Archive for the ‘US policy’ Category

Islam and Islamofascism

November 9, 2007

Islam and Islamofascism Larry Houle – 11/8/2007The term Islamo – Fascism gives tremendous creditability to Islam. It perpetuates the myth that Islam is a wonderful religion of peace and love that has been hi – jacked and perverted by a few bad apples of evil Islamo – Facsists, Islamic militants, jihadists, Wahhabism, radical Islam, Islamists. There has been no hijacking. There has been no perversion. These demented souls are following exactly the teachings of the Koran and in the footsteps of the Prophet – Muhammad.The reality is that Osama bin Laden is a true Muslim – a holy man of the book who is following exactly the teachings of Islam as recorded in the Koran.

By not exposing the true nature of Islam, those who use the term Islamo – Fascism etc are elevating Islam to an equal footing with Christianity and other world religions.


Islam is a barbaric, sexist, violent ideology (not a religion) that worships a pagan god (Allah) and women are oppressed under Islam.


How could any person be ‘proud’ to follow a man who was a pedophile, endorser of clitoridectomy, slave trader, rapist, polygamist, punched his child bride and endorsed whipping/beating women and ploughing them like fields, stoned women to death, flogged his slave women for fornication while he had sex with slaves himself, propositioned women and passed them round to friends, denied women equal inheritance, or equality under the law etc forever and abused and denigrated them in every way–not to mention his general sadism to others, mass murder, beheading captives, massacres, terror, torture, owning slaves and raping them, looting and pillaging, amputations, flogging, thievery, lying, hate, megalomania— unending horror.

All Muslims believe the Koran is the Eternal divine word of God – the Eternal laws of God. All Muslims believe that God authored the Koran and a copy of the Koran is in heaven. The Koran remains for all Muslims, not just “fundamentalists,” the uncreated word of God Himself. It is valid for all times and places forever; its ideas are absolutely true and beyond all criticism. To question it is to question the very word of God, and hence blasphemous. A Muslim’s duty is to believe it and obey its divine commands without question.

Following are some of the close to 1000 Islamo – Fascist teachings of the Koran that are not sins against God, are not crimes against God but are THE LAWS OF GOD.


4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

“All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. You can’t have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like).” 4:24

If some one kills your freeman, you must kill one of their free men, if some one kills your slave, you must kill one of their slaves, if some one kills your woman you must kill one of their women.

2.178 O true believers, the law of retaliation is ordained you for the slain: The free [shall die] for the free, and the slave for a slave, and a woman for a woman.

23.1-6: Successful indeed are the believers, Who are humble in their prayers, And who keep aloof from what is vain, And who are givers of poor-rate, And who guard their private parts, Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable.


Quran-8:41— “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.

Quran-33:27- “And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.” [Merciful Allah asked Prophet Muhammad to confiscate entire properties of the surrendered Jews]


However if the victims surrendered without any fight, all the booty belonged to Muhammad.

59.6 Allah gave all the booty (Fai’) to His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) if the unbelievers surrendered without fight.


9:50 When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS (unbelievers) WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them

9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, feel themselves subdued.”

5:36 The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

Quran-8:17—It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s…..” (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah)

Quran-8:67—“It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until He thoroughly subdued the land….” (Allah insisting Prophet to kill all the prisoners, and should not keep any surrendered prisoners alive until He (Prophet) occupied entire Arabia .”

Quran-33:26- “And He brought those of the People of the Book [Jewish people of Banu Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew (beheaded) and some you took prisoners (captive)”


4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? God hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom God hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom God hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them;


Koran sura 5.6 (repeated in sura 4.43 –re removing pollution before praying) And if ye are sick on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet or ye have contact with women and ye find not water, then go to clean high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it

“When it’s time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can’t find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6

Qur’an 4:43 “Believers, approach not prayers if you are polluted (had sex, farted, attended call of nature or touched a woman).

2:223 Likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will;”

65.4 You can marry (and divorce) little girls who have not yet reached menstruation age.

65.4 For those who have no courses (premenstrual underage girls i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months.


4:11 God (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females

4:176 They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: God directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. … if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female.

4:14 Women have very little intelligence—their own testimony is inadmissible in rape cases; in other matters their testimony is half to that of a man


Men can marry up to four women if they treat them equally; unlimited forcible concubines permitted

In Islam, not only are men allowed to practice polygamy, but they may also capture women in war and use them as sex slaves. This is considered morally legitimate according to the Quran. In other words, non-Muslim women have no right to be free from the horror of slavery and serial rape by Muslim military men.

4:3 Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

Muhammad can go beyond the four-wife restriction, can treat his own wives and sex slaves unequally

33:50-52 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large);


An evil Paradise of big breasted, big eyed Hurs to be sexually molested for all eternity as a reward for those who slay and are slain in the service of God.

9:111 “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden ( Paradise ) will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain”

“As for the righteous (Muslims)…We (Allah) shall wed them to beautiful virgins with lustrous eyes” – Q 44:51-54


“Lewd” women should be punished with life imprisonment

4:15 If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way.

It is unclear what “lewdness” actually means. This verse is so open-ended, almost any woman could potentially be accused of lewdness and sentenced to a life of house arrest, except ultraconservative women who never do anything to offend strict Muslim men.

Stealing should be punished by amputation of hands

5:41 As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from God, for their crime: and God is Exalted in power.

When a person has no hands, they probably cannot earn a living anymore, so they will end up as a beggar on the street. That doesn’t seem very beneficial to society. Also, before medical sanitation and anesthesia, amputation of the hands was in many cases the equivalent of a death sentence.

Adultery and fornication must be punished by flogging with a hundred stripes.

24:2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

This verse leaves no other option for Muslims who believe in the divine origin of the Quran. It specifically says they must not have mercy on people who have committed adultery or fornication, and that this brutal punishment of 100 lashes is “prescribed by God.” However, since other verses in the Quran specifically allow men to have sex slaves, the horrible crime of serial rape against a non- Muslim is allowed.


Does anyone truly believe that God would have as His Prophet for His one and only true religion a criminal – Muhammad and teachings of slavery, rape, murder etc. Is this a rational, reasonable human thought that God would be a criminal involved in these evil criminal acts.

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to require His believers to murder unbelievers after giving them a warning to convert or pay a submission tax. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion who slay and are slain in His service to ascend to an evil Paradise of big breasted, big eyed virgins (Hurs) that they can sexually molest with eternal hard ons for all eternity in the presence of God who teaches you how to engage in orgies, group sex. Virgins that re-generate as virgins after each sex act. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable? How can you be normal and believe that by fulfilling Kornic teaching 9:111 (quoting again) – “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain” you will go to this demented sexual whorehouse of God and not directly to hell and damnation.

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion with such an evil sexually depraved Paradise . Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational, reasonable human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to enslave the unbelievers, breed and sell them. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His male followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to rape unbelievers and gang rape them. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to marry up to 4 women and His
Prophet to marry as many women as he desired and own and rape his slaves. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion were women are evil, vile creatures – ½ human beings. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to require His believers to share the booty gained from the looted property of the unbelievers and from the sale of slaves with God Himself. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to amputate hands or flog to death (100 lashes is death) for robbery or adultery.

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to murder freemen, slaves and women in retaliation for someone killing one of their freemen, slaves, and women.

We can go on and on.


Islam was the invention and creation of Muhammad. There was no Allah. The Koran is the teachings of Muhammad and not any God. By not exposing the truth of Islam, and trying to be politically correct and not be labeled as a racist or Islamaphobic , these people utilizing these terms are doing us all a grave disservice. By perpetrating the myth of a hijacking and perversion of the teachings of Islam, they are granting Islam – legitimacy.

Islam is totally and completely bogus – a sham and a fraud.

Technorati – ]

Washington’s Double Vision: al-Qaida, Iran and Global Islamo-fascism

October 17, 2007

Washington’s Double Vision: al-Qaida, Iran and Global Islamo-fascism

Paul Rogers


The United States needs to keep the focus on al-Qaida while targeting Iran. It isn’t easy.

First, the four coordinated truck-bombings of 14 August 2007 which targeted the Yezidi religious minority in northern Iraq inflicted the largest death-toll of any single incident – more than 400 – since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Second, the US’s indication that it intends to designate Iran’s 150,000-strong Sepah-e-Pasdaran-e-Enghlab-e-Islami (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or Pasdaran) as a “foreign terrorist organisation” entails more than an escalation of rhetoric: it has serious practical implications for the relationship between Washington and Tehran, and adds a further element to an already polarised atmosphere where the possibility of military action against Iran cannot be ruled out (see Helene Cooper, “U.S. Weighing Terrorist Label for Iran Guards”, New York Times, 14 August 2007).

Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps

Iraq’s storm

The devastating human cost of the assault on the Yezidis in Nineveh province has rightly been the main focus of attention in its immediate aftermath. On a political level, its motivation may not be so straightforward as pure sectarian hostility towards a supposedly heretical sect. Rather, it almost certainly forms part of a wider political agenda to limit Kurdish control of some of the key oilfields of northern Iraq. The Mosul district in particular is central to this objective (see Patrick Cockburn, “Desperate search for survivors among Yazidi homes destroyed by bombers”, Independent, 16 August 2007)

Search for survivors following the Ninevah truck bombing

This presents a problem for US forces, whose intensive concentration on the “surge” strategy in Baghdad and other selected areas means that are no longer present in large numbers in Mosul; this makes it easier for formerly Baghdad-based insurgents to regroup and operate elsewhere. But if the vulnerability of communities such as the Yezidi to insurgent attack in such circumstances is thereby exposed, it would be wrong to conclude by default that the surge in Baghdad itself is working.

The reality is that even in the greater Baghdad area the insurgency continues. The day of the Yezidi attacks, 14 August, was marked by lesser-reported incidents in the capital or its vicinity: the destruction of a major bridge on the Baghdad-Mosul road, the loss of a US helicopter (with five service personnel killed), and – an extraordinary incident – the kidnap of several oil-ministry staff (including a deputy minister) by around fifty uniformed gunmen in seventeen ostensibly official vehicles.

How does the George W Bush administration respond to this pattern of events? Both it and American military leaders have been quick to blame the al-Qaida movement (in the form of its putative Iraqi affiliate) for the Yezidi attacks at least; and the president and his chief allies maintain an unbending view of the Iraq insurgency in general as an almost entirely al-Qaida operation.

Washington’s narrative of the core role of al-Qaida in Iraq may retain considerable have domestic value in its ideological presentation of the Iraq war as part of the wider response to 9/11. The problem is that it then comes into tension with the fact that the main current challenge to United States forces in Iraq comes from Shi‘a militias, whom Washington sees as sponsored or supported by Tehran. Indeed, some US military sources see the militias as presenting the most severe long-term threat (see “Iraq’s high summer”, 9 August 2007); for example, General Raymond Odierno has said that in July 2007, no less than 73% of all attacks in Iraq were launched by Shi’a militias rather than the al-Qaida movement or Sunni nationalist insurgents.

Sh’ia militia

Indeed, a big part of the military surge has actually been the attempt to curb the power of these militias (see Gareth Porter, “US ‘surges’, soldiers die, Blame Iran”, Asia Times, 16 August 2007). The Bush administration’s determination to highlight the al-Qaida connection partly explains why this aspect of US strategy has not been widely reported. At the same time, the need to sustain the momentum of antagonism towards Iran means that the Shi‘a militias are a useful card to deploy in a verbal barrage that is notably increasing.

Iran’s windfall

There’s no escaping Iran. What is particularly problematic for Washington is an unforeseen geopolitical effect of its war in Iraq: that Iran, the most significant remaining member of the original “axis of evil” has seen regimes to its east and west (the Taliban’s Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq) terminated – yet Tehran has been able but to relate more closely with the successor regimes in both states, even though these are supposedly pro-American.

This readiness to make friends with the United States’s allies in no way modifies the Bush administration’s view that Iran remains its main state enemy, one moreover that is tainted by endorsement of and participation in “terrorist” activity.

This is a viewpoint that has been expressed at official level on many occasions before the “naming” of the Revolutionary Guards; to take but one example, a press release of 5 September 2006 entitled “In Their Own Words: What the Terrorists Believe, What They Hope to Accomplish, and How They Intend to Accomplish It” cites the main al-Qaida leaders, but (as Nick Ritchie has pointed out) also refers four times to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under a sub-heading that reads, “The Terrorists On Their Absolute Hostility Towards America”.

In this light, the signalled branding of the entire Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organisation is both a continuation and an extension of existing charges against Tehran and its leading state organisations, in particular that the guards have directly aided insurgents in Iraq through the provision of training and weapons.

Again, the move may not be all it seems. The US decision may in part be motivated by an effort to “bounce” both the US’s allies and the United Nations Security Council into agreeing tougher sanctions against Iran. Moreover, it comes at a time of real concern in Washington at the manner in which Iran is seeking to capitalise on its geopolitical windfall by soliciting its neighbours.

The three-day visit to Tehran by Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki in August 2007 (his second in a year) is awkward for the US government; not least, it contributes to the political chaos in Baghdad by alienating further the leading Sunni political representatives who have resigned from the government (a situation which the Shi’a-Kurdish deal announced by Iraq’s president, Jalal Talabani, on 16 August is unlikely to reverse).

Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki (left) greeted by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his first visit to Tehran

On the other side of its border, President Hamid Karzai has – even before the visit to Kabul of his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on 14 August – spoken favourably of the cooperation between the two countries, of Iran’s substantial reconstruction aid which benefited Afghanistan’s western provinces, and of Iran’s (albeit increasingly reluctant) hosting of huge numbers of long-term refugees from Afghanistan’s wars.

Putting reality together

How does the Bush administration manage to make an intellectually coherent case for a need to keep both al-Qaida and Iran in its sights? Some of the more radical elements of the neo-conservative fringe in Washington ingeniously make the case the Tehran regime and al-Qaida are two sides of the same threat; but this is hard to argue for at a level deeper than ideological convenience.

In such circumstances, the most reliable standby is the mechanistic, Manichean view of the “war on terror” as propagated by some of the unreconstructed but still influential elements around the White House (see “The world as a battlefield”, 9 February 2006).

After 9/11, the war was directed very largely against the Taliban hosts of the al-Qaida movement in Afghanistan, notwithstanding some early efforts byconservative opinion-formers to include Iraq. But in the first half of 2002, two key speeches by George W Bush expanded the entire remit of this war.

First, his state-of-the-union address on 29 January 2002 identified North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the much-vaunted “axis of evil”, arguing that their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism made these regimes unacceptable in a civilised world. Second, his speech at the West Point military academy on 1 June 2002 emphasised America’s right to pre-empt future threats.

In the five and a half years since – a period of spreading conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, and persistent al-Qaida attacks – the “war on terror” has metamorphosed into an even wider “long war against Islamofascism”. This embraces a host of suspects: al-Qaida itself; the Taliban; Islamist militias in Pakistan, Somalia, north Africa, Thailand and the Philippines; all the differing insurgent groups in Iraq; Hamas in Palestine; Hizbollah in Lebanon; and now the Revolutionary Guard in Iran.

This crude and simple worldview bears little relation to reality. What is more important, however, is its political potency. The George W Bush administration may be trapped by a fantasy of power and control that is ever farther out of reach; but as the presidential and congressional elections of 2008 approaches, it is likely to use the enormous resources at its disposal to project this fantasy to the American people with undiminished vigour.

Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on Open Democracy since 26 September 2001. This article appeared at Open Democracy on August 16, 2007. His latest book is Global Security and the War on Terror: Elite Power and the Illusion of Control. Published at Japan Focus on August 17, 2007.