Discussion:
Using the Sword to Westernize Muslims
(too old to reply)
Faris Jawad
2005-05-26 15:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Using the Sword to Westernize Muslims
26 May 2005

"The greatest danger is the constant threat of the West imposing its values
on the rest of the world.."
By Abid Mustafa

Whenever western governments mention weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
Muslims in the same breath, the western media immediately breaks into wild
frenzy warning its people that a catastrophic event of epic proportions is
about to unfold. Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword
are reinvented to convey the impression that Muslims are extremely
dangerous, highly irresponsible and pay scant regard to human life. Hence
the mantra of disarming Muslim countries of WMD has become the rallying cry
of the West directed against the Muslim world.

In some cases the arguments are extended to justify the West's ongoing
policy of regime change in Syria, Iran and perhaps Pakistan. However, a
close study of Islamic rule in the past contradicts the popular western myth
that Muslims are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind
in the name of Islam.

The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West, armed with its
secular doctrine and materialistic world-view proceeded to exploit, plunder
and colonies vast populations in order to control resources and maximize
wealth.

In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying
civilizations such as the Incas, American Indians, Aztecs, and Aborigines.
Those who survived colonization were forcibly converted to Christianity,
stripped of their heritage and sold into bondage to western companies. For
the indigenous people of Africa, India, Asia, Middle East and others, the
promises of freedom quickly evaporated and were replaced by colonial rule.
Rather than show remorse towards such atrocities, the West could only gloat
at its achievements.

Technologies such as cannons, pistols, steam engines, machine guns,
aeroplanes, mustard gas. etc, only hastened the acquisition of colonies and
the exploitation of its people. Resistance offered by the natives towards
their colonial masters was met by brute force - often resulting in the
destruction of entire communities. When the West was not destroying the
natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to
cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime examples
of the destructive nature of western values.

This is a description of the Old World, where countries like England,
France, and Germany built empires and accumulated immense wealth on the
death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Is the New World
(America leading the West) any different today?

Take the example of the New World and its relationship with Afghanistan and
Iraq. Liberation has become occupation; democracy has given way to colonial
rule, devastation is termed as precision bombing and the slaughter of
innocent Muslims is described as collateral damage. Meanwhile, American and
British oil companies are queuing up to exploit the oil wells of Iraq and
transport the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea to Europe via Afghanistan.

The Islamic Caliphate in the past never treated mankind in such a barbaric
fashion. Neither did the Caliphate spread Islam by force, nor destroy
civilizations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did not
embrace Islam, and today they still number approximately 7 million.
Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam, the inhabitants were not
coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population of more than 750
million Hindus.

Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the
Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance. Those Jews
that survived the Spanish holocaust, were warmly welcomed by the Ottoman
Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became important members of
the Islamic society.

Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of western
values than WMD in the hands of Muslims. In the past these values were
enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule or through
tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the greatest danger facing
mankind is the constant threat of the West imposing its values on the rest
of the world through its own WMD.

-Abid Mustafa is a political analyst who specializes in Muslim affairs

Source: PalestineChronicle.com
Dean G.
2005-05-26 17:33:19 UTC
Permalink
"Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword..."
Sicily
Albania
Spain
And the list goes on. Islam was spead primarily by the sword. The
constant denial of this by Muslims shows that their faith is morally
bankrupt, and thus certainly not a true faith.

Dean G.
Alfred
2005-05-26 18:48:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:50:14 -0400, "Faris Jawad"
Post by Faris Jawad
When the West was not destroying the
natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to
cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime examples
of the destructive nature of western values.
Then please, I repeat, please, explain why such large Muslim
minorities want to live in the Western hemisphere ?? I beg.

Maybe, your re-assumption of socialist terminology blinds you ?

sincelery yours, and all that ..
1MAN4ALL
2005-05-26 21:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred
On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:50:14 -0400, "Faris Jawad"
Post by Faris Jawad
When the West was not destroying the
natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to
cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime examples
of the destructive nature of western values.
Then please, I repeat, please, explain why such large Muslim
minorities want to live in the Western hemisphere ?? I beg.
Nearly for the same reason that hundred thousand or so Americans have
lived and worked in the Arab Gulf countries.
Count 1
2005-05-26 21:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1MAN4ALL
Post by Alfred
On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:50:14 -0400, "Faris Jawad"
Post by Faris Jawad
When the West was not destroying the
natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to
cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime examples
of the destructive nature of western values.
Then please, I repeat, please, explain why such large Muslim
minorities want to live in the Western hemisphere ?? I beg.
Nearly for the same reason that hundred thousand or so Americans have
lived and worked in the Arab Gulf countries.
ROFLMAO!!!

1MAN, you are a card.

I've known literally dozens of people who have worked in several Arab
countries. I have met very few who would opt to stay there. Westerners go to
the Arab countries to make a buck, and then they - almost inevitably - go
home. Stories of westerners moving to the ME and remaining there are few
and far between, and wouldn't even be a drop in a bucket compared the vast
number of ME's (and north africaners) who have moved to the west seeking a
better life and - more importantly - permanent residence.

The reason muslims migrate to the west are completely different than the
reasons westerners go to Arab countries.
1MAN4ALL
2005-05-27 15:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
I've known literally dozens of people who have worked in several Arab
countries. I have met very few who would opt to stay there. Westerners go to
the Arab countries to make a buck, and then they - almost inevitably - go
home.
The reason is that they can't. If Arab Gulf countries start handing out
citizenships, I bet millions of Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians,
Indians, Filipinos, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, West Indians, West
Africans, and even East Europeans, who traditionally have looked to the
West as a place to immigrate, would instead go to Arab Gulf countries,
if they can find jobs over there.
Post by Count 1
Stories of westerners moving to the ME and remaining there are few
and far between, and wouldn't even be a drop in a bucket compared the vast
number of ME's (and north africaners) who have moved to the west seeking a
better life and - more importantly - permanent residence.
The reason is that there are jobs in the West, and Western countries do
allow foreigners to become legal permanent residents.
Post by Count 1
The reason muslims migrate to the west are completely different than the
reasons westerners go to Arab countries.
Muslim immigrants come here for the same reason that most Europeans
came here earlier and are still coming--economic opportunities. Even
the British are coming here in large numbers, but because they are
"white" nobody notices them. The other reason people come here is to
unite families. One person becomes a citizen and he sponsors his
parents who can then sponsor siblings, and when siblings arrive they
sponsor their in-laws, so on and so forth, until all relatives end up
here. And it's not just Muslims--everybody is doing it. I know one
Israeli family which arrived here on a work visa, tried to go back to
Israel but couldn't because jobs in Israel were either not available or
paid very little money and, they are now applying for a Green Card and
would stay here for good.
Count 1
2005-05-27 16:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1MAN4ALL
Post by Count 1
I've known literally dozens of people who have worked in several Arab
countries. I have met very few who would opt to stay there. Westerners go to
the Arab countries to make a buck, and then they - almost inevitably - go
home.
The reason is that they can't. If Arab Gulf countries start handing out
citizenships, I bet millions of Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians,
Indians, Filipinos, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, West Indians, West
Africans, and even East Europeans, who traditionally have looked to the
West as a place to immigrate, would instead go to Arab Gulf countries,
if they can find jobs over there.
There are many, many reasons why they go home. Restrictive immigration
policies are one of them. Do you think its time western countries started
adopting more restrictive immigration policies? (If its good enough for the
arabs...that kind of thing)
Post by 1MAN4ALL
Post by Count 1
Stories of westerners moving to the ME and remaining there are few
and far between, and wouldn't even be a drop in a bucket compared the vast
number of ME's (and north africaners) who have moved to the west seeking a
better life and - more importantly - permanent residence.
The reason is that there are jobs in the West, and Western countries do
allow foreigners to become legal permanent residents.
Should they?
Post by 1MAN4ALL
Post by Count 1
The reason muslims migrate to the west are completely different than the
reasons westerners go to Arab countries.
Muslim immigrants come here for the same reason that most Europeans
came here earlier and are still coming--economic opportunities.
And freedom from religious persecution.


Even
Post by 1MAN4ALL
the British are coming here in large numbers, but because they are
"white" nobody notices them. The other reason people come here is to
unite families. One person becomes a citizen and he sponsors his
parents who can then sponsor siblings, and when siblings arrive they
sponsor their in-laws, so on and so forth, until all relatives end up
here. And it's not just Muslims--everybody is doing it. I know one
Israeli family which arrived here on a work visa, tried to go back to
Israel but couldn't because jobs in Israel were either not available or
paid very little money and, they are now applying for a Green Card and
would stay here for good.
Would it be too much for you to remain at least moderately consistent? You
clearly have at least a partial understanding of the qualitative and
quantitative differences between ME's migration to the west and westerners
migrating to the ME. So clearly you were wrong when you tried to argue that
American's are moving to the ME for nearly the same reasons that muslims are
moving to the west. Not only are the reasons completely different, so is
their nature.
1MAN4ALL
2005-05-27 18:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by 1MAN4ALL
The reason is that they can't. If Arab Gulf countries start handing out
citizenships, I bet millions of Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians,
Indians, Filipinos, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, West Indians, West
Africans, and even East Europeans, who traditionally have looked to the
West as a place to immigrate, would instead go to Arab Gulf countries,
if they can find jobs over there.
There are many, many reasons why they go home. Restrictive immigration
policies are one of them. Do you think its time western countries started
adopting more restrictive immigration policies? (If its good enough for the
arabs...that kind of thing)
No, as I have always stated, Arab Gulf countries should allow
immigration, especially from poor Arab countries such as Egypt,
Morocco, Jordan, Syria etc, as they speak the same or similar language
and share the same culture. That would also take off some pressure from
European countries which have been accommodating migrant workers from
these countries. It would also be mutually beneficial as Gulf countries
have a labor shortage. Immigrants always bring in new ideas, spur
economic growth, and contribute lot more to society than what they take
back.
Post by Count 1
Post by 1MAN4ALL
The reason is that there are jobs in the West, and Western countries do
allow foreigners to become legal permanent residents.
Should they?
I guess for certain jobs they have to.
Post by Count 1
Post by 1MAN4ALL
Post by Count 1
The reason muslims migrate to the west are completely different than the
reasons westerners go to Arab countries.
Muslim immigrants come here for the same reason that most Europeans
came here earlier and are still coming--economic opportunities.
And freedom from religious persecution.
I don't think that's a big issue, at least when you consider the
number of immigrants and the different types of countries involved.
Post by Count 1
Even
Post by 1MAN4ALL
the British are coming here in large numbers, but because they are
"white" nobody notices them. The other reason people come here is to
unite families. One person becomes a citizen and he sponsors his
parents who can then sponsor siblings, and when siblings arrive they
sponsor their in-laws, so on and so forth, until all relatives end up
here. And it's not just Muslims--everybody is doing it. I know one
Israeli family which arrived here on a work visa, tried to go back to
Israel but couldn't because jobs in Israel were either not available or
paid very little money and, they are now applying for a Green Card and
would stay here for good.
Would it be too much for you to remain at least moderately consistent? You
clearly have at least a partial understanding of the qualitative and
quantitative differences between ME's migration to the west and westerners
migrating to the ME. So clearly you were wrong when you tried to argue that
American's are moving to the ME for nearly the same reasons that muslims are
moving to the west. Not only are the reasons completely different, so is
their nature.
Westerners are NOT "migrating to Middle East. They go there to work
and come back, as you had stated, BUT if there was some opportunity
that they could stay and become full citizens, some of them may not
come back. A very good friend of mine from South America has lived in
one of the Gulf countries for almost thirty years and he is going to
live there as long as they'll let him. Now, if he can get
citizenship, I am sure his children would stay there as well. And there
are many more people like him.

Climate is also an issue which I had neglected to mention.
People-Westerners and Easterners alike-tend to move to a place with
a moderate climate eventually. The Middle East is too hot and humid for
many Westerners-in fact for many Arabs as well, and with global
warming, it's getting worse. If the climate was more moderate, many
more people would want to stay there.

The primary reason for all immigration is economic. It is true that
there are some genuine asylum seekers but as compared to other
immigrants, their numbers are extremely small.
zev
2005-05-29 07:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1MAN4ALL
No, as I have always stated, Arab Gulf countries should allow
immigration, especially from poor Arab countries such as Egypt,
Morocco, Jordan, Syria etc, as they speak the same or similar language
and share the same culture. That would also take off some pressure from
European countries which have been accommodating migrant workers from
these countries. It would also be mutually beneficial as Gulf countries
have a labor shortage. Immigrants always bring in new ideas, spur
economic growth, and contribute lot more to society than what they take
back.
But that's the whole point,
the Gulf countries prefer workers from the Far East,
just because they don't assimilate as easily.
Hey Gyra
2005-05-29 16:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by zev
But that's the whole point,
the Gulf countries prefer workers from the Far East,
just because they don't assimilate as easily.
And can be physically identified on sight, being regarded as *untermenschen*
in the Arab world (that's right, the ragheads are just as racist as any
other ethnicity) ---
1MAN4ALL
2005-05-29 15:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by zev
Post by 1MAN4ALL
No, as I have always stated, Arab Gulf countries should allow
immigration, especially from poor Arab countries such as Egypt,
Morocco, Jordan, Syria etc, as they speak the same or similar language
and share the same culture. That would also take off some pressure from
European countries which have been accommodating migrant workers from
these countries. It would also be mutually beneficial as Gulf countries
have a labor shortage. Immigrants always bring in new ideas, spur
economic growth, and contribute lot more to society than what they take
back.
But that's the whole point,
the Gulf countries prefer workers from the Far East,
just because they don't assimilate as easily.
It has to do with many factors: cheap foreign labor; skills; and racial
stereotypes (some ethnic groups are considered more docile and obedient
than others are). As there are no minimum wage laws, Gulf states are
always looking for poorest of the poor. They know that because of
currency differences--the amount of money that a laborer can send
home--they can get an Indian for 1000 Riyals a month and a Bangladeshi
may even be prepared to work for 700. Indians are considered good
because many of them are educated, well trained, and can be verbally
abused. But there are certain tasks which an Indian and Bangladeshi
cannot do such as digging trenches in 110 F heat, and Arabs are forced
to hire a Pakistani who charges more but is usually stronger; he,
unfortunately, comes with a temperament--if abused, he can beat up his
bosses and then has to be deported. Filipinos are also good workers and
are hired as drivers and maids. Physical and sexual abuse of maids
happens frequently, and there are few laws to protect domestic workers.
Arabs from poor Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine,
usually work as teachers, clerks, in publishing/advertising, and as
mid-level managers. For all other professions, Arab labor is too
expensive for Gulf countries and most Arabs are not willing to do
menial jobs, especially for wages that are offered.

The point that I was making earlier is that if Gulf countries allow
immigrants from poor Arab countries, eventually that would be better
for them, even if they have to pay them higher wages. The reason is
that permanent residents spend their money within the country which
improves local economy, putting an end to guest-workers program forces
locals to compete for jobs, and immigrants bring in good ideas and
invest more money locally. The biggest problem that Gulf countries have
is that they don't like to hire their own citizens because
Saudis/Kuwaits/Qataris etc. are considered lazy, never acquire skills
because they all want to be managers, and have attitude problems. But
once people are forced to work their way up and are paid decent wages,
which is not possible because of the availability of extremely cheap
foreign labor, a more stable society would come into existence.
zev
2005-05-30 11:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1MAN4ALL
Post by zev
Post by 1MAN4ALL
No, as I have always stated, Arab Gulf countries should allow
immigration, especially from poor Arab countries such as Egypt,
Morocco, Jordan, Syria etc, as they speak the same or similar language
and share the same culture. That would also take off some pressure from
European countries which have been accommodating migrant workers from
these countries. It would also be mutually beneficial as Gulf countries
have a labor shortage. Immigrants always bring in new ideas, spur
economic growth, and contribute lot more to society than what they take
back.
But that's the whole point,
the Gulf countries prefer workers from the Far East,
just because they don't assimilate as easily.
It has to do with many factors: cheap foreign labor; skills; and racial
stereotypes (some ethnic groups are considered more docile and obedient
than others are). As there are no minimum wage laws, Gulf states are
always looking for poorest of the poor. They know that because of
currency differences--the amount of money that a laborer can send
home--they can get an Indian for 1000 Riyals a month and a Bangladeshi
may even be prepared to work for 700. Indians are considered good
because many of them are educated, well trained, and can be verbally
abused. But there are certain tasks which an Indian and Bangladeshi
cannot do such as digging trenches in 110 F heat, and Arabs are forced
to hire a Pakistani who charges more but is usually stronger; he,
unfortunately, comes with a temperament--if abused, he can beat up his
bosses and then has to be deported. Filipinos are also good workers and
are hired as drivers and maids. Physical and sexual abuse of maids
happens frequently, and there are few laws to protect domestic workers.
Arabs from poor Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine,
usually work as teachers, clerks, in publishing/advertising, and as
mid-level managers. For all other professions, Arab labor is too
expensive for Gulf countries and most Arabs are not willing to do
menial jobs, especially for wages that are offered.
The point that I was making earlier is that if Gulf countries allow
immigrants from poor Arab countries, eventually that would be better
for them, even if they have to pay them higher wages. The reason is
that permanent residents spend their money within the country which
improves local economy, putting an end to guest-workers program forces
locals to compete for jobs, and immigrants bring in good ideas and
invest more money locally. The biggest problem that Gulf countries have
is that they don't like to hire their own citizens because
Saudis/Kuwaits/Qataris etc. are considered lazy, never acquire skills
because they all want to be managers, and have attitude problems. But
once people are forced to work their way up and are paid decent wages,
which is not possible because of the availability of extremely cheap
foreign labor, a more stable society would come into existence.
Thanks for your response.
I found it interesting and informative.
I admire your willingness to post material which is,
after all, not complimentary.
You may know that much of the same criticism
can be said for the entire Western world.

Alfred
2005-05-26 21:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1MAN4ALL
Post by Alfred
Post by Faris Jawad
When the West was not destroying the
natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to
cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime examples
of the destructive nature of western values.
Then please, I repeat, please, explain why such large Muslim
minorities want to live in the Western hemisphere ?? I beg.
Nearly for the same reason that hundred thousand or so Americans have
lived and worked in the Arab Gulf countries.
So millions & millions of Muslims prefer to work under the
destructive nature of Western values ?? That's a novelty.

I desert that.

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/dullugly.mp3
Rudolph W. Giuliani
2005-05-27 02:38:12 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[NYTr] Using the Sword to Westernize Muslims
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20050523/017599.html
Palestine Chronicle - May 26, 2005
http://palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20050526033936267
Using the Sword to Westernize Muslims
"The greatest danger is the constant threat of the West imposing its
values
on the rest of the world.."
Any change the Islamic world makes is an improvement.




\
By Abid Mustafa
Whenever western governments mention weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
Muslims in the same breath, the western media immediately breaks into wild
frenzy warning its people that a catastrophic event of epic proportions is
about to unfold. Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the
sword
are reinvented to convey the impression that Muslims are extremely
dangerous, highly irresponsible and pay scant regard to human life. Hence
the mantra of disarming Muslim countries of WMD has become the rallying
cry
of the West directed against the Muslim world.
In some cases the arguments are extended to justify the West's ongoing
policy of regime change in Syria, Iran and perhaps Pakistan. However, a
close study of Islamic rule in the past contradicts the popular western
myth
that Muslims are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of
mankind
in the name of Islam.
The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West, armed with its
secular doctrine and materialistic world-view proceeded to exploit,
plunder
and colonies vast populations in order to control resources and maximize
wealth.
In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying
civilizations such as the Incas, American Indians, Aztecs, and Aborigines.
Those who survived colonization were forcibly converted to Christianity,
stripped of their heritage and sold into bondage to western companies. For
the indigenous people of Africa, India, Asia, Middle East and others, the
promises of freedom quickly evaporated and were replaced by colonial rule.
Rather than show remorse towards such atrocities, the West could only
gloat
at its achievements.
Technologies such as cannons, pistols, steam engines, machine guns,
aeroplanes, mustard gas. etc, only hastened the acquisition of colonies
and
the exploitation of its people. Resistance offered by the natives towards
their colonial masters was met by brute force - often resulting in the
destruction of entire communities. When the West was not destroying the
natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to
cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime
examples
of the destructive nature of western values.
This is a description of the Old World, where countries like England,
France, and Germany built empires and accumulated immense wealth on the
death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Is the New World
(America leading the West) any different today?
Take the example of the New World and its relationship with Afghanistan
and
Iraq. Liberation has become occupation; democracy has given way to
colonial
rule, devastation is termed as precision bombing and the slaughter of
innocent Muslims is described as collateral damage. Meanwhile, American
and
British oil companies are queuing up to exploit the oil wells of Iraq and
transport the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea to Europe via
Afghanistan.
The Islamic Caliphate in the past never treated mankind in such a barbaric
fashion. Neither did the Caliphate spread Islam by force, nor destroy
civilizations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did not
embrace Islam, and today they still number approximately 7 million.
Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam, the inhabitants were not
coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population of more than
750
million Hindus.
Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the
Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance. Those
Jews
that survived the Spanish holocaust, were warmly welcomed by the Ottoman
Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became important members
of
the Islamic society.
Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of western
values than WMD in the hands of Muslims. In the past these values were
enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule or through
tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the greatest danger
facing
mankind is the constant threat of the West imposing its values on the rest
of the world through its own WMD.
[Abid Mustafa is a political analyst who specializes in Muslim affairs.]
- --
================================================================
~ NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
~ . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
~ 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
~ List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
~ Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBQpZnDUamV5Um0R3tAQIgXQP9FMfkB8IZziAcPq65Ys/Uhmm61MGdLvCB
JaGmmr3p7zTquUW8vdVPtDfW2Nko5mwZyNqhwkyrNvVnbQ9IIilReW2y63rB8tt2
8M6mHk/UwNEQ6sk391t54wa0P8nV8+Vnme5kwZ4sa4p1RQ0Ji3IStdRNKpV2qgGy
0m2Uyes2zdE=
=FR7t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Faris Jawad
2005-05-27 03:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Hi kike on bike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[NYTr] Using the Sword to Westernize Muslims
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20050523/017599.html
Palestine Chronicle - May 26, 2005
http://palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20050526033936267
Using the Sword to Westernize Muslims
"The greatest danger is the constant threat of the West imposing its
values
on the rest of the world..">
By Abid Mustafa
Whenever western governments mention weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
Muslims in the same breath, the western media immediately breaks into wild
frenzy warning its people that a catastrophic event of epic proportions is
about to unfold. Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the
sword
are reinvented to convey the impression that Muslims are extremely
dangerous, highly irresponsible and pay scant regard to human life. Hence
the mantra of disarming Muslim countries of WMD has become the rallying
cry
of the West directed against the Muslim world.
In some cases the arguments are extended to justify the West's ongoing
policy of regime change in Syria, Iran and perhaps Pakistan. However, a
close study of Islamic rule in the past contradicts the popular western
myth
that Muslims are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of
mankind
in the name of Islam.
The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West, armed with its
secular doctrine and materialistic world-view proceeded to exploit,
plunder
and colonies vast populations in order to control resources and maximize
wealth.
In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying
civilizations such as the Incas, American Indians, Aztecs, and Aborigines.
Those who survived colonization were forcibly converted to Christianity,
stripped of their heritage and sold into bondage to western companies. For
the indigenous people of Africa, India, Asia, Middle East and others, the
promises of freedom quickly evaporated and were replaced by colonial rule.
Rather than show remorse towards such atrocities, the West could only
gloat
at its achievements.
Technologies such as cannons, pistols, steam engines, machine guns,
aeroplanes, mustard gas. etc, only hastened the acquisition of colonies
and
the exploitation of its people. Resistance offered by the natives towards
their colonial masters was met by brute force - often resulting in the
destruction of entire communities. When the West was not destroying the
natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to
cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime
examples
of the destructive nature of western values.
This is a description of the Old World, where countries like England,
France, and Germany built empires and accumulated immense wealth on the
death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Is the New World
(America leading the West) any different today?
Take the example of the New World and its relationship with Afghanistan
and
Iraq. Liberation has become occupation; democracy has given way to
colonial
rule, devastation is termed as precision bombing and the slaughter of
innocent Muslims is described as collateral damage. Meanwhile, American
and
British oil companies are queuing up to exploit the oil wells of Iraq and
transport the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea to Europe via
Afghanistan.
The Islamic Caliphate in the past never treated mankind in such a barbaric
fashion. Neither did the Caliphate spread Islam by force, nor destroy
civilizations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did not
embrace Islam, and today they still number approximately 7 million.
Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam, the inhabitants were not
coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population of more than
750
million Hindus.
Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the
Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance. Those
Jews
that survived the Spanish holocaust, were warmly welcomed by the Ottoman
Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became important members
of
the Islamic society.
Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of western
values than WMD in the hands of Muslims. In the past these values were
enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule or through
tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the greatest danger
facing
mankind is the constant threat of the West imposing its values on the rest
of the world through its own WMD.
[Abid Mustafa is a political analyst who specializes in Muslim affairs.]
- --
================================================================
~ NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
~ . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
~ 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
~ List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
~ Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBQpZnDUamV5Um0R3tAQIgXQP9FMfkB8IZziAcPq65Ys/Uhmm61MGdLvCB
JaGmmr3p7zTquUW8vdVPtDfW2Nko5mwZyNqhwkyrNvVnbQ9IIilReW2y63rB8tt2
8M6mHk/UwNEQ6sk391t54wa0P8nV8+Vnme5kwZ4sa4p1RQ0Ji3IStdRNKpV2qgGy
0m2Uyes2zdE=
=FR7t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ªk½ü¤jªk¦n
2005-05-29 16:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faris Jawad
Using the Sword to Westernize Muslims
26 May 2005
"The greatest danger is the constant threat of the West imposing its values
on the rest of the world.."
By Abid Mustafa
Whenever western governments mention weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
Muslims in the same breath, the western media immediately breaks into wild
frenzy warning its people that a catastrophic event of epic proportions is
about to unfold. Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword
are reinvented to convey the impression that Muslims are extremely
dangerous, highly irresponsible and pay scant regard to human life. Hence
the mantra of disarming Muslim countries of WMD has become the rallying cry
of the West directed against the Muslim world.
In some cases the arguments are extended to justify the West's ongoing
policy of regime change in Syria, Iran and perhaps Pakistan. However, a
close study of Islamic rule in the past contradicts the popular western myth
that Muslims are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind
in the name of Islam.
The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West, armed with its
secular doctrine and materialistic world-view proceeded to exploit, plunder
and colonies vast populations in order to control resources and maximize
wealth.
In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying
civilizations such as the Incas, American Indians, Aztecs, and Aborigines.
Those who survived colonization were forcibly converted to Christianity,
stripped of their heritage and sold into bondage to western companies. For
the indigenous people of Africa, India, Asia, Middle East and others, the
promises of freedom quickly evaporated and were replaced by colonial rule.
Rather than show remorse towards such atrocities, the West could only gloat
at its achievements.
Technologies such as cannons, pistols, steam engines, machine guns,
aeroplanes, mustard gas. etc, only hastened the acquisition of colonies and
the exploitation of its people. Resistance offered by the natives towards
their colonial masters was met by brute force - often resulting in the
destruction of entire communities. When the West was not destroying the
natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to
cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime examples
of the destructive nature of western values.
This is a description of the Old World, where countries like England,
France, and Germany built empires and accumulated immense wealth on the
death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Is the New World
(America leading the West) any different today?
Take the example of the New World and its relationship with Afghanistan and
Iraq. Liberation has become occupation; democracy has given way to colonial
rule, devastation is termed as precision bombing and the slaughter of
innocent Muslims is described as collateral damage. Meanwhile, American and
British oil companies are queuing up to exploit the oil wells of Iraq and
transport the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea to Europe via Afghanistan.
The Islamic Caliphate in the past never treated mankind in such a barbaric
fashion. Neither did the Caliphate spread Islam by force, nor destroy
civilizations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did not
embrace Islam, and today they still number approximately 7 million.
Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam, the inhabitants were not
coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population of more than 750
million Hindus.
Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the
Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance. Those Jews
that survived the Spanish holocaust, were warmly welcomed by the Ottoman
Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became important members of
the Islamic society.
Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of western
values than WMD in the hands of Muslims. In the past these values were
enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule or through
tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the greatest danger facing
mankind is the constant threat of the West imposing its values on the rest
of the world through its own WMD.
-Abid Mustafa is a political analyst who specializes in Muslim affairs
Source: PalestineChronicle.com
Great topic Faris, Me read it twice
Sunny
2005-05-29 23:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by ªk½ü¤jªk¦n
Great topic Faris, Me read it twice
Good boy, with some more practice you may learn to read the whole
copy.paste.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...