Quote:


Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 3:49pm:



'Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy'


Off with their heads!!

Heretical scum!




"We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed..........they ['believers'] can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction."
Koran 4.64, 65


"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger [i.e. the clerics today], and make not vain your deeds!"
Koran 47:33



.



Quote:

ISLAMIC religious scholar, Sayyid Qutb



.



Quote:


....and the heretics!

Reforming Islam
Can it be done?
Tanveer Ahmed

15 April 2017

The Koran was placed on the highest possible level in my household. It was a mark of awe that the Holy Book should sit on the top of the book shelf. By the time I was a teenager, I was expected to perform a purification ritual, wudu, before reading it. Menstruating women were not allowed to touch it.

I was always encouraged to read it in Arabic, because otherwise I would not understand the true meaning of the text, or so I was told. This was also the response from clerics or mullahs if questions about uncomfortable passages encouraging the killing of unbelievers, hitting women or executing homosexuals arose. I had to understand the root words in Arabic before I could offer any opinions.

This has always been the way with all structures of authority. Control of the language and terminology is a way of maintaining power. Catholic priests did the same with Latin and the Bible. But then along came the printing press and Luther, smashing up the old hierarchies. Suddenly information spread like wildfire, books were easily printed in other languages and illiterate people had motivation to learn to read. Soon they could read the text of the Bible and decide for themselves, upending previous hierarchies.

While the Reformation is considered a problematic word in Islam, because Wahhabism and the nation of Saudi Arabia are considered the products of an equivalent purification of Islam, the reform of Islam may be driven by the internet.

British ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie says that the internet is helping to unshackle Muslim atheists, previously hiding in the midst of their respectable, pious brethren. Translation software is allowing for much easier textual understanding and investigation of so called Arabic root words. When scepticism or unbelief takes hold, unbelievers have access to an available online community of support.

‘This has brought with it courage and hope for the right to live as they choose. It’s become a global resistance movement,’ writes Namazie.

The development represents a major threat to the stability and hierarchy of Islamic countries. The Saudis are taking it very seriously with authorities equating atheism with terrorism in new laws. In Egypt, the highest Sunni authority has joined forces with the youth ministry to combat rising expressions of atheism. Apostasy is punishable by death in at least thirteen Islamic countries with many more carrying offences like flogging and imprisonment.

Nor are such attitudes limited to beyond our shores. As recent footage of a Hizb ut-Tahrir meeting in Sydney illustrates, there is no shortage of locally based Muslims who agree that apostates must be killed in Islam. Their escape clause is that this should occur only in an ideal Islamic state, which Australia thankfully falls short of.

Such legalistic technicalities were not necessary for my Uber driver namesake who travelled hundreds of kilometres from Northern England to kill an Ahmadi shopkeeper, Asad Shah, residing in Glasgow. That Tanveer Ahmed is now a hero in his native Pakistan for upholding Islamic values by killing heretics. A rally of support for his actions was held earlier this year.

That such tensions are simmering within Muslim communities is a measure of the genuine desire of many to implement needed reform. But the vast bulk of support from Western governments and media outlets are aimed at aiding so called moderate, religious Muslims; most of whom fall into the apologist category. Supporting atheists from Islam is politically incorrect, because authorities and respectable pundits do not want to be accused of encouraging Muslims to leave the religion. Furthermore, as we’ve just seen with the cancellation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s trip, even reasonably held atheist views from Islam are seen as threatening, insensitive and demeaning to religious Muslims. This is one of the biggest barriers to the reform of Islam, that Muslim identity is so tightly wrapped up in the expression of self. We may see hijabs and beards as external markers but they are fashion accessories to an inner outfit of historical injustice, moral superiority and a barely disguised middle finger to Anglo-Saxon, mainstream Australia.

For decades Muslims have protested that any legitimate criticism of Israel is deflected by Jews with accusations of anti-semitism. But now Muslims have jumped on the bandwagon themselves with the term Islamophobia used as a defence against the scrutiny of the set of ideas that is Islam.

The result is often an unsophisticated debate veering from proclamations that Islam is a falsely maligned religion of peace to more antagonistic voices demanding bans on Muslim immigration. By aggressively crowding out the most informed Islamic reformers, like Hirsi Ali or British thinker Maajid Nawaz, defensive Muslims are rewarded with the likes of Wilders, Trump or Hanson.

when I read stuff like this   I am glad I am NOT religious...

if you kill in the name of GOD...all I ask is

what kind of GOD is that?>..

The Muslims are suffering their own Inquisition just

as Christians did under the Roman Catholics.


THE TRUE FACE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INQUISITION --
ROTTEN SPIRITUAL FRUIT FROM THE ABYSS OF HELL

Since history books have been largely rewritten,
few people know specific details of this murderous campaign that lasted over 1,200 years,
killing 75 million people.
But, once you understand the unprecedented horrors of the Inquisition,
you will never look at Roman Catholicism the same way again.



http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:


Yep.

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.





Allah loves a bit of blood letting.


Quote:
- UK ISLAMIC community leader 'in-house' advice to his flock.




Google;
dispatches undercover mosque, channel 4, -Return



.



Quote:




------------- >


  -------- >   goto 43 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E






.



Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504079978/14#14
Quote:




.



IMAGE.....




.....n.b.        the dropkick who did this, considers himself to be a virtuous person.


Killing the disbeliever [to the moslem], is performing 'good works' for his faith.

Killing the disbeliever, is what all of the religious precepts of ISLAM direct him to do.




.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 10:20pm:



Yep, kill disbelievers, wherever you find them.

In ISLAM, disbelief is a capital crime.

In places that enforce ISLAMIC law, it is completely lawful to execute,
1/ disbelievers
2/ apostates,
3/ blasphemers,
4/ any person who is deemed to have 'insulted' ISLAM.


e.g.
brian,

Do you remember the Mohammed Teddy Bear incident, in the Sudan, a few years ago ?

Where an English woman was working as a school teacher in the Sudan.

And she suggested to her pupils, the name 'Mohammed' for a toy Teddy Bear that she had, in the classroom.

This English woman was arrested, and local moslems held street protests calling for her to be beheaded, for insulting the Messenger of Allah.

Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:



It would be Islamophobic for Julie Bishop or any non muslim to whinge about Islamic blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

Where are the muslims having a whinge about blasphemy laws where sharia law prevails or would it be blasphemy for muslims to whinge about their blasphemy laws?

What happened to Salman Taseer when he opposed blasphemy laws?
Quote:


The Pakistani ISI created the Taliban, the even gave Bin Laden a safe place to stay so the USA had trouble finding him
Quote:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:


They're good enough for Mr Trump, Barron. Pakistanis are perfectly free to visit Amerika.

As for those cunning swarthy Yemenis -

Ban them - until we can work out what the hell is going on.

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:


Do you?

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:


I see. Should we tell little white lies to promote our imperialist agenda as well?

Nothing much, of course. Nothing that can be traced back to us, anyway. Something harmless. Good, clean fun.

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 10:22pm:


Would you like me to ask you again?

What's the matter, FD? Cat got your tongue?

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:


No FD.

The international community calls out human rights abuses around the world all the time. This is not cultural imperialism by the way, its standing up for human rights. t doesn't do this in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for reasons we are all aware of. We can't directly stop a nation from abusing its people, but we can criticise it. And thats what we should be doing.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 8:06am:


Sure we can stop them. We have been interfering in the Muslim world for centuries to make them stop. It has worked fairly well for slavery. Now we are giving them the gift of democracy.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 8:16am:


Can't hang a jellyfish. It's hard just to kill em with your shoe. And how do you know when you've killed em?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 2:54pm:


Don't look no niggra in the eye, boy, that's bad luck. You can look at a jellyfish, but he don't look back. Watch:

FD, would you care to answer a question?

Mattyfisk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 3:06pm:



Hey - it's Saturday - we has got ourselves a hangin.

God's work you know.

Mattyfisk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 4:05pm:



Damn right and tonight there's gunna be a special hangin -

for them blasphemers -  yee haa

Mattyfisk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 4:55pm:



But we ain't seen none of them types for a while now.

I wonder why?

Frank wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 3:43pm:


It's politically incorrect for our politicians to call it out when Muslims do this sort of thing. They would be branded Islamophobes and accused by the apologists of spreading hate. Remember, Brian says he has no right or ability to criticise other nations or religions.

Frank wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 3:43pm:


Frank,

Only the Saudis represent true moslems.       

The 'moslems' in Yemen are rebels [AND, Shia!!!!].

Therefore, they are deemed to be infidels.

Therefore, it is 100% righteous, for teh true moslems, to slaughter every last one of those infidels.






Whenever and wherever a moslem is involved in a conflict,
a moslem only ever kills those who are deserving of death.

i.e.
The infidel.


------- >


SYRIA: An example of moslems slaughtering moslems...
...and an example of moslems justifying this slaughter, as a moslem war against infidels.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333935983/0#0

Frank wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 12:05pm:


Do you uphold the use of lies, dear boy?

I'm a little curious about you too, you know.

Frank wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 3:43pm:


No Frank, not sure where you got that idea. The Saudis are trying to destroy what they see as the threat of an Iranian proxy (Huthis) in Yemen. With material and (at least until very recently) direct logistical support from the US.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 12:50pm:


Oh, of course. Freeeeedom, innit.

But I'm curious. Why haven't we invaded all those African countries who use child soldiers? Why haven't we freed the children and provided them with refuge?

Sorry, I remember now. They're tinted.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 1:59pm:


It wasn't one way traffic FD:

Quote:


http://www.hum.leiden.edu/history/slavery-studies/news/muslim-slaves.html

I wonder if FD understands the irony of citing a supposed war against slavery - prosecuted by a nation that at the time had a thriving slave industry, led by a slave-owning president

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 12:53pm:

Shia dogs, then.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 7:11pm:


Yes it is an 'et tu' argument - but not the way you think.

Your kindergarten logic that the west made war on the muslim world to stop slavery is flawed on two counts: 1. this supposedly anti-slave west was itself enjoying a thriving slave industry of its own at the time of the war you cite and 2. if the war was in response to the muslims taking western slaves, there is no reason why the same logic can't apply in reverse - ie why not say the muslims were waging war against the west to stop the enslavement of muslims? Its obviously a dumb argument to make, but no more so than yours.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 8:41am:


You've done it now, G. FD's going to put you in Spineless Apologetics for saying the Muslims invaded us in the name of Freeeeedom.

Gandalf said...

muslims are exactly where you'd expect them to be, after 1400 years of islam.

How can anything be other than what it is, as muslims are totally subservient to the ravings of a deformed psychopath muhammad.

He created islam by giving his moon god allah a refashion.

Under muhammads' lunacy, the ancient moon god allah became a monotheistic god of hatred, muhammad taught that killing was compulsory, non-muslims and muslims who are considered to be hypocrites and corrupters are to be slaughtered by the higher grade of muslims.

These muslim assassins are to be given hour'is and little boys as a reward for their foul atrocities committed against mankind.

This is exactly what is happening today 1400 years later.

The irony is that many muslims who are the legitimate target of the killer muslims, are so deluded and brain washed they actually lie to try and excuse the very cause of all islamic terror problems (islamic doctrine).

The blood will always flow until truth prevails and someone (muslims and apologists), decide to question the perversion in the qur'an.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 2:55pm:


Well yes, but we did try. Every little bit helps, you know.

If the Muselman won't accept our help, what to do?

We installed marvellous despots to take care of them, and this is the thanks we get. Well I'm sorry, Muslims, but you could learn to show a little more gratitude and respect.

Typical.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:


Are we?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 8:45am:


True, G, but we did all that to bring them Freeeeeedom.

We went in to free the slaves, stop the cannibals and stand up for women's rights.

That's FD's case, and we're sticking to it.

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:


Is that what you think G's saying?

But I'm curious. Do you actually agree with the spin that we are hanging round to set up democracy?

Quote:


Civilized muslim society?

At the back of the cave with all the unicorns.

Quote:


It doesn't say taking of slaves because the Americans were paying tribute as an alternative to becoming victims of Islamic slavery. Now, see if you can join the dots. Would you say that the paying of tribute was connected to the issue of slavery?

Quote:


This is what you said:

Quote:


Why did you ask such a stupid question Gandalf?

Quote:


Did you quote it in this thread? Or some unrelated thread six months ago?

Quote:


Yes. And while you are at it, how about you offer a bit more detail than waving your arms in the air and blurting rubbish about millions of people? Where did you get this claim from? Are you just parroting what your imam told you? Why are you so afraid to reveal your sources?

Quote:


My bad. I misread. So you don't think we are trying to establish democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan? If these countries did end up with functioning democracies, would you say it happened despite western interference, rather than because of it? Would you say the same thing about slavery - that all the western intervention to end slavery was actually doing the opposite, but the Muslim world just happened to stop slavery at the same time?

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:28pm:


I did think you were being awfully generous to FD by speaking to him like a grown-up, G.

Next time you think of doing that, remember this post.

Black slaves in islam?

a selection from this site tells us

In the over 13 centuries of the Arab slave trade in Africa unknown number of Africans were enslaved and shipped to the Middle East. It is claimed that a vast majority of the male black slaves, estimated at around 80%, were castrated.

The Caliphate in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7,000 black eunuchs and 4,000 white eunuchs in his palace. The Arab slave trade typically dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves. Black boys at the age of eight to twelve had their scrotum and penis completely amputated. Around 9 out of 10 bled to death during the procedure, but
the high price brought by eunuchs on the market made the practice profitable.

while parts of this site say

Black Slavery in the Middle East
It was more widespread and brutal than the American counterpart

The United States abolished the importation of slaves in 1808. Before that, 361,000 African slaves had been imported into English-speaking North America. [1] Through natural increase, their number in the United States rose to 1.75 million in 1825 and 4.5 million in 1861. By contrast, from the time of the Arab conquest of the Middle East in the seventh century, approximately 14 million black slaves were imported into the area that extends from Morocco through Iran.

&

Consequently, of the 3,000 female slaves emancipated in Zanzibar in 1860, only five percent had ever had a child. [5] Many of the children born to slave women were murdered. In 1856, the Anti-Slave Reporter observed that in Constantinople, the murder of the babies of black slave women was practiced “as a matter of course and without the least remorse.” As a result, in Constantinople, “it was commonplace for Turkish gentlemen to have numerous [black] concubines, [but] it was rare to see a mulatto.” [6]

then this one says in part


Another extremely cruel, dehumanizing and degrading aspect of Islamic slavery was the large-scale castration of male captives

&

it becomes evident that the overwhelming majority of the black slaves of the Islamic world were castrated;

&

The third reason for the high demand for eunuchs was homosexual infatuation of many Muslim rulers, generals and nobles. Eunuchs, kept for carnal indulgence, also called ghilman, used to be handsome young boys. They used to wear ‘rich and attractive uniforms and often beautified and perfumed their bodies in effeminate fashion.’ The concept
of ghilman comes from the following verses of the Quran, which describes heavenly male attendants (ghilman) in paradise:'
*‘Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, young male servants (handsome) as Pearls well guarded.’ [Quran 52:24]
*‘There wait on them immortal youths, with bowls and ewers and a cup from a pure spring.’ [Quran 56:17–18]
*'Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls. Quran 76:19
====================================================================


How stupid are black men today who bow down to islam?

moses wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 5:05pm:


Probably almost as stupid as someone who falls for your blatantly dishonest spin of comparing apples to oranges - by comparing only the smallest arena of the Atlantic slave trade (English speaking North America) with the entire Islamic slave trade

gandalf wrote Reply #79 - Yesterday at 6:46pm & Reply #80 - Yesterday at 6:51pm

Quote:


My perspective has not changed one iota gandi.

I, as most normal people do, have an inbuilt aversion to slavery, I know it is wrong.

Where does my antipathy come from?

I am fortunate enough to have been born in an era and civilization, where slavery is an abomination.

However I know slavery was widely accepted in most societies from the dawn of time.

When the campaign to abolish slavery began, somewhere around about 250 years ago, my perception is that it was white people from Europe (Britain / France etc.) and America, who were at the very forefront of the movement to abolish slavery.

It most certainly was not any muslims who were agitating for the end of slavery 250 years ago.

Also the practice of "complete" castrates, which means their penis and testicles were cut off (eunuchs), is one of the most depraved and putrid evils of the slave trade,

Who relished in this evil deed gandi?

muslims loved it.

At least the American and European wanted entire slaves as this meant they could breed more slaves and not have to buy them.

So for my part I think muslims should hang their head in shame when it comes to the subject of slavery.

muslims were slave traders from day one of islam, they murdered babies who were born of their black concubines, they slaughtered untold millions of black males who did not survive the "complete castration" (eunuchs) process.

muslims are a sick people with their bacha bazi” and ghilman, a perverted qur'an which promises these little boys in allahs' brothel in the sky.

When it comes to slavery and depraved behaviour towards their fellow man gandi, muslims are at the very bottom of the heap.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 7:24pm:


No. Creating an "actual democracy" wouldn't involve allowing Karzai to rig elections, or vetting candidates before they were allowed to stand.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 7:24pm:


You are really answering your own question regarding why the US wouldn't establish an "actual democracy" in Afghanistan or Iraq. It goes back to my  point about common sense. If the west is going to oppose and actively undermine a group like Hamas in the event that they are democratically elected - and let me be clear, they may well be justified in doing so - why on earth would they facilitate their election in the first place? Thus the US would never countenance the possibility that belligerent candidates such as the Taliban could some day be freely and fairly elected to power in Afghanistan. So they take steps to ensure that is never a possibility in the first place. That is why they vet candidates before election and dictate who can and cannot stand for election. You're not seriously saying an "actual democracy" involves voting only for candidates that have been pre-approved by a foreign occupying power are you?

Quote:


I didn't ask you to quote it. I asked where you got it from. Can you tell the difference? Do you often quote sources and pretend you wrote it yourself?

Quote:


In what percentage of new world deaths would you say the disease was deliberately spread?

Are you also holding Europeans accountable for the cases that were not deliberate?

Quote:


No Gandalf. I am asking you to stop being a slippery Muslim and back up what you actually said:

Quote:


Quote:


Which of these are you trying to pass someone else's writing off as your own? Where did you get these claims from?

Quote:


So it is only a real democracy if people can only get elected if we allow them to, but it is also not a democracy if we vet the candidates? Are you trying to define democracy out of existence?

Quote:


Because supporting democracy is not the same thing as giving elected leaders free reign on the global stage. Your point is completely irrelevant. Whether Hamas gets elected democratically has nothing at all to do with whether they get on with other governments. Democracy merely allows the population to correct the problem internally. It does not force them to, as the case of Hamas shows.

Quote:


This is not possible Gandalf. You cannot control eternity. Democracy provides the mechanism for the majority to seize power and wield it how they will. It is inevitable that this will happen, no matter how many constraints it starts off with. The people will either lose democracy completely, or take charge of it. The middle ground that you suggest is our real agenda is inherently unstable.

Your suggestion flies in the face of common sense. If we did not want the Iraqi and Afghan people to control their own countries, then setting up democracy would be the last thing we would do, even if we only got them 80% of the way there.

Quote:


No. Nor does it involve occupying the country. Nor does it involve killing leaders, like we did with Saddam. Are you seriously suggesting we plan on doing any of these things indefinitely? Does that pass your common sense test?

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:


And constrained they most definitely are at the moment - by the US and her allies, who
will not allow an "actual democracy" while ever they have the power to control Afghanistan. You're not disputing this basic point - despite your protestations that the US is somehow "trying" to establish democracy. Really, the only argument you can make here is that Afghan democracy will "inevitably" take flight, but only after the US either relinquishes control, or is forced out of Afghanistan politics. Even if you retreat to a "democracy was only possible because of US action" argument - its very different from the one you are attempting here - that the US is trying to create an "actual democracy". That is not their aim IMO - their aim is to eliminate the threat of terrorism. And no, I don't accept that (at least in the minds of US policy makers), creating a true democracy is the best remedy for that. The history of US active suppression of true democratic movements in regions of strategic interest suggests the exact opposite.


freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:


Indeed it is - but just because a particular policy direction is clearly bad and short-sighted and makes things "inherently unstable", doesn't mean US leaders won't pursue it anyway. And its evident that the US in recent years have quite a flare for "inherently unstable" when it comes to their ventures in the middle east - wouldn't you agree?

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:


Your own personal theory on whats the best system to create stable and safe governments for western interests is entirely irrelevant to what western leaders think and do. As it turns out, there are plenty of examples in history (Iran, Chile, Nicuragua) where the US has done the exact opposite of what you suggest here. Instead they decided in their wisdom, to create despots who tirelessly suppressed democratic movements.

Quote:


Stop being a slippery Muslim Gandalf. I told you which bits I wanted you sources for. You did not supply a link.

Quote:


It is not evidence if you just make it up Gandalf.

Quote:


Gandalf, this is what your quote said:

Systematic research on the demography and treatment of Muslim slaves in early modern Europe still remains to be done.

How do you get from that to these two claims:

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


That's how the flu spreads, is it? by rape and pillage?

Quote:


You source claims to extrapolate to this number for all of Europe and for the entire early modern period.

Quote:


Sure. Let's start with the total, which for some reason you are reluctant to give.

Quote:


So I ask again Gandalf, are you seriously suggesting we plan on doing any of these things indefinitely? Does that pass your common sense test? Are you really arguing that the need for military intervention to establish democracy mean we are not actually establishing democracy because of the military intervention?

Quote:


Yes I am. I am saying it is inevitable, and the US and allies do what they do knowing this. You cannot give people a say in how they are governed at the same time as expecting to maintain control of the situation.

Quote:


Duh. The US will leave when they leave. They will either leave voluntarily or will be forced out. Great insight there Gandalf. Do you have a point, or are you just desperate to dismiss the bleeding obvious - that the west is dragging the Muslim world by the nose into the 19th century - as some kind of sinister conspiracy?

Quote:


You miss the point Gandalf. I am not criticising it for 'creating instability'. I am saying that what you pretend is our true agenda is a condition that cannot go on existing. It will either transition to functioning democracy or revert back to dictatorship. You mistake a transition to fully functional democracy as implying violent instability.

Quote:


What is this theory of mine Gandalf?

Shall we take it to the Islam board cods?