4 presented special current affairs programme: 'Denmark: In the Eye of the Cartoon Storm' which can be heard at BBC Radio 4 News and Current Affairs and then by clicking the Listen link under 'Denmark: In the Eye of the Cartoon Storm'.

This is first report I have heard or seen than has gone right back to the start of this whole debacle, to present how certain individuals have for their own ends sort to blow the incident, which appeared to have been solved locally, quickly and amicably, out of all proportion.

It is an interesting and salutary warning about the duplicitious nature of some of the moslems involved in this storm, the outright lies that have knowingly been told on Arabic television by Danish Imams to inflame the situation, and the fact that those who have attempted to expose these lies are themselves being targeted.

Anyone who is seriously interested in this ongoing situation might wish to read the following post, then follow the link to the BBC Special Report that is cited.

Thanks, bb. You know I had really wondered why ns has repeatedly warned us of our government's foolishness and naivite in having allowed radical Muslim extremists to immigrate to the West. The statements of some of these Imans do not sound simply controversial or even incendiary, but come off as blatantly seditious.

Typically I view conspiritorialism as a political expedient by the perpertrators and an indication of psychopathology by the adherents. In this instance, I am beginning to have some concerns.

It's time for ns to chime in to fill us in on these revelations from an Arabic, if not Muslim, perspective.

This is exacly the problem. My nationality is supposed to be far from the epicentre of the pan-arabic movement. However, the Maghreb is a part of the pan-arabism (from the 'independance') while keeping some 'sovreignty' ('le maghreb arabe') but for how long ?



It could appear that I have an unreasonnable disgust against it. I explain : islam is an arab phenomenon. wahabism is a revival of islam, as all new "islams" have declared to be (they don't call themselves wahabists by the way, they don't need to as they are moslems and incarnate islam) .

But now nobody can reject this ideology. It is really more correct to call it islam because like in history, poweful wealthy tribes of arabs constitutes its 'theocratic aristocracy'. You can destroy any version of islam simply by stating that it is not originating from arabs. (shiaa persians, ismaelites pakis, soufis egypt...).

Wahabism has not one competitive advantage over other enlightning or local islams, it has ALL competitive advantages, including globalization, the beginig of the end of nationalism (and sovreighnty and state-of-law), the good social sciences eductation of its leaders and thinkers (not to confuse with TV-stars ) as many have studied in the best universities in the UK and US...

What can arrierate ppls (meaning good-intentionned, simple, uneducated, naive, ignorants, etc) do against this storm ?

Look how such a great civilization as the malesian (including indonesian and philipino, ethnically ) have been wahabized (the movement is strong in this regions and not only as terorists. Thanks agains to the petro$ and islam trojan horse) and turned into mass-stupidity. I can assure you that with time, the christians (philipines) will developp, while moslems will remain once again behind.

So my disgust come from the fact that I feel i'm (and we as a ppl) are imprisoned, condamned to accept a religion (that is not ours), an then the interpretation (that is not ours), and then the culture (nomadic arab, definetly not ours) it vehiculates whithout having even the choice to adapt it.

My point of view is fair i think : I'm nationalist (but not xenophobe against anywhat, i want only TOTAL sovreignty), anti-imperialist (in the large definition, including religion and ideology imperialism) and rationnalist (i think that emotions is animal, in the pejorative meaning. emotions are necessery as we are animals and are the fundments or arts, sports and life. but reason is the definition of humans. without reason a man is just an over-developped-ape a dagerous animal indeed...).
ME religions (christianity in a lesser extent) are all the contrary of that : anti-sovrreignty (they transform the culture ITSELF to make from a distant land an Unerval Imposed Reference), imprerialist (God have all the lands, and servants of god are better than the others, by a subjective criteria , thus the religious concept of umma, god's chosen ppl, etc etc).
They are ridiculously IRrational . the biggests 'jokes' and stupidites have always been defended by religions in general. and there is no medicine for that...

PS: Many claim that berbers in northafrica are barbars. this is true but we are not savages. Never in our old (and modern) history anyone had it's hands cut. Never an adulterian woman have been thrown stones. Polygamy does not exists in berbers because we were (and we still are culturally for the most part) matriarcal tribes. We were not nomadic, we were farmers and agriculteur (contrary to the history falsification) as northafrica have never been a desert. We had our alphabet (tifinagh, from at least 500 BC), and our laws (outlawed in the 'independance' and now practically lost) that relyed on tribal jury. Our old culture (that is now disapearing) relyed so on honesty and work, that we we called 'puritains'.

Ask real-arabs (and the deeply arabized ppl that we are becoming now) about what they think about anything and discover the beauty of systematic-and-intelligent hypocrisy (ex : we have the right to proselytize in the West, thanks Human Rights. You will be KILLED if you try to od so here, Human Right is a west invention; and better, islam 'invented' Human Rights before the West etc etc), double-standards (ex : it is HIGHLY encouraged that men have the most sexual relations outside of marriage. it is also socially respected. However, if a girl tries to have ONE relation outside the mariage, she will be killed (in the M.E), rejected (in urban context) or have to endure an opration to reconstitute the hymen, mostly in NA)

Our only hope in nafrica is to get out of islam before it's too late, because there is and there will be no reverse movement against the globalislation for the coming and decisive (perhaps the last ?) 100 years.



The 'excellent' relation between Sarabia and US is not only based on simple petro$$$ interests (even in a high level corruption is not to exclude). Strategically, a worldwide islam (as defined and led by Sarabia) could be the best way to end defintely any hope of modernism inside the islamized countries. This would give the West a break and focus on china/india. Religiously speaking, islam in general and wahabil in oarticular is an ALLY for the evangelists (anti-Darwin, anti-women rights, anti-free speech, anti-strong-laicity etc etc ) and could give these groups a bigger importance inside the U.N (the New World Religion Order ?).

If this (likely scenario in my opinion) is realized, it would be machiavelic and DUMB. encouraging fascism to control a population is worse than playing with fire...

P.S: I've found the US/U.k reaction FOR free speech very very politically correct. One argument in it's defense would be to not raise the risk for military in iraq. However, this is a WEAK argument for governments that promotes worldwide democracy. You can call me parano but I thinks it's a first step to CONDITION and prepare the populations for some changes in the first US amendement (limited free speech ), and in the UK as bb said...



those that want to say any thruth will have the (active) umma behind them . its really strange as koran STRESSES on hypocrisy and hypocrites as the MOST dispised ppl for Alah ! in koran it is said that Alah will forgive to ALL, except hypocrites, and criminals that have not been forgiven by other humans. (of course you will find other sourates in which
Alah will punish etc etc. howevern hypocrites are always described is koran as the biggests ennemy of islam)




The history tells us something : arabs have managed to ALWAYS be the religious (or political) aristocracy in ME, and even in NA where the 'brightests' politicians and presidens and kings are PROUD to be arabs (even if some are obviously not, but use this claim and self-identify to have other ME countries moral, political and ideological and for some petro$$$) support), and in southwest asia and moslme india where the 'Saints' (cherifs, chorfas) and 'respected' clerics are of arab lineage or claim to be purely arabs.

This fact takes different 'faces' through history :

*when the islamized populations are religious, the aristocracy is 'moslim'. and here, who can know better the religion ? ARABS of course, as they master the 'islam's language' (notice how arabic language is strategical, even if it's grammar have been written and discovered by the persian Sibawayh ! ) , the prophet was an arab, so they are - by a flawed logic- the nearest to him etc etc. (contrary to the koran where there is total equality between humans for Alah. But here again, araboislam INSISTS on the person of mahomet/hadith/ijmaa and 'forget' Alah, turning islam to a quasi veneration of the prophet, knowing that once again it is CLEARLY forbidden in the koran...)

*When the islamized populations become less religious, the aristocracy becomes officially arab (like in baath/nasserism arab-leftism). but here, the religious hideout -when it is necerssary, when the population is not fully arabized- is replaced by a systematic falsification of history : berbers are arabs coming from yemen that forgot their 'language', iraqis have ALWAYS been arabs, sumeria belongs to Tolkien's legends. When a population asks for his right, it is violently repressed, from the extermination (kurdistan) to selective intelligent murders of leaders (morocco, libya), to 'forgotten' civilian wars (algeria in the 80s, kabyles). When none of these strategies work, araboaristocracy find a 'new common ennemy that wants to divide us etc etc' (socialists/nationalists in south east asia, colonialism in NA and ME, IL for lebanese, and syrians, shiaa for iraq ....)

*The only historic exception, that brought CIVILIZATION to islamia was with the iraqis Abbassides (the caliphe al Ma'amun, etc etc) when a persian 'lobby' took over the caliphat (arabs have married noble persians women, that educated her sons as persians ) and thrown away araboaristocracy for some 500 years. The 'revenge' was bloody and definitive as one can see now.

*when it comes to iraq, the sunnis are mainly arabobedouins that came from arabia. the baath was first a progressive movement, especially in iraq (more than syria and egypt) before 'arabs' control the party (S Hussein) and changed gradually it's ideology to xenophobe arabism. to guarantee support, S hussen needed his 'brothers' bedouins, and gave them key responsabilities and advantages (that they are now afraid to lose due to the 'unfair' and 'illegal' democracy ).

*When it comes to iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#History, the islamisation of the first centuries (accompagned by the huge arabization in the vocabulary of the indo-european farsi language) have been lost from the araboaristocracy hands, first with the abassides, and then with the return of persian-isalmized dynasty, that embraced all sorts of islams (including shiaa) except sunni islam. Shiaa became the majority as the less heretical compared to muutazilla and ismaelites. So, the movement heve is STILL the globalization of sunna, as shiaa are more and more ritualistic and losing the 'philosophy' behind this 'heresy'.

Iran is the ennemy #1 of al-qaide/talibania/Sarabia/sunna, because there is simply NO comparison possible between the persian heritage (even islamized), and the so called bedouin heritage (mostly stolen from persians and others, as the HUGE 99% majority of scientists and brains were persians ! real-arabs are specialized in litterature (arabic of course) politics and theology (arabic only)....




as a whole, baath/arab-left/nassereans is DEAD. The ideology were much complex than arabism or anti-zionnism. The goal was to have MODERN arab nations in the Apparent Western meaning (of course at all prices, including massive brainwashing). I say Apparent Western to talk about industry, progress, power, NOT to confuse with the fundamentals of the renaissance (humanism, sovreignty, freedom, state-of-law, reason, greek-heritage, democracy). However, this ideology opened the doors the araboislamism and eased the work for later mass-sunnism, as the EDUCATION (which mean the personality developpement, where are ALL the problems) and brains were prepared. The wahabists are inteligent, no body have to do the mistake of the arrogance and thinks that these bedouins have not the ability the change the whole world into their ideology. They are like parasites if you will : they have used arab-leftism to reintegrate the political scene, then arab-world (better now known a the araboislamic-world), then the islamic organization (beware ! especially for South East Asia ! this is the main tool for the mass-propaganda and arab interests in the region, contrary to what its name implyes..). They use democracy anti-democratically, use HR to protect them-selves, nationalism feeling to propagate anti nationalism (religiosity), almost anything that you think about. They have ALWAYS answers to ALL questions ! and they are ALWAYS RIGHT ! (at least how they are perceived by most moslems)

The arab-leftists, the majority, were tired of the repetitive failures and fusionned culturally with araboislamism. We are like in 'fiscal paradises', many oraganization with different names (including "something Organization for Human Rights", "something Oraganization for justice and Peace" and the wonderful labels blah blah) having the same interests, working for the same objective, FINANCED by the same person/countries. The TRUE remains of old baath is found ONLY in lebanon, where lebanese-christian and som lebanese-moslem are working to transform it
to a kind of "phonician nationalism", as they noticed that their dreams of a modern 'arab'-word are dead. Good kuck to them...



Easy ! there is no "real" debate or deep analysis. So, the "moderate" "tolerant" "analysts" say that denmark had not the right to publish the cartoons (they're becoming to dictate to denmark what he should do or not...next step forbid wine in EU and legalize polygamy ), while at the same time, the spontaneaous over-reactions should not be violent, because it gives a bad image to islam (look, it's maketing language ) . some have also criticized the iran initiative for the holocaust cartoons...

More to come later...

So until they Guten nacht