Interesting Articles

29.10.03, 19:04
This letter was sent to Carly Fiorina, CEO of Hewlett Packard Corporation, in
response to a speech given by her on September 26, 2001.
November 7, 2001
Carly Fiorina Hewlett-Packard 3000 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1185

Dear Madame Fiorina:

It is with great interest that I read your speech delivered on September 26,
2001, titled "Technology, Business and Our way of Life: What's Next" [sic]. I
was particularly interested in the story you told at the end of your speech,
about the Arab/Muslim civilization. As an Assyrian, a non-Arab, Christian
native of the Middle East, whose ancestors reach back to 5000 B.C., I wish to
clarify some points you made in this little story, and to alert you to the
dangers of unwittingly being drawn into the Arabist/Islamist ideology, which
seeks to assimilate all cultures and religions into the Arab/Islamic fold.

I know you are a very busy woman, but please find ten minutes to read what
follows, as it is a perspective that you will not likely get from anywhere
else. I will answer some of the specific points you made in your speech, then
conclude with a brief perspective on this Arabist/Islamist ideology.

Arabs and Muslims appeared on the world scene in 630 A.D., when the armies of
Muhammad began their conquest of the Middle East. We should be very clear
that this was a military conquest, not a missionary enterprise, and through
the use of force, authorized by a declaration of a Jihad against infidels,
Arabs/Muslims were able to forcibly convert and assimilate non-Arabs and non-
Mulsims into their fold. Very few indigenous communities of the Middle East
survived this
    • cosmosaltana Re: Interesting Articles, part II 29.10.03, 19:05
      the Christian Assyrian community was drained of its population through forced
      conversion to Islam (by the Jizzya), and once the community had dwindled
      below
      a critical threshold, it ceased producing the scholars that were the
      intellectual driving force of the Islamic civilization, and that is when
      the so
      called "Golden Age of Islam" came to an end (about 850 A.D.).

      Islam the religion itself was significantly molded by Assyrians and Jews
      (see
      Nestorian Influence on Islam and Hagarism: the Making of the Islamic
      World).

      Arab/Islamic civilization is not a progressive force, it is a regressive
      force;
      it does not give impetus, it retards. The great civilization you describe
      was
      not an Arab/Muslim accomplishment, it was an Assyrian accomplishment that
      Arabs
      expropriated and subsequently lost when they drained, through the forced
      conversion of Assyrians to Islam, the source of the intellectual vitality
      that
      propelled it. What other Arab/Muslim civilization has risen since? What
      other
      Arab/Muslim successes can we cite?

      You state, "and perhaps we can learn a lesson from his [Suleiman]
      example: It
      was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership
      that
      harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population that
      included
      Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions." In fact, the Ottomans were
      extremely oppressive to non-Muslims. For example, young Christian boys
      were
      forcefully taken from their families, usually at the age of 8-10, and
      inducted
      into the Janissaries, (yeniceri in Turkish) where they were Islamized and
      made
      to fight for the Ottoman state. What literary, artistic or scientific
      achievements of the Ottomans can we point to? We can, on the other hand,
      point
      to the genocide of 750,000 Assyrians, 1.5 million Armenians and 400,000
      Greeks
      in World War One by the Kemalist "Young Turk" government. This is the
      true face
      of Islam.

      Arabs/Muslims are engaged in an explicit campaign of destruction and
      expropriation of cultures and communities, identities and ideas. Wherever
      Arab/Muslim civilization encounters a non-Arab/Muslim one, it attempts to
      destroy it (as the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan were destroyed, as
      Persepolis was destroyed by the Ayotollah Khomenie). This is a pattern
      that has
      been recurring since the advent of Islam, 1400 years ago, and is amply
      substantiated by the historical record. If the "foreign" culture cannot
      be
      destroyed, then it is expropriated, and revisionist historians claim that
      it is
      and was Arab, as is the case of most of the Arab "accomplishments" you
      cited in
      your speech. For example, Arab history texts in the Middle East teach
      that
      Assyrians were Arabs, a fact that no reputable scholar would assert, and
      that
      no living Assyrian would accept. Assyrians first settled Nineveh, one of
      the
      major Assyrian cities, in 5000 B.C., which is 5630 years before Arabs
      came into
      that area. Even the word 'Arab' is an Assyrian word, meaning "Westerner"
      (the
      first written reference to Arabs was by the Assyrian King Sennacherib,
      800
      B.C., in which he tells of conquering the "ma'rabayeh"
    • cosmosaltana Re: Interesting Articles 29.10.03, 19:12
      FrontPageMagazine.com | ^ | May 16, 2002 | Jamie Glazov
      Why Islam Can’t Join the Modern World

      THAT ISLAM poses a vital danger to human freedom is a given. But what
      often remains unspoken is why it poses this danger. Is it just a coincidence
      that wherever Islam rules, democracy, individual liberty, free speech, and
      women’s rights all go out the window?
      No, it isn’t.
      The problem is that Islam is intrinsically opposed to the very notion of free
      will itself. Under Islam’s rigid moral code, human beings do not possess the
      slightest area in their lives where their behavior is not subject to a rigid
      rule. Islam takes control of every ingredient of its believer’s life - to the
      point where the believer becomes little more than an automaton who does not,
      and must not, nurture any kind of independent or critical thinking of his own.
      The key here is that for Muslims, the boundaries between their spiritual and
      temporal lives do not exist – as they would, for example, in Christian life. A
      faithful Christian has the Divine on his mind throughout the day, and through
      this meditation he understands that God allows, and encourages, the exercise of
      free will, as well as the giving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
      The Christian is aware that he will be accountable for his thoughts and
      actions in the Final Judgment, but this awareness exists alongside the
      understanding that the Lord allows compartments of privacy where humans can
      cherish God’s creation by nurturing their own spontaneity and innovation.
      Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of the fathers of American poetry, illuminates this
      Christian tradition in his notion that the soul and the Divine are most active
      in spontaneity and in the freedom that is found in the present undetermined
      existence. And this is the concept on which Western civilization is based.
      For Muslims, meanwhile, every single ingredient of life must represent a total
      submission to Allah.

      Question: what kind of progress, technological advances, economic growth and
      open dialogue can be possible in a society where every facet of the entire
      culture is Islamicised?

      Is this why not one Arab country is yet to produce anything even close to
      something resembling prosperity, social functionality or liberal democracy?

      The bottom line is that Islam cannot deal with modernity. Having never
      experienced a "reformation" in centuries, it is intrinsically despotic and
      totalitarian.

      I encourage my readers to sit down and actually take the time to read the
      Qur’an and Hadiths (the sayings and doings of Muhammad as recorded by his
      companions). You will find that there is not one area of a Muslim’s life that
      is left open for individuality, originality and creativity.
      From the moment a Muslim wakes up, he has to start going through a process of
      rigid procedures. First and foremost, he has to wash a certain way. He even has
      to clean his nose in a specific manner, and he has to do repeat this procedure
      three times. This is essential because Islam teaches that the devil spends the
      night in the cavity of the nose.
      A Muslim is not to touch any utensil unless he has washed his hands three
      times. He is also not allowed to urinate in stagnant water.
      When Muslims do "number two," they are forbidden to sit and are instructed to
      adopt a squatting position while leaning heavy on the left foot.
      I can’t help but wonder: is there an instructional Islamic video for this?
      What happens if a Muslim leans on the right foot?
      Islam also instructs that, when you go "number one" or "number two," you have
      to say a certain prayer each time. This is in line with the fact that whenever
      a Muslim arrives, sits, or sleeps anywhere, he has to say a certain prayer as
      well. When taking a bath, Muslims are instructed to wash the lower part of the
      body and the armpits first. Then they are allowed to wash the rest of their
      bodies. But it always has to be the right side first and then the left. After
      this, they have to immediately empty all the water and clean the bath and
      refill it. Then they can clean off. (I can’t help from observing that this
      sounds like obsessive compulsive disorder). Muslims are instructed that they
      have to use their right side for all things first. For instance, if you are
      putting on your sneakers, you have to put your right foot into the right
      sneaker first. The same with taking them off. The same goes with putting on a
      shirt and which arm goes where etc. When entering a house, you have to enter
      with the right foot first. When entering the bathroom, however, a Muslim has to
      enter with the left foot first, and when coming out, with the right foot first.
      The times of Prayer in Islam are rigidly enforced. Islam also mandates that a
      Muslim has to disengage himself from all worldly occupations and resort to his
      prayers, even when he is most busy. Before prayers, the body has to be washed
      in a precise and orderly way (right hand up to the wrist, then left hand, then
      right arm up to elbow, then left arm, etc). The Muslim has to wipe his head
      with wet hands, and it is absolutely necessary that this is done with the three
      fingers between the little finger and the thumb of both hands being joined
      together. When a husband and a wife make love, they have to go wash every time
      afterwards. (Just imagine the life of a sexually active couple).Every way in
      which Muslims interact with each other is also all cut out for them. For
      instance, Muslims are instructed to greet each other in certain ways. They have
      to say, "As-salamu alaikum" (peace be upon you). And in return one says, "Wa
      alaikum us-salam" (upon you be peace).

      In one sense, this is, of course, very beautiful. But the question remains:
      what if someone wants to say something different for a change? Or what if
      someone doesn’t want to say anything at all?
      When replying to a greeting, it is a big-time no-no to say, "God's peace be
      upon you". This can only be said when saying goodbye. Also, if a couple of
      people bump into each other, and one guy performs the greeting, no one else is
      supposed to repeat the greeting. And when another guy replies to a greeting,
      that is enough and no one else is supposed to reply. (Question: what if two
      guys reply at the same time by mistake?).

      Muslims are also not allowed to say hi to a Jew or a to a Christian first. If
      they do, they are not supposed to take the greeting back. What’s done is done.
      They will be held to account for this later. If a Jew or a Christian
      says "Salamun alaikum" to a Muslim, the Muslim must not respond the way he must
      to a fellow Muslim ("Wa alaikum us-salam") and only say "alaika" in return.
      (But what if a Muslim confuses a Jew for a fellow Muslim?)
      Muslims are also not allowed to enter other people’s house unless they ask for
      permission up to three times. Permission has to be given for each time before
      they enter, and, of course, they have to come in with the right foot first.
      (Imagine what a Muslim party would be like).
      A Muslim is never allowed to sleep in
    • cosmosaltana Re: Interesting Articles 29.10.03, 19:14
      In any case, this phenomenon of how Islam robs the potential for free will in
      every ingredient of its believers’ lives explains why, as Raphael Patai has
      demonstrated in The Arab Mind, no motivation exists for Arabs to take action
      for change or to evaluate critically their own circumstances. The result is
      that Arabs do not end up feeling a sense of responsibility for their own lives
      and, therefore, for their own failures. When a problem is confronted in the
      Arab world, a hidden enemy is always imagined.

      Consequently, the inability of Arab countries to create democracies, let alone
      functional economic societies, is read by Arabs as a personal humiliation that
      is caused by enemies – and not by the backwardness of Islamic culture itself.

      We begin to get an understanding, therefore, why the idea that problems can be
      solved by individuals themselves, and that citizens must actually participate
      in solving their own society’s problems, is an idea that is incomprehensible in
      the Islamic Arab world.

      Arabs grow up believing that success in their societies is simply just supposed
      to materialize, even if no one is actually taking any individual initiative to
      bring it about. If problems develop (i.e. economic backwardness, dictatorship
      etc.), they are believed to be caused by infidels (i.e. the evil Americans).

      Thus, it becomes obvious why Islam cannot join the modern world. In crushing
      the potential for any free will in human beings, it must annihilate the very
      essence of human liberty. In so doing, Islam spawns a backward and self-
      destructive culture that forces an excruciating humiliation on its people.
      These people, in turn, end up confusing their impotence and misery with their
      hatred of the infidels who have succeeded in every aspect in which Islamic
      civilization has pathetically failed.
    • cosmosaltana Re: Interesting Articles 29.10.03, 19:16
      Reports of Moderate Islam´s Existence Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
      CNSNews.com ^ | April 22, 2002 | C.T. Rossi

      History just may remember George W. Bush as the American Caesar; not for
      founding a hegemonic empire like an Augustus nor, like a Marcus Aurelius, for
      subduing the barbarians bent on the destruction of his people. No, Bush
      Secundus, in the mold of Julius, might be infamous for his poor choice of
      friends - in this case his embracing of the countries of "moderate Islam."

      It grows ever increasingly apparent that to ally with "moderate Islam" is about
      as effective as coalition building with the lands of Narnia, Middle Earth and
      Utopia. In contradistinction to erroneous stories of Mark Twain's death -
      reports of moderate Islam's existence have been greatly exaggerated.

      First and foremost amongst our chimerical comrades is the kingdom of Saudi
      Arabia. There is no doubt that if King Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz Al wasn't sitting
      on a quarter of the world's known oil reserves, Saudi Arabia's horrid human
      rights record would earn it a reputation in America lower than the enormous
      amount of phlegm needed to pronounce the desert monarch's name. Grown bold with
      oil wealth, the Saudis don't hide the fact that they provide "charity" to the
      widows and orphans of suicide bombers. But perhaps the greatest effrontery from
      a Saudi official came this month in London.

      Saudi ambassador to Great Britain Ghazi Algosaibi, who is also a poet of some
      renown in Arab circles, penned an elegy, entitled "The Martyrs" in honor of the
      first female Palestinian suicide bomber. The poem was published in the London-
      based Arab newspaper Al Hayat.

      Algosaibi's poem calls Ayat Akhras, who upon exploding herself in a market
      killed two Israelis and wounded 25 more, "the bride of loftiness" who "embraced
      death with a smile, while the leaders are running away from death. Doors of
      heaven are opened for her." The Saudi government official's verse likewise
      provided a puerile existential justification for being a suicide bomber ("May
      God be the witness that you are martyrs ... You died to honor God's word. You
      committed suicide? We committed suicide by living like the dead.") and a blind-
      side swipe at their ally, United States ("We complained to the idols of a White
      House whose heart is filled with darkness").

      Remember, Saudi Arabia is the cornerstone of the administration's moderate
      Islam nation coalition.

      Meanwhile in Egypt, which benefits to the figure of $2 billion annually from
      the coffers of American foreign aid, the country's leading Islamic authority,
      Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, also praised the acts of "martyrs" who act against
      Israel. Tantawi is the Grand Sheik of Islam's oldest and most prestigious
      university, Al-Azhar, which serves as "moderate" Islam's highest seat of
      learning.

      Mohammed Sayed Tantawi is not an unknown figure to the Western press as he was
      quoted extensively as President Bush's imam of peace after the attacks of
      September 11th when he declared: "It's not courage in any way to kill an
      innocent person, or to kill thousands of people, including men and women and
      children." Unless they happen to be Israelis.

      But what is more symbolic of kinder and gentler Mohammedanism than the
      Westernized Islamic woman. Soha Arafat, wife of Yassir Arafat, is such a woman.
      Bleach-haired, bejeweled and business suited, Mrs. Arafat even held an Islamic
      women's conference (such summits, of course, being the penultimate activity for
      aspiring feminists) in concert with Jordan's Queen Rania and Sudanese First
      Lady Fatima Bashir which called for an end violence against women and
      opportunities equal to their male Islamic counterparts. Putting the latter
      principle into practice, Soha Arafat showed in a recent interview that she can
      hold a blood-thirst equal to any man as she gave her approbation of "martyr
      operations." Mrs. Arafat mused that if she had a son she would approve of him
      being a suicide bomber - "Is there any greater honor than (martyrdom)? Do you
      expect me and my children to be less patriotic and more eager to live than the
      sons of my people?"

      Peaceful Islam?

      Yes, to his credit the president has not shied away from using the "E" word -
      "evil." However he has refused to apply it to any sect of organized Islam or
      its leadership - men and women not evil because their beliefs are different
      from the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West, but evil because they promote
      terrorism. If American foreign policy is predicated on the myth that there is a
      sizable segment of Islam that loves baseball, apple pie and the good ol' USA,
      then the administration will eventually find itself bloodied and forced to
      utter quizzically: Et tu, Islam?

      C.T. Rossi writes on contemporary culture for the Free Congress Foundation.
    • cosmosaltana Re: Interesting Articles 29.10.03, 19:18
      Trying To Find A `Moderate' Islam Is A Quixotic Quest
      CNSNews.com ^ | May 20, 2002 | C.T. Rossi

      Once upon a time (in the 1930s), a young Secretary of Agriculture believed in a
      mystical land peopled by wise elders of a foreign faith, full of peace and
      enlightenment. So the man, Henry Wallace (destined to be FDR's vice-president),
      used federal money to fund an expedition to find the fabled lost city of
      Shambhala in central Asia. Needless to say, it was not found.

      If history does repeat itself, the quest for "moderate Islam" might be an
      equally futile government endeavor. While kinder-and-gentler Mohammadism may
      never be found, we may at least gain apophatic knowledge of where it can't be
      found - that being in places where a Muslim majority prevails, even in a
      detention center Down Under.

      Strange stories first came out of the Australian immigration facility at
      Woomera earlier this year when Islamic detainees launched a "peaceful protest."
      They claimed that the time the Australian government was taking to screen
      Middle Eastern immigrants before granting them admission to Aussie society was
      unjustly long. Their protest consisted of a hunger strike, facilitated by the
      sewing shut of hungry mouths. In the case of adult Moslems, it appeared to be
      of a voluntary nature; in the case of the children, less so. Now, even more
      stories are emerging about the antics of these refugees who fled from the
      Taliban.

      The Moslem majority has taken to oppressing the non-Moslem segments of the
      detention camp population, most notably Christians and Mandaeans (Mandaeans are
      a monotheistic sect, mostly found in Iraq and Iran, who claim descent from the
      followers of St. John the Baptist). Whether making do with what they have or
      following a prescription from the Koran, the Moslems' chief weapon against
      the "infidels" is stoning.

      In one stoning, Christians were ambushed upon leaving the dining mess - this
      resulted in the blinding of one man. Another blind man, this one a Mandaean,
      was held down and defecated upon by a Moslem mob. Various other attacks upon
      non-Moslems, both physical and scatological, have been reported - many
      perpetrated upon the unveiled "infidel women" who do not feel the need to
      conform to an Islamic law that is not their own. All of this speaks to the very
      hard fact that the majority of Afghani Moslems subscribe to a value system
      quite different from our own. This lesson is being taught concurrently in a
      classroom on the other side of the globe from Woomera.

      With the deposal of the Taliban, some thought that nation-building in
      Afghanistan was the order of the day. But turning that rugged land, with its
      plethora of disparate tribes, into a democratic state may prove about as easy
      as readying the denizens of Woomera for "shrimp on the barbie," a night at the
      Sydney Opera House, and not killing those who hold a different creed. Already,
      the nation-building effort seems to be unraveling due to warlord factionalism.

      Afghan warlordism is based on the same bully-of-the-schoolyard philosophy
      displayed at Woomera - the most notable difference being that instead of
      hurling stones (or bodily waste) at their enemies, warlords tend to use Stinger
      missiles. Former Afghan Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is such a warlord.
      Critical of U.S. involvement on Afghani soil, Hekmatyar found himself the
      recipient of a CIA attack, for allegedly planning an assault on the U.S.-backed
      interim government. But the problem far transcends one man.

      In Islamic culture, dissent means death. This is not an "extreme" or "radical"
      position if one accepts the underpinnings of Islam and their logical
      consequences. To believe that the supreme being and creator of all (Allah) has
      manifested his express and perfect will in a series of divine edicts (the
      Koran) is also to believe that all who deviate from these commands are evil and
      an effrontery to God. Because Allah is the great potentate of the universe,
      these edicts are unilateral and binding on all creatures - whether they like it
      or not. There is no differentiation between realms of church and state. This
      distinction is given in the words of Christ when he commanded different shares
      to God and Caesar, much to the benefit of Western world ever since.

      In a cosmology where political disagreement is heresy, heresy is a capital
      offense, and infidels are the enemy of God, is the warlordism of Afghanistan
      and mob mentality of Woomera really that unexpected?

      No, the real radicalism is from the secular intelligentsia and politicos of the
      West, in thinking that Moslems can adopt an attitude where their religious
      beliefs don't influence their actions - an attitude that has become all too
      prevalent in the West.

      C.T. Rossi comments on contemporary culture for the Free Congress Foundation.
    • Gość: A.D. 'Interesujaca' faszystowska organizacja syjonistyc IP: *.72.68.88.Dial1.Orlando1.Level3.net 29.10.03, 21:38
      www.politicalamazon.com/fcf.html
      Oto jeden z artykulow tej slawetnej syjonistyczno-faszystowskiej organizacji "
      FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION". Inne, rownie 'interesujace' na tejze stronie.


      FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION'S EFFORTS
      TO SUBVERT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

      Would it surprise you to learn that the Free Congress Foundation has worked to
      redefine the Catholic Church's policies and public stands?

      According to Russ Bellant in The Coors Connection:
      "The FCF's 1988 Annual report, the Center for Catholic Policy states, 'The
      public policy influence and activity of the Catholic Church in America often
      runs counter to the interests of Catholic laity. The Center for Catholic
      Policy seeks to instruct conservative Catholic laity how to become influential
      in shaping public policy stands taken by the Church.' The FCF report says that
      a 'network of some forty national Catholic organizations, institutions and
      publications which share a generally conservative viewpoint' was formed by FCF
      in January 1988, and called the Siena Group."

      The issues on which the FCF wanted to change the Catholic Church's policy
      included what was taught in the Catholic Church's parochial schools. The FCF
      wanted the Catholic Church to become involved in "religious freedom" in
      foreign countries (and remember the FCF's support of the Contras, Pinochet and
      the RENAMO terrorists). The FCF also wanted to change the Catholic Church's
      policy on AIDS. And, in typical Weyrich style, the FCF was going to manipulate
      the Catholic Church laity to do it, too.

      It seems Paul Weyrich was quite serious when he said:

      "We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are working to
      overturn the present power structure in this country."

      __________________

      Bellant, Russ. The Coors Connection

      Diamond, Sara. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right.

      Ginsberg, Benjamin; Shefter, Martin. Politics by Other Means

    • cosmosaltana Re: Interesting Articles 29.10.03, 22:31
      The Islaming of Europe
      CNSNews.com ^ | May 20, 2002 | Alan Caruba

      The recent assassination of Pim Fortuyn, a Dutch politician, an outspoken
      opponent of immigration in general and Muslims in particular, plus the uproar
      over the initial success of the French politician, Le Pen, who shared similar
      views, points out the growing concerns many Europeans have regarding its Muslim
      population, in particular, and immigrants in general.

      It may surprise you to learn that Muslims are the second largest religious
      group in England after the Anglican and Catholic majorities. There are some two
      million Muslims in Great Britain. They are not indigenous to England, being
      largely newcomers from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India. Others come from
      Africa, Asia, and even Europe. The Muslims of England are very diverse in many
      ways, except for their faith in Islam. Increasingly, though, demands have grown
      for education of Muslim children to reflect their religion, for official
      recognition of the Islamic faith. Native-born Brits are less than thrilled with
      their growing numbers and demands.

      The vote in France for Le Pen, a candidate with extreme right-wing political
      views, was generated by a growing concern of ordinary, native-born French men
      and women regarding their Muslim population and other immigrants. Here again,
      the fact that some five million Muslims are the second largest religious group
      in France may come as a surprise; more than half of whom are French citizens.
      They are largely the result of France's colonial past, especially in the North
      African region.

      Most of the Muslim community in France are from nations called the "Maghreb",
      Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Others come from Turkey, Senegal, and Mali. Some
      are converts. Islam has a long history in France. Ironically, the spread of
      Islam into Europe was ended with their defeat at Poitiers, France, in 732. It
      would not be until 1683 when Muslims were defeated near Vienna, that further
      expansion efforts ended in Europe. Now Muslims merely immigrate to European
      nations.

      France's situation is particularly instructive. Immigration began in earnest in
      the 1950s, primarily from Maghreb nations. For decades, the religion was
      largely invisible and Muslims represented the lowest rungs of the economic and
      social ladder, but, in the 1990s second and third generation French Muslims
      underwent a re-conversion of sorts, joining the ranks of radical Islam to seek
      an identity in a society from which they felt excluded.

      This is interesting, too, because, twenty years ago, the demand for official
      recognition of Islam led to the Charter of Muslim Faith that defined how a
      French Muslim could remain faithful to both Islam and France. Today, native
      French citizens tend to regard Muslims as a danger to their society. The French
      government, however, has seen integration of Muslims into French society as a
      wiser path than some form of de facto isolation.

      Reportedly, the overwhelming majority of Europe's Muslims see their religion as
      a moderate one. There are 32.5 million Muslims throughout England, Europe, the
      Balkans, and the Caucasus. Some are in the process of redefining Islam as
      people born and bred in Europe. This could be the beginning of a much-needed
      Reformation within Islam that occurred and redefined Christianity.

      Having noted the Muslim defeat outside of Vienna, Austria in 1683, it would not
      be until 1878 before Muslims appeared in greater numbers as the result of the
      annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and other territories by the Austro-Hungarian
      Empire. Currently, Muslims are the third largest religion in Austria and
      growing. Their numbers doubled between 1981 and 1991. These Muslims are largely
      immigrants and are often political refugees. The bulk are formerly Turkish and
      citizens of the former Yugoslavia. The recent Balkan wars drove a lot of
      Muslims to choose Austria as a homeland.

      The relationship between Muslim minorities and the State of Austria has been
      formalized and regulated since 1912 by the Islam Act that officially recognized
      the religion. It led to the establishment of the Muslim Faith Union in 1979 and
      Austrians Muslims are taught their faith in public schools with teachers paid
      by the State. The rise of nationalistic political parties in Austria reflects a
      concern seen in France. Increasingly, a growing portion of native Austrians are
      suspicious and fearful of Muslims.

      In Poland, chiefly Polish-Lithuanian Tartars, a group estimated between two and
      three thousand, have lived in that nation for some 600 years. Their small
      numbers versus the overwhelmingly Catholic Poles has left them largely ignored.
      Muslims, however, in the post-Soviet Caucasus are a different situation
      entirely. Islamic fundamentalism has, for example, led Muslim Chechens to use
      terrorism and war on the Russians to seek a separate and Islamic nation. The
      Russians have responded to the Chechens in the same fashion as the US has to
      the Taliban in Afghanistan.

      Several former Russian provinces, now independent, but allied republics, have
      large, if not dominant Muslim populations. These include Azerbaijan,
      Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kryghyezstan, and Kazakhstan. Add to
      this, Albania. The recent Balkan wars were largely religious movements by
      militant Muslims and, ironically, the US sided with them and against the Serbs.
      So did the rest of Europe.

      So, now, when you say Europe, keep in mind that the nations that compose it are
      increasingly home to a growing population of Muslims. Wherever a population of
      Muslims gains in numbers, they begin to demand autonomy or a change in the
      governmental structure to reflect Islamic law.

      Other than Turkey, you cannot name a single Islamic nation that is a democracy.
      An elite military in Turkey have maintained its secular government since the
      days of Ataturk, the man who turned Turkey into a modern nation. The Islamic
      demand for something less than democracy is likely to lead to religious
      conflict in Europe. This is the danger it poses to the entire world.

      Alan Caruba is the author of "A Pocket Guide to Militant Islam",
    • and_up Re: Interesting Articles 17.11.03, 21:56
Pełna wersja