Monday, August 30, 2010

Islam's shady origins

Most Malaysians have today off, so what to do with all that free time? Well, here's a video to help you learn more about Islam.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Constantinople—New York City of Ancient Times

Within the city wallsIt was dedicated, in 360 AD, to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. It is said to have changed the history of architecture. Destroyed twice and then rebuilt a third time into an awe-inspiring cathedral.

I am, of course, talking about Hagia Sophia or more accurately the “Church of the Holy Wisdom of God”. Jesus Christ being the Holy Wisdom of God (according to Eastern Orthodox theology).

This cathedral, in its present shape, stood as the cathedral of Constantinople from 537 AD to 1453 AD. It was the seat of the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople and also a place for Byzantine imperial ceremonies—it also offered asylum to wrongdoers.

Outside the city wallsA power hungry Arab in Medina roused a band of blood thirsty warmongering Arabs to murder, rape and pillage in the name of an ancient pagan god. The belief system that he created revolved around fear, pride and revenge. They laid siege to cities and towns alike—either converted, subjugated or murdered the inhabitants. On their conquest of blood and booty, they suffered few losses. One of the losses was at the hands of the Byzantine army at “the Battle of Muta” in 629 AD (a battle initiated by the Arabs).

Fast forward to 674, a mere 45 years after their defeat, the Arabs had amassed an army big enough to attack the capital of one of the strongest empires at the time. The empire was Byzantine and the capital city was Constantinople, the seat of Christendom at the time. The city and the people within proved too strong to be broken and Arabs were faced with another humiliating defeat.

After the Arabs converted to Islam the surrounding Turks, another band of warmongers, the Turks decided it was their duty to avenge the defeat of 629 AD. After over 12 attacks and siege attempts from both Arabs and Turks over a period of over 700 years the city fell to the Turks.

Sultan Mehmet II “the Conqueror”, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, entered the city on May 29, 1453 and declared it the new capital of the Ottoman Empire. Hours after the city fell, Sultan rode on his horse to “the seat of the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople and a place for Byzantine imperial ceremonies” and summoned an imam to proclaim the Islamic creed converting the cathedral, that had stood for over a 1000 years as a symbol of a Christian empire, into a mosque. That was what completed the victory of Islam over the Byzantine Empire. The conversion of the cathedral into a mosque symbolized the fall and subjugation of a once-awesome Christian kingdom.

This practice in Islam, conversion of non Muslim places of worship into mosques, was not a misguided step taken by Muslims after their bloodthirsty leader died. It was a practice instituted by their leader Mohammed when he conquered Mecca and converted the pagan house of worship, the Kaaba, into a mosque.

The symbolism of mosques in non Muslim lands is significant. It tells the surrounding people that Islam is victorious and not only that but everyday, five times a day (at least), it tells Muslims and non Muslims alike to come and worship Allah. The call to prayer, the adhan, says “Allah is great(greater, to be more accurate), I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, I bear witness that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah…” That is a call to worship Allah, the warmongering god of Islam. “Allah is greater” or “Allah-u-akbar” also happens to be the war cry of Muslims when they’re descending upon infidels to kill them or be killed.

Something for us infidels, especially those in New York, to think about.

(A lot of information taken from wikipedia and also personal experience).

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

When disaster strikes, Muslims do (next to) nothing

By the Anti Jihadist

2010 is shaping up to be a dismal year in Pakistan. The numbers to describe their latest disaster are numbing if not overwhelming. Twenty percent of the country is underwater. Ten percent of the population of the country—some twenty million souls—is indirectly or directly affected. It will take billions and most likely decades to rebuilt infrastructure that was flooded or washed away. The UN is passing the hat to get the hundreds of millions needed right now to help the beleaguered people of Pakistan. And with hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland and crops now inundated, hundreds of millions more will be needed in the coming months just to provide basic supplies and avoid mass starvation.

So far, according to Wikipedia, countries making donations for Pakistani flood relief to date include the following:

Malaysia: US $1 million
Sri Lanka: US $3 million
Australia: A$10 million
India: US $6.8 million
Germany: 2 million euros plus a $13 million aid package
United Kingdom: £31.3 million
United States: US $84 million
Saudi Arabia: $100 million

Notice that many of the richest Muslim countries are conspicuously absent from the list, or are on record with comparatively paltry sums. Yes, every bit of aid helps. But consider that the oil-drenched sheikdoms of the Gulf are not exactly lacking for capital or funds. Saudi Arabia alone makes an estimated US $1 billion per day, every day from oil sales. Can they not afford a measly sum of, say, several hundred million for their struggling co-religionists? And what of the rest of the 1.3 billion Ummah? Where is their compassion?

It seems to me that the latest calamity to strike a Muslim land amply demonstrates that ‘Islamic charity’ is an empty phrase. This Islamic inaction comes at a time when more wealthy Muslims seem far more concerned with building a mosque in Lower Manhattan than caring for suffering Muslims who are in dire need of assistance (and no, I am not referring to Gaza). And in irony of ironies, the one Muslim organization that seems to be most involved with Pakistani humanitarian relief seems, for the moment, to be the Taliban.

Muslims, have you no shame?

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Islam versus the West

Any emphasis added below is mine (ed).

Islamism is not a movement to be engaged, it is an enemy to be defeated.”


Please, commit that to memory. Think of it every time someone tells you that Islam means “peace” or starts making excuses for the latest chapter in the annals of Islam’s war against the West.

For that’s what were talking about here: Islam’s war against the West. It’s not Islam’s misuse of commercial airliners, its penchant for sawing off the heads of people they disapprove of, or even its profound lack of sympathy for bacon. No, it’s Islam’s fundamental, essential  incompatibility with foundational Western values like free speech, the separation of church and state, and equality under the law. Such things are not simply missing from Islam: they are positively repudiated by Islam, a fact that is ingredient in the very word “Islam,” which, pace the multiculturalists, means not “peace” but “submission,” i.e., submission to the will of Allah.

Read the rest here.