Saturday, 30 April 2011

Mohammedan Horse-shit

This brief note fills a crying need! I couldn't find a SINGLE hit on Google for "Mohammedan horse-shit", which is one of my favorite expressions, by the way,  so I felt impelled by an unearthly force to write an article on that very subject, which however is very brief, because first we must define "horse-shit"!


"The tree of liberty  must be refreshed  from time to time  with the blood of  Mohammedan fanatics."


Saturday, 23 April 2011


Reply to Chomsky

I indignantly object to Noam Chomsky’s dismissal of anti-Muslim feeling in Europe as “racist”. I’m no longer sure of the meaning of the word “racist”, because people use it with such reckless abandon, but I know that when somebody calls you “racist”, it means that he wants to cast your political views in a disreputable light.

The Europeans have no doubt been guilty of chauvinism and other misdeeds, like the Chinese, the Americans, the Arabs, the Mongols, etc.

But currently Europe is fighting for its identity under the onslaught of African and Mohammedan immigrants. The Europeans have as much right to tell intruders to buzz off as the Africans, whose heroic struggle against colonialism took the form of trying to expel unwanted European immigrants. I don't think you ever criticized the Algerian National Liberation Front for threatening to slit the throat of any Christian, Jew or other outsider who dared remain in Algeria when they seized power and imposed a brutal dictatorship in 1962.

A century ago half the population of the Middle East was Moslem and the other half, Christian, Jewish and miscellaneous. Since every year 165 thousand Christians are murdered in Moslem countries, the Christian population is in severe decline. So having murdered or expelled almost all non-Moslems from the Middle East, the Moslems are now massively flooding into Europe, where no sooner do they arrive when they start demanding imposition of Moslem rules like sexual segregation, and reverence for their peculiar superstitions, and tolerance for their slaughtering sheep on the sidewalk and belching in public.

60% of rapes in Germany are committed by Turks, who make up some 6% of the population. . The Turkish Prime Minister publicly exhorted his countrymen living in Germany not to acculturate to Europe, but instead to constitute an indigestible , alien lump.

No less an authority then Lee Kwan Yew, longtime ruler of Singapore, has flatly stated that Muslims are incapable of assimilation, unlike the other ethnic groups who inhabit Singapore, i.e. Chinese, Indians and so on.

Now the Moslems want to prance around on the Champs Elysees wearing burqas – a kind of Halloween outfit that prickles. If I walked the streets of Cairo wearing shorts, I would be lynched.

Islam is a supremacist ideology endowed with a particularly bloodthirsty view of the world. No doubt you noticed that when you visited your Hezbollah buddies in Lebanon. Their political program is to dissolve Lebanon into a huge Moslem state that would inevitably wipe out Lebanon’s remaining non-Moslems. In other words, they are Islamo-Fascists, and their so-called religion is an ideology of genocide.

Hezbollah has an international perspective. That’s why they perpetrated 2 bloodbaths in Argentina 20 years ago. They wanted to kill Jews, and Argentine Jews were perfectly acceptable victims.

Their Prophet Mohammed used to preside at mass executions. According to his faithful biographer Ibn Ishaq, Mohammed once tortured a man all night, including building a campfire on his chest – because Mohammed wanted to seize a hidden treasure that his victim was reputed to know of. At dawn Mohammed gave up in disgust and had the poor devil beheaded by one of the thugs who were constantly in attendance.

The followers of that sadistic cutthroat now converge on certain points in Paris ostensibly for Friday prayers, which involves prominent heavenward thrusting movements with their buttocks. They prevent the natives from opening their shops and sometimes even confine them in their dwellings for hours while they engage in their grotesque mumbo-jumbo.

When I lived in Europe in the 1970s I found the Moslems picturesque and simpaticos. However now that they smell imminent triumph, they seem much less congenial. Especially when I found out that in many northern European cities Pakistani taxi drivers constitute an espionage web to track down disobedient Moslem women so they can be honor-killed. And perhaps they make photographs of strategic locations, too, and pass them on to their capos. But we don't have any definite proof of this yet.

So I respectfully request that you refrain from criticizing people who are defending their homeland from a shapeless mass that is indistinguishable from barbarism. It is a mean rhetorical trick to call people of unimpeachable democratic credentials “Fascists” because they are dissatisfied with being bullied and harassed by an aggressive and ignorant alien minority.

Actually, European Fascists have a rather ambivalent attitude toward Moslems. Adolf Hitler admired Islam because it produced fearless fighting men … you know, Islamo-Fascists like your buddies in the Hezbollah. Hitler’s genocidal ambitions were inspired by the Turks, who had slaughtered millions of Armenians, Greeks and other non-Moslem minorities living in the Ottoman empire between 1895 and 1922. Nobody ever punished the Turks for their recurring bouts of genocide. Hitler thought he could get away with it too. In the second World War, many Moslem minorities in Eastern Europe formed militias to assist the Fascist barbarians in their crimes.

But I found the rest of your article quite good, on the whole. You still haven’t lost your spark.

Tuesday, 19 April 2011


1926-still breathing

Issued a fatwa condemning Muammar Ghadafi to death, but no results yet. A patron of Moslem Brotherhood, Hamas terror gang and Al Jazeera TV propaganda network.
Top dog of Egyptian Mohammedans.  Peddles the usual Islamic hate agenda, like supporting death penalty for apostates.  Issued a fatwa condemning Muammar Ghadafi to death, but no results yet. A patron of Moslem Brotherhood, Hamas terror gang and Al Jazeera TV propaganda network.

Saturday, 16 April 2011


1902 –1989
Iranian Plotter, Preacher, Killer, Tyrant.
Deceived Persian people to establish sneak theocracy


"I repeat for the last time: stop  holding meetings, arguing, publishing protests.
Otherwise I will break your teeth."

Freedom to murder

Why we hate Islam

Mohammed Atta

Interminable Compendium of Mohammedan Mumbo-Jumbo



Nickname: "The Pogrom Director"
1903 –1979
Big-shot tough-ass Porkistan politico, Islamic witch doctor and bullshit artist. Instigated pogroms against a religious minority in 1953 and sentenced to death but unfortunately pardoned. Founded Islamo-Fascist Jemaat e Islamyya


"Everything in the universe is 'Muslim' for it obeys God by submission to His laws." Tell us another. Buncha horseshit.


On Eluding the Islamafia's Fatwa

Reply to: “Let veiled Muslim women speak for themselves” by Stuart Weir, 12 April 2011, Open Democracy

That simple-minded bromide “Let veiled Muslim women speak for themselves” is such a namby-pamby, hinky-dinky, parlee-voo fantasy that it makes my flesh crawl and my guts puke volcanically.

I STRONGLY DISCOURAGE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT STUDIED THE ISLAMIC RELIGION and MUDDLE EASTERN CULTURE IN DEPTH, FROM MAKING ANY MORE ASININE PROPOSALS ON MUSLIM POLICY. On the contrary, those who do not understand the Moslem mentality should keep their mouths firmly shut at all times, because otherwise they run grave peril of extruding sizable batches of truly epic malarkey about things they don't understand and never will, so they become more a hindrance than a help (please note the implied threat of imminent bodily harm).

ONE THING MUST BE PERFECTLY CLEAR. Once the Islamafia has chosen a side in a political debate, it will consistently act to further the interests of that choice resorting to all the immense resources of utter ruthlessness and depraved indifference to life, freedom and morality that they have absorbed from Islam’s colossal, antediluvian subterranean reserves of cynicism and hypocrisy, stored up in vats and murkily fermenting through the ages.

Muslims long ago made up their collective so-called minds that they want women’s heads well covered. Accordingly women (at least Moslem such) already have their marching orders from the Islamafia. A woman who challenges the Islamafia's fatwa puts her life and tranquility at grave risk. In Paris’ peripheral bunker slums young women who traipse veilless through the streets are systematically raped by Islamist thugs, who are conscientiously doing their Allah-ordained duty to prevent ANYONE from forsaking the perimeter of the tribal funk and its attendant neolithic social controls.

A women who has been threatened with rape for not wearing the tribal costume has every incentive to allege to her Western pals that she is wearing the veil of her own free will, instead of confessing the shameful blackmail of the pimp-brain hanky-panky that passes for “honour” among yon depraved Mohammedan bipeds.

Consequently to let women decide whether to wear the veil or not, exposes them to blackmail from young Mohammedan cutthroats who lurk in their neighborhoods and can easily take clandestine action against them.

A compromise solution would be to let women decide whether to wear the veil or not, but equip those who relinquish the veil with a Colt 45 revolver and plenty of ammunition so they can defend themselves against neighborhood Islamo-Fascists.

But that concession was purely pro forma. The veil must be outlawed under harsh penalties. If you think you're doing Moslem women a favor by giving them the freedom to choose between being raped and harassed and NOT being raped and harassed, then you are profoundly mistaken. Western society must assume the full responsibility and authority to ban any items of apparel that are firmly associated with antisocial and atavistic traits like narcotics dependence, Islam, prostitution and organized crime.

Where did this mushhead get the idea that we can decide for ourselves whether the choices we face are individual choices or collective choices? The vigorous push of the Islam establishment in favour of the veil has already decided the issue whether this is an individual or a collective decision. AND IT IS A COLLECTIVE DECISION ! THE ISLAMIC CLERGY AND THEIR HANGERS-ON MADE THAT DECISION MANY YEARS AGO. CONSEQUENTLY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE IS NO LONGER AN OPTION.

Friday, 15 April 2011

Does Gaza siege breach international law?

In Alternet, Joshua Holland questions the legality of Israel’s blockade of Gaza.[1]  I pose a counterquestion: Does international law apply to Gaza at all? Gaza is not a sovereign state. If there is any sovereignty involved it is the sovereignty of Palestine. To the extent that one can speak of a Palestinian government, it is the authorities on the West Bank that exercise sovereign powers. Hamas  & Gaza do not figure anywhere on the checkerboard of international  law. Gaza as such has no rights.

But even if we grant the claim of sovereignty,  a second issue arises: Does international law even contemplate the possibility that the majority of voters would elect a government obsessed with such a combination of fanaticism, bloodthirstiness, callousness and contempt for the most elementary rules of human interaction as those displayed at every turn by Hamas? I think being ruled by such a ruthless gang of cutthroats makes Gaza a very special case.

I won't even go into the issue of what rights of retaliation may accrue to Israel as a result of  the incessant breaches of the laws of civilized warfare and of countless other international conventions committed by the Mohammedan anthropoids.

Islam is a prolific breeding ground for the cruelest despotism and the most brutal crimes.  That is indisputable. There can be no doubt that Islam is an uniquely homicidal religion, as shown by the fact that by one count eight per cent of the Koran is taken up with instructions on whom to kill (and sometimes how). Of course I grant that most other religions have been at times extremely cruel and despotic. However currently they seem to have cooled down somewhat.  The only one that's still running amok is Islam.

I find it impossible to repress the conviction that there is an intimate link in nature between Islam and Fascism. I am extremely well informed about both Fascism and Islam, because I grew up in a Fascist country and studied European Fascism in detail, and because I minored in Islamic Studies, speak Arabic and have traveled in MENA. 

Of course you know what I'm getting at: most of the bulk of international law has been enacted since 1945, under the aegis of the United Nations. The UN started out with just a handful of members: the US, Britain and Russia, plus a couple of others later on like France and China. And why did these nations unite? Because they were fighting the worldwide menace of Fascism, a deadly threat to civilization. If Fascism had prevailed, civilization would have been dealt a crushing blow. Europe’s development would have been thrown back a thousand years.

In the face of the inhuman monster of Fascism, nations of the most diverse ideologies joined forces, including ideologies every bit as bad as Fascism, by the way.  However the UN prevailed and then set about dictating the course of international law, which it is still doing. As a reaction to the hideous Fascist atrocities, international law took on a decidedly humanitarian character. The entire body of international law is suffused by the unspoken assumption that these overriding principles are binding everywhere and for all time. Consequently international law is dominated by certain principles of common decency which  in Islam are conspicuous by their absence.  There is no binding prohibition of murder in the Koran. Mohammedan religious law, the Shariah, does not count murder as a crime.

My next logical step is that we have every justification in treating Hamas the way we would treat the SS, or any particularly brutal gang of Fascist criminals. Hamas is the antithesis of international law. Hamas is what international law was created to eradicate. Any population whose majority votes for Hamas is therefore a criminal and illegitimate population, whose rights are consequently held in abeyance until …. Well, for a good long time.

All in all I find Islam so egregiously anomalous as a world view that I am not prepared to make the slightest conciliatory gesture toward it.  It is not a real religion. It is more like pressure group, a mutual aid society, a labor union, a political party, a crime syndicate, a pirate crew, an ideology of world domination. For me those things don't add up to a religion. Islam is a basically a criminal conspiracy with some mumbo-jumbo added on as an afterthought. It is a kind of Frankenstein’s monster of a religion, consisting of chunks of Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and ancient nomadic tribal customs and beliefs, all welded together higgledy-piggledy in his spare time by Mohammed, whose main job was plundering caravans and beheading infidels. .  

As a religion it is completely jerry-built and improvised, mostly consisting of horse-shit that Mohammed would dream up on the spur of the moment to suit the occasion, taking into account the current political  situation, of course,  and who his allies and  his opponents happened to be at the moment.  While making an veiled threat to retaliate for the recent rash of nomad incursions.  Clear as mud.
. It is completely opportunist and instrumental. Its basic code is not a credo but a ritual. In Islam ritual is far more important than ethics. Ethics are added on as an afterthought, and are not based on universal principles but on casuistry. For example, I looked up “prohibition of murder” in a Koran with a subject index. There were several entries. The only one I recall, because I was so horrified by it, was something like “Don’t kill and eat your children, because help is on the way." Is that a prohibition of murder or is it an emergency call from the psych ward? 

As a religion Islam is a colossal fraud. It should be dealt with through negotiation, and violence should be only a last resort. But dialogue with Islam should be conducted the same way as the police negotiate through bullhorns with hostage takers. Sure, we’ll negotiate with you. But   that gives you no particular standing or right to any consideration.

The essential element that marks Islam apart from all other world views is  the core of Islam --  its ancient tribal beliefs, rural, nomadic. In a word : Islam is, in the most ltrl  sense of the word,  uncivilized.

Islam is not a civilized religion, firstly because is uncivilized and secondly because it is not a religion. The atavistic, anthropoid character of Islam’s core disqualifies it as a religion. It barely makes it as a cult. In any case it should be banned as a menace to public order and for its seditious conspiracies. 

“Civilization” originally meant “urban areas”. And although the urban nature of civilization has receded somewhat into the background, it is as valid as ever. A nomad’s world view is by its nature  uncivilized, simply because nomads have no settled habitation, hence do not inhabit  cities. Nomads are not only non-urban, they are also pre-urban. Despite the prevalent distaste for making moral judgments on alien beliefs, I think it unfair to give Islam the same status as a civilized religion. It's like treating a 5yo child like a grownup. You know he’ll eventually switch on the gas or fall down the stairs if left to its own devices. Islam should occupy the status of a ward.

Them’s fightin’ words, I can hear you say. But I don't feel particularly belligerent toward Islam. It's just such a goddam nuisance. .   

In my opinion any body of rules and beliefs that is not civilized, i.e. based on , should not be tolerated in urban areas.

Islam is an interloper, an outlier, a foreign body, incompatible with civilization.

One of the most ludicrous things about the koran, that makes it all seem like some grotesque pantomime, a clown’s daydreams, is that the suras, or as I like to call them, the chunqs, (or chtrs) of  that remarkable tome are ordered from the longest sura to the  shortest! When I learnt that I almost peed my pants I laughed so hard.  Only a chimpanzee would think of such an idiotic way to organize a book!

Another thing that really made me wonder was when I learnt that the ancient Arabs thought the weather was caused by the stars. That piece of news really baffled me. Now, I'm not saying that Arabs are stupid or anything, but it is an undeniable fact that whoever dreamt that theory  up had the mind of a fetus.

Methodological note:

It is a peculiar fact that the most ancient of sciences deals with the  same general subject matter as one of the most recent sciences to arise. The subject matter is the sky. Astronomy is the most ancient science because the motions of the stars are regular, slow, easy to observe, predictable and depend on very few variables. 

Meteorology also deals with the  sky. It has ancient roots, but as a natural science it is barely a few decades old. Why this disparity? Ancient men started seeing the stars and feeling the weather at exactly the same time. They are equally ancient human experiences.
As noted above, astronomy quickly became a science because it was simple and accessible.

Meteorology on the other hand never became a science until very recently because the atmosphere is a system many thousands of times more complex than stellar mechanics. Man had to wait until he had developed the mathematical tools necessary to discover the rules  (if any) governing such unimaginably complex and heterogeneous systems. Just the notion of a unified theory that explains both why it sometimes snows and why it sometimes rains is too challenging for me to wrap my prefrontal cortex around. 

What this leads up to is the following: the many thousands of years’ head start that astronomy has on meteorology reflect is naturally associated with a complete lack of any correlation between meteoreological variables and astronomical variables. Just the term "astronomical variables” looks like a typo.  Astronomical variables? Which would those be? Perhaps precession of the equinoxes. Anything else? Earth’s wobble on its axis. OK, number two. Any more? Sunspots. Yeah, well uh, actually those three astronomical phenomena weren’t  analysed by astronomy until much later. As a matter of fact, until around the same time as meteorology was becoming a science . Curious coincidence.

In any case the bottom line is that to even think of the possibility of any causal link between the stars’ behavior and the clouds’ behavior, you have to be a prize horse’s ass. Let alone to actually believe that the link exists! It is of course inconceivable that any evidence could ever be produced to support such a hypothesis. In other words the Star-Storm Theory, as I call, it, was conceived not only with absolutely no evidence of even an anecdotal sort in its favor, but with an abundance of easily accessible evidence that flatly contradicted the hypothesis. The fact that any sizable group of people could entertain such notions for  an appreciable length of time is very troubling to me. It makes me despair of the future of humanity. It is the ultimate proof that
Man is born a fanatic.

Before he can be accepted as an equal partner he must be civilized

Explanatory note:  Now nomads, of course, have no monopoly on fanaticism. For all I know, nomads may be on the average less prone to fanaticism than settled populations. As a matter of fact I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that were the case. But even if fanaticism proves to be an outgrowth of civilization instead of  barbarism, fanaticism is native not to civilization as such, but to a specific stage of civilization that is now extinct. Consequently I find it historically defensible and reasonable to associate fanaticism with barbarism even if they are genetically unrelated, simply because fanaticism emerges from civilization at a time when civilization had made as yet very little progress since it had emerged from barbarism. Thus any traits shared by barbarism with fanaticism do not ensue from any genetic or  causal relationship between  these entities, but result instead from their character  of being each other’s contemporaries. 

[1] The Gaza Blockade Is Illegal and the Flotilla Attack Was an Illegal Act of War
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on June 5, 2010,

Dialogue with a Mohammedan robo-scribbler

Hali says: Everyone knows that people first came to America only for one reason: Religious Freedom.

Igor says: How true. Your profound remarks on American history incline me to suspect that you have attained the degree of expertise that can only be called (if at all) the ... uh ... "Islamic Perspective of History", a privilege reserved to only a few select connoisseurs of Deep Time. .As you so accurately point out,  the first Europeans to come to America were absolute sticklers for religious freedom: the Spaniards. Their version of the ACLU was called the Spanish Inquisition.

Hali says: Try reading about the history of the Islam and Quran,         

Igor says: That’s your worst idea yet. I already tried that and it didn't work. I attended a minor program in Islamic studies when at university and have spent inordinate amounts of time studying Islamic matters.

One of the problems with your approach is that since Mohammed was a prolific mass murderer, torturer and general hell-raiser, and was about as sensitive to others' feelings as a heavy-duty bulldozer, the more detailed the information available about Mohammed, his life and times and about Islam in general, the more people will tend to hate Islam. That’s certainly the case with me. Before I started doing Islamic studies, my feelings toward Islam were relatively benign.

The only way to teach people about Islam without promptly inciting their bloodlust is by either systematically concealing Islam’s atrocities, or justifying them and thus egging their pupils on to egregiously anti-social behavior.

Hali says: Can't Muslims have Sharia Law. .how is it exactly affecting you?

Igor says. That is such an incredibly stupid remark that I think you must be pulling my leg. Sharia law’s principal function is to discriminate, humiliate, vituperate, castrate, mutilate, and eventually annihilate all non-Muslims.

Just by indulging in my harmless habit of daily smoking a single joint of marihuana wrapped in a page of the Holy Qur'an I am running the risk of undergoing severe chastisement at the hands of the indignant faithful.

Reason numbah two is that sharia gives all Mohammedans a free pass to conquer foreign countries, as the abominable Hamas is doing in Palestine. Hamas expressly relinquished in 2005 all Palestinian territorial rights to their traditional homeland. But that does not stop them from lusting to annihilate Israel, because they have a in-group in reserve: Muslims at large. Hamas claims all Palestine not for the Palestinians, but for every single Mohammedan on this planet!

At this point Islam ceases to be merely a bad joke and becomes a permanent threat of violence, exploitation and genocide.

Hali says: So why now start picking on good Muslims because of what the radical muslims have done?    
Igor says: The distinction between good and bad Muslims sounds like a very cogent concept, but in practice it offers little guidance for practical decision-making on a day-to-day basis. Firstly, by looking at a Muslim you can-t tell right away if he belongs to the good kind or to the bad kind of Muslim.
There are additional factors that tend to muddy the picture and make such distinctions arduous and unreliable. Western ethics are of an individualistic sort, with every biped taking care of his own soul and shepherding it to salvation. But migrations are more collective than individual phenomena. You may admire the meekness and sagacity of an immigrant from Uzbekistan, say. But you have no guarantee that his children will turn out the same way. As a matter of fact it is a well known fact that first-generation Asian immigrants to Britain tended on the whole to be frugal, hard/working, modest and law abiding. But these are not racial or cultural characteristics of an ethnic population. They are the result of factors that were operational in Asia but in Britain cease to apply with the same force. Western ideas of equality are contagious.
If the grandson of a humble coolie goes to Eton, or to a three-alarm madrassah in Lahore, those humble coolie attitudes will vanish overnight.
An ethnic group has its own dynamic whereby the good ones may influence the bad once or vice versa, depending on any number of coincidental factors. I have often noted in Mohammedan societies that violent religious minorities exert a power out of all proportion to their numbers, thanks to their willingness to shed blood and break the law.
No matter how submissive a Muslim may be in private, he is on many occasions forced to accommodate to his ethno-religious traditional standards, This will inevitably tend to make him more aggressive in situations when he's under a lot of peer pressure..
Since Islam is such a remarkably bloodthirsty cult, all Muslims are conditioned from birth to accept violence as something inevitable, routine, unremarkable and even enjoyable.
Muslims as a whole are extremely well equipped with annoying, not to say alarming habits. They have at their fingertips a vast assortment of anti-social drives and vices. If it's not one thing it's another: When they aren’t mutilating budding adolescent genitalia they’re honor-killing, gossiping about other people’s sex lives, importuning Jewish passers-by, blowing things up, throwing stones, plotting mayhem, becoming welfare parasites, proclaiming ferocious over-the-top credos that allocate crucial importance to lethal violence, stoning adulterers, cursing the Pope, aggressively hogging the public thoroughfare in order to exhibit their comical religious mumbo-jumbo, and any number of additional coarse shenanigans.

Hali says: the media has put into our minds [prejudices] against certain religions, especially Islam  
Igor says: I find the US media, despite its glaring defects, like the country on the whole adopts an admirably relaxed and tolerant attitude toward outsiders. Do you really claim that hostility, if any, displayed toward Moslems is primarily an artifact stirred up by the media? I find such a statement ludicrous. Besides, in the US, hostile acts against Moslems occur much more seldom then those aimed at Jews, who are much better integrated culturally



Sad but true, the GOP is becoming increasingly totalitarian in its outlook and hankers to impose a police state in order to assure the continued strangle-hold of a tiny oligarchy over the US.

At the same time  the GOP has become sharply critical of alleged Islamic   penetration into the US.

Much as I detest the GOP, I do not favor rejecting every single assertion made by a Repugnican. On the contrary, I believe progressives should subject all claims from those worthies to rigorous scrutiny before deciding  whether they are accurate or not.

The author writes disapprovingly of “the notion that Islam “causes” terrorism.” I think the proposition “Islam causes terrorism” (or some reformulation thereof) is easily subjected to an empirical test. By reviewing the  history of Islam we should be able to discover whether Islam causes terrorism or not.

My extensive studies of Moslem history and ideology long ago persuaded me that there is considerable historical evidence suggesting that Islam is indeed a breeding-ground for terrorism, because

  • Islam is a warlike religion in which violence against infidels and dissidents is encouraged and glorified
  • Islam relishes bloodshed. For example, its founder, the Prophet Mohammed (bpuh) enjoyed presiding at mass executions and torture sessions.
  • Islam suppresses rational thought, enshrining in its place simple-minded and often incomprehensible messages relayed allegedly from a certain invisible god.
  • Islam opposes pragmatic solutions that contradict any of its many and rigid beliefs. 
  • Islamic history is rife with examples of smallish groups of believers who proceed to wage war against other Muslims on purely doctrinal grounds, sometimes of an exceedingly flimsy nature. 
  • Islam is a supremacist ideology in which the wielding of political power is deemed a central goal.   

These characteristics of Islam clearly encourage terrorism. Many of these traits are shared by Fascist movements, which tend to engage spontaneously in terrorism.

At the library

Yes, what can I do for you, young lady?

Well, my teacher told me to read something about religion.

Any particular religion?

Well, no, actually, my parents are atheist, you see. And so’m I.

Oh, well. Perhaps you would be interested in reading something about islam.

Islam? You didn't understand me! I meant  a REAL religion! What are you, crazy or something?

Reader's remark that was deleted from Alternet Oct 2010

The term "Islamophobia" suffers from an incurable defect, namely that it confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam. Thus it serves only to confuse. I find ethnic discrimination abhorrent and critique of religions delightful.

Pepe Escobar's remarks are deceptive. To cite the mendacious Nazi slogan "Arbeit macht frei" in connection with contemporary Germany's attitude toward Muslims is outrageous. Having lived in both the United States and Germany, I can state with confidence that the German police respect human and civil rights far more meticulously than do the American police. 

"Multiculturalism is dead." Who killed it? Perhaps it was the Multikultur-Haus in Augsburg or Ulm, I forget which. The Multikultur-Haus was a nest of Islamist extremists that was eventually shut down by the authorities because of their pro-terrorist shenanigans.

Escobar writes about "immigrants" in general terms. That is extremely misleading. Conflicts have arisen principally with the immigrants of an Islamic persuasion, not with Portuguese, Italians, Greeks, or Spaniards. The latter nationalities seem to have no objection to marrying native Germans. The Turks, on the contrary, tend to bring their brides from Anatolia. Consequently there is a constant injection of alien culture into Germany that is not conducive to integration of the Turkish minority.

As a matter of fact the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced in February 2008, in Cologne, Germany, that for Turks to integrate into German culture is “an offense against humanity". The Turkish government openly encourages Islamization and segregation from Western culture.

A study published in 2004 by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a think tank linked to the Social Democratic Party, concludes that Islamic organizations in Germany are not conducive to social integration, but rather act consistently as jealous guardians of Moslem identity. (Dr. Johannes Kandel, Organisierter Islam in Deutschland und gesellschaftliche Integration.)

90% of Moslems in Germany are ethnic Turks. Naturally I do not deny that Turks have on occasion been exploited and discriminated against in Germany. But to speak of any general aversion toward them is absurd. 

One final remark: under German law, religious organizations used to be unhampered by any duty to register, report their by-laws or name their leaders to the authorities. However, principally as a result of the activity of extremist groups posing as Islamic organizations, the law was changed in 2001. Now religious associations can be dissolved by the authorities if they engage in egregious hanky-panky.  

Q. Is Islam a terrorist religion? A. Depends what you mean by ”religion”.

Q. Is Islam a terrorist religion?  a. Depends what you mean by ”religion”.

Sounds unfair, right? Dumping on the pooor Mohammedans again.

Nonetheless I believe that I have found persuasive empirical evidence that points to the conclusion that

Islam is  a terrorist religion.

For many years German law provided that religious associations were not bound by the reporting and supervision restrictions that govern associations. Among other things, government possessed no power to dissolve religious associations for breaking the law, as it could chess clubs, wrestling federations, tiddly-wink societies, etc.

Right after 9-11 2001, the German parliament revoked the religious exemption from the law. Why? Because Islamists had misused unmonitored and unregistered religious groups to conduct terrorist activities. the German police needed the  power to discipline Islamist cells. Administrative disbandment of an association is generally accompanied by seizure of its assets.  So this gave the German police a weapon to brandish at Islamists.

I think this is quite persuasive evidence in support of the thesis that Islam is a terror religion.

The Principle of Specificity in Religious Toleration

The universal tolerance that protects religious diversity is predicated on the assumption that no religion is inherently evil.

Let us examine this statement for a microsecond.

“No religion is inherently evil”.

This would seem to imply that a ubiquitous social and/or natural mechanism exists that prevents evil religions from arising, or if they do arise, at least prevents them from becoming large and powerful. What on earth could such a mechanism be?

In any case I can think of no reason why any such mechanism should be presumed to operate in the real world.

Accordingly, until existence of such a principle of natural law has been persuasively substantiated, I believe we should make theoretical provision for the likelihood that certain religions may well prove to be inherently evil.

The definition of what is evil varies greatly from religion to religion. In typically ethnocentric fashion, I will take Christianity as the standard of comparison among religions. In Christianity the concept of moral evil revolves around harming living things. In certain other religions, on the other hand, evil is arbitrarily defined as whatever the boss-man labeled as evil. In certain religions no act is by its nature good or evil, but only by virtue of it being labeled as such by some sacred scribble or taboo.

Thus Christianity regards killing humans as something inherently evil. Christianity nonetheless permits killing people in certain extreme situations. Certain religions, in marked contrast, with admirable sang-froid proclaim their pragmatic view that killing people is an ethically indifferent activity, i.e. can be either good or evil, depending on who kills whom, as well as how, when and where.

An especially important distinction in certain religions in connection with killing is that between in-group and out-group. In certain markedly élitist cults, members of the in-group are favored in many situations over those of the out-group. On the whole in-groupies are given relatively free rein to bump off out-groupies, while the reverse situation, i.e. an out-groupie bumping off a in-groupie, would be extremely difficult to justify in terms of in-group theology and ethics.

In other words certain religions have a built-in protection clause for the home team. In Christianity I do not have the impression that Christians are allowed to kill others with far fewer restrictions than those that stop non-Christians from killing Christians.

Consequently there is an element in certain religions – an élitist attitude that favors the in-group over others – that I argue constitutes prima facie evidence that they are evil religions. Equality among people is a perennial ideal in all cultures. Certain religions prize equality, but redefine it, not as equality among humans, but merely equality among members of their religious in-group. Out-groupies are designated as clearly inferior in many respects.

How can such a religion form the basis for a tolerant and egalitarian society? Such favoritism reeks of injustice and oppression.

Consequently I tentatively propose the following principles for an ethical ranking of religions:

“Religions that strongly discriminate in favor of the in-group and to the detriment of out-groups are second-rate religions. They are ethically inferior to first-rate religions, which are those that make no such marked distinction.”

Furthermore religions should be encouraged to base their ethical standards on universal and broadly-defined rules, not special rule full of loopholes. Their ethical codes should be relatively consistent and be logically arranged in terms of human needs and desires, not in terms of isolated memoranda from The Boss or other arbitrary distinctions.

I propose that an independent ethical standards agency be constituted, which would then assign each religion a position on the one-dimensional scale of good and evil on the basis of the two principles outlined above.

Furthermore I propose that certain sorts of discrimination be made lawful against religions that do not meet certain minimum ethical standards. In other words the protection that the law offers a religion should vary according to the religion’s ethical rank.

I would even go so far as to propose that the Constitution classify all relevant religions into at least two categories: "VRs i.e., “violent religions” and ”NVRs”, i.e., “non-violent religions”. This distinction would be of primary importance in determining a religion’s legal status, and consequently the rights and duties of its practitioners.

Thilo Sarrazin

Racism is certainly deplorable, but two of Sarrazin’s quoted statements are plausible and seem to be confirmed by historical experience. : 

1. “Muslims immigrants don't integrate as well … not based on their ethnicity, but … [because of] their culture of Islam.”

I am fairly knowledgeable about Islam and its European diaspora, and find this a plausible statement. It's controversial, but there’s a lot of evidence for this view. Perhaps you have not noticed, but Islam is fairly elitist and accordingly tends to encourage the formation of foreign bodies encrusted in non-Moslem countries. One of the main reasons Turks don't date Germanic Germans or intermarry with them is the prudish sexual attitudes encouraged by Islam. They’re not slutty enough to be Germans. Tant pis pour eux.  

2. “… influx of immigrants from the Middle East which would overwhelm the indigenous population … [as in Kosovo]”

This view was espoused by Samuel Huntingdon in his Clash of Civilizations. He provides considerable statistical evidence and case studies to back it up. Huntingdon hypothesizes that several genocides against Moslems were a panic response by prior inhabitants faced with the threat of being outbred and outnumbered on their native soil. Of course I do not wish to justify the crimes of the Serbs against Moslems. The Serbians f__ked up big time in Kosovo and Bosnia, because they’re unsophisticated boors and they stupidly followed the classical Fascist dictator Milosevic on the road to perdition. But the claim that the Serbs were outbred in Kosovo and Bosnia seems indisputable.    

Consequently these two claims are not “wacko” statements in any sense of the term. So  they should not be dismissed out of hand, but instead discussed, followed up and investigated.

Sarrazin’s skill in financial mathematics does not give him any standing at all to make ethnically biased remarks. Math and political science require completely different skills and totally different approaches.

Ethical standards of Islam

By all accounts Usama Bin Laden is a profoundly religious man. Indeed, he was so greatly incensed by the presence of American troops on the sacred territory of the Arabian Peninsula that he undertook a religious war against the US in order to blot out such an affront. While waging this war he resided for several years in the Sudan, where he became very friendly with the local despot, one Mr Turabi, also a very religious man. An indication of their intimacy is the fact that Bin Laden would often go out riding on horseback with the president’s son. (sez Richard A Clark in his book Against all Enemies,)

At the time Mr Turabi was engaged in a war of extermination against the inhabitants of the south of his country, so that the government would have unimpeded access to the rich petroleum reserves located in that part of the country.

There is no indication that Bin Laden ever gave any thought to his host’s hapless victims. There is no record of him ever having interceded with Turabi to spare a the life of single human being in the Sudan (or anywhere else for that matter).

Bin Laden’s conduct reminds me strongly of that of the Mufti of Jerusalem, a distinguished Muslim scholar and remote relative of Yassir Arafat, who traveled to Berlin during  the  second world war and got on famously with the Nazi bigwigs, lending a hand as the latter were engaged in exterminating a large portion of Eastern Europe’s population.

There have been many cruel, egotistical and unscrupulous Christians, among them some who were profoundly devoted to their faith. However I think  that  any Christian cleric, no matter how much he agreed with Hitler’s or Turabi’s point of view, would at least try to cover his tracks by making a token appeal to spare this or that province or city or even individual. 

The fact  that  it didn't occur to the late Mufti or to Mr Bin Laden to make the slightest humanitarian appeal in order to alleviate genocide, even by a tiny amount, says volumes about the moral standards of Islam.

Indeed I would not hesitate to say that in terms of compassion for human life, Islam is on a par with Niccolò Macchiavelli — you should be merciful when mercy is convenient to advance your interests, not otherwise.

Eponymous phobia

 Phobia? What phobia?
Islamophobia is indeed a terrible scourge! However, contrary to popular belief, Islamophobia is an evil of great antiquity.  No less an authority  than the  OIC {Organization of the Islamic Conference, HQ in Jedda, Saudi Arabia] has announced that Islamophobia first raised its ugly head very shortly after the Messenger of God, Muhammad (pbuh), breathed his last in the year of Our Lord 632, if memory serves.   
Consequently Islamophobia is as old as Islam!
Islamophobia is Islam’s Doppelgänger, so to speak.
Now why on earth would such a wave of detestation arise so precociously against such a harmless religion? Let us look for historical analogies … hmm … Buddhistophobia? Nope.  Confucianismophobia? Can’t recall having  heard about it. Hinduphobia? I draw a blank. Zoroastranismophobia? Doesn’t ring a bell.
Apparently Islam is unique in that it is the only widespread religion equipped with an eponymous phobia. That is certainly remarkable.
Now let us think of some other unique characteristics of Islam:

1.         Which is the only religion all of whose able-bodied male members at one time MADE THEIR LIVING AS BANDITS?
2.         Which is the only religion whose FOUNDER PRESIDED AT MASS EXECUTIONS of hundreds of captives?
3.         Which is the only religion whose MEMBERS ARE COMMANDED TO MURDER those who criticize their religion or attempt to disown it? 
4.         Which is the only religion that has ITS OWN METHODS OF EXECUTION?
5.         Which is the only religion whose FOUNDER WAS A  professional SLAVE TRADER? 
6.         Which is the only religion that expressly proposes to SPREAD THROUGH MILITARY CONQUEST and makes provision for SLAVERY, OPPRESSION of subject peoples, and the like?
7.         Which is the only religion that HAD ITS OWN ARMY practically from the beginning?
8. Which is the only religion that expressly ENCOURAGES HATRED OF OUTSIDERS, and most of whose ETHICAL COMMANDS PROTECT ONLY THE FAITHFUL?
9. Which is the only religion whose sacred writings contain dozens, if not HUNDREDS, OF EXHORTATIONS TO MURDER certain people, and sometimes even prescribes the method of execution?

You know, just conceiving of an imaginary religion endowed with these characteristics makes me feel nauseous.

When are you blockheads going to  understand that WE HATE ISLAM BECAUSE ISLAM IS EXCEEDINGLY ODIOUS?  


If you need 1 bucket of pig urine to desecrate 20 Korans,

how much pig urine do you need to desecrate 20 million Korans?