gsvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 14,179
- Likes
- 10
Sebastian Faulks.
-------------------------------
William Jefferson Clinton
Who cares what Slick Willy says, he is a pathological liar, incapable of ever telling the truth about anything.
Still I don't remember him praising the koran.
Paul Begala, a Clinton White House aide said the every time he has been approached about writing a book about his experiences with Clinton, he has declined and told the publisher; "I don't want to lie and I don't want to tell the truth."
--------------------------------------------
Mahatma Gandhi
Nowhere in his autobiography does Ghandi "praise the koran."
His first mention of islam occurs on page 106 where he remarks about Abdulla Seth who tries to prosletize Gandhi to islam. Shortly after their meeting they attended a British south african court and Gandhi is ordered to remove his hindu turban while the 'musalmen' (muslims) are allowed to wear theirs.
To his credit Gandhi walks out, he goes on to explain that the Indians of south africa are divided into three groups, the musalmen (muslim) merchants at the top, the parsi (zoroastrian) clerks next and at the bottom is the hindu laborer or 'coolie.' Eventually Gandhi gave up the use of any head gear.
On pages 137 and 138 Gandhi mentions his reading materials saying that at the urging of Abdulla he had purchased a copy of the koran and began reading it but in no wise praises it, he however does greatly praise; "The kingdom of God within you," by Tolstoy which was given him by Edward Maitland, co-author of "the perfect way," a repudiation of then current Christian belief.
Gandhi read extensively from hindu texts and that was where he put his faith although he did say; "Though I took a path my Christian friends had not intended for me, I have remained foever indebted to them for the religious quest that they awakened in me."
Probably the only people on earth to suffer more than hindus at the hand of muslims were the black africans.
Gandhi spent practically his whole political carreer appeasing muslims, many think of this as a betrayal of his own people.
On the 10th February 1908, a group of Muslims under the leadership of a Pathan called Mir Alam entered Gandhis house and beat him mercilessly. When Gandhi fell on the ground the Muslim attackers kicked him right and left and beat him with sticks. They also threatened to kill him.
From this incident onward, Gandhi stopped to make any critical comment on Muslims as well as on Islam. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this incident was a milestone in Gandhis life and afterwards Gandhi began to over look even the most heinous crimes committed by the Muslims.
The Muslims whenever attacking a Hindu settlement, they, in addition killing innocent people, setting their houses on fire, loot and burglary as their routine work, rape Hindu women. It is evident that, they commit all such oppressions according to the instructions of the Koran, revealed by Allah.
During the Muslim rule that lasted for nearly 800 years, raping Hindu women became a common affair. To save their honour and sanctity from the lecherous Muslims, millions of Hindu women used to sacrifice their lives in flames.
In the wake of partition most of the Hindu families became victims of Muslim oppression and raping Hindu women was an inseparable part of their attacks. When Hindus were butchered in Noakhali in 1946, thousands of Hindu women were raped by the Muslims.
Many Hindus of this country do not know, what Gandhi, the Great Soul and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, Gandhi wrote that He would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty of a sister (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473).
Just before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479).
So much for non-violence.
--------------------------------------
Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela was nothing more than a communist terrorist thug who should have received the death penalty.
Many of his apologists optimistically claim that Mandela may well have had "communist leanings" in his past, but that he has since put all that behind him and become a moderate in his political beliefs. They are perhaps unaware of his fulsome praise of a communist dictatorship as late as 1991 when he and Winnie went to what they called their "second home" - Cuba - to celebrate the communist revolution with Fidel Castro. In his speech Mandela said:
"Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro... Cuban internationalists have done so much for African independence, freedom, and justice. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious imperialist campaign designed to destroy the advances of the Cuban revolution. We too want to control our destiny... There can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death. The Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people."
Mandela's adulation of Castro and Cuba almost outshines that of his own admirers. In May of 1990 Mandela, visiting America, went on record, referring to Cuba:
"There's one thing where that country stands out head and shoulders above the rest. That is in its love for human rights and liberty."
A week later in Libya, he lauded Moammar Qaddafi's:
"Committment to the fight for peace and human rights in the world."
While in America Mandela also made public statements that amounted to support for violence and terrorism in the furtherance of political aims. In a speech in Harlem, referring to four Puerto Rican terrorists who shot and wounded five US Congressmen in 1954, he said:
"We support the cause of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades you refer to."
Suitable "comrades" for Mandela indeed.
He was himself originally incarcerated, not for his political views, but for involvement in 23 different acts of sabotage and conspiring to overthrow the government.
He and his fellow conspirators of the ANC and the South African Communist Party were caught by the police while in the possession of 48,000 Soviet-made anti-personnel mines and 210,000 hand-grenades!*
* The full list of munitions and charges read as follows:
One count under the South African Suppression of Communism Act No. 44 of 1950, charging that the accused committed acts calculated to further the achievement of the objective of communism;
One count of contravening the South African Criminal Law Act (1953), which prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving any money or articles for the purpose of achieving organized defiance of laws and country; and
Two counts of sabotage, committing or aiding or procuring the commission of the following acts:
1) The further recruitment of persons for instruction and training, both within and outside the Republic of South Africa, in:
(a) the preparation, manufacture and use of explosivesfor the purpose of committing acts of violence and destruction in the aforesaid Republic, (the preparation and manufacture of explo- sives, according to evidence submitted, included 210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder and a ton of black powder);
(b) the art of warfare, including guerrilla warfare, and military training generally for the purpose in the aforesaid Republic;
(ii) Further acts of violence and destruction, (this includes 193 counts of terrorism committed between 1961 and 1963);
(iii) Acts of guerrilla warfare in the aforesaid Republic;
(iv) Acts of assistance to military units of foreign countries when involving the aforesaid Republic;
(v) Acts of participation in a violent revolution in the aforesaid Republic, whereby the accused, injured, damaged, destroyed, rendered useless or unserviceable, put out of action, obstructed, with or endangered:
(a) the health or safety of the public;
(b) the maintenance of law and order;
(c) the supply and distribution of light, power or fuel;
(d) postal, telephone or telegraph installations;
(e) the free movement of traffic on land; and
(f) the property, movable or immovable, of other persons or of the state.
Source: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, 1963-1964, Indictment.
It is also interesting to note that in later years Mandela was offered his freedom by none other than the South African President Botha if he would simply renounce the use of terrorism, but Mandela refused to do this.
No where do I find Mandela praising the koran, he reserved every last word of praise for Marx, Engels, Lennin, Stalin and other communists.
".........Therefore, in studying the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism today, it is necessary that our study proceeds simultaneously with our ideological cultivation and steeling because without the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, we should have nothing to guide our thoughts and actions and our ideological cultivation would also be impossible. These two are closely related to each other, and are inseparable."
Nelson Mandela, "how to be a good communist."
(which was mostly copied from Liu Shaoqi's 1939 work of the same title.)
----------------------------------------
Abraham Lincoln;
A century and a half after Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation, islam's top leaders still do not renounce it and slavery is still widely practiced in muslim countries.
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. "
Abraham Lincoln
"Thereupon I concluded: As I would not be a dhimmi, so I would not be a Muslim." Ali Sina
The scourge of islamic slavery. (easy, quick, illustrated read.)
----------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's reason for having a copy of the koran was to study the enemy. He had no praise for the koran or islam in general.
From 'The Papers of Thomas Jefferson,' in 34 volumes (and still incomplete), Julian P. Boyd, Editor, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1954. On page 358 in volume 9 of the Boyd edition, then, we find the following wording:
American Commissioners to John Jay
March 28th. 1786
"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.
The Muslim Ambassador of Tripoli the capital of the region of Tripolitania, one of the Maghreb regions of Islamic North Africa answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it -- i.e., the right to attack our ships, steal our cargos and kidnap and enslave our crews -- was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
-------------------------
During an interview conducted in the late 1930s (published in 1939), Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychiatry, was asked had he any views on what was likely to be the next step in religious development? Jung replied, in reference to the Nazi fervor that had gripped Germany,
"We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future."
Albert Speer, who was Hitlers Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote a contrite memoir of his World War II experiences while serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed by the Nuremberg tribunal. Speers narrative includes this discussion, which captures Hitlers racist views of Arabs on the one hand, and his effusive praise for Islam on the other:
Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, You see, its been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didnt we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?
"Who will remember 2 million slaughtered (Christian) Armenians?" Adolph Hitler
Both philosopher Bertrand Russell, in 1920, and sociologist Jules Monnerot three decades later (in 1953), viewed the 20th Centurys other major strain of totalitarianism, emergent Bolshevism and established Soviet-style Communism, as in Monnerots words, The Twentieth-Century Islam. Russell wrote presciently in his 1920, Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, that,
"Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world."
Although now, inexplicably, almost ignored in their entirety, writings produced for 100 years between the mid-19th through mid-20th Centuries, by important scholars and intellectuals, in addition to Carl Jung for example, the historians Jacob Burckhardt, Waldemar Gurian, and Stoyan Pribichevich, philosopher Bertrand Russell, Protestant theologian Karl Barth, sociologist Jules Monnerot, and most notably, the renowned 20th Century scholar of Islamic Law, G.H. Bousquet referred to Islam as a despotic, or in 20th Century parlance, totalitarian ideology.
Based upon the same clear understandings (and devoid of our eras dulling, politically correct constraints), Karl Barth, like Carl Jung (cited earlier), offered this warning, also published in 1939:
Participation in this life, according to it the only worthy and blessed life, is what National Socialism, as a political experiment, promises to those who will of their own accord share in this experiment. And now it becomes understandable why, at the point where it meets with resistance, it can only crush and kill with the might and right which belongs to Divinity! Islam of old as we know proceeded in this way. It is impossible to understand National Socialism unless we see it in fact as a new Islam, its myth as a new Allah, and Hitler as this new Allahs Prophet.
By 1953, Monnerot (in his Sociology and Psychology of Communism) saw the absolute tyranny of Soviet Communism as comparable to Islam, for being both a secular religion [emphasis in original] and as a universal State. He elaborated, in particular, on this concordance between the triumphal emergence of the Islamic and Soviet empires, as follows:
This merging of religion and politics was a major characteristic of the Islamic world in its victorious period. It allowed the head of State to operate beyond his own frontiers in the capacity of commander of the faithful (Amir-al-muminin); and in this way a Caliph was able to count upon his docile instruments, or captive souls, wherever there were men who recognized his authority. The territorial frontiers which seemed to remove some of his subjects from his jurisdiction were nothing more than material obstacles; armed force might compel him to feign respect for the frontier, but propaganda and subterranenan warfare could continue no less actively beyond it.
Religions of this kind acknowledge no frontiers. Soviet Russia is merely the geographical centre from which communist influence radiates; it is an Islam on the march, and it regards its frontiers at any given moment as purely provisional and temporary. Communism, like victorious Islam, makes no distinction between politics and religion
The strongest proof of real, extremely despotic power in Islam is the fact that it has been able to invalidate, in such large measure, the entire history (customs, religion, previous way of looking at things, earlier imagination) of the peoples converted to it. It accomplished this only by instilling into them a new religious arrogance which was stronger than everything and induced them to be ashamed of their past.
In a brilliant, dispassionate contemporary analysis, Ibn Warraq describes 14 characteristics of Ur Fascism as enumerated by Umberto Eco, analyzing their potential relationship to the major determinants of Islamic governance and aspirations, through the present. He adduces salient examples which reflect the key attributes discussed by Eco: the unique institution of Jihad war; the establishment of a Caliphate under Allahs vicegerent on earth, the Caliph ruled by Islamic Law, i.e., Sharia, a rigid system of subservience and sacralized discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim women, devoid of basic freedoms of conscience, and expression. Warraqs assessment confirms what G.H. Bousquet concluded (in 1950) from his career studying the historical development and implementation of Islamic Law:
Islam first came before the world as a doubly totalitarian system. It claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law, by the principles of fiqh [jurisprudence], to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer the study of Muhammadan Law (dry and forbidding though it may appear) is of great importance to the world of today.
Historian Stoyan Pribichevichs 1938 study of the Balkans World Without End demonstrates how Burckhardts conception of Islamic despotism applied to Ottoman rule. Pribichevich provides these illustrations, beginning with his characterization of the Ottoman Sultans:
Each was a blood descendant of Osman [d. 1326, founder of the Ottoman dynasty]; the commander of all armed forces; the Caliph, the religious chief of all Moslems; the Padishah or King of Kings with the power of life and death over even his own cabinet ministers; the indisputable executor of the Prophets will the Shadow of God on Earth
Although the Sultan had a Council composed of ranking dignitaries, headed by an erstwhile Prime Minister, the Grand Vizier who advised him, Pribichevich notes:
But like the Janissaries [military slaves taken from the families of the subjugated Christian populations while adolescents, and forcibly converted to Islam, as part of the Ottoman devshirme levy system] they were Kuls, slaves whose lives and properties belonged to the master. Cases occurred where a Grand Vizier was put to death at a mere whim of the Sultan.
Thus Pribichevich concludes, regarding the Ottoman Sultanate, Of all known dictators the Sultans were the most dictatorial.
And Pribichevich goes on to explain how this dictatorial Ottoman Sultanate operated within the overall context of Islams religio-political totalitarian system, consistent with Bousquets observation (from 1950), based upon the latters analysis of Islamic Law:
Then, Islam was a totalitarian religion. The Koran regulated not only the relationship of man to God, but all aspects of political organization, economics, and private conduct. Although the Sultan was the sole legislator, his laws, the sheri [Sharia], were expected to conform to the sacred text. Now, for the proper interpretation of the Prophets phrases, there was a body of learned priests and jurists, the Ulemas. While no born Moslem could become a member of the Janissaries, no ex-Christian was ever allowed to enter the sacred corporation of the Ulemas. These theologians were not the slaves of the Sultan, but their opinions nevertheless were only advisory. So, the whole exotic structure of the Ottoman state can be summed up this way: the Koran was the empires Constitution; the Sultan, its absolute executor; the Janissaries, the soldiers and administrators; and the thinking Ulemas, a sort of Supreme Court.
Finally, investigative journalist John Roy Carlsons 1948-1950 interviews of Arab Muslim religious and political leaders provide consummate independent validation of these Western assessments. Perhaps most revealing were the candid observations of Aboul Saud, whom Carlson described as a pleasant English-speaking member of the Arab League Office. Aboul Saud explained to Carlson that Islam was an authoritarian religio-political creed which encompassed all of a Muslims spiritual and temporal existence. He stated plainly,
You might describe Mohammedanism as a religious form of State Socialism The Koran give the State the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate property. It grants the ruler of the State unlimited powers, so long as he does not go against the Koran. The Koran is our personal as well as our political constitution.
And after interviewing Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna himself, who preached the doctrine of the Koran in one hand and the sword in the other, Carlson observed:
It became clear to me why the average Egyptian worshipped the use of force. Terror was synonymous with power! This was one reason why most Egyptians, regardless of class or calling had admired Nazi Germany. It helped explain the sensational growth of the Ikhwan el Muslimin [Muslim Brotherhood]
-------------------------------
William Jefferson Clinton
Who cares what Slick Willy says, he is a pathological liar, incapable of ever telling the truth about anything.
Still I don't remember him praising the koran.
Paul Begala, a Clinton White House aide said the every time he has been approached about writing a book about his experiences with Clinton, he has declined and told the publisher; "I don't want to lie and I don't want to tell the truth."
--------------------------------------------
Mahatma Gandhi
Nowhere in his autobiography does Ghandi "praise the koran."
His first mention of islam occurs on page 106 where he remarks about Abdulla Seth who tries to prosletize Gandhi to islam. Shortly after their meeting they attended a British south african court and Gandhi is ordered to remove his hindu turban while the 'musalmen' (muslims) are allowed to wear theirs.
To his credit Gandhi walks out, he goes on to explain that the Indians of south africa are divided into three groups, the musalmen (muslim) merchants at the top, the parsi (zoroastrian) clerks next and at the bottom is the hindu laborer or 'coolie.' Eventually Gandhi gave up the use of any head gear.
On pages 137 and 138 Gandhi mentions his reading materials saying that at the urging of Abdulla he had purchased a copy of the koran and began reading it but in no wise praises it, he however does greatly praise; "The kingdom of God within you," by Tolstoy which was given him by Edward Maitland, co-author of "the perfect way," a repudiation of then current Christian belief.
Gandhi read extensively from hindu texts and that was where he put his faith although he did say; "Though I took a path my Christian friends had not intended for me, I have remained foever indebted to them for the religious quest that they awakened in me."
Probably the only people on earth to suffer more than hindus at the hand of muslims were the black africans.
Gandhi spent practically his whole political carreer appeasing muslims, many think of this as a betrayal of his own people.
On the 10th February 1908, a group of Muslims under the leadership of a Pathan called Mir Alam entered Gandhis house and beat him mercilessly. When Gandhi fell on the ground the Muslim attackers kicked him right and left and beat him with sticks. They also threatened to kill him.
From this incident onward, Gandhi stopped to make any critical comment on Muslims as well as on Islam. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this incident was a milestone in Gandhis life and afterwards Gandhi began to over look even the most heinous crimes committed by the Muslims.
The Muslims whenever attacking a Hindu settlement, they, in addition killing innocent people, setting their houses on fire, loot and burglary as their routine work, rape Hindu women. It is evident that, they commit all such oppressions according to the instructions of the Koran, revealed by Allah.
During the Muslim rule that lasted for nearly 800 years, raping Hindu women became a common affair. To save their honour and sanctity from the lecherous Muslims, millions of Hindu women used to sacrifice their lives in flames.
In the wake of partition most of the Hindu families became victims of Muslim oppression and raping Hindu women was an inseparable part of their attacks. When Hindus were butchered in Noakhali in 1946, thousands of Hindu women were raped by the Muslims.
Many Hindus of this country do not know, what Gandhi, the Great Soul and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, Gandhi wrote that He would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty of a sister (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473).
Just before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479).
So much for non-violence.
--------------------------------------
Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela was nothing more than a communist terrorist thug who should have received the death penalty.
Many of his apologists optimistically claim that Mandela may well have had "communist leanings" in his past, but that he has since put all that behind him and become a moderate in his political beliefs. They are perhaps unaware of his fulsome praise of a communist dictatorship as late as 1991 when he and Winnie went to what they called their "second home" - Cuba - to celebrate the communist revolution with Fidel Castro. In his speech Mandela said:
"Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro... Cuban internationalists have done so much for African independence, freedom, and justice. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious imperialist campaign designed to destroy the advances of the Cuban revolution. We too want to control our destiny... There can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death. The Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people."
Mandela's adulation of Castro and Cuba almost outshines that of his own admirers. In May of 1990 Mandela, visiting America, went on record, referring to Cuba:
"There's one thing where that country stands out head and shoulders above the rest. That is in its love for human rights and liberty."
A week later in Libya, he lauded Moammar Qaddafi's:
"Committment to the fight for peace and human rights in the world."
While in America Mandela also made public statements that amounted to support for violence and terrorism in the furtherance of political aims. In a speech in Harlem, referring to four Puerto Rican terrorists who shot and wounded five US Congressmen in 1954, he said:
"We support the cause of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades you refer to."
Suitable "comrades" for Mandela indeed.
He was himself originally incarcerated, not for his political views, but for involvement in 23 different acts of sabotage and conspiring to overthrow the government.
He and his fellow conspirators of the ANC and the South African Communist Party were caught by the police while in the possession of 48,000 Soviet-made anti-personnel mines and 210,000 hand-grenades!*
* The full list of munitions and charges read as follows:
One count under the South African Suppression of Communism Act No. 44 of 1950, charging that the accused committed acts calculated to further the achievement of the objective of communism;
One count of contravening the South African Criminal Law Act (1953), which prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving any money or articles for the purpose of achieving organized defiance of laws and country; and
Two counts of sabotage, committing or aiding or procuring the commission of the following acts:
1) The further recruitment of persons for instruction and training, both within and outside the Republic of South Africa, in:
(a) the preparation, manufacture and use of explosivesfor the purpose of committing acts of violence and destruction in the aforesaid Republic, (the preparation and manufacture of explo- sives, according to evidence submitted, included 210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder and a ton of black powder);
(b) the art of warfare, including guerrilla warfare, and military training generally for the purpose in the aforesaid Republic;
(ii) Further acts of violence and destruction, (this includes 193 counts of terrorism committed between 1961 and 1963);
(iii) Acts of guerrilla warfare in the aforesaid Republic;
(iv) Acts of assistance to military units of foreign countries when involving the aforesaid Republic;
(v) Acts of participation in a violent revolution in the aforesaid Republic, whereby the accused, injured, damaged, destroyed, rendered useless or unserviceable, put out of action, obstructed, with or endangered:
(a) the health or safety of the public;
(b) the maintenance of law and order;
(c) the supply and distribution of light, power or fuel;
(d) postal, telephone or telegraph installations;
(e) the free movement of traffic on land; and
(f) the property, movable or immovable, of other persons or of the state.
Source: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, 1963-1964, Indictment.
It is also interesting to note that in later years Mandela was offered his freedom by none other than the South African President Botha if he would simply renounce the use of terrorism, but Mandela refused to do this.
No where do I find Mandela praising the koran, he reserved every last word of praise for Marx, Engels, Lennin, Stalin and other communists.
".........Therefore, in studying the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism today, it is necessary that our study proceeds simultaneously with our ideological cultivation and steeling because without the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, we should have nothing to guide our thoughts and actions and our ideological cultivation would also be impossible. These two are closely related to each other, and are inseparable."
Nelson Mandela, "how to be a good communist."
(which was mostly copied from Liu Shaoqi's 1939 work of the same title.)
----------------------------------------
Abraham Lincoln;
A century and a half after Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation, islam's top leaders still do not renounce it and slavery is still widely practiced in muslim countries.
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. "
Abraham Lincoln
"Thereupon I concluded: As I would not be a dhimmi, so I would not be a Muslim." Ali Sina
The scourge of islamic slavery. (easy, quick, illustrated read.)
----------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's reason for having a copy of the koran was to study the enemy. He had no praise for the koran or islam in general.
From 'The Papers of Thomas Jefferson,' in 34 volumes (and still incomplete), Julian P. Boyd, Editor, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1954. On page 358 in volume 9 of the Boyd edition, then, we find the following wording:
American Commissioners to John Jay
March 28th. 1786
"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.
The Muslim Ambassador of Tripoli the capital of the region of Tripolitania, one of the Maghreb regions of Islamic North Africa answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it -- i.e., the right to attack our ships, steal our cargos and kidnap and enslave our crews -- was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
-------------------------
During an interview conducted in the late 1930s (published in 1939), Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychiatry, was asked had he any views on what was likely to be the next step in religious development? Jung replied, in reference to the Nazi fervor that had gripped Germany,
"We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future."
Albert Speer, who was Hitlers Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote a contrite memoir of his World War II experiences while serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed by the Nuremberg tribunal. Speers narrative includes this discussion, which captures Hitlers racist views of Arabs on the one hand, and his effusive praise for Islam on the other:
Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, You see, its been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didnt we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?
"Who will remember 2 million slaughtered (Christian) Armenians?" Adolph Hitler
Both philosopher Bertrand Russell, in 1920, and sociologist Jules Monnerot three decades later (in 1953), viewed the 20th Centurys other major strain of totalitarianism, emergent Bolshevism and established Soviet-style Communism, as in Monnerots words, The Twentieth-Century Islam. Russell wrote presciently in his 1920, Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, that,
"Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world."
Although now, inexplicably, almost ignored in their entirety, writings produced for 100 years between the mid-19th through mid-20th Centuries, by important scholars and intellectuals, in addition to Carl Jung for example, the historians Jacob Burckhardt, Waldemar Gurian, and Stoyan Pribichevich, philosopher Bertrand Russell, Protestant theologian Karl Barth, sociologist Jules Monnerot, and most notably, the renowned 20th Century scholar of Islamic Law, G.H. Bousquet referred to Islam as a despotic, or in 20th Century parlance, totalitarian ideology.
Based upon the same clear understandings (and devoid of our eras dulling, politically correct constraints), Karl Barth, like Carl Jung (cited earlier), offered this warning, also published in 1939:
Participation in this life, according to it the only worthy and blessed life, is what National Socialism, as a political experiment, promises to those who will of their own accord share in this experiment. And now it becomes understandable why, at the point where it meets with resistance, it can only crush and kill with the might and right which belongs to Divinity! Islam of old as we know proceeded in this way. It is impossible to understand National Socialism unless we see it in fact as a new Islam, its myth as a new Allah, and Hitler as this new Allahs Prophet.
By 1953, Monnerot (in his Sociology and Psychology of Communism) saw the absolute tyranny of Soviet Communism as comparable to Islam, for being both a secular religion [emphasis in original] and as a universal State. He elaborated, in particular, on this concordance between the triumphal emergence of the Islamic and Soviet empires, as follows:
This merging of religion and politics was a major characteristic of the Islamic world in its victorious period. It allowed the head of State to operate beyond his own frontiers in the capacity of commander of the faithful (Amir-al-muminin); and in this way a Caliph was able to count upon his docile instruments, or captive souls, wherever there were men who recognized his authority. The territorial frontiers which seemed to remove some of his subjects from his jurisdiction were nothing more than material obstacles; armed force might compel him to feign respect for the frontier, but propaganda and subterranenan warfare could continue no less actively beyond it.
Religions of this kind acknowledge no frontiers. Soviet Russia is merely the geographical centre from which communist influence radiates; it is an Islam on the march, and it regards its frontiers at any given moment as purely provisional and temporary. Communism, like victorious Islam, makes no distinction between politics and religion
The strongest proof of real, extremely despotic power in Islam is the fact that it has been able to invalidate, in such large measure, the entire history (customs, religion, previous way of looking at things, earlier imagination) of the peoples converted to it. It accomplished this only by instilling into them a new religious arrogance which was stronger than everything and induced them to be ashamed of their past.
In a brilliant, dispassionate contemporary analysis, Ibn Warraq describes 14 characteristics of Ur Fascism as enumerated by Umberto Eco, analyzing their potential relationship to the major determinants of Islamic governance and aspirations, through the present. He adduces salient examples which reflect the key attributes discussed by Eco: the unique institution of Jihad war; the establishment of a Caliphate under Allahs vicegerent on earth, the Caliph ruled by Islamic Law, i.e., Sharia, a rigid system of subservience and sacralized discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim women, devoid of basic freedoms of conscience, and expression. Warraqs assessment confirms what G.H. Bousquet concluded (in 1950) from his career studying the historical development and implementation of Islamic Law:
Islam first came before the world as a doubly totalitarian system. It claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law, by the principles of fiqh [jurisprudence], to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer the study of Muhammadan Law (dry and forbidding though it may appear) is of great importance to the world of today.
Historian Stoyan Pribichevichs 1938 study of the Balkans World Without End demonstrates how Burckhardts conception of Islamic despotism applied to Ottoman rule. Pribichevich provides these illustrations, beginning with his characterization of the Ottoman Sultans:
Each was a blood descendant of Osman [d. 1326, founder of the Ottoman dynasty]; the commander of all armed forces; the Caliph, the religious chief of all Moslems; the Padishah or King of Kings with the power of life and death over even his own cabinet ministers; the indisputable executor of the Prophets will the Shadow of God on Earth
Although the Sultan had a Council composed of ranking dignitaries, headed by an erstwhile Prime Minister, the Grand Vizier who advised him, Pribichevich notes:
But like the Janissaries [military slaves taken from the families of the subjugated Christian populations while adolescents, and forcibly converted to Islam, as part of the Ottoman devshirme levy system] they were Kuls, slaves whose lives and properties belonged to the master. Cases occurred where a Grand Vizier was put to death at a mere whim of the Sultan.
Thus Pribichevich concludes, regarding the Ottoman Sultanate, Of all known dictators the Sultans were the most dictatorial.
And Pribichevich goes on to explain how this dictatorial Ottoman Sultanate operated within the overall context of Islams religio-political totalitarian system, consistent with Bousquets observation (from 1950), based upon the latters analysis of Islamic Law:
Then, Islam was a totalitarian religion. The Koran regulated not only the relationship of man to God, but all aspects of political organization, economics, and private conduct. Although the Sultan was the sole legislator, his laws, the sheri [Sharia], were expected to conform to the sacred text. Now, for the proper interpretation of the Prophets phrases, there was a body of learned priests and jurists, the Ulemas. While no born Moslem could become a member of the Janissaries, no ex-Christian was ever allowed to enter the sacred corporation of the Ulemas. These theologians were not the slaves of the Sultan, but their opinions nevertheless were only advisory. So, the whole exotic structure of the Ottoman state can be summed up this way: the Koran was the empires Constitution; the Sultan, its absolute executor; the Janissaries, the soldiers and administrators; and the thinking Ulemas, a sort of Supreme Court.
Finally, investigative journalist John Roy Carlsons 1948-1950 interviews of Arab Muslim religious and political leaders provide consummate independent validation of these Western assessments. Perhaps most revealing were the candid observations of Aboul Saud, whom Carlson described as a pleasant English-speaking member of the Arab League Office. Aboul Saud explained to Carlson that Islam was an authoritarian religio-political creed which encompassed all of a Muslims spiritual and temporal existence. He stated plainly,
You might describe Mohammedanism as a religious form of State Socialism The Koran give the State the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate property. It grants the ruler of the State unlimited powers, so long as he does not go against the Koran. The Koran is our personal as well as our political constitution.
And after interviewing Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna himself, who preached the doctrine of the Koran in one hand and the sword in the other, Carlson observed:
It became clear to me why the average Egyptian worshipped the use of force. Terror was synonymous with power! This was one reason why most Egyptians, regardless of class or calling had admired Nazi Germany. It helped explain the sensational growth of the Ikhwan el Muslimin [Muslim Brotherhood]
