1683 AD

08/02/2012

I am still here!

I have not posted for awhile, but will eventually return.

Posted on 08/02/2012 at 12:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

02/22/2011

ACT: A benefit of Middle East revolt

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act”. – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

As of the time of this writing in early 2011, two Middle Eastern dictatorships have been overthrown by mass revolt: first in Tunisia and then in Egypt. Other overthrows seem to be in the works. And of course, the dictatorship in Iraq had already been gone for a number of years. Obviously, these are major alterations in the structure and operation of these respective governments.

At the time of this writing we do not know what path these nations and others in the region will take. The prospect for strict Islamic Supremacist rule and the establishment of sharia law within them appears quite high. However, despite the resulting disruption and upheaval, the current developments present a unique opportunity for European nations to reconsider all of the cases of political asylum which they have approved over the years for people from such Middle East "nations of change". If they were to reevaluate such cases, it is hoped that they would seriously consider revoking their asylum status.

The securing of political asylum in Europe is a long-established practice of Islamic Supremacists. The following article elaborates upon the approach: http://www.meforum.org/2107/europe-shifting-immigration-dynamic . Obviously, if someone were granted political asylum from one of these nations and the supposed threat in the form of a dictatorship no longer exists, then the refugee should be actively seeking his own return. After all, the reason for his leaving no longer exists. However, if by some very remote chance the refugee prefers to stay in Europe and sponge off the plentiful welfare benefits, then we believe he should be directly apprised of the fact that the basis of his asylum is now invalid and that he will be forced to return. An exception to this should be given to those individuals who are religious minorities in the affected countries (such as Copts, Assyrians, etc.) and can prove it without any doubt. We must maintain this exception because of the fact that although a Middle East nation's government may change, such nations have proven they are home to a large number of Islamic Supremacists who will persecute non-Muslims irrespective of whatever type of government in charge.

Realistically speaking, no changes in asylum practices along these lines will happen just because it is mentioned in this post. Therefore, we would urge that others in the blogosphere take up this issue and promote it with great vigor. In addition, we would urge that any groups which have a strong street presence, such as the English Defence League in the United Kingdom, to take up this point and have it figure prominently in their protests. We would suggest that some of the language used in presenting this position be couched in a language which the Leftist media will find difficult to refute. For example, we could point to voluntary or forced returns as a way for the returnees to "share in the celebration of change". They could be apprised of the fact that such returns would enable returnees to become more immersed in their respective so-called "cultures"; more so than what they can presently find in Europe. Also, it would help these Middle Eastern nations grow by reversing the exploitive "brain drain" which imperil their development. We need to be creative.

There are many other angles which can be put forth regarding asylum as it relates to Islamic Supremacists. But their implementation would require the establishment of governments which are receptive to eliminating this tool. We have not arrived at such a point yet. But at least we can publicly point out the hypocrisy of asylum refugees from certain nations where old regimes have been eliminated taking no steps on their own to return to them.

Posted on 02/22/2011 at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

02/13/2011

ACT: Forums and Chats

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself". - John Stuart Mill

Overview

The following is a list of internet forums and chat groups. We have tried to avoid posting any forums which have a blatantly Leftist or pro-Islamic Supremacist orientation. When the name on the masthead differed from the web address, we have used the masthead name. The reader will note that in this initial presentation (early 2011), most of the links are for English language forums. If the forum is in a language other than English, or incorporates multiple languages, a notation is made to that effect alongside the forum's name. Should this list expand to include more forums, with an introduction of more non-English forums, we would prefer to separate them oput according to the languages involved. A basic introduction to forums can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum

Although many on our side place a strong reliance on FaceBook in communicating our concerns, we must admit that it does not offer too much flexibility when it comes to presenting various discussions. Forums, on the other hand, come across as more "readable" and interactive in nature. As such, they offer a lot of potential when it comes to spreading ideas and encouraging various actions.

We hope that you will evaluate this list carefully. As for any of you who are bloggers, we would encourage you to spread your message by posting all or some of your blog posts within these forums. It is difficult to see how any forums which are dedicated towards fight Islamic Supremacists or promoting overall Conservative values would object to such input. Furthermore, any referrals of your readers within these forums to various resources of which they may not yet be aware would help our movement grow exponentially.

Before proceeding to the list, we would urge that if you come across any forums of value which are not listed below to please forward the pertinent details to 1683 AD. We would request that the information be sent in the exact, same format as shown below. Furthermore, we have a desperate need for information on any forums which are in languages other than English.

Forums focused on Islamic Supremacists

The following forums are focused on Islamic Supremacists.

Forums for ex-Muslims

Council of Ex Muslims: main page - http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=9b5a0f7cc9fe18fac9ad841cba75c8ee&action=forum

Ex Muslims: main page - http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/index.php?sid=628f08eafddb136fdce2934a175d1bf1

Faith Freedom: main page http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/

Forums which have a Right wing (Conservative) political orientation and do not have an Islamic Supremacism focus

Please note that these forums may touch upon Islamic Supremacism as a "side" issue.

Posted on 02/13/2011 at 03:12 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

12/29/2010

ACT: Vehicles as message billboards

"If you hear the word 'inclusive", something a majority wants is being banned". - Rex Murphy

Introduction

The pursuit of greater public visibility for our viewpoint in the fight against Islamic Supremacism is a core theme at 1683 AD. In view of this goal, we have consistently emphasized the promotion of various creative, distinctive and rather non-conventional approaches for adoption by our readers. However, in this posting, we will discuss some conventional, effective, yet surprisingly overlooked tools that can easily be brought into our armory. They pertain to the conveyance of messages on motor vehicles.

When it comes to the display of political points of view on vehicles, the first option which comes into most people's minds is adhesive bumper stickers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_sticker ). They are obviously capable of expressing political opinions to fellow motorists and pedestrians, even with the limited amount of space which they provide. Yet despite their effectiveness, they are actually used rather infrequently. This, we believe, is due primarily to two reasons. First, since chrome has been virtually abolished from use in nearly all motor vehicles and the only remaining posting sites are painted surfaces, many people are afraid that they will damage their paint jobs if they apply bumper stickers with their strong adhesives. Also, there is a strong possibility that someone who opposes the viewpoint which a bumper sticker expresses will vandalize such an emblazoned vehicle when it is left unattended. Our own observations have found Leftists to be the primary culprits in such acts. Obviously, bumper stickers are not something which one can readily remove and apply on a steady basis for the sake of vandalism prevention when leaving a car unattended.

The end result of this situation is that the use of motor vehicles these days to promote political speech is quite limited. However, alternatives do exist, ones which have the same ability to convey a message, yet also avoid paint damage (found with bumper sticker adhesives) and be significantly free of vandalism risks. Of particular importance is the fact that these alternatives are fully available to people over the internet, thus eliminating any need of going to a store.

The options

The options at our disposal are: magnetic signs; license plates and license plate frames. We believe that all of these are quite viable for use in the U.S.. However, we do not believe designed license plates and license plate frames are workable in Europe. More on this specific concern is found below.

As things currently stand at the close of 2010, none of these items are being promoted or otherwise made available on the market which convey messages against Islamic Supremacism. We suspect that part of the reason for this is that there are too few organizations championing this fight and that, for one reason or another, the thought of vehicle based messages may simply not have crossed their minds. Combine all of this with the general tendency of people to wait for "others" to make something available and you can see a possible reason such items with suitable messages have not yet been made available.

This situation need not limit us any further. The following links show how any individuals (yes, individuals) or groups can easily make their own magnetic signs, license plates and license plate frames over the internet or, in some cases, secure them from brick and mortar stores. All one needs in order to obtain these items is a design and the required payment. Please understand that none of the businesses in the following links have any association with 1683 AD. Nor have we submitted any designs to them. These links are only meant to serve as an example of what services are available; an internet search by the reader will readily reveal many more.

Regarding Europe, we understand that the license plates are much longer than their U.S. counterparts. We also believe tat official license plates must be placed on the front and rear of vehicles. Such placement requirements would eliminate any use of suggested message license plates there. License plate frames may be workable in Europe, but no one seems to be making them. It appears that when considering these limitations (if verified), the use of license plates and license plate frames in Europe would not be possible. But at least the magnetic sign option would remain viable. Any further input on these observations would be welcomed by 1683 AD.

___________
Magnetic Signs
___________
http://www.fedex.com/us/office/marketing/signsbanners/specialty/vehiclemagnet.html?lid=Learnmore_specialty_vehicle
http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/businesscars.aspx?mk=Magnetic+Car+Sign&ad=broad&GNF=0&GP=12%2f27%2f2010+10%3a55%3a03+PM&GPS=1419230325&GNF=1
http://www.carsigns.com/car-top-signs/car-door-magnets.html
http://www.iprint.com/cgi-shl/index.cgi?level=1205
http://www.123print.com/Car-Magnets
http://www.esigns.com/magnetic-signs/custom/
http://www.javasigns.com/category/3743
http://www.buildasign.com/MagneticSigns
http://designer.realtimedesigner.com/designyourownsigns/catalog/index.php&p=cGM9NDc5NQ==
http://www.magneticsigns.com/
http://www.designasign.com/magneticcarsigns
http://www.makesigns.com/Magnets_Home.aspx
http://www.pelicanmagnetprinting.com/
http://www.ehow.com/how_5106053_design-own-magnetic-sign.html
http://blogs.business.com/whatworks/2010/magnetic-signs-cost-rolling-billboards/

___________
License Plates
___________
http://www.designasign.com/signs/license
http://www.javasigns.com/product/104117
http://www.buildasign.com/LicensePlates
http://new.speedysigns.com/signs/license-plates
http://www.ehow.com/how_5062660_create-own-license-plate.html

_________________
License Plate Holders
_________________
http://usmcshop.grunt.com/Products/Marines/PID-LF7.aspx
http://www.elicenseplateframes.com/Customizable_License_Plate_Frames.php
http://www.altype.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=2
http://www.ehow.com/how_7677821_make-own-license-plate-holder.html
http://www.asurfshop.com/shop/item_lookup_live.php?ItemID=B0032IUOEO&CA=Racks_Pads

Points to keep in mind with message selection and placement

We mentioned previously that there is a high propensity for vandalism with the placement of political messages on one's vehicle. This risk can be dramatically reduced with the above items by taking a few steps. First, if you desire to use a message about Islamic Supremacists which is clear, direct and explicit, we would suggest that you limit it to magnetic signs. In doing so, you can easily remove the sign in settings where you can reasonably expect vandalism or even violence by the "offended' to occur. Furthermore, we suggest that any placement of such signs be limited to the driver's side, close to the window. This will enable the driver to remove the sign while parked and seated in the car, without any difficulty at all. Placement elsewhere on the vehicle would be inconvenient for most drivers, as people do not want to walk around their vehicle after each entrance or exit to place or remove the signs. Of course, these limitations on magnetic signs would not be suggested if the messages on them were a bit less explicit or direct.

License plates and license plate frames can be viewed as permanent or semi-permanent in nature. With this in mind, as well as the increased threat of vandalism with the use of "explicit" messages, we would suggest that you limit messages on these particular options to ones which, as alluded to above, are not direct in their condemnation of Islamic Supremacists. For example, you could use a message such as "Remember 9/11" (or "Remember" any other major Islamic Supremacist terror attack), as it imparts an "acceptable" thought held by most in society. However, such a message can indirectly, and unofficially, be seen as conveying a severe displeasure with Islamic Supremacists. After all, everyone knows who in our world tends to demonstrate the greatest propensity for mindless violence of the nature we experienced on 9/11. Since such a message would have a double or hidden meaning of sorts, any potential vandal would likely be a bit hesitant to arouse the ire of someone who, in actuality, is an entirely apolitical member of the public and who has no intent to express anything beyond what is actually written. In essence, he has to consider that he may end up making an enemy of someone who actually held no animosity to many of his own viewpoints in the first place.

No matter what option is chosen, we would urge that all of these items include the posting of a website address through which people can learn more about Islamic Supremacism and order the same items for their own personal use.

Image creation and image sharing

We presume that there are many readers of this post who would like to secure all or some of these items right away. After all, they are now aware of the ability to design and order them from home. However, we suspect that most lack the requisite artistic skills to bring properly designed magnetic signs, license plates or license plate frames into fruition. With this in mind, we call upon all of those who have such abilities to make their artistic creations available for free on the internet, on a steady and consistent basis. Since many of the readers of 1683 AD have blogs of their own, that would be a good place to start with providing these designs. We would also urge that any readers who are members of organizations which have the resources to create truly masterful designs to urge them to get on board with this action.

Naturally, an overall promotion of this concept, primarily on the internet, should go hand in hand with an image display effort.

Making these items available to large numbers of people

We have mentioned how people can share their artistic creations to assist others in making their own vehicle display items. It is also suggested that information about self-production be heavily promoted at any group events, such as meetings or protests. The mere printing and distribution of brochures or business cards with pertinent information would go far in this regard. The actual distribution of such items at group events would make a greater impression. The use of general merchandise websites, such as eBay, should also be considered. With respect to this particular option, be certain that the language used will pass their censors of political correctness. And of course, general internet promotion would be essential.

We would also ask that if you are aware of any additional websites which enable individuals to create their own magnetic signs, license plates and license plate frames to please send links to 1683 AD and to any others who may promote this concept. Of particular interest would be any non-English language websites.

Considering the manufacturers

We anticipate that any manufacturer who creates these items will be subject to boycott or other censorship campaigns by the opposition. Therefore, we urge that you do not mention anywhere in your writings which specific retailer has provided the finished products. Of course, should the opposition "charge" a retailer with producing items which have "objectionable" messages, there is always the possibility that some rogue employee occasionally puts an order through by accident.

The importance of this tactic

Unlike some of the other, more discrete, tactics put forth by 1683 AD, this one enables the promulgation of blatantly clear and up front messages. As such, this approach can go far in quickly getting our message (which can include website addresses) across to the general public, which is our main goal. This tactic is also important in that it empowers the individual to take action. He does not need to wait for approval of a group; he needs only get on his computer and get to work.

Finally, as stated in other 1683 AD submissions, the copying of this tactic by the opposition would actually help us. Any further awareness of the increasing Islamic Supremacist presence, even if painted in a "favorable" light, can only serve to help alert the general Western public to the threat at hand.

Posted on 12/29/2010 at 01:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

12/19/2010

ACT: Clothing to demonstrate mourning for the victims of Islamic Supremacism

"I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves". - Harriet Tubman

If some who object to the following approach attempt to label it as political and are successful in various settings, then we may need to amend its purpose to instead be with a mourning of those who have experienced things like having their hands and feet amputated for theft, being stoned to death for adultery, being treated as a non-entity due to their sex (female) and so forth. With this alternative approach, officials would definitely not have any legal basis for saying it is directed against the Supremacists of a "certain" religion for whom consistently they provide cover.

A review of the posts of 1683 AD and a multitude of websites will reveal irrefutable evidence of Islamic Supremacist involvement in the murder, maiming, raping and otherwise tormenting of thousands of people in recent decades and also untold millions in the many centuries which have passed since Islam came into existence. Many of us wish to mourn these innocent victims in a highly visible manner and ensure that others are aware of our constant state of mourning. The only way we can do this in the daily world of work, errands and social activities is through clothing and various accessories. If enough people were to mourn in this manner on a consistent basis, day after day, it will be impressed not only upon fellow citizens, but also upon the ruling elite in various institutions. With regards to mourning, the following link gives some basic insights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning .

Before any employers or government officials consider banning the use of such items as an avenue for mourning, they should consider that clothing and accessories have been used in such a manner for centuries. There have even been established traditions for people to wear such clothing for life. Also, there are no laws which can inhibit someone from adopting new forms of mourning attire which are more in tune with the 21st century. They should recognize that depending on the individual, mourning may or may not draw upon one's religious beliefs. Furthermore, as long as such attire does not interfere with one's work ability (as would obstruction of one's face), or, depending on the nation involved, stray far from long-established cultural norms, there should be no logical basis for on-the-job restrictions.

Before outlining this approach, we would like to express our deep appreciation to our good Islamic Supremacist friends who have pushed for, and received from the appeasement-minded elites, the right to, how should we say, "encourage" their women to wear the type of clothing they claim is dictated in Islam. And just as they assert that their clothing (both sexes) does not serve as any sort of political uniform (which is illegal in many countries), so do we with respect to our approach.

Obviously, none of the media outlets have any concern with mourning or otherwise addressing the victims of Islamic Supremacism. As a result, many Westerners go blissfully about in their daily lives without an awareness of the victims of Islamic Supremacism for whom they, too, may wish to mourn upon becoming informed. The only way in which they have a chance of becoming informed is if the see evidence of our own mourning concerns in the course of their daily lives, generally on the streets and in the workplace. This measure can bring about this visibility. If enough Westerners were to connect with the desire to mourn which is within themselves and demonstrate it publicly, their daily presence on the street will be significant enough for the elites to take notice. If the reader is to take anything from what has been written thus far, this is it.

We believe the proper mourning outfit should contain the following. Of course, discussion with others may bring up better options. Consider this to be a starting point.

White shirt / blouse

The first article of clothing for mourning is a white shirt or blouse, to be worn on a daily basis. The history of mourning indicates that this (along with black) is a color which has figured prominently. It is recognized that most men and women wear shirts and blouses of various colors each day if they are not otherwise required to wear a uniform. However, we feel that if they truly wish to be true to their mournful spirit and make others aware of it, they will need to follow this prescription consistently. It is highly improbable that any business or government entities would attempt to ban this attire, since many people already wear it. Furthermore, men commonly wore white shirts to work almost exclusively into the early 1960's.

Trousers / Pants / Dresses

This clothing in gray or black would be preferred.

Bowties

If men are required to wear at work, they have been provided various options. The most popular style in use today is the long tie. For our purposes, we will adopt the far less common bow tie ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_tie ), in black. Due to this tie having gone out of popularity, an increase in people wearing it will definitely make a statement regarding the degree of mourning which people are experiencing. Again, it is difficult to envision our friends in business and government banning its use. The preceding link contains some interesting commentary on how bow tie wearers are perceived.

Hats

Hats ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat ) have generally gone out of style on a daily basis for both men and women. This gives us an opportunity to use hats as a way to distinguish ourselves in our mourning. For our purposes, we believe the flat cap ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_cap ), with black or gray coloration is most suitable for daily wear for men and possibly women. It has a particular advantage when compared to other hat wear in that it is not as bulky. We would like to urge women to consider the cloche ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloche_hat ) hat. Common in the 1920's, it has been introduced again for popular wear in recent years. It, too, has an advantage of being compact. A black or white color would be suitable.

Gloves

It might be difficult to have mourners wear gloves ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glove ) in non-Winter months. It is unlikely that men would wear them in an office setting. However, women wore gloves on a daily basis in western society into the early 1960's. We would urge an eventual (not immediate) consideration of this possibility. Black would be the preferred color.

Metal shoe taps

Metal shoe taps would greatly help the mourner reflect upon his mourning status as it would enhance a meditative state whenever he walks. In fact, the sound would not be too much different from the sound which is often made by women's high heeled shoes. The taps would, quite coincidentially, also serve to distinguish the wearer wherever he goes in his daily routine. Obviously, other people will hear the sound, which is a part of our explicit intent. Tap placement would be on the heel and toe areas. A particular side benefit of taps is that it would greatly enhance the durability of the shoes, a point which can be expressed to any objecting employers. Taps can usually be obtained and applied at any shoe repair store. In these hard financial times, it would be a shame if someone was disciplined at work for simply implementing a cost saving measure.

Umbrella

On occasions where someone has to use an umbrella, we believe mourning would be enhanced if one a mourning symbols ( to be explained elsewhere) were imprinted on the umbrella. The user would be comforted by the symbol being held aloft. However, as of yet, none are available. In their absence, black umbrellas are preferred.

Lapel pins

For our last mourning accessory, we would urge the use of lapel pins which depict one of the recognized mourning symbols (to be explained elsewhere). The symbols should be non-obtrusive and non-political. If, however, an employer bans them, what's to keep a website somewhere from proclaiming some sort of political meaning to all forms of jewelry and symbols. Since an employer would not ban all other forms of commonly accepted jewelry in the face of such assertions, one would expect them to draw back from any threats regarding lapel pins. A non-mourning option for people could include lapel pin versions of particular flags.

Summary

The preceding approaches are meant solely as was for people to further immerse themselves into the mourning experience. Since they involve long-established clothing styles and colors which have been accepted in the workplace, it would be difficult to rationalize any basis for them being banned. Again, we must stress that these clothing suggestions have nothing to do with politics and we again urge that anyone who informs others of this approach keep this in mind.

Posted on 12/19/2010 at 10:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

11/27/2010

ACT: Bringing freedom of speech to British soil

"He who does not offend cannot be honest". - Thomas Payne

Introduction

It is a sad reality that people in the United Kingdom (and other European countries) are severely limited in their ability to speak freely about the threat of Islamification and the overall Islamic Supremacist agenda. Unlike the U.S., those in the United Kingdom and other European nations are under the thumb of what are called "Hate Speech" laws ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech ). The effects of the U.K. laws are not limited to British citizens. In fact, U.S. citizens can be barred entry to the U.K. on the basis of things they have said about Islamification while outside of the U.K.. U.S. radio talk show host Michael Savage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator) ) serves as evidence.

Obviously, we would be demanding a lot of British citizens to risk arrest and imprisonment for speaking freely. However, there might be something which U.S. citizens can do to tweak the noses of appeasement-minded British officials.

British territory within the U.S. or immediately adjacent to it.

This presentation will put forth a manner in which U.S. citizens may legally gain access to British territory by simply taking one footstep. Once they gain access to British territory, one wonders what they might have to say and record on video for eventual internet posting (or live television or radio broadcast) regarding Islamic Supremacists. If, by some remote chance, they happen to say something which "offends" the Leftists in British government, it would be interesting to see what the British government would do to address it. Would they compel the similarly appeasement minded U.S. President (as of 2010) to take some form of action for them? No one knows.

The following sites within or adjacent to the U.S. are of particular interest, since some of them definitely constitute official British territory.

First, we have the site of the Winston Churchill statue at the British embassy in Washington DC. As the pictures indicate in the following link, it is easily accessible ( http://dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0001472.htm ). One foot is in British territory (the embassy grounds) and the other is in the U.S.. The symbolism of standing next to this statue and speaking freely would be ideal. The disadvantage is that embassy staff would have the legal right to oust anyone from the British side for speaking freely. Therefore, any anticipated actions should be planned with that possibility in mind.

Next, we have the grave site of four British sailors from World War II, located on Ocracoke Island, North Carolona. Details may be found here: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/lestweforget/HMTBedford/1942_hmt_bedfordhsire_speech.htm ; http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/lestweforget/HMTBedford/1942_hmt_bedfordshire.htm ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F136421?thread=310605 ; http://www.ocracoke-nc.com/cemetery/ ; http://www.ncgenweb.us/hyde/cemetery/index_british_ocracoke.htm ; http://www.offbeattravel.com/british-cemetery-outerbanks.html ; http://www.cwgc.org/search/cemetery_details.aspx?cemetery=2073156&mode=1 ; http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=cr&GRid=11431258&CRid=46935& ; http://www.hydecounty.org/attractions/cemetery.htm ; http://www.harry-tates.org.uk/veteranstales4.htm As indicated in the preceding, this gravesite for crew of the HMS Bedfordshire is official British territory. There is another British World War II gravesite at the Oak Grove Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, for three crew of the HMS Kingston Ceylonite and one crew member of the HMS Bedfordshire, but it does not seem to have official British territorial status ( http://www.rnpatrolservice.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=166&p=474&hilit=alfred+dryden ). It also appears that there might be a site in Buxton, North Carolina for two crew members of the British merchant vessel San Delfino. However, this, too, does not appear to constitute British territory ( http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=32129 ).

With respect to someone gaining access to British territory in the form of gravesites, standing as close to the periphery as possible and happening to speak freely before a camera regarding the Islamification of the UK, we must acknowledge that such an act may be deemed disrespectful in some quarters. Therefore, we are not in a position to give a full endorsement. However, this charge may be tempered with the reality that the speech of this nature would pertain to a defense of British territory from a violent ideology of a form which is not too far removed from what these sailors were fighting in World War II. In addition, no "Hate Speech" laws existed during the lifetimes of the deceased individuals. It should be noted that there does not seem to be any laws against vocalizing anything in a calm manner within such sites. Nor do there seem to be any prohibitions against gaining physical access. 1683 AD has not concluded whether or not such an action concerning the above sites would be appropriate or not. We are simply putting it out for public discussion and evaluation.

Another plot of interest is in Hawaii, in the form of a memorial to Captain James Cook ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/captain-cooks-little-corner-of-hawaii-under-threat-from-new-golf-course-623120.html ; http://www.jstor.org/pss/1794586 . Its status as British territory has not been fully ascertained.

Other than the above-mentioned sites, our other opportunity for quick access to British territory is at the water boundary between the U.S. Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Virgin_Islands ). Admittedly, getting in a boat and going to the boundary between these two territories would not be convenient for most U.S. citizens, but it exists as an option. There does not seem to be any restrictions against boat travel between the waters of these two territories. It is hard to perceive how anyone who "speaks their mind", so to say, in the boundary waters of the British Virgin Islands could be pointed to as being disrespectful.

It is unknown whether the British Embassy in the U.S. owns any extensive plots of land or estates within a reasonable distance of the embassy proper. If so, those properties might be worthy of study.

Please bear in mind that although 1683 AD has not directly advocated a violation of British laws in this post, we can't help what people may infer and choose to do on their own. We will leave the content of any speech within any form of British territory as described above up to each individual.

Perhaps there are similar examples of European nations having territory within the confines of the U.S. We would welcome news of any such sites.

Posted on 11/27/2010 at 09:58 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

11/19/2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS & QUICK LINKS TO ALL EARLIER POSTS

The following is a list, in reverse chronological order, of all the preceding posts in this blog.

ACT: Challenge Radio http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/10/act-challenge-radio.html

ACT: Building bridges with a return to the Ikhtiyar (Part I) http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/09/act-building-bridges-with-a-return-to-the-ikhtiyar-part-i.html

ACT: Building bridges with a return to the Ikhtiyar (Part II) http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/09/act-building-bridges-with-a-return-to-the-ikhtiyar-part-ii.html

ACT: Building bridges with a return to the Ikhtiyar (Part III) http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/09/act-building-bridges-with-a-return-to-the-ikhtiyar-part-iii.html

ACT: Building bridges with a return to the Ikhtiyar (Part IV) http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/09/act-building-bridges-with-a-return-to-the-ikhtiyar-part-iv.html

ACT: Car horns to serve as an audible memorial to all who have died at the hands of Islamic Supremacists http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/act-car-horns-to-serve-as-an-audible-memorial-to-all-who-have-died-at-the-hands-of-islamic-supremaci.html

ACT: Where are the feminists? PART I (Introduction) http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/act-where-are-the-feminists-part-i-introduction.html

ACT: Where are the feminists? PART II (Where feminists stand) http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/act-where-are-the-feminists-part-ii-where-feminists-stand.html

ACT: Where are the feminists? - PART III (Background information) http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/act-where-are-the-feminists-part-iii-background-information.html

Posted on 11/19/2010 at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

10/23/2010

ACT: Challenge Radio

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be lead, like sheep to the slaughter". - George Washington

Introduction

__________________________________________
The influence of the Leftist dominated media in Europe.
__________________________________________
It has been a common theme within many of the posts of 1683 AD that our side has been at a considerable disadvantage in its efforts to warn the general public in Europe, and elsewhere, of the onrushing threat of Islamification. This is primarily due to Leftists controlling most of the means of mass communication (television, radio, newspapers, magazines). Such control is all encompassing in Europe, whereas in the U.S., talk radio and FOX News are about the only outlets which have escaped their clutches - so far. Some may counter our assertion of complete or considerable Leftist dominance of the media realm in Europe and other non-U.S. areas by pointing to our presence on the internet and the universal accessibility of our websites. Yes, our side does indeed have many well written and logically presented websites. But the opposition has websites too, and in large numbers. Consequently, our internet presence is muted and the reality of Leftist dominance within the conventional media forums still stands.

If the European media were to ever dispense a fair amount of positive mentions of our movement within its opinion / editorial pieces and issue news accounts which are void of a Leftist bias, we are certain that a great affinity with our cause among Europe's general public would soon arise. Of course, don't hold your breath expecting any of this to happen soon.

We should point out that the Leftist dominance in European media, depending on the outlet involved, is generally a product of either government restrictions of free speech (through "hate speech" laws), the Leftist indoctrination of journalists and the simple fear among broadcasters of being targeted by the violence-prone Left for any verbal slights they may perceive as coming from them.

The main media outlets in Europe, particularly television and radio news / talk programs, reach far more people than any "needle in a haystack" website could ever hope to reach and have tremendously greater influence. This is due, in part, to the fact that the average person has only a handful of news-related choices within each respective media outlet (local and national television, radio, etc.) to choose from, meaning that the options are rather concentrated. Furthermore, the media outlets of television and radio are much more "dynamic" and appealing to the average person than a web page. And unlike the internet, where one has to intentionally search for a specific website, all that television and radio requires of people is the simple changing of a channel. In view of all of this, it should be apparent that the concentration among these media outlets, their high visibility and easy accessibility equates to considerable political influence. Upon considering these realities, we have established a goal with this post to break into one of these leading media formats: European talk radio.

______________________________________________________________________________
The power of Conservative Talk Radio on U.S. politics and the absence of any parallel to this in Europe.
______________________________________________________________________________
Any observer of the U.S. political landscape in recent years should readily discern the tremendous impact which Conservative Talk Radio has made in the political arena. It has definitely been a major force in alerting the public to the efforts of the Leftists in power to "fundamentally transform" the nation along Socialist lines, with corresponding appeasement to the demands of Islamic Supremacists. As a result of the exhortations by Conservative Talk Radio hosts, the public appears to be awakening from its slumber and actively fighting back (as of late 2010, the time of this writing). Without Conservative Talk Radio, we would have already been, as paraphrasing George Washington, lead dumb and silent like sheep to the slaughter.

In view of the tremendous power of Conservative Talk Radio, our desire is to spread the U.S. model for it to other nations, particularly those in Europe. Although our focus here will be with Europe, we would encourage readers in other parts of the world which are threatened by Leftists and Islamic Supremacists to consider how our outline may work for them.

We must state at the outset that internet research on the availability (or lack thereof) of Conservative Talk Radio in Europe was not definitive. But the research we have on hand appears to indicate that Conservative Talk Radio is very rare in Europe. In the cases where it does exist, it comes across as being muzzled by "hate speech' laws. As we are all aware, these laws are rarely, if ever, applied to the hateful language of Leftists or Islamic Supremacists.

We will proceed in this posting with an understanding that our perceptions of current European talk radio are accurate. Should we be in error, we would welcome any input to the contrary. The end result of this situation is that there is currently no opportunity to use any mass media format to alert the European general public to the true face of the Islamification threat.

__________________________________________________________________________________
The "psychology" of talk radio and how it can confer legitimacy on a concern and inspire action by the public.
__________________________________________________________________________________
We must realize that unless information relating to opinions, facts, positions, movements or events which support any side in a theoretical argument are steadily put forth in the dominant, non-internet mass communication organs as discussed above, it is almost always an uphill battle in getting the public to even acknowledge its existence. If an account which has an internet origin does reach broad public awareness, it is in most cases due to it having been picked up and promulgated by one of the leading media forums. We also believe that when a person does learn about something concerning the aforementioned areas (opinions, facts, etc.) through the dominant media organs, particularly LIVE radio and television, they do so with the subliminal or even conscious awareness that thousands or millions of other people are being exposed to such information at the very same time. This sense of a shared experience can be said to remove any feelings within viewing or listening individuals of isolation concerning their awareness. It follows that repeated exposure bolsters within such individuals this sense of community knowledge concerning the information in question. This, in turn, confers a sense of "legitimacy" on possessing such knowledge. It also serves to "authorize" or sanction individuals to act on such knowledge, often in concert with others of like mind. Basically, the leading mass media formats shape and form public discussion and, most importantly, action. The Leftists who control these medic outlets know this and do their best to belittle and diminish any voices from the contrary which attempt to broach their ramparts.

1683 AD has already put forth concepts in other posts which have the potential to circumvent the Leftist domination (which favors Islamic Supremacists) by making the Islamic Supremacism issue (or the mouring of their victims) "visible" in various aspects of the non-media, public realm. Our concepts regarding 10:03 AM watch alarms, "crickets" and certain cell phone ringtones, among others, serve as examples of such tactics. Even though such tactics remain a major emphasis with us, we still recognize the tremendous value there would be in attaining and keeping a dominant position in any of the leading mass media formats.

Talk radio is particularly appealing in that it has considerable power to reach people in their daily lives. It reaches them in their work commutes, where television does not. It reaches them at work, as it does not require any visual attention and can play in the background (as does music). Rarely does one see a television playing in a work environment. And talk radio reaches people in the home. When we evaluate Conservative Talk Radio, specifically, it is evident that it is fast paced, proactive, hard-hitting and, yes, entertaining. The Conservative hosts base their arguments in logic and reason, making them impervious to the insults and invectives hurled at them by Leftist callers (who, through their own illogical words, come across as buffoons). And the callers provide a sense that all the listeners are not alone in their thoughts regarding the status of things in the political realm. This live interaction with the public is unique to talk radio; rarely is it encountered in television. All of these qualities greatly embolden people to take action. Conservative Talk Radio was an invaluable "spiritual" driving force (among others) which led to the rebellion at the U.S. Town Hall meetings of Congressmen and Senators in 2009 and the various Tea Party ventures that have lasted well into late 2010 (the time of this writing).

We applaud the gradually increasing number of street protests that have taken place against Islamification, such as those produced by the English Defence League and the ones revolving around the Ground Zero Mosque. But please remember that street protests remain entirely dependent on a Leftist media to convey the message we seek to express. If we want such endeavors to be presented in an unfiltered manner to the general public, we will be waiting a long, long time. When contemplating this depressing reality, we can only conclude that the launch of a vibrant Conservative Talk Radio effort in Europe could help us tremendously in the promulgation of our message. The situation in Europe is dire, as so aptly explained here: http://www.drzz.info/article-why-europe-is-dead-by-guy-milliere-59166363.html . We must begin aggressive efforts to turn the tide through any available means, without delay. Conservative Talk Radio has tremendous potential in this regard.

The Plan for Challenge Radio in Europe

In the following discussion we will term our proposal as "Challenge Radio". The name "Challenge" would appear to be appropriate to the situation, as we are fighting an established force. However, this is just a working name; a better option would need to be chosen later.

If Europe can secure Conservative Talk Radio (in the form of Challenge Radio) somewhat on par with what exists in the U.S., our chances for reversing the Islamification threat will substantially increase. Of course, Islamification should not be the sole topic of discussion on Challenge Radio, but its likely mention on a periodic basis would greatly boost our efforts. Any topic, no matter how serious, often needs to be "rotated" with other topics in order to avoid becoming tired or stale from the perspective of the audience. That should be permissible, as many of the other Conservative themed topics could assist in attacking other various elements of the Leftist agenda which have directly or indirectly contributed to Islamification.

We have already alluded to the fact that the Leftists, many who are firmly ensconced in government positions, will not readily loosen their grip on European talk radio broadcasts over the public airways. The primary impediment to removing Leftist control are the "hate speech" laws, and they show no sign of disappearing. However, we have four new tools at our disposal; ones which they cannot touch (at least without blatant dictatorial measures): internet radio, satellite radio, long distance broadcasting and audio teleconferencing (ATC). They are all capable of going over and under the walls which have been built in Europe to limit free speech. Regarding internet radio, our readers are likely aware it exists and that numerous Conservative programs are offered on it. Likewise with satellite radio. Very few people use long distance broadcasting, like shortwave radio, but that might change. And never before (to our knowledge) has audio teleconferencing been contemplated as an alternative to traditional radio. No one to date has approached any of these options in a manner which would bring them out of obscurity and into broad public awareness, making them a major driving force in Europe; particularly in light of all the mobile applications which already exist for listening. In view of the possibilities we have discerned, we are setting forth an outline which, if implemented, could bring Challenge Radio into fruition and subsequently both reverse the threat of Islamification and turn the Leftist domination of that continent upside down. It is hoped that we may eventually be able to break down the barriers of conventional broadcast radio in Europe and utilize this specific format to the fullest extent possible, but in the meantime we must move ahead with the four alternatives on hand.

What follows is an outline for steps which can be taken to bring Challenge Radio into existence. As for Leftists copying it, such a prospect is unlikely, since they are the ones who are already in control of European mass media. And if they do, listeners who call in could simply focus in on their lack of logic within their arguments and take them apart. The inability of the Left to present coherent arguments which stand up to logic is a significant factor in their inability to attract listeners in a competitive environment and gain a foothold in the U.S. They only succeed where they are subsidized by their fellow government cronies, as in Europe.

Initial research

___________________________________________________
Find an organization which can draw the plan together and sustain it.
___________________________________________________
The following text reveals a plan which can be utilized to bring Conservative thought, along with warnings against Islamification, to populations throughout the entire world. As stated previously, our initial focus will be with Europe, as it is both a linchpin to Western Civilization and is already facing the initial gales of the impending storm. Since this endeavor will require constant monitoring and maintenance, we feel it is imperative that an organization which has proven to be both devoted to this cause and likely has the resources to sustain this effort be sought out for participation. Should you, the reader, have any organization in mind which would fit the bill, we would encourage you to initiate contact with them and apprise them of this concept. Regrettably, 1683 AD does not have the contacts and resources to accomplish this task on its own. We are depending on you.

_________________________________________________________________
Study the current and potential outlets for Conservative Talk Radio / Challenge Radio.
_________________________________________________________________
Assuming an organization has signed on with the Challenge Radio concept, they will likely begin with some basic research. We would encourage that they start by evaluating the various existing and proposed options for talk radio broadcasts.

Many in the general public will instinctively think of Conservative Talk Radio as existing solely on the public airways and will not be aware of the available internet, satellite, long distance broadcast and audio teleconference options for such programming. It appears that there currently is a considerable cross-fertilization of programs among some of these options and conventional broadcast radio. For example, a program which is on broadcast radio may also appear on the internet and satellite. However, the internet offers a bounty of programs which do not have broadcast or satellite counterparts. And talk radio is non-existent on long distance broadcasts and audio teleconferencing.

Among three of the four options for Challenge Radio as they currently exist (excluding audio teleconferencing), internet talk radio offers the greatest freedom of speech. For the most part, no governments censor it. Indirect censorship, through a withdrawal of advertiser support, is not a concern with many of the internet talk show hosts as they do not operate as business enterprises in the first place (as in the commercial satellite and conventional broadcast options). We should point out an exception concerning potential or existing indirect censorship within commercial satellite and conventional radio broadcasting: the providers of religious broadcasts. Since they lack commercial backing, their respective program hosts are relatively free to say what they wish. But for full and complete freedom of speech, none of these three options can hold a candle to audio teleconferencing; at least from what our evidence is to date. It can be launched without a pressing need for advertiser support (thus removing one weak point) and there does not seem to be any way in which a government could interfere with it (at least, thus far).

The advantage for listeners of conventional talk radio as it exists over the public airways is that it is free. Commercial satellite radio (currently absent from Europe) requires a paid subscription, whereas religious satellite radio might be free in some cases, particularly if it falls under the category of "Free to Air" (FTA). There is no mobile access (such as car radios) for FTA, but there is for U.S. commercial satellite radio and it would likely also exist in European commercial satellite radio. Internet radio is "free", but one needs to have an internet service provider. With that cost aside, home listening via internet radio would appear to be more "free" than listing with mobile internet devices, as later discussion elaborates. And of course, long distance broadcasting is free to the listener. Audio teleconferencing can be completely mobile, as it simply uses telephones.

In this initial stage, we would essentially need to weigh these options in terms of cost and the prospects for reaching large numbers of people. We go into greater detail on all of this in the following

Detailed research of the available alternative means for radio transmission and listening

_____________________________________
Study the prospects for internet radio broadcasts.
_____________________________________
Radio broadcasts on the internet have been established for a number of years. Conservative thought is well represented with a number of programs. Some of these internet broadcasts include simulcasts of conventional broadcasts over the air, whereas others consist of programs which are limited solely to the internet.

Pursuing the growth of internet Conservative Talk Radio broadcasts with Challenge Radio should be the least expensive option of all the ones discussed thus far. The expenses could be considered as almost negligible.

_________________________________________________________
Study the current and upcoming devices for listening to radio on the internet.
_________________________________________________________
While at home, internet programs can be heard on standard computers and on wired or wireless "appliances" designed specifically for internet radios which are located in close vicinity to the computer "base". These articles discuss some of them: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/business/09pogue.html ; http://reviews.cnet.com/best-wifi-radios/ . Although these devices require one to subscribe to an internet service, the use of these devices could be considered as "free" if one has a flat rate.

Regarding hand-held mobile devices, it would appear that the iPhone and Android could gain access, but these devices are not "radios", per se. One source indicates that the process for listening on these devices are currently bit complicated, but it appears that the eventual adoption of HTML5 will make things much easier. This site discusses e-Mobile Radio, for Android: ( http://download.cnet.com/e-Mobile-Radio-Live-music-and-news-from-anywhere-and-at-any-time/3000-13632_4-10946639.html ). This website briefly addresses the costs to stream radio with an iPhone: http://philpatrice.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-much-does-it-costs-to-stream-radio.html . This one speaks of Windows Mobile: ( http://www.smartdevicecentral.com/article/how+to+listen+to+internet+radio+on+your+windows+mobile+handset/209498_1.aspx This one concerns Talk Stream Live: ( http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/04/prweb3842204.htm ). This website gives brief instructions on how to bring internet radio to mobile devices: http://www.radioparadise.com/content.php?name=Listen&file=mobile . There seems to be some room for improvement with internet radio on such devices, but the current products appear to be capable of meeting the needs of the average person. The main drawback is that per minute charges can build up, making listening an expensive proposition; particularly when compared to commercial satellite radio.

Automotive receivers for internet radio broadcasts are already on the way, as indicated here: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10199833-48.html ; http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10139194-48.html?tag=mncol;txt ; http://www.livioradio.com/car/ . As with personal devices (see above), service within an automobile is not free, for it requires an internet subscription.

Regarding the overall prospects of internet radio, a very good review can be found here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:HGC2JVXKTgQJ:www.srg.org/delivery/10-06-28%2520Mobile%2520Internet%2520%26%2520Broadcast%2520Radio.pdf+%22mobile+internet+radio%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh_9WUtFP4L7R58brdZc2QqOpQGcYIxlgj-9J3JesGcKQ5lQ6S3LAvPP6Z6Ro7tKZ-Sy3AgKG_XMev7m2VOvzXfBX3o9q5pguEFmhmyegPxtsqVom1v2hYeXJzB36RdC__n9y37&sig=AHIEtbRbPv3XXncqGGQj2MDlkqPx1i6eYg . This article highlights some negative aspects of internet automobile radio: http://satwaves.com/blog/2010/01/06/why-the-internet-is-no-threat-to-sirius-xm-siri-satellite-radio/ . This article originated in the Wall Street Journal: http://depapaya.blogspot.com/2007/06/internet-radio-races-to-break-free-of.html .

The following articles are distinguished by their negative positions on internet radio, in general: : http://satwaves.com/blog/2010/01/06/why-the-internet-is-no-threat-to-sirius-xm-siri-satellite-radio/ ; http://www.nab.org/xert/scitech/2010/Radio_TechCheck/rd082310.asp ; http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/06/06/new-att-data-plans-threaten-to-stunt-the-growth-of-mobile-internet-radio/ . Summing them up, it appears that as things currently stand, internet based radio would cost consumers quite a bit more, on a monthly basis, than would mobile satellite radio. But the prospects for mobile internet radio is still enticing.

__________________________________
Study the prospects of satellite radio services.
__________________________________
Commercial satellite radio currently provides Conservative Talk Radio programs in the U.S., through Sirius http://www.sirius.com/ . If similar hosting companies were to arise in Europe and have physical European offices, we believe they would likely be very susecptible to Leftist and Islamic Supremacist pressure, as would any other European commercial sponsors. Particularly if U.S. style Conservative Talk Radio programs, which are hard hitting and explicit about the Islamic Supremacist threat, were to air on them. They would also be susceptible to "hate speech" laws.

The following links provide some insights into the prospects for commercial satellite radio in Europe: http://www.ondasmedia.com/index.htm ; http://www.onastra.com/161757/satellite-radio ; http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/03/08/story7.html Despite the possible vulnerability of European based offices, one would think that at least the hosts would be immune to "hate speech" laws if they originated their broadcasts from outside of Europe. Although censorship concerns such as these will be examined in more depth later in this posting, we should mention here that there might be ways to legally circumvent some or all them. The existing hosts on commercial satellite radio in the U.S. touch upon the Islamic Supremacist topic periodically, but we would naturally prefer a broader exposure to the issue than what they currently provide.

With all of this in mind, we might want to consider partnering with non-network satellite radio providers, preferably having non-European offices, who are both aware of the Islamification threat and have a vested interest in reversing it. Such providers would either have their own satellites or the ability to broadcast Free to Air programs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-air ) on a third party's satellite. Of anyone, religious (non-Islamic) broadcasters should be distinctly aware of the threat which Islamic Supremacism holds for the entire world and would therefore appear to be receptive to a partnership. Of course, at this stage we cannot presuppose their cooperation in airing anything of a political nature, even if it has a Conservative emphasis. This would have to be evaluated by our presumed patron of this overall venture

If a religious satellite radio provider is U.S. based, they would be the most capable of protecting free speech in the broadcasts they may host. However, there may be some income tax implications if a religious-oriented enterprise shares its resources. A possible way around this would be for them to charge a minimal, bare-bones fee for a political organization to rent channel space.

Here is a link for one existing provider of religious satellite radio: Radio Eden ( http://www.christiansatelliteradio.net/ ). It is not certain if they own their own satellite. This link tells how people in the U.K. can get Christian satellite radio through Sky http://www.christiansat.org.uk/radio.html . This link shows various Christian satellite radio channels on Sky (in the U.K.) http://www.christiansat.org.uk/channels.html#TVLinks .

Should an association with current FTA (Free to Air) religious satellite radio broadcasters not be deemed feasible, then the remaining option would be to develop our own service. Obviously, if anyone who pursues this Challenge Radio opts for this path, they would need the appropriate financial resources.

There is much more which could be said about securing satellite radio access for Challenge Radio, outside of the channels of established commercial satellite radio companies. This would need to be explored in greater depth by any entity which chooses to advance this venture.

______________________________________________________________
Study the current devices for listening to commercial and Free to Air satellite radio
______________________________________________________________
In addition to studying the framework for satellite radio broadcasts, we would also need to take into account the ability of people to listen to them. Of course, a commercial provider would have suitable equipment available for purchase. For example, Sirius has products for home or while mobile ( http://www.sirius.com/productsupport ), making it quite attractive. In Europe, such devices are not yet available (as of late 2010), due to the absence of any commercial satellite radio networks (see prior text). A commercial provider also requires a subscription, but the fees are not oppressive. An interesting report on the satellite radio industry can be found here: http://www.tmfassociates.com/SatRadio.pdf

There are various websites which explain how to access FTA broadcasts at home. However, there are no current options which allow for mobile FTA broadcasts. This puts FTA satellite radio at a serious disadvantage when compared to the commercial alternative.

There is nothing to preclude our going ahead with FTA broadcasts. However, it might be more cost effective to help bolster the knowledge base of any talk show hosts who may become established on commercial satellite radio in Europe with respect to Islamic Supremacism. We will touch upon this topic later.

______________________________________
Study the prospects for long distance broadcasting.
______________________________________
Short wave radio ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave ), Digital Radio Mondiale ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Radio_Mondiale ) International Broadcasting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_broadcasting ) and a few other formats revealed in the preceding links could be used to broach international borders and keep the broadcasters (likely U.S. based) immune from censorship by the authorities. This link speaks of such broadcasting being used by dissident groups around the world: http://www.ifex.org/china/2005/08/18/another_foreign_radio_station_falls/ . These links indicate how shortwave is used by various Christian organizations: http://www.biblevoice.org/ ; http://www.twr.org.uk/home.htm ; http://www.wwcr.com/ . A detailed discussion of the technical aspects of these options would be too lengthy to put forth here. Suffice it to say that they would require a reasonable amount of financial support to get set up. Some costs could be minimized through simulcasts of shows which exist in other radio formats, but the equipment costs would remain. It is unknown as to whether multiple programs could be broadcasted simulutaneously with any of these arrangements. It may be that only a handful could be broadcasted alongside each other.

These systems have the advantage of being completely free to the listener. However, it would take a lot of public education to draw people to this option. We would say, that overall, these approaches have some potential.

__________________________________________________
Study the current devices for listening to long distance broadcasting
__________________________________________________
Information regarding tabletop and portable receivers can be found here: http://shortwaveradioreceivers.org/ ; http://www.amazon.com/s?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=shortwave+radio+receivers&sprefix=shortwave+radi+ ; http://www.shortwavestore.com/ . Regarding shortwave radio receivers for cars, a few exist, as indicated in the following: http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/portable/dc942.html ; http://www.radiobanter.com/showthread.php?t=148126 ; and http://www.angelfire.com/ia/lfb/ . More research is needed in this area.

Although receivers for long distance broadcasting are currently not readily available, this could easily be changed with increased demand. The lack of any monthly fee with such broadcasting should help in securing listeners.

___________________________________
Study the prospects for audio teleconferencing.
___________________________________
There does not seem to be any precedents for the use of audio teleconferencing as a substitute for traditional radio broadcasts. Briefly defined, audio teleconferencing is a system whereby people call a central number on their telephones and are able to hear a speaker, discussion panel or any other presentation. Descriptions can be found here: http://technologydefined.com/teleconferencing/audio/ ; http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-audio-teleconferencing.htm ; http://listen-in.net/ . Under this arrangement, people would simply call a designated telephone number and hear a Challenge Radio program in progress.

When evaluating audio teleconferencing, we should also look at the tools used in distance learning (common in universities). There might be various inexpensive tools and strategies in this realm which would be applicable in the establishment of Challenge Radio. See the following for further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_education .

________________________________________________________
Study the current devices for listening to audio teleconference broadcasts.
________________________________________________________
No extensive research is needed in this area. The listening devices would be telephones, and they exist throughout the world in abundance. They only drawback would involve per-minute cellular telephone charges. This would be a factor of each individual's arrangement with his provider.

Research legal issues pertaining to censorship

____________________________________
Susceptibility of each radio format to censorship.
____________________________________
When we speak of censorship, we have to understand that it has three basic forms. The first one is "official" censorship. In Europe, this is what refer to as "direct" censorship and is comprised of the selectively enforced "hate speech" laws. They apply almost exclusively to those who seek to warn others about Islamic Supremacists. The Islamic Supremacists are effectively exempted from such laws. The second form of censorship is "indirect" and would affect any commercial broadcast ventures which rely upon advertisers for revenue. Thus, the formats of conventional broadcast radio and satellite radio. In such situations, "offended" Islamic Supremacists and their Leftist underlings can be expected to exert public pressure (including threats of violence) on the advertisers of Conservative programs which speak honestly of Islamic Supremacism, calling them "racists" and "Islamophobes". The obvious outcome would be that the advertisers would cave in and the programs would disappear. The third form of censorship is "direct" and would consist of the threats of violence, as well as acts of violence, from Islamic Supremacists and Leftists towards hosts and their staff. The hosts and their radio station staff need only to recall Theo Van Gogh (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/theo_van_gogh/index.html ) and the reaction of members of the "religion of peace" to the Cartoon incident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) when evaluating any planned program changes which would discuss in explicit terms the threats of Islamic Supremacism. We anticipate that upon contemplating these possibilities they would decide to remain with the status quo and essentially commit self-censorship. Readers, you must understand that there is a tremendous, unspoken fear pervading Europe which prevents honest speech on Islamic Supremacism or even the enabling of others to speak honestly. A recent example is shown in the first few paragraphs here, about securing a hotel room: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/oskar-freysinger-is-islam-threat.html .

Let's take a look at the censorship prospects of our different broadcast options.

As alluded to above, any host who broadcasts via satellite from a location in Europe would be subjected to our three types of censorship if they spoke clearly about the Islamic Supremacist threat. As would their radio station staff, if they, too, are located in Europe. Station facilities would also be vulnerable if based in Europe. An example of the reach of government concerning satellite broadcasts is evident here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312104575298633133701478.html . Of course, if satellite broadcasts originated outside of Europe and involved no European facilities, our censorship concerns would diminish considerably.

As for the programs which are limited strictly to the internet, boycott-style pressures would be of much less a concern to the program hosts. Furthermore, any program aired on the internet which is not based in Europe would generally be immune to any government regulation. The threats of violence would be easier to avoid. None of this means that with internet broadcasts we are free of censorship concerns in Europe, as it is theoretically possible for groups to pressure a government or internet service provider (ISP) to block access to an internet radio program. The problem with such an approach is that, unlike a static website, with video links, text and pictures, the content of an internet radio program is literally "here and gone". We have not heard of a website of any type being blocked for "past conduct", nor would there be a logical basis for blocking access for "anticipated conduct".

As for long-distance broadcasts which would be based in the U.S., there would be no fear of European "hate speech" laws. They would also be less vulnerable to threats of violence. Of course, European nations could jam radio broadcasts, but that behavior would be unprecedented.

In audio teleconferencing, the prospects for government interference within Europe would appear to be minimal, since there is no precedent for it. Of course, this could change. The threats of violence would also be minimal.

If programs in any of the above broadcast options are void of any commercial messages, we will have the automatic elimination of the threat of withdrawing sponsor support.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Contemplate and research the viability of unique strategies to legally circumvent current "hate speech" restrictions in Europe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Before going full bore with the Challenge Radio concept, it might be worthwhile to explore any creative ways in which the current "hate speech" laws in Europe could be legally circumvented, thereby allowing existing or potential Conservative Talk Radio hosts who reside in Europe and any European-based broadcast enterprises to commence true free speech efforts on the broadcast airways and on any of our alternative options. However, any breakthrough in bringing free speech broadcasts over the airways would not preclude the development of our plans for Challenge Radio, as we can expect the Leftists to fight back with new tactics. .

PLEASE NOTE: What follows are some admittedly "far out" concepts for consideration. Most readers will find them completely unrealistic and unreasonable. They clearly stretch the limits of imagination. But perhaps, just perhaps, some of them might have potential. At the minimum, these ideas may serve as a stimulus for creative thinking by others. Although they have been created with traditional broadcasts over the airways in mind, they might also be applicable for satellite, long distance, internet and audio teleconference broadcasts should a Leftist government seek to interfere in each respective domain. Assuming we do find a way around existing laws, we would not foresee problems, at least immediately, with European based radio talk show hosts and their supporting business enterprises ( in any format) spreading the Conservative agenda. However, due to the high population of Islamic Supremacists in Europe, we anticipate that any true speaking about Islamic Supremacism would remain severely constrained and limited (primarily in conventional broadcasts and satellite broadcasts), due to the potential for Islamic Supremacist / Leftist violence against the hosts, their broadcast offices and associated sponsors. Thus, honest, unbridled speaking on Islamic Supremacism would still likely come through Challenge Radio, from non-European locations.

SOUND SECTIONS: In this approach, we have to define what actually comprises a spoken "word". We can all agree that if a word (and a sentence it is in) is heard in normal speech, it will come across smoothly, without interruption in the sound which conveys it. However, would we still call it a "word" if the expressing sound is "chopped" or segmented, similar to what is heard when speaking through a spinning fan? In such a situation, small sections of the expressed word sound are lost to the listener; thus the "word" does not come across smoothly. However, the listener pieces the remaining sound segments together in his mind, and his mind translates the jumbled sound as a "word". We might be able to legally argue that a broadcast comprised of chopped sounds is purely that: chopped sounds. If anyone chooses to interpret these chopped sounds as words, that is their decision. But we cannot be charged with communicating any "hate speech" on our end.

FRONTAL LOBE ATROPHY: Frontal Lobe Atrophy is a condition which can develop with aging. No one can preclude it with 100% confidence from happening at any age. One characteristic of frontal lobe atrophy is that those so afflicted may lose their inhibitions in doing or saying things. What is to keep a physician (likely retired) in our employ from diagnosing our European-based Challenge Radio hosts and callers (while they wait to speak on-air) with this disorder? If the authorities try to remove such a person from the air, they can be accused of oppressing a disabled person and denying him their rights.

MENTAL ILLNESS: Similar to the preceding approach, a Challenge Radio host could be diagnosed by a physician as having a psychological condition. Likewise, through telemedicine, callers could be similarly diagnosed before being allowed to speak on-air. As a result, any attempts to limit their speech could be viewed as discrimination against the mentally ill.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY: A friendly nation (possibly Israel or Serbia) could grant our hosts diplomatic status and dual citizenship. Therefore, they could not be charged with violating any "hate speech" laws. Similarly, they could be allowed to conduct broadcasts from Embassy property, which is considered foreign territory. Or perhaps a talk show host or broadcast facility could be designated as a "diplomatic pouch". The one drawback is that a nation might expel the host, but this would be hard to perceive if they are actually citizens of the nation where the broadcasts are taking place.

GHOST HOST: A talk radio show could have an "official", non-descript host. Everyday, the first "caller" would effectively (though not officially) assume the role of the host throughout the program. And just coincidentally, this "effective host" would be the same person. The radio station management could claim that they have no official policy for putting forth "hate speech" with their official host. But if this daily caller says something offensive, well, that is already done. As for the prospect of future "offensive" statements, the station could claim no predictive abilities and assert that it would be "unfair" to restrict their callers in advance. Of course, there must be no paper trail connected to the "caller", such as paychecks.

WORLD WAR II CEMETERIES: I put forth this concept with great trepidation, the reason for which will soon be evident. It is proposed that talk show hosts visit U.S. World War II military cemeteries throughout Europe and conduct their shows over the telephone from their cars. They would technically be on U.S. territory and therefore permitted to engage in true free speech. The broadcasting station could not be charged with allowing "hate speech" to originate from their station, as it would actually come from the U.S.. Now to address the controversy. Many would argue that this is clearly being disrespectful to the dead U.S. soldiers. We concede this objection may have validity. On the other hand, some may argue that these talk show hosts are actually honoring their sacrifice by trying to preserve the freedom from tyranny which the soldiers themselves defended with their sacrifices. It may be seen that these soldiers are defending the cause of freedom again, even while in death. We do not have a final answer on whether this approach would be proper or not and we will leave it to others to hash out.

TIME DELAY BUZZER: A broadcast radio station in Europe coudl simply allow direct transmissions from the U.S. and air them directly. As for using a time delay buzzer in such an arrangement, we could always argue that whenever sentences are voiced in a live broadcast, it is not possible to determine if something going out over the air is "offensive" unless it is heard in its complete context. By the time that is evaluated, it would be too late for a time delay buzzer to block the "offending words". As for banning the speaker from further talk, we would have no guarantee as to whether he would "offend" anymore; therefore, it would be violating his rights to speak.

VOICE OF A CHILD: The official, on-air hosts could be children, just below the age of majority. Therefore, they might be immune to any criminal charges on what they say. A host, perhaps in the U.S., could speak to the child over an earphone and tell him what to say. A bit awkward, but it might work.

ARTWORK: Each program could be designated as a free-flowing "art form". Therefore, any attempts to interfere with them (hosts and callers) could be viewed as destructive to art, in general.

MECHANICAL VOICES: The voice of the host and the callers could be transformed, through the wonders of technology, into mechanical voices. We could therefore argue that no "persons" are saying anything offensive. As to whether the mechanical voices are saying anything offensive, that would be a matter of coincidence. Where does the law say that a mechanical voice equates to the human voice, or that people can be told that they always understand a mechanical voice? Technically, we would end up with a program of mechanically generated sounds, nothing more.

INTERFERING SOUNDS: Other sounds could play on their concurrent with the spoken voice. Thus, one, seamless "sound". We could argue that the additional sounds actually mask the sound of the human voice and that anyone saying otherwise is incorrect in saying that complete words were said. We would simply ask such a person to replicate with his own mouth everything which was heard, "voice" and accompanying sounds. It can't be done.

DUAL STATIONS: People could have two radios at home, side by side. One station could play the first half second of sound in a sentence, the other station could play the second half and so on. Or, alternating words could be transmitted. The listener would hear complete sentences through two radios, but each station, technically, would only be transmitting gibberish. Special radios with this capability could be marketed. Similarly, the alternating sounds could be played on two separate though immediately adjacent frequencies. For example, 101.2 and 101.3. They would alternate the sounds between each other. The listener's single radio would pick up both transmissions in a near seamless manner.

WHISPERS: Does whispering actually constitute "speech"? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering . If not, then programs conducted by whispering could be performed.

INTERCEPTION: A station could perhaps broadcast a signal which it has "intercepted" (perhaps on the internet or shortwave), therefore allowing them to claim no official connection to what they air.

DURESS: There might be situations where a talk show host reports that he is being "forced" to say things under duress, but if he reveals the source or cause of the duress, there could be serious consequences. Thus, his "hate speech" is not intentional.

CODE: The radio host could say what he wants to say, but wherever he would say the name of a certain "peaceful" group which he feels is a threat to Western Civilization and should be limited in its influence in Europe, he would cause a sound to emit over the air. Everyone would know who he really means, but without it actually being said, there would be no way to legally charge him. Multiple sounds would be used and would rotate in a random manner. Station crew would act as a back-up, in case the host slips.

THERAPY: Each program could be designated by a physician or other license practitioner as "therapy". Therefore, any interference could be construed as adversely affecting the healthcare of listeners.

MULTICULTURALISM ANGLE: Since Leftist believe that any culture other than what presently dominates in their own respective nations is "superior", and since the current dominating culture has a Leftist tinge, then the case can be made for allowing the introduction of "Conservative Culture".

DISCLAIMER: The programs could be conducted in a normal manner, but the spoken words of the hosts and callers would be accompanied by a low-level, constantly running verbal "disclaimer" in an accelerated voice. The disclaimer would say something like: everything on the show is a parody; the speech is not meant to reflect the thoughts of the speakers; statements spoken are absolutely wrong; the content is offensive and the listener should change channels; despite what is said, everyone speaking loves Islamic Supremacists: etc. The possibilities are many. The disclaimer would basically come across as a steady hum, but would technically be a human voice putting forth a protective statement.

EDUCTIONAL: The programs could be touted as educational ventures. Therefore, any attempts to interfere could be pointed to as attempts to stifle the pursuit of knowledge.

CONVERSION: A program could be set up with the premise that the host is an "evil" Conservative and, as a public service, periodic callers would be allowed attempts to "convert" him. Thus, the station would be doing a public service to help Leftists hone their arguing techniques. However, as we know, their arguments would wither away under the force of logic.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES: The host could proclaim himself as a type of Pentecostal (though not officially connected with any conventional, established Pentecostal group, so as not to make uninvited associations). All of his utterances could be declared as "speaking in tongues", per his own understanding. Quite amazingly, such speech would be perceived by listeners as very close to the common language of the nation. Any attempted interference in his speech would be deemed as being an insult to his religion.

TRANCE: The host could be a self-proclaimed spiritualist, and the voice he always happens to conjure up is that of a specific individual. Therefore, any charges of "hate speech" would need to be placed against a dead person. And any refutation of the claims of communication with the dead would be an assault upon the host's religious beliefs (a form of hate speech in itself).

Research miscellaneous topics prior to the launch of Challenge Radio

__________________________________________________
Catalog current Conservative Talk Show hosts / programs
__________________________________________________
Assuming we are in agreement in moving towards a European enterprise, we would suggest that our organizing entity conduct a thorough compilation of current Conservative Talk Radio hosts / programs within the U.S. and any other non-European nations where political correctness has not yet taken control of the airways, satellite offerings or the internet. The hosts / programs should include those which are found in air broadcasts, satellite and the internet. We anticipate some hosts / shows will have representation in more than one of these available forums. Generally speaking, most of the current Conservative Talk Radio hosts share our views regarding Islamic Supremacists. The organizers should also establish a system for monitoring the comings and goings of hosts / programs.

Next, we can compile a list of European Conservative Talk Show hosts / programs (if any exist). However, as alluded to above, it is unlikely with the existing threat of imprisonment for honest speech that any will be found who would be willing to buck the system and truly speak their mind regarding Islamic Supremacists. Nevertheless, they can still speak their minds regarding many of the Leftist policies which have caused Europe to lose the stature it once possessed.

Our recommended strategy - an overview

It should be evident from the preceding text that the four available broadcast options for the legal circumvention of broadcast restrictions in Europe (and elsewhere) have their own respective strengths and weaknesses. They revolve around producer costs, listener costs, transmission effectiveness and the accessibility of broadcasts by listeners. After taking these factors into account, we have devised a multi-stage strategy which would appear to be viable. When speaking of "multi-stage", we can have a system which is implemented one stage at a time, or all stages could be implemented simultaneously. This decision will be in the hands of the ultimate organizers. Please be aware that our greatest chance for success with this plan would come with the implementation of a strong promotional and marketing effort, as discussed in later text.

Assuming we have some form of organizational support, it is suggested that we begin with internet broadcasts. This would be by far the least expensive operation to get established, with most activities revolving around the establishment of a suitable web page. A sizable portion of the population already has computers which would enable immediate listening. Internet-enabled home internet radios, portable devices and internet car radios would extend the reach of such programming. The main drawback would be the per minute charges of mobile listening.

The next step in line is our "dark horse" candidate, audio teleconferencing. We would also include with this option the consideration of any feasible long distance education strategies. Although we do not have any available production cost data, we suspect that this option would pose minimal expense. If we have an effective marketing program, this system would provide the greatest accessibility to listeners. All they would need is a telephone.

Should sufficient financial resources be available, we should next move to satellite broadcasts. This approach has two avenues. The first one would be of minimal expense and involves satellite broadcasts from European commercial satellite networks, should they come into fruition (see prior text). We would simply establish a system whereby any Conservative Talk Show hosts who are allowed on these networks would receive concise reports on a regular basis regarding the threat of Islamic Supremacism. This would help to ensure that their listeners will become more aware of the threat. In fact, this system would also be used with hosts who use the other broadcast options. But there is a special need with commercial satellite broadcasts, since the European companies would pick and choose their own hosts and we would have no input in the matter. This educational service is elaborated upon in later text. It is important that we do this, for it is only the commercial networks which can broadcast via satellite to mobile devices, including cars.

Our second avenue with satellite radio involves our own FTA satellite radio broadcasts, effected by payment to satellite owners for transmission rights. It would be nice if Israel could help out here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Space_Agency ). As it stands, these broadcasts can only be received by fixed devices within the home. The lack of any fees having to be paid by listeners is one benefit of note. If this cannot be effected, we should seek out partners with religious satellites broadcasters who cover Europe, but do not have European offices (if possible).

Finally, we could proceed with long distance broadcasting. This would appear to be the costliest option. Still, reception could be effected within the home and while mobile. The listening appliances may currently be a bit uncommon, but suitable promotion would change this picture. And of course, the free reception has a strong appeal.

The following text elaborates upon the measures required to bring this into fruition.

Organizational stage - technology oriented

____________________________________
Configure the mechanics for internet broadcasts.
____________________________________
WEBSITE: The central component of an internet broadcast framework would be the website which people would access to locate a program. In designing such a website, we must stress SIMPLICITY. People expect something almost as simple as a conventional radio, particularly those of the older set. What follows are a few suggestions for consideration. Of course, we acknowledge that others may present better designs. Remember, this is for a website design. We are not certain of the type of arrangement which would be most suitable for a portable, non-computer listening device.

The potential viewer could be first presented with a language option. After a suitable choice is made, a list of countries with programs in the respective language would be presented, along with an option for all countries with the language. Next, a list of all the available host / show names would be presented. The ones currently on the air would be highlighted, with a notation regarding the remaining duration. It could also have a notation indicating the host's five favorite topics, in rank order. One might be Islamic Supremacism. Also, there could be a notation indicating some impartial industry ranking of the popularity of the respective hosts. The next click would take the listener to the program.

We would need to polish up this last step. It appears that as things currently stand, if a listener wishers to hear a particular popular airway broadcasted talk show host on the internet, they need to go to a local radio station's website to listen. Usually, such station pages are cluttered and visually distracting. The basis for such an arrangement is to expose more people to a local station's advertisers. It would be unfair to such stations, which pay the salaries which keep the hosts on the air, to have a service on the internet which bypasses the websites of the carrying stations. In order to provide Challenge Radio listeners with a smooth transition, bypassing the clutter and time consuming efforts to get to the show, we put forth a few things for consideration. First, the Challenge Radio website could detect the listeners ISP and automatically direct them to the sound (and video) of the nearest local station with the program. Hopefully, an agreement could be reached with the station whereby a user of Challenge Radio could go directly to the station's audio option for the program and bypass their main webpage with the associated clutter. Another option would be to randomly assign listeners to stations, without regard to locale (ad with a direct connection to a program's audio). With regards to European listeners, one would think there would be no objection toward providing them with audio from one source.

An example of a particularly well-organized website for internet radio selections can be found here: http://www.miroamer.com/ . Further information about this company and its offerings are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiRoamer http://venturebeat.com/2008/05/07/new-internet-radio-service-miroamer-could-catch-on-fast/ . However, criticism of it, as well similar websites, can be found in this forum: http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/mp3car-blog-talk/127694-ces-2009-miroamer-makes-first-internet-car-radio-we-think-not.html. Other websites of interest are here: http://www.vtuner.com/ ; https://www.reciva.com/ .

PROTECTING LISTENERS: In designing Challenge Radio, we must anticipate the possibility of governments or internet service providers blocking the receipt of transmissions from the U.S.. The website should therefore encourage listeners to use services like: haystack (http://www.haystacknetwork.com/ ; http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/06/needles-in-a-haystack.html ; http://gigaom.com/2010/09/14/haystack-plays-with-fire-gets-badly-burned/ ); Collage ( http://www.gtnoise.net/papers/2010/burnett:usenixsec2010.pdf ; http://gigaom.com/2010/07/12/software-uses-twitter-flickr-to-let-dissidents-send-secret-messages/ ; http://gtnoise.net/projects/7-anti-censorship/7-collage-defeating-censorship-with-user-generated-content ) ; Freegate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freegate ; http://www.internetfreedom.org/FreeGate ) ; Psiphon ( http://psiphon.ca/ ) or Tor ( http://www.torproject.org/download.html.en ).

INFORMATION ON AVAILABLE DEVICES: We must understand that a large number of people who would be interested in European Conservative Talk Radio may be older and not accustomed to the available mobile devices which can be used for listening. Therefore, the website should include sufficient information on the available options, including brand names and models. Links for mail-order purchase should also be included. Basically, the information should be very easy to understand and follow.

______________________________________
Configure the mechanics for audio teleconferencing.
______________________________________
ARRANGEMENTS FOR AUDIO TELECONFERENCE BROADCASTS: The arrangements for setting up these broadcasts would appear to be simple: just have a host speak over a telephone or have his voice transmitted to a phone setup via the internet. However, there are various concerns which must first be addressed. A central concern is the number of listeners which the system could accommodate. It may be that a massive capacity system would require a sizable infusion of money or resources. Perhaps a governmental entity such as Israel could assist in this area, if needed. Another concern is the ability to retain phone lines for people to utilize in order to listen, as we expect that a government might seek to limit the operation of Challenge Radio. Should government interference be attempted, it would be seen as a matter of getting involved in a private telephone call and such a precedent would not come across well with the general public. This is because the government would be dictating what could be said in private conversations, which, technically, is the true nature of these broadcasts. It would be ideal if the call in number were toll-free, but this may entail excessive costs. Non-European telephone numbers would also be appealing, but that would cost listeners quite a bit to call. For the purposes of Challenge Radio, we would not need the option whereby callers could stay on line and submit questions or engage in conversations with the Challenge Radio host. Although we are not certain, we perceive that such an option would increase costs. Instead, a caller would simply disconnect from the program and call in like they would any other radio program. As for the location of the program host, he could actually be outside of the country where the program is being heard.

WEBSITE: A website could be designed for the purpose of promoting Challenge Radio via audio teleconferencing. We would suggest something which falls along the lines of what we have suggested for the internet broadcast website, as described above.

PROTECTING LISTENERS: If there are concerns about governmental entities going after people who call in to listen to Challenge Radio, they could consider using the option which blocks the caller's telephone number from the recipient (Challenge Radio). In the U.S., this is effected by dialing *67 before calling the regular telephone number. We suspect, however, that this might not offer significant protection against governmental authorities. Protective measures should be mentioned on the website.

INFORMATION ON AVAILABLE DEVICES: The available devices would consist of telephones. They are readily available.

____________________________________
Configure the mechanics for satellite broadcasts.
____________________________________
ARRANGEMENTS FOR FTA BROADCASTS: The technological aspects of securing access to satellites for broadcasts is far too complex for discussion here. Suffice it to say that access should be obtainable on a regular basis for a fee. Whether sufficient financial resources can be secured is an unknown at the time of this writing. This concern might be waived if the cooperation of a nation like Israel could be obtained. Should FTA broadcasts be feasible, we foresee that the programs can be relayed by talk show hosts, no matter where they are located, to the satellite coordinators via internet technology. There would be no need for the coordinators to provide any studio services of its own.

WEBSITE: A website should be established which outlines the schedule for all the relevant broadcasts on both FTA and commercial satellite radio. It should include information pertaining to how people can access appropriate listening devices.

AUGMENTING THE ABILITIES OF CURRENT CONSERVATIVE HOSTS ON EUROPEAN COMMERCIAL SATELLITE NETWORKS: We have noted previously that only commercial satellite networks can be picked up on mobile receivers, including those in cars. The programs which are included in each network's lineup are therefore rather easy for subscribers to access whenever they desire. Obviously, we do not have the ability or authority to add any additional programs to a network's schedule. Therefore, the most we can hope for would be to make certain that the existing Conservative Talk Radio hosts on European satellite radio are fully versed in the threat of Islamic Supremacism. In order to ensure an accurate portrayal of this cancer on humanity, we suggest that our hypothetical host organization compile a daily list of news report links concerning the cruelties committed by Islamic Supremacists as well as other aspects of their march toward global domination. New editorial commentary should also be included, as should reports of the growing resistance to these efforts. Once compiled, these links should be sent to a select number of Conservative Talk Radio hosts via e-mail. By conducting all of the research for them, we will enable them to devote more time to gaining an understanding of how Islamic Supremacism is a threat to Western Civilization. The end result is that the listeners of Conservative Talk Radio on European satellite networks (whenever they arrive) will themselves gain a greater comprehension of this threat. This is about the only way in which we can ensure any input in European commercial satellite radio.

Despite this tactic for providing concise information having been inspired by the potential for European satellite Conservative Radio programming, we should expand it to also include the hosts on U.S. satellite talk radio as well as the hosts on our other available formats. This will be addressed in later text.

________________________________________
Configure the mechanics for long distance broadcasts.
________________________________________
ARRANGEMENTS FOR LONG DISTANCE BROADCASTS: As with FTA satellite broadcasts (above), the technological aspects of setting up long distance broadcasts are far too complex for discussion here. Since it would require the establishment of actual radio stations, it would appear to be the most costly of our alternatives. It is unknown whether multiple programs can be simultaneously aired from one station. If not, then our cost would increase if more variety is sought.

WEBSITE: A website should be established which outlines the schedule for all the long distance broadcasts. It should include information pertaining to how people can obtain the appropriate listening devices.

______________________________________________________________________________
Suggestions for actions which can apply to any chosen broadcast option (excluding commercial satellite)
______________________________________________________________________________

BLOG READING: Challenge Radio could also offer a unique service: simply reading out loud the best blog articles of the day. This would of course require a number of speakers to accomplish. But the task is relatively simple. The spoken translation of such blogs into the various available languages would be frosting on the cake.

PHONING IN: A simple arrangement would also be needed for callers to utilize. One would think that Skype or some other free service would be the best option for Europeans seeking to speak with U.S. based hosts of European broadcasts.

Organizational stage - host oriented

______________________________________________________________________
Make arrangements for the participation of Conservative Talk Show hosts in Challenge Radio.
______________________________________________________________________
With the list of Conservative Talk Show hosts /programs which had previously been compiled, steps could then be taken to secure their participation in Challenge Radio. Since many people in Europe already speak English, we can be assured of a reasonable number of potential listeners who would be receptive to the American hosts. We anticipate that these hosts would do quite well with international topics and expressing the Conservative philosophy. However, we also foresee their having a minimal grasp of various national and local concerns (regarding Europe). Furthermore, it is unlikely that they would ever touch upon the various pressing national and local concerns which are on the minds of Europeans.

Of course, we would prefer to have hosts speak from within Europe, but the Thought Police, armed with their "hate crime" laws would prohibit a free flow of information regarding Islamic Supremacists (unless our circumvention strategies, as discussed previously, are effective). Even if the laws can be legally circumvented, we would still have the threat of violence from Islamic Supremacists and Leftists against the hosts and any local broadcast offices. Nevertheless, we should still seek them out for their ability to counter the Leftist philosophy which has paved the way for Europe's destruction. Discussions along those lines, which do not touch on Islamic Supremacist beliefs, would be difficult for the Leftists to "justify" in calling for violence.

Our next step should be to aggressively recruit European expatriates who live within the U.S. or within any other nation which still allows truly free speech. In addition, if we come across any truly talented, retirement age hosts favoring our agenda from within Europe, who are constrained by their surroundings, we should do our best to facilitate their moving to the U.S.

In order for any expatriate hosts to convey a true understanding of their home nation to its own citizens, they will need to be well versed on the latest happenings there. Many of such insights could be obtained through their reading of local publications over the internet and watching local television newscasts, again, over the internet. To fully round out things, they would do well to have a volunteer ground staff in Europe to provide further insights.

_________________________________________________________
Grade the potential Challenge Radio hosts on their areas of particular interest.
_________________________________________________________
We have suggested in our website design the inclusion of information regarding each host's areas of particular interest and/or expertise. At this stage in the development of Challenge Radio, we would need to make such inquiries of the hosts.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
Develop a system for hosts which will steer to them the latest news in a concise format; particularly news regarding Europe
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Most hosts have already developed their own systems for securing news reports for their show preparation. However, there might be ways to create a streamlined system which could benefit those who do not have a large research staff. Therefore, as stated in prior text with respect to commercial satellite radio, we should encourage the provision of supplemental information regarding Islamic Supremacists to conservative hosts on any broadcast format. Distribution via internet would be the ideal mechanism.

Promotion and launch stage for Challenge Radio

_____________________
A message to be conveyed.
_____________________
Obviously, it would be far too early to discuss the exact message which we would need to convey in our promotions. However, we see two different options which merit consideration. The first one would be to make no mention of Challenge Radio. Instead, simply promote a theme such as "Freedom of Speech". Something which conveys the existence of alternative talk radio and how it may be accessed, but does not promote any specific political philosophy. The advantage of this approach is that the violence-prone Leftists would not have a rational basis for interfering with the promotion. After all, their own broadcasts (which could theoretically exist) would be indirect beneficiaries of the promotion. Should they attempt interference anyway, the established elites in the media would be hard pressed to publicly defend their actions. After all, they have always loudly proclaimed themselves to be champions of free speech (what a joke!). Our other option is to simply go with promoting Challenge Radio at the outset. The disadvantage to this approach, alluded to above, is the high potential for Leftist violence and disruption. But it would make the presence of Challenge Radio known immediately to our allies in the general public, the people we need to mobilize to action. 1683 AD prefers this latter approach.

____________________________________
Develop a promotional campaign on the internet.
____________________________________
The most obvious place to begin a promotional campaign is on the internet. Since it is so broad in scope, an awareness of the Challenge Radio endeavor should become common, at least in Conservative circles, in short order. We can facilitate this awareness by making a concerted effort to urge all of the Conservative and ant-Islamic Supremacist blogs, as well as allied organizations, to promote Challenge Radio on their websites on a continuous basis. We stress "continuous". This should not be a one-time announcement which is soon forgotten. Consequently, banners and other visual aids which websites could utilize in promotion should be made available for use. Obviously, we should have a heavy European emphasis.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Develop a street-oriented marketing campaign for the concept of free speech internet radio, in general.
_____________________________________________________________________________
One might consider simply promoting Challenge Radio on the internet (as described above), putting the associated Challenge Radio website(s) on-line and just letting the venture take off on its own. That might work, but we have to realize that in today's world, with people encountering a massive number of attempts by others to get their attention on a daily basis, we would have an uphill battle if that was all we did.

The Leftist controlled media in Europe will obviously do nothing to publicize the existence of Challenge Radio on the internet. Therefore, depending on media promotion is out of the question. Our only viable alternative is to move our message out beyond the confines of the internet and into the real world. By this, we mean the use of bumper stickers, pamphlets, protests and other forums which are prevalent in the "street". Designs for various printed materials could be made available on a separate website from Challenge Radio, so that people could make their own.

Now for the hard part: getting these materials distributed. The best option would be to secure the participation of any political parties who are allied to our cause, along with any anti-Islamic Supremacist groups which might be in existence. With their manpower, a sufficient amount of promotional materials could be distributed to get the overall effort a jump start. After that point, we anticipate that there would be a considerable spread of awareness via word of mouth.

__________________________
Launch the website and programs.
__________________________
The actual launching of websites associated with the various broadcast formats should commence in a reasonable time period shortly before any of the above mentioned promotional campaigns. From that point on, Europe will have a greatly improved chance of saving itself.

Late entry options for consideration

Just prior to the completion of the preceding text, additional alternative broadcast options for Europe were discovered by 1683 AD. Regarding the first one, microbroadcasting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbroadcasting ), this is essentially local radio broadcasting which is restricted to a relatively small geographic area. Information regarding the approach can be found here: http://www.freeradio.org/ ; http://www.radio4all.org/microbroadcasting-vs-traditional-radio-station.html ; http://part15.us/node/889 ; http://reason.com/archives/1995/10/01/dont-touch-that-dial ; and http://www.utne.com/Media/Stephen-Dunifer-Free-Radio-Berkely-Microbroadcasting.aspx ; http://proliberty.com/observer/20040308.htm. Assuming it is legal in a nation where people would like to adopt it, microbroadcasting has considerable advantages. It would allow a clear message to be broadcasted in a defined area. Even if only a few miles, this would expose a lot of people if within the confines of an urban area. We foresee the possibility of such systems being set up with connections to Challenge Radio internet transmissions. We should explore mobile applications with this. In order to get this concept going, we would need to have websites in multiple languages which explain in a "spoon feed" manner how one could set up such a system. Of course, Islamic Supremacists could launch a similar effort with their own microbroadcasts. That would serve our side well, for it would make Europeans even more aware of the Islamic Supremacist intrusion into their lives and the prospects for their eventual rule.

A similar approach is inspired by a product from a few decades back, called Mr. Microphone ( http://www.mrpophistory.com/popculturefiles/askmrpophistory_q217.htm ). It appears that it would be possible for a device called a "digital audio computer" has the capability of transmitting radio signals a very small distance. If something like this could be adapted for automobiles, then messages could be transmitted anonymously to fellow commuters in their cars, should they have their radios on. This site gives a brief overview: http://www.metafilter.com/24047/WWHRD . This site discusses how an iPod can be adapted as a short distance radio transmitter: http://www.engadget.com/2004/06/15/how-to-tuesday-make-your-own-pirate-radio-station-with-an-ipod/ . In essence, there are various ways in which someone can transmit radio signals at least a short distance while mobile. We would need someone to research all of the possibilities and present the mechanics on how one can set up their own system, via a website as described above. Of course, legal considerations should be taken into account.

If a mobile option is chosen, the participant should ensure that his vehicle is not affixed with stickers or anything else which would suggest to people nearby that such a car is the transmission source.

Posted on 10/23/2010 at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

09/20/2010

ACT: Building bridges with a return to the Ikhtiyar - Part I

"What we do for ourselves alone dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal". - Albert Pike

Introduction

In the course of reading the posts of 1683 AD, most will come to the correct conclusion that we do not particularly cotton to the Islamic Supremacist agenda. Please understand while reading the following that our opinion has not changed one bit in this regard, nor will it.

1683 AD has decided to take a page from the "peace loving" Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf (proponent of Ground Zero Mosque) and put forth a "Bridge Building" proposal of our own; one which would, quite surprisingly, actually benefit both Islamic Supremacists and those on our side. Regarding the nature of such benefits, Islamic Supremacists would stand to gain a greater "purity" in the practice of their beliefs. Of particular interest is the fact that their pursuit of specific "purity" measures, fueled by the irrefutable supporting evidence we will provide, would require a subsequent promotion by Islamic Supremacists of compliance among their peers with certain firm dictates from Islam's early years (not too long after Mohammed's death). Such measures which would actually have a delightful side effect of greatly inhibiting the spread of Islamic Supremacism (thus the benefit for our side, and in fact, for the future of humanity). Such dictates as well as certain historical realities, to be discussed later, had later been "conveniently" forgotten or minimized by Islamic Supremacist leaders of later times.

With respect to the efforts of our side in this bridge building effort, we must emphasize at the outset that we will not be critical of what is written in the Qur'an, as this would be deemed an "insult to Islam" and automatically sabotage communication (likely indirect) with Islamic Supremacists and thus the building of our bridge. In fact, we will actually reference many Islamic texts and sources in this posting to bolster our case.

Briefly stated, the focus in this endeavor is with encouraging Islamic Supremacists to restore the use of the original, "pure" written Qur'an (or "Mushaf" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus'haf ) and abandon the use of current written Qur'an / Mushaf. We submit that the modern written Qur'an / Mushaf is not presented in the same, exact manner as the original (hard to read) written Qur'an / Mushaf which was authorized by the Caliph Uthman and in use during the subsequent period of Ikhtiyar (see later text), which lasted from Uthman's authorization (650 AD) onward to at least 934 AD. Since gradual, deliberate changes in the official Uthman text to enable easier reading can be clearly demonstrated (details later), some may logically conclude that the modern, written Qur'an / Mushaf is actually an insult to the Qur'an as it exists in its "pure" recited form and as preserved on a "tablet in heaven". The full extent of changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf and/or their lack of any sufficient justification does not appear, from what we can see, to be common knowledge among Islamic Supremacists.

Regarding the term "Mushaf" a further explanation of the term ( http://www.quranicstudies.com/louay-fatoohi/quran/the-difference-between-quran-and-mushaf.html ) reads: "So, the literal meaning of “mushaf” is 'collection of pages'. Its technical meaning is, therefore, the 'compiled, written pages of the Qur’an'. In other words, the term 'Qur’an' refers to the specific 'revelation that was read to Prophet Muhammad' whereas the term 'mushaf' denotes the 'written form' of that revelation".

Should our findings on specific changes be verified by others (including Islamic Supremacists) and found to violate various Islamic commands regarding text integrity, one would think that Islamic Supremacists, if intellectually honest, would enthusiastically join in an effort to encourage all Muslims to return to the use of the "pure", unchanged, original written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf, no matter what secondary consequences, such as difficulty in reading, may arise. Our side's intent in this endeavor should be irrelevant to them; only the truth regarding an element of their beliefs, no matter how painful it may be, should be of concern to them. If, on the other hand, they brush away the irrefutable and obvious evidence, they will show to the world that they are hypocrites and view their beliefs in a selective manner, twisting them to meet the needs of the moment. That would open the door to all sorts of accusations as to the validity of any and all dictates they promulgate. In the case of our issues, the predominant "need of the moment" for them would appear to be convenience. Thus, convenience trumps the truth.

Of course, critics will decry our motives in this effort. But they cannot deny that we have the ultimate bridge building endeavor, since both sides would see benefits. Furthermore, when the Islamic Supremacists see there is no circumventing the historic fact of textual changes, they will, if actually true to their beliefs, have no recourse but to follow the original dictates for respecting the written Qur'an / Mushaf. Even if they are "uncomfortable" with the inhibiting effects on the spread of Islamic Supremacism which they would bring.

Later text reveals that none of our arguments rely on conflicting interpretations of Qur'anic verses. In fact, we have strived to avoid getting into such a thicket, as we want this concept to be as simple as possible. Although there are mentions of some Islamic-friendly verses in our references, they are actually supportive of the premise we present. An example would be those which prohibit changing the Qur'an / Mushaf. Overall, our argument is built on a foundation of undeniable, historic fact. We see little room for intellectual disagreement arising when it comes to history; particularly the history that Islamic Supremacists have themselves taught. It is just a matter of bringing certain obscure facts into the light and having Islamic Supremacists acknowledge they have no valid counter-arguments.

One caveat. 1683 AD does not have an expertise in Islamic history or Islamic interpretations. We have secured all of the information for this post through basic searches on the internet. With this in mind, we acknowledge that our premise and understanding of the matters to be discussed might actually be completely wrong. There might be some verse from the Qur'an which actually absolves those who made changes to the written Qur'an / Mushaf. We might have missed some relevant historical fact. We just don't know at this stage. Therefore, we must emphasize that this posting is more of a "trial balloon" of sorts; something which others with greater expertise and knowledge might be able to build upon, polish and develop. We cannot say with full authority that our findings as of the date of this posting are definitive and complete. At the minimum, we believe that the approach has "potential". If our premise is clearly indefensible, then we can at least view this as a learning exercise. These disclaimers aside, at this point in time, we believe we have found something which can be boiled down to one extremely simple and uncomplicated "catch phrase" which can be spread throughout multiple forums of discussion, eventually causing a major change which would benefit all concerned. Thus, bridge building in its highest form.

The organization of this posting.

Much of this posting is composed of excerpts taken from various links. Due to the excessive length of these excerpts, we have shuffled them to the latter portion of this post, under the heading "Supporting information / Appendix". They are provided so that the reader can confirm the various assertions which we make under the immediately following "Background information" heading, which is composed primarily of narrative from 1683 AD. Of course, simple links might have sufficed in the "Supporting information / Appendix" section, but we wanted to display with each link the pertinent areas of interest from them and help save some time. The above-mentioned narrative from 1683 AD is duplicated in the "Supporting information / Appendix" section and is matched with the appropriate links and excerpts. The part of this post which explains our findings is the "Background information" section. This, in turn, is followed by the "Strategy for Building Bridges" section. This is where we suggest a plan of action.

Background information.

________________________________________________________
Brief description of the creation of the "accepted" written Qur'an / Mushaf.
________________________________________________________
Various links on the internet present a complicated picture regarding the initial (650 AD) compilation of the written Qur'an / Mushaf. Although many seriously question the validity and completeness of the final, authorized, initial (650 AD) Qur'an / Mushaf we have chosen to not delve into such concerns. We perceive that the counter-arguments lined up against them, even though they are weak, would easily sway the average Islamic Supremacist who is already pre-disposed to accepting the sanctity of what they see as the authorized Qur'an / Mushaf. More importantly, such discussions would only serve to divert us from our main goal: proving that the fully authorized and universally accepted written Qur'an / Mushaf of 650 AD was "illegally" altered in later years. Therefore, for the sake of our argument, let us agree to not introduce other concerns into the mix and let us also "concede" that the initial written Qur'an / Mushaf of 650 AD is legitimate.

We will now explore the creation of the written Qur'an / Mushaf of 650 AD. First, we know that Mohammed died on June 8th, 632 AD. As stated here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoran ), the basis for the Qur'an / Mushaf that we know today was initially established by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr. The use of a specific text was finalized by the third Caliph, Uthman ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_ibn_Affan ). The reader should be aware that later text in this narrative, under a separate heading, discusses the existence of seven distinct "readings" of the Qur'an which were said to exist prior to the completion of the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf. These readings existed in oral recitations (by memory) and in writing (as is our understanding). It appears that Uthman eliminated all but one of these readings (oral and written) in his effort to create the definitive Qur'an / Mushaf. However, as also addressed in later text, these readings (oral and written) were "officially" brought back and "authorized" in 934 AD (1683 AD note: we deem the efforts in 934 AD regarding additions to text to be an insult to the "sanctity" of the written Qur'an / Mushaf of Uthman).

The following link ( http://sa.promo.web.id/when-was-the-quran-compiled-and-made-into-a-book.com/comment-page-5/ ) describes events leading up to the Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf as follows: "The Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) via the angel Gabriel, and the Prophet subsequently memorized the whole scripture. Thousands of the Companions of the Prophet learned the Qur’an directly from the Prophet (pbuh). They memorized it and were known in Islamic history as huffaadh (the memorizers and preservers of the Qur’an). Moreover, a number of Companions wrote it down during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and it was compiled in its entirety immediately after his death. The entire Qur’an was written down during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, and trusting the fact that many scholars knew it by heart, it was not collected in one volume. It was personally arranged by him, and the Muslims memorized it in the same order. During the rule of the first Caliph Abu Bakr, there was a rebellion among some distant Arab tribes that resulted in a series of fierce battles. In one particular battle, a number Companions who had memorized the Qur’an were killed. The Companion Omar worried that the knowledge of the Qur’an was in danger, thus he convinced Abu Bakr that the Qur’an should be compiled into book form as a means of preserving it once and for all. Zayd bin Thabit was entrusted with this important task. Zayd followed strict methods in his compilation and had dozens of other huffaadh recheck his work to ensure its accuracy. Abu Bakr, who had also committed the entire Qur’an to memory, approved of the final product. After Abu Bakr passed away, the copy was passed to the Caliph ‘Omar, and then Uthman. However as the Muslim world expanded into lands where the people spoke Arabic as a second language, the new Muslims had a difficult time learning the correct pronunciation of the text. The Caliph Uthman consulted other Companions, and they agreed that official copies of the Qur’an should be inscribed using only the pronunciation of the Quraysh tribe, the Arabic dialect that the Prophet spoke. Zayd bin Thabit was again given this assignment, and three other huffaadh were assigned to help him in the task. Together, the four scribes borrowed the original, complete copy of the Qur’an, duplicated it manually many times over, and then distributed them to all of the major Muslim cities within the empire".

The written Qur'an / Mushaf was distributed for use by Uthman to the provinces in 646 - AD - 650 AD. Each Qur'an / Mushaf was accompanied by a reciter who reflected a specific reading. Simultaneous with this distribution, all "incomplete" versions of the Qur'an / Mushaf were ordered to be destroyed. Thus, use of the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf was commanded throughout the Islamic world to the exclusion of any other versions.

__________________________
Reciting and memorization.
__________________________
Although the focus in our "Bridge building" is with the written Qur'an / Mushaf, we should emphasize to readers that according to Islamic Supremacists, the true Qur'an is what exists in their "chests" and through what is conveyed through oral recitations. The written Qur'an / Mushaf, at least as originally intended, is perceived as more of an aid for recitation.

________________________________________________________________________
Acceptance by all Muslims of the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf at the time of its completion.
________________________________________________________________________
We have thus far established the manner in which the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf came into existence. It is important to note that there was considerable support from Islamic leadership at the time (around 650 AD) for both Uthman's overall effort and, most importantly, its end result. Furthermore, since Islamic Supremacists assert that the accuracy of the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf has been confirmed over the centuries by those who could recite the Qur'an which they "hold it in their chest", it is only logical to expect them to acknowledge the fact that those who would have the ultimate, unparalleled accuracy in their recitations and how they should be conveyed in writing, namely the companions of Mohammed (and others from the same time period), enthusiastically endorsed precisely what Uthman brought forth - and issued no requests for the addition of anything else. More specifically, they did not make any demands whatsoever for changes or adaptations of any type to Uthman's written Qur'an / Mushaf. If none of these leaders saw any deficiencies, then it is difficult to see how anyone in later years could (as they did in 934 AD) arbitrarily claim a deficiency existed and subsequently "correct" it without being accused of insulting the Qur'an / Mushaf. None of these early Companions / leaders claimed that anything was missing or lacking. Thus, only a Qur'an / Mushaf which is written in the precise manner as Uthman's, without any "improvements" can be deemed as authentic. We should note that s some Islamic Supremacist apologists have claimed that an existing ancient written Uthman-approved written Quran / Mushaf may be deemed inaccurate due to "scribal error" (they will deny errors in recitations). If this refers to a handful of scattered inaccuracies in a text, it is not worth our effort in this bridge building endeavor to contest such a position. However, it must be acknowledged that "scribal error" cannot be reasonably expected to cover such broad elements such as language choice, the absence of diacritical points, numbering and other topics which will be elaborated upon below. These specific elements will soon be revealed as being integral to our argument.

_________________________________________________________________
Composition and structure of the written Uthman Quran / Mushaf when it was created.
_________________________________________________________________
It is extremely important in the presentation of our case to examine the composition and structure of the finalized Qura'n /Mushaf as written under the directives of Uthman, with the approval of other leaders of early Islam. With the prohibitions against changes in any aspect of the written Quran / Mushaf in mind (see the next sub-section for an elaboration on this point), reason and logic clearly dictates that the exact, written Qur'an / Mushaf which Uthman ordered to be spread throughout the world around 650 AD should be the only one in use today, without any variation whatsoever. Any change in what was originally written can be considered an insult to Islam.

The key points to remember regarding the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf are as follows: (1) It was written in a specific Arabic dialect in a specific script, either Kufic, Quarysh or Hijazi. We could not come to a unanimous answer on this point and will therefore leave it for others to finalize. (2) It was written in Arabic (in a specific dialect, see the preceding) as the Arabic language existed at the time (650 AD); not in an Arabic as it evolved and has existed in recent centuries. (3) It did not include any vowels, diacritical points or other reading aids and it was limited to seventeen consonants. (4) It did not include any numbering, headings, separations or any other kind of division; not even any formal indication of the ending of verses. (5) It was handwritten, not printed; printing was banned via fatwa (by Islamic scholars) for a considerable period of time after the invention of the printing press (nor was it obviously authorized for use on the internet or any other electronic media). And finally: (6) With respect to #3 in the preceding, the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf was essentially seen an aid for use by those who have already memorized the Quran in recitation. Furthermore, due to its lack of reading aids, it was almost indecipherable to anyone at the time who had not already memorized the Qur'an.

This list of qualities of the original written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf refers to many things which were actually absent from it. Later text discusses how and when they were eventually added despite explicit prohibitions to changing the Qur'an / Mushaf.

_____________________________________
Altering the written Qur'an / Mushaf is forbidden.
_____________________________________
We will now briefly touch upon the firmly held and substantiated belief among Islamic Supremacists that it has always been forbidden to make any changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf. The commitment of Islamic Supremacists to this belief would appear to be unshakeable, at least if we take into consideration all of their comments on the issue. However, evidence indicates that their proclaimed beliefs have not translated into practice through much of the history of the written Qur'an / Mushaf after Uthman finalized it. Let it suffice for now us to simply establish the fact that under "pure" Islam, changes to the written Qur'an / Mushaf, no matter how well intentioned, are considered to be insults to Islam. Various verses from the written Qur'an Mushaf support us with this assertion. If the Islamic Supremacists claim that they were only referring to the recited Qur'an, then they will have to concede that they have no defense against anyone choosing to arbitrarily make other changes to it. They can't have it both ways.

_______________________________________________________
Translations of the Qur'an not eligible for the title of being "Allah's Word"
_______________________________________________________
Translations of the written Qur'an / Mushaf are not deemed by Islamic Supremacists to be authentic. When a written translation of the Qur'an / Mushaf is spoken of in a general manner, we have traditionally seen as referring to a presentation which enables a person who cannot read Arabic to attain a grasp of the Qur'an's meaning in their own language (i.e., English, Spanish, etc.). We submit that the term "translation" should not simply refer to the use of a different language. It should also incorporate, when speaking of Arabic, the application of aids (diacritical points, dialects, modern script, etc.) which have enabled the drastically transformed the Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf and allowed it to be fully comprehended by a person who only converses in Modern Arabic. The following link ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/translate ) supports our claim in that it clearly indicates that the term "translation" does not apply solely to a different language as it is generally understood; it works within a language among its different stages of development. As a comparison, it seems reasonable to assert that the average current speaker of English would need a "translation" of Old English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English to understand what was written. The preceding link testifies to such a need.

Our side needs to further research the Islamic angle on "translation". Should the historic definition within Islam and or Islamic linguists concur with what we have just described as the proper use for the word "translation" (i.e., including situations and circumstances within the same language, such as Modern Arabic and Ancient Arabic [Kufic, Quarysh, Hijazi]), then we would have further information which we can apply in our argument against any post-934 AD written Qur'an / Mushaf. They would have to admit that the 934 AD (or perhaps earlier) changes of different types created a written Qur'an / Mushaf which was not authentic when compared to the Uthman written Qur'an / Mushaf, since it essentially effected a "translation" to a more modern tongue.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The eventual adding of vowels, diacritical marks and other changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf. The eventual use of the printing press. A change in one's relationship with the written Qur'an / Mushaf.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is where all of the preceding comes to a head: the presentation of evidence of obvious additions and changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf; behavior which Islamic law, as mentioned previously, would SEEM to expressly prohibit. The post-Uthman changes, to be elaborated upon below, are an established historical fact, easily seen in black and white and readily confirmable through casual research on the internet. This does not involve any endless battle of interpretations. As you will recall, the original written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf, bearing specific characteristics, was hailed by all, including the remaining Companions of Mohammed, at the time it was prepared in approximately 650 AD. No Islamic Supremacist will dare impune its position as the written "Word of Allah" or otherwise minimize its importance to their beliefs. Even though they may claim that the true Qur'an resides in the "chests" of the believers and has been kept alive through recitation from generation to generation, they will agree that the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf is supposed to be afforded great respect and honor.

One aspect of their showing respect to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf was supposed to be in vehemently fighting against any attempted additions, deletions or changes to it, no matter how small or "insignificant" they may appear. They claim great success in their protective efforts by pointing to what they "say" is a fact that there have been no changes to the Qur'an / Mushaf since Uthman. However, as alluded to in prior text and discussed below, there seems to be considerable evidence that significant and obvious changes of certain types to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf have indeed been adopted; usually (as it appears) out of the interest of convenience and nothing more. We are not saying that there were any changes in "meaning" or the addition / deletion of verses (even though many claim that there were such changes). Instead, the changes we are concerned with are more "structure" oriented.

Primary among the eventual changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf were the addition of diacritical points, vowels and similar textual aids. These made the text easier to understand and eliminated a lot of confusion. Without these specific devices, the text would be almost impossible to read by a person who had not already memorized the Qur'an. It should also be pointed out that the text eventually received formal indications for the end of verses, along with headings and numbering. Right from the start we can see in these measures a concession to convenience. Research reveals that some of these alterations were evident in specific written Qur'ans / Mushafs within a few decades after the approved written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf.

The so-called "official" approval for most of the changes along these lines was not granted until around 934 AD, under Ibn Majahid. It is with Ibn Majahid and his associates that we take issue. Islamic Supremacists may assert that since these individuals had some esteemed scholastic abilities and their judgments were sound (in their opinion), that was sufficient to justify the changes. Yet they fail to realize that in taking such a position they open the door to some other group or individual making changes of their own and pointing to the same reasons for attaining acceptance. The broad degree of acceptance by Islamic Supremacists of the 934 AD changes does not negate the fact that Ibn Majahid and his associates took the original written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf, with all its approval by Islam's early founders, and blatantly changed it. Case closed. They had no way of stating with 100% confidence that Uthman would have approved of their act. It should be noted that the time between the Uthman Qur'an (650 AD) and the finalized version which we have today (created in 934 AD) is called the Period of Ikhtiyar (or "choice").

We will also find that the original script, dialect and /or language, lilely Kufic / Quraysh / Hijazi, as written in 650 AD is either no longer used or is far behind the language as it evolved over the centuries. If the exact, original script, dialect or language as used by Uthman is not being used today, then a change along these lines has indeed taken place. We feel certain that at least Hijazi is no longer in use. We cannot give any specific dates for changes in script, dialect and/or language, but we are reasonably confident that some took place within the first few centuries of Islam. Research by others should clarify our understanding in this area.

Now we move onto how the Qur'an / Mushaf is actually created. We see that when one acquires a Qur'an / Mushaf today, it will likely be the product of a printing press and is not handwritten. The Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf was handwritten, as this is what was mandated by Uthman and the other early leaders. If they wanted it to be printed, Allah would have said so. Even when printing became available many centuries later, religious justifications had been found for a long time to prohibit use in its producing Qur'ans / Mushaf; mainly out of concerns regarding respect. We should ponder on this. Apparently, the religious authorities in the early post-printing press era, with all of their expertise and knowledge, discerned a universal truth from the Qur'an / Mushaf or other Islamic texts which lead them to conclude that printing would be disrespectful of the Qur'an / Mushaf. They made such a decision even in the face of knowledge that the printing press would facilitate a greater spread of Islam. These specific scholars held firm to their convictions. Most of us would agree that if we have the acknowledgement of a universal truth at one point in time, it would be applicable in all later time periods without exception. This is apparently not the case with Islamic Supremacists. Somehow, many years later, the apparently explicit and clear prohibitions against printing were found to be in "error" and printing was then allowed. It sounds like convenience to us. This area is obviously calling for further research. At this point we could at least appeal to the early prohibitions as evidence that current printing of the Qur'an / Mushaf (along with electronic applications) violate the sanctity of the text.

We have seen that the use of mass produced written (actually printed) Qur'ans / Mushafs with all of the above mentioned clarifying and assistive tools which had been added over the centuries has become the prominent component in teaching recitation. In other words, students now memorize the Qur'an through reading instead of through the direct, one-on-one verbal exchanges which would appear to have been dominant in Islam's early years. Since recitation is supposed to be at the heart of Islam, we might be able to conclude that reading the modern written Qur'an / Mushaf (which we believe is invalid) with the intent of recitation violates a core tenent of Islam. Naturally, this point needs clarification.

Related to the preceding, it seems that prior to at least 934 AD, the authority of a Qur'an reciter and the authority of his oral transmission were mandatory compliments to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf. Since we now have Qur'ans / Mushafs which anyone can read on their own, it suggests a change in this relationship Should this assumption of a major change in the relationship of reciter, transmitter and Qur'an / Mushaf in 934 AD be confirmed, it might be worthwhile to highlight this point. We essentially have the emphasis being moved from recitation to reading, which seems to violate the "spirit" of Islam.

Apparently, all of the proclaimed prohibitions against change have, throughout history, either been forgotten, ignored, exempted, excused or explained away in each instance. If we were to press Islamic Supremacists on the reality of these changes in a public venue and emphasize that these changes are a matter of historical reality and not a difference in opinion on the meaning of various verses, then there might be a chance of making headway. From the perspective of 1683 AD, it is hard to see how they can keep a straight face before the general public and deny these realities and the prohibitions against changes.

The facts are simple: Uthman and the early leaders of Islam ordained a precise rendition of the Qur'an / Mushaf as being authoritative and official. If they, the ones who actually knew Mohammed directly perceived it was Allah's intent to include all of the later-placed additions and modes of creation (printing, internet, etc.), they would have been compelled to include them. New "revealations" were impossible, as Mohammed apparently took care of that. Obviously, those in later years did not have such an understanding. As time progressed, individuals arbitrarily decided to make changes and violate both the commands of the Qur'an and the final decision made by Uthman and Mohammed's Companions. They neglected to realize that after Uthman, who at one time was the only person who had access to all source documentation (which he eventually destroyed) and input from the Companions of Mohammed, no one else had the true credibility or resources on hand to "authorize" any changes.

We anticipate that Islamic Supremacists will proffer some type of "authoritative" justification for these changes. Since they realize they cannot get away with acknowledging "changes", which are forbidden, they will likely use other terminology, such as "aids" or "clarifiers". They will claim the "measures" corresponded with Uthman's "intent". But when brought back to the reality that Uthman and the early leaders authorized only one, specific, precise written Qur'an / Mushaf, they will not be able to deny that a current Qur'an / Mushaf will not correspond with it.

Later text will address how we can apply these findings.

_______________________________
Seven versions of aruf (Seven Readings)
_______________________________
Admittedly, 1683 AD does not possess any great expertise in Islamic history or Islamic beliefs. That is why we have made it a point to emphasize the need for outside confirmation of the understandings which are being put forth in this narrative before anyone considers launching a corresponding "bridge building" effort. Please bear that in mind particularly when reading the following.

We have already established that changes have indeed been made to the written Qur'an / Mushaf which was finalized by Uthman in 650 AD. The most significant changes involved the "authorized" addition (which we challenge) in 934 AD of diacritical points, vowels, etc. The result of the additions was the ability to derive a more precise meaning from reading the written Qur'an / Mushaf. No longer would one have to draw from what they had already memorized to deduce the meaning of what had been written. Thus, in 934 AD, the written Qur'an / Mushaf moved from being an aid or "prod" to the recitation of what had already been memorized to becoming an item which had the exact, same content, without any variation whatsoever (excluding "scribal error"), of what was supposedly learned through a specific chain of oral transmissions which reportedly began in the time of Mohammed. In essence, it eliminated any "need' for the practice of strict oral transmission, a cornerstone of Islam, as the sole way of preserving the Qur'an without error. But there is more to this matter.

At the time of the above-mentioned changes, which were finalized in 934 AD, at least seven oral recitations or readings were "authorized", including seven corresponding written Qur'ans / Mushafs. Please understand that the whole subject of deriving multiple meanings from a single source is a bit confusing. Nevertheless, Mohammed was said to have confirmed their existence in oral form. He made no mention of acknowledging the Seven Readings in written forms. Although some may argue for incorporating the issue of the existence of the Seven (oral) Readings in our bridge building effort, it would draw us into the quicksand of the interpretations of text and essentially just waste a lot of time and energy. Arguing one way or another on the issue of the Seven Readings will not benefit our overall efforts.

The Seven Readings are being brought up because we anticipate that Islamic Supremacists will argue that each "officially" approved oral reading (which we will not challenge) merits a corresponding written Qur'an / Mushaf (which we will challenge) with all of its accompanying textual aids. In order for a corresponding written Qur'an / Mushaf to represent a specific reading to the exclusion of all others (a property absent in the written Uthman Qur'an Mushaf), it would need to be distinctive from all the remaining six written Qur'ans / Mushafs. It could only acquire this distinctiveness through the addition of textual aids unique to its corresponding reading. As a result, the previously-stated 934 AD reading-unique changes for a written Qur'an / Mushaf of any reading are, in the opinion of Islamic Supremacists, justified. We disagree.

Uthman had sent out the final, authorized Qur'an / Mustaf to each province in the company of a reciter who was well-versed in the content of one reading or understanding of the authorized written Qur'an / Mushaf. He had, with the approval of other early Muslim leaders, intentionally abolished all other readings. Yes, this decision by Uthman may go against Mohammed's assertion of the existence of Seven Readings, but all Islamic Supremacists will also assert that Uthman and the early leaders of Islam acted appropriately. Neither the Islamic Supremacists or us wish to denounce Uthman's action on banning six oral readings. Neither of our two sides deny the existence of Seven (oral) Readings (since Mohammed spoke of them). And we all agree that Uthman authorized only one written Qur'an / Mushaf. We will likely agree that there is no mention of any provisions having been made at the time (650 AD) for these reciters to convey any of the remaining six readings which were said to have been approved by Mohammed. If our understanding of all of this is correct, then both sides can assert that the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf, with its lack of sufficient reading aids to convey a specific reading by itself (without an accompanying reciter), would have been sufficient for both its intended use (conveying a lone, Uthman-approved reading with the assistance of an approved reader) and also its unintended use (conveying all other readings). Thus, the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf as initially prepared will actually satisfy the basic expectations of any who claim there is just one reading and those (in the dominant school) who claim there are Seven Readings.

We now come to 934 AD, the time where seven written Qur'ans / Mustafs were "authorized'. We maintain that since the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf had already accommodated the Seven readings, as a recitation aid, meeting the intent of the written Qur'an / Mushaf (whether you favor Seven Readings or not), there was no real need for the written Qur'an / Mushaf to be divided into seven written types with all of their distinctive, added on reading aids. More important than not being needed, they were not authorized by the only one(s) who would be in a valid position of authority: Uthman an/or the Companions of Mohammed.

Uthman brought together the Qur'an / Mushaf with the approval of believers who knew Mohammed. If anyone was in a position to accurately create at least seven written Qur'ans / Mushafs with diacritical points and other aids, it would have been them. They chose not to do so. Even with this action, the Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf accommodated the varied readings (including his official reading) in oral form. In light of this, it is difficult to understand how later Muslims assumed the authority in 934 AD to make such changes in the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf to accommodate the Seven Readings. The only justification is "convenience".

____________________________________________________________________________________
The claim that the written Quran / Mushaf has remained "unchanged", or that a any proven change is permissible.
____________________________________________________________________________________
We will now briefly touch upon a few issues regarding the Islamic Supremacist response to our allegations. First, they can be expected to deny that the written Qur'an / Mushaf which we have today is unchanged from the very beginning (Uthman's time). It should be evident from all of the preceding text that there is substantial historical evidence that the written Quran / Mushaf as established by Uthman has indeed changed over the centuries through the insertion of various reading aids, changes in script, etc.. Even the use of printing would constitute a change. However, all of our research to date reveals that these specific realities are either glossed over or ignored by Islamic Supremacists and even many people on our side. It appears that the issue has never before been thrust into public consciousness with an intensity that cannot be ignored, even among just Islamic Supremacists.

In the rare situations where Islamic Supremacists are challenged regarding their claim of a static, unchanged written Qur'an / Mushaf since the time of Uthman and they feel compelled to reply, they often deflect it by interpreting it as meaning a reference to the orally transmitted recitation. They can then be expected to follow this with an assertion that nothing has been changed in terms of its " message" or the "meaning". Such a counter-claim is irrelevant from our perspective, as it evades the issue of the written Qur'an / Mushaf. We should remember that any discussions on our part concerning oral transmission and recitation will only confuse things.

Should a change in the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf as previously addressed actually be acknowledged, we expect they will claim the change as a necessity for the benefit of those who cannot understand the original Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf. In other words, convenience. They will likely conjure up some obscure "scholarly" decision or fatwa in which justification is provided through some circuitous reasoning. In such situations we need to press them on the reality that irrespective of the "benefits" of a change, it is a change nonetheless. As such, it insults the Qur'an / Mushaf and cannot be tolerated. Furthermore, it second-guesses the wisdom of Uthman and the Companions of Mohammed. Simply stated, there is no evidence of exceptions being granted for "good changes". Also, if they permit one change, there is nothing to prohibit some scholars in the future falling prey to pressure being placed for even more changes.

As a matter of fact, if they claim a change (such as the reading aids) is good and therefore necessary, we could turn it around and say that it actually has a negative effect, namely, in that it draws people away from the oral transmission of the Qur'an. Oral transmission was specifically supported by Mohammed. There is nothing to attest for his support of a reliance on written transmission. Thus, these "conveniences" undermine an esteemed tradition.

They may also claim that the changes of 934 AD, which enabled clearly written text in line with any of seven approved readings, required the addition of the reading aids. In this case, they should be reminded that although Mohammed addressed the existence of Seven Readings (oral transmissions), he does not seem to have said anything about having seven different written Qur'ans / Mushafs. Furthermore, the acts of 934 AD completely contradicted the position which Uthman and the Companions of Mohammed had on this exact issue. These early leaders were actually attempting to eliminate all other Qur'ans /Mushafs. Yes, the measures of 934 AD were "official", but if the reasons for allowing them are placed before the public in a focused campaign where the Islamic Supremacists are shamed into addressing them (see later text), people will see the blatant defiance by Ibn Mujahid and associates of the intentions of Uthman and the Companions of Mohammed (and perhaps Mohammed himself). We will subsequently expose the acts of 934 AD as a farce and an act of opportunism. In fact, one wonders if any arguments in support of the changes or even still in existence.

Our discussion in this section is rather brief. The point we want to get across is that the claim of the written Qur'an / Mushaf not having been changed since the time of Uthman is false and that Islamic Supremacist responses to our evidence are insufficient.

____________________________________________________
Excuse put forth for any errors in written, historical Qur'ans / Mushafs.
____________________________________________________
It is stated by some Islamic Supremacists that the claim by Allah to protect the Qur'an was limited solely to the Recitation and did not extend to the actual written Qur'an / Mushaf, as the latter is prone to human error. The case presented in support of this argument seems credible from a theological perspective. However, the lack of diacritical points and other aids in the Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf cannot be construed as "mistakes". The Uthman Qur'an was accepted by those who knew Mohammed and they gave it their full blessing. Furthermore, the reading aids, which were finally mandated in 934 AD, were either non-existent at the time of Uthman or rarely used in early Arabic writings. They were intentionally, not accidentally, employed with the measures of 934 AD.

___________________________________
The earliest Qur'ans / Mushafs which still exist.
___________________________________
We have hopefully provided sufficient evidence that shows the written Qur'an / Mushaf of Uthman has changed significantly over time; particularly by 934 AD. Of course, printing came much later than that. Further support for our case of change having taken place would seem to be available in an inspection of the oldest Qur'ans / Mushafs which exist in museums and mosques throughout the world. Such evaluations reveal that the oldest ones are devoid of the changes which were added later on. Although some claim that one or two are Uthman originals, there are conflicting reports on these claims.

Strategy for "Building Bridges".

We are confident that a strong case has been established in the preceding. With the assistance of our readers, we should now act upon these findings. The first step has been alluded to in prior text, in that we should seek out those with greater expertise to evaluate what has been written here to determine if the information is indeed valid. In doing such, they should evaluate all anticipated arguments against our stated positions. Although we expect that that counter-arguments will be within the realm of what we have already discussed, there is always the possibility that new angles will be presented. Should we find that the case challenging the modern Qur'an's / Mushaf's legitimacy when compared to the original Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf is so strong that the average Islamic Supremacist is rendered speechless when confronted with the facts, then we can conclude that we have a winner with this revealation.

In order to secure such an honest critical review by our expert allies of the premise as outlined in the post, we would encourage all readers to bring it to the attention of those of like mind who have suitable expertise. Muslim Apostates would be particularly helpful in this regard.

Assuming we have favorable findings from such reviews, our next step would be to create a much more concise message and presentation than what has been presented here. The message should be directed towards an Islamic Supremacist audience and couched in "Bridge Building" terms. In other words, it should explain in a respectful tone how our findings indicate that the modern written Qur'an / Mushaf with all of the changes and additions it has accumulated is actually an affront to true Islam and that a return to the exact original written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf will restore purity, sanctity and integrity to their beloved text. Such entreaties must be devoid of any adversarial commentary. We would expect that the bearers of such a message would be an organization(s) which has greater influence and capabilities than 1683 AD.

As for how this message would stand out from all others in this information overloaded environment get their attention, different avenues are available. The most obvious would include posts on Islamic Supremacist forums and FaceBook groups. But it must go beyond that. Ideally, this message (when refined) must eventually be put before major media outlets. But since they are resistant to all messages which originate from our side, this may pose some difficulties. One way we could break through is to simply develop a "catch phrase" which puts forth our position; something which thousands of allied websites could post as a banner or demonstrators could place on signs. Perhaps: "Restore the Ikhtiyar"; "Only the true Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf is Valid", etc.. We need something "catchy". Should this attract the attention of the general media (along with a more concise presentation than what you are reading), one expects that prospects would be high for the issue to eventually be publicly placed before the Islamic Supremacist community for a public response. Hopefully, the Islamic Supremacist community would be pressed hard, without cessation, for an answer to charges that the modern Qur'an / Mushaf has been tainted and that their continued use of it, in the face of explicit restrictions against adding to it, constitutes both blatant hypocrisy and sacrilege. The hypocrisy charge could then segue into countless other areas where they seem to have picked and chosen how to deal with certain commandments and requirements. At that point, they would find it difficult to defend the status quo with the existing written Qur'an / Mushaf. They would essentially be shamed before the entire world. And so would begin our bridge building.

If Islamic Supremacists are forced to concede under consistent pressure and questioning that only the original written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf is valid, then the following can logically be expected to occur. First, all current written (modern) Qur'ans / Mushafs would be removed from use by Islamic Supremacists themselves in whatever manner they deem appropriate. Also, anyone who promotes or facilitates their use could be punished under Islamic law (that would sure clean house!). Next, all new versions would be written in the exact, same manner as what Uthman had produced. As prior text has shown, this would mean none of the following would be used: headings, numbers, diacritical points, vowels, modern Arabic and so forth. Furthermore, if we have a strong case which shows that the printing of the Qur'an / Mushaf or placing of it on the internet and other electronic media is an insult to Islam, we would expect that appropriate action be taken in that regard. In other words, all future versions would need to be handwritten. Finally, we would expect that Islamic Supremacists learn the Qur'an in the manner it was originally intended: through orally transmitted recitation, not reading. Therefore, all the madrassas in Pakistan where Islamic Supremacists are "educated" would have to change their lesson plans and those poor kids could stop rocking back and forth while seated on the floor with their Qur'ans / Hushafs. Then, once accomplished, both sides could celebrate this bridge building effort! If Islamic Supremacists want to return to the Seventh Century, let us give them a helping hand!

Posted on 09/20/2010 at 08:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

ACT: Building bridges with a return to the Ikhtiyar - Part II

Supporting information / Appendix

Headings in this section: (1) Brief description of the creation of the "accepted written Qur'an / Mushaf; (2) Reciting and memorization; (3) Acceptance by all Muslims of the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf at the time of its completion; (4) Composition and structure of the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf when it was created.

________________________________________________________
Brief description of the creation of the "accepted" written Qur'an / Mushaf.
________________________________________________________
Various links on the internet present a complicated picture regarding the initial (650 AD) compilation of the written Qur'an / Mushaf. Although many seriously question the validity and completeness of the final, authorized, initilal (650 AD) Qur'an / Mushaf we have chosen to not delve into such concerns. We perceive that the counter-arguments lined up against them, even though they are weak, would easily sway the average Islamic Supremacist who is already pre-disposed to accepting the sanctity of what they see as the authorized Qur'an / Mushaf. More importantly, such discussions would only serve to divert us from our main goal: proving that the fully authorized and universally accepted written Qur'an / Mushaf of 650 AD was "illegally" altered in later years. Therefore, for the sake of our argument, let us agree to not introduce other concerns into the mix and let us also "concede" that the initial written Qur'an / Mushaf of 650 AD is legitimate.

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html : "The codex of Zaid ibn Thabit was clearly one of great importance and its retention in official custody during the caliphates respectively of Abu Bakr and `Umar testify to its key significance during the time of the quran QurŸan's initial codification. There can be little doubt, however, that this codex was at no time publicised during this period or declared to be the official text for the whole Muslim world. There were a number of other masters among the qurra who had gone to great lengths to memorise the quran QurŸan. Islamic tradition states that by the time `Uthman became caliph twelve years after the death of the Prophet there were written codices in use in different provinces compiled by other well-known companions, in particular `Abdullah ibn masud Masÿud and Ubayy ibn kab Kaÿb. There was no official reaction at first to this development as Zaid's text had never been intended as an official copy and the credibility of these men in their knowledge of the quran QurŸan had never been doubted. They are mentioned along with two others as having been acknowledged by Muhammad himself during his lifetime as the foremost authorities on the quran QurŸan: Narrated Masruq: `Abdullah bin masud Masÿud was mentioned before `Abdullah bin `Amr who said "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, `Learn the recitation of the quran QurŸan from four: from `Abdullah bin masud Masÿud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, muadh Muÿadh bin Jabal and Ubai bin kab Kaÿb'". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.5, p.96). The special mention of the fact that Muhammad started with `Abdullah ibn masud Masÿud indicates that the Prophet regarded him as the most knowledgeable quran QurŸan reciter among his companions. In fact, while the codices of this man and other prominent reciters became prominent in the developing Muslim world the codex of Zaid faded into virtual obscurity. It had simply receded into the private custody of Hafsah, one of the widows of the Prophet (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.478). Seven years after his accession to leadership of the Muslim world, however, `Uthman was faced with a crisis which threatened to break up the Muslim world and undermine his unchallenged leadership over it. It came from the very areas where the other companions were so highly respected because of their unique knowledge of the quran QurŸan and the fame their codices enjoyed. Circumstances gave him an opportunity to severely subvert their authority by ordering that their codices be destroyed in the interests of standardising one text for the whole Muslim community. His opportunity came when the Muslim general Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, leading an expedition of Muslim forces from what is today Syria and Iraq, discovered that the people there were disputing with each about the reading of the quran QurŸan. The codex of `Abdullah ibn masud Masÿud was the standard text of the Muslims at Kufa while that of Ubayy ibn kab Kaÿb held sway in Damascus. Hudhayfah immediately reported the matter to `Uthman. What followed is described in the following tradition: Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of sham Shaÿm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the quran QurŸan, so he said to `Uthman, `O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (quran QurŸan) as Jews and Chrstians did before'. So `Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, `Send us the manuscripts of the quran QurŸan so that we may compile the quranic QurŸanic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent it to `Uthman. `Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, `Abdullah bin az-Zubair, said Saÿid bin as al-ÿAs, and `Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. `Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, `In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the quran QurŸan, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the quran QurŸan was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, `Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other quranic QurŸanic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.479). There is no suggestion that he considered the other codices to be unreliable. It was the divisions between the Muslims in the reciting of the text that made him realise the need to act as he foresaw the possibility that the Muslim world would break up into sects and divisions. By unifying the people on a single text of the quran QurŸan he saw an occasion to prevent such a partition occurring. The following tradition gives a balanced picture of the circumstances and explains why he chose Zaid's codex as the basis on which the quran QurŸan text was to be standardised for the Muslim community. `Ali is reported to have said of `Uthman: 'By Allah, he did not act or do anything in respect of the manuscripts (masahif) except in full consultation with us, for he said, "What is your opinion in this matter of qiraat qiraÿat (reading)? It has been reported to me that some are saying `My reading is superior to your reading'. That is a perversion of the truth". We asked him, "What is your view (on this)?" He answered, "My view is that we should unite the people on a single text (mushaf wahid), then there will be no further division or disagreement". We replied "What a wonderful idea!" Someone from the gathering there asked, "Whose is the purest (Arabic) among the people and whose reading (is the best)?" They said the purest (Arabic) among the people was that of said Saÿid ibn as al-ÿAs and the (best) reader among them was Zaid ibn Thabit. He (`Uthman) said, "Let the one write and the other dictate". Thereafter they performed their task and he united the people on a (single) text. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.22).

From http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#4a "In addition to the multiplying number of copying errors, there was probably another reason for promulgating a standard text. Earlier we noticed two peculiarities of the Arabic language: differences in script and absence of the vowel. These also could have resulted in confusion. Steps taken by 'Uthman effectively solved the problem caused by the first peculiarity: the differences in script. His solution to the second peculiarity -- the absence of vowels -- was to send a Qari along with the copy of the Qur'an to preserve the correct reading that the hundreds of companions had learnt from the Prophet".

Again, let us therefore concede to Islamic Supremacists that the Uthman Quran / Mushaf is indeed true and accurate. Further information on the compilation of the Quran may be found here: http://www.islam-watch.org/Kammuna/Collection-of-the-Quran-1.htm; http://www.islam-watch.org/Kammuna/Collection-of-the-Quran-2.htm ; http://www.islam-watch.org/Kammuna/Collection-of-Quran-3.htm and in other links found within this post.

From http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm#history : "The Qur'an is famous for being memorised. Some Muslims have told me that it doesn't matter if there are differences between written Qur'ans because the Qur'an is firstly oral and only secondarily written. However, the differences between the written Qur'ans does matter because these written versions are the records (with the dots and vowels) of the oral recitation of the 10 famous Readers. That is, the written versions are the memorised oral versions. Thus the differences between the written versions are the differences between the memorised oral versions. Therefore, studying the differences between the written Qur'ans allows us to make an observation regarding the oral history of the Qur'an. As was shown, most of the differences between these Qur'ans occurs at points where the early Arabic script (with no dots or vowels) was vague and could be read as several Arabic words. As these differences come from the vagueness of the text, this strongly suggests that the written text was primary and the memorised oral versions are secondary and derived from the text. This provides evidence that these memorised versions cannot all be traced back to Muhammad but only as far as the establishment of the text.

From http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2509&Itemid=92 Many Muslim scholars are aware of the weakness of the argument that the Quran was documented during Mohammed’s time. They claim that the Quran was preserved mainly in Muslims’ chests, the written documentation was only a backup! Unfortunately for them, making such a claim is like digging the grave for the Quran, because the main reason behind writing a formal copy of the Quran, and burning all the others, was to stop the disagreements between Muslims. The Quranic verses that were preserved in the Muslims’ chests were so different that they accused each other with kufr (unbelieving)!

From: http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#4a : "For, there has never been a shortage of Muslims who have been willing to give their lives for the sake of Islam. Hence any attempt by 'Uthman or anyone else would have been met with the stiffest resistance on the part of many Muslims. But we hear of no such resistance. ... How could 'Uthman change the text that had been used for twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent alterations in the word of God? And why at all would he want to change it, considering that the extant text says nothing in his favor? It is also important to keep in mind that the vast Muslim world was not homogeneous. There was as much diversity of opinion as one expects from any group of people. There were even conflicts, some of them armed. 'Uthman himself had opposition from some groups, one of which actually martyred him. Had the text he promulgated been less than 100% reliable his opponents would have made it an issue and accused him of changing the word of God. But the fact is that these opponents accused him of many things but we do not have any tradition, certainly not an early reliable one, in which they accuse him of changing the word of God. ...The very fact that the text whose copies were sent by 'Uthman was accepted throughout the Muslim world, by both his friends and foes, and the fact that no other text has ever been put forward as an alternative to the existing text proves that the text sent by 'Uthman was the authentic one. For, there has never been a shortage of Muslims who have been willing to give their lives for the sake of Islam. Hence any attempt by 'Uthman or anyone else would have been met with the stiffest resistance on the part of many Muslims. But we hear of no such resistance. ... Some of the missionaries, without proof, proclaim that many people didn't like the act of burning. This is wrong as proven by the following: Zaid is reported to have said, '" saw the companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, "By Allah, Uthman has done well! By Allah, Uthman has done well!" [Nisaburi]. Ibn Abi Dawud records Musab ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas to have testified: "I saw the people assemble in large number at Uthman's burning of the proscribed copies; not a one spoke out against him." Ali commented, "If I were in command in place of Uthman, I would have done the same." [Zarkashi]. Almost every companion of the Prophet (pbuh) clealy approved the action of Uthman (ra)".

From http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/collect.html (which draws quotes from the book "Collection of the Quran" by Dr. John Burton).: "Tradition speaks of a "final review" of all the given revelation by Gabriel. ...(See the following excerpts) ...""Tabari taught that the Companions agreed to write out that which they were certain represented the text as checked on the occasion of the final review. They were unanimous that all other Quran materials must be abandoned." "The Qadi Abu Bakr holds 'that the entirety of the Quran, as God revealed it, and as He commanded that it be recorded, such as He did not abrogate, nor withdraw in respect of the wording alone, is represented in the mushaf of Uthman.' " ... "Unanimity is often claimed by appeal to the authority of Ali who is projected as averring that what Uthman had done in respect of the mushaf, and especially in respect of the most sensitive issue of all, the alleged destruction of all Quranic records other than the textus receptus achieved as the result of his initiative, he had done only after the fullest consultation with the Companions. Far from protesting at this highhandedness, they had applauded and blessed his decisiveness." ... "We asked him, 'What are you thinking to do?' He replied, 'My view is that we should unite the Muslims on the basis of a single mushaf. That way, there will be no disagreement, no segmentation.' We replied, 'An excellent idea!' Someone then asked, 'Whose is the purest Arabic? and whose the greatest acquaintance with the recitation (alt. Quran)? 'They said that the purest Arabic was that of Sa'id b. al As and that the one most acquainted with the recitation (Quran) was Zaid b. Thabith. Uthman said, 'Let the one write and the other dictate.' The two then set to work and in this way Uthman united the Muslims on the basis of a single text." "Ali concludes his report with the declaration, 'Had I been in power, I should have done just what Uthman did." (ibid.).

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Chapter3.html : "If any great changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made, controversy would almost certainly have arisen; but of that there is little trace. uthman ÿUthmån offended the more religious among Muslims, and ultimately became very unpopular. Yet among the charges laid against him, that of having mutilated or altered the quran QurŸån is not generally included, and was never made a main point. The shia Shiÿa, it is true, has always held that the quran QurŸån was mutilated by the suppression of much which referred to ali ÿAli and the Prophet's family. This charge, however, is not specially directed against uthman ÿUthmån, but just as much against the first two caliphs, under whose auspices the first collection is assumed to have been made. It is also founded on dogmatic assumptions which hardly appeal to modern criticism. On general grounds then, it may be concluded that the uthmanic ÿUthmånic revision was honestly carried out, and reproduced, as closely as was possible to the men in charge of it, what muhammad Muøammad had delivered".

From http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/T9S7EETVOI2PRCA20/p2 : "Moreover hundreds of prophet’s close companions were alive at that time . What   was their reaction after the official copy prepared by Uthman ? Check the   following records :
Zaid ibn Thabit is reported to have said: "I saw the   Companions of Muhammad (going about) saying,'By God, Uthman has done well! By   God, Uthman has done well!" (Naysaburi, al-,Nizam al-Din al-Hasan ibn Muhammad,   Ghara'ib al-Quran wa-ragha'ib al-furqan. 4 vols. To date. Cairo, 1962).   Ibn   Abi Dawud records Musab ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas to have testified: "I saw the   people assemble in large number at Uthman's burning of the proscribed copies;   not a one spoke out against him." ((Ibn Abi Dawud, p.12)
Ali ibn Abu Talib,   the cousin of the Prophet and the fourth successor to the Prophet commented: "If   I were in command in place of Uthman, I would have done the same". ( Zarkashi, al-, Badr al-Din, Al-Burhan fi-ulum al-Quran, Cairo, 1957, Vol. I,   p. 240.)

From http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm we have: "A true Believer would say, within these Revelations, Allah had undertaken to preserve His Final Scripture. The third Caliph was just an instrument of Allah to do what Allah had intended to do. 'Lo! those who disbelieve in the Reminder when it cometh unto them (are guilty), for lo! it is an unassailable Scripture. Falsehood cannot come at it from before it or behind it. (It is) a revelation from the Wise, the Owner of Praise'. (Glorious Qur'an 41:41/42)".

From http://sa.promo.web.id/when-was-the-quran-compiled-and-made-into-a-book.com/comment-page-5/ : "However as the Muslim world expanded into lands where the people spoke Arabic as a second language, the new Muslims had a difficult time learning the correct pronunciation of the text. The Caliph Uthman consulted other Companions, and they agreed that official copies of the Qur’an should be inscribed using only the pronunciation of the Quraysh tribe, the Arabic dialect that the Prophet spoke.
Zayd bin Thabit was again given this assignment, and three other huffaadh were assigned to help him in the task. Together, the four scribes borrowed the original, complete copy of the Qur’an, duplicated it manually many times over, and then distributed them to all of the major Muslim cities within the empire. Two of these copies still exist today: one is in Istanbul and the other in Tashkent".

From http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/collect.html : "Alfred Guillaume, perhaps the best-known and accepted Western scholar on Islam from the non-Islamic world, sketched this situation in his book "Islam", thus: "Uthman then entrusted a commission, in which Zayd took a prominent place, with the task of preparing a text which everyone must accept. ... Uthman's edition to this day remains the authoritative word of God to Muslims. Nevertheless, even now variant readings, involving not only different reading of the vowels but also occasionally a different consonantal text, are recognized as of equal authority one with another. The old Kufic script in which the Quran was originally written contained no indication of vowels, and so the consonants of verbs could be read as actives or passives, and, worse still, many of the consonants themselves could not be distinguished without the diacritical dots which were afterwards added, when and by whom we do not know....Originally considerable freedom prevailed, until a later generation insisted on uniformity but never entirely achieved it.... (A. Guillaume pp. 57-60)". Also, from Burton: ""Without diacritical marks a word could be read active or passive and many consonants could not be distinguished without the diacritical dots which were added afterwards, when and by whom we do not know." ("Collection of the Quran" by John Burton)". Also: ""The Uthman collection tradition poses a difficult question: which Quran tradition is the more authentic, 1. the Hijazi tradition represented in the universally acknowledged text; 2. the Kufan tradition claiming descent from Abdullah ibn Mas'ud; 3. the Basran stemming from Abu Musa; or 4. the Syrian from Ubayy ibn Ka'b one of the scribes of Mohammed (or from Miqdad/? Mu'ad)?" Also from Burton: ""Relative to the Companion texts, Uthman's is the text without interpolations ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpolate ). Relative to the revealed Qur'an, Uthman is incomplete."

From http://www.islam-watch.org/Kammuna/Collection-of-the-Quran-2.htm: "I move now back to discussing the official Uthmanic version of the Qur’an. As I mentioned previously, Uthman attempted to bring order to chaotic version of the Quran. He tried to canonize the Medinan Codex. He sent copies of it to Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Kufa, and Basra. He ordered the destruction of all others. He tried to standardize the consonantal text, but, alas, many variant traditions of the consonantal text survived well into the fourth Islamic century. This, in my view, was expected. Muhammad (PBUH) was not keen on preserving the Qur’an in its originality. Also, Arab tribes had their own dialects. So, variable versions of the Qur’an were expected. Uthman’s task was impossible right from the start. Also, the consonantal text was unpointed. In Arabic language, this indeed spells catastrophe as to the meaning of words and verses in the Qur’an. Ibn Warraq writes: '….the consonantal text was unpointed, that is to say, the dots that distinguish, for example, a “b” from a “t” or a “th” were missing. Several other letters (f and q; h, and kh; s and d; r and z; s and sh; d and dh, t and z) were indistinguishable .... In other words, the Koran was written in a scripta defective. As a result, a great many variant readings were possible according to the way the text was pointed (had the dots added).[7]'. What Ibn Warraq is saying here spells disaster. It will be impossible for any human being to decipher the actual meaning of the Qur’an. (1683 AD note: Very interesting!!). The Qur’an , at first, was not “dotted”. This is a huge problem in Arabic language. I do not think an English reader will appreciate how big a problem it is without solid examples. Let me give a couple of examples. Take two Arabic words like “Sami” and “Shami”. The two words are written in Arabic the same way except for one minor thing: the word “Sami” has no dots on top of the letter “S”. the word “Shami” has three dots on the same first letter. So the difference between the two words is just three dots on the first letter. Now, the difference in meaning is huge. The word “Sami” in Arabic can be a man’s name, but also means “High in position”. A man with “Sami” morals means a man with high moral values. The word “Shami”, on the other hand, means “Syrian”, or someone from “Sham” (could mean the from the city of Damascus, or from the country of Syria). Here is another example: take the word “Hal” in Arabic (with heavy H). It mean “situation”. In contrast, the word “Khal” may mean “Empty” or “Uncle-on the mother’s side”. Now the difference in writing in the Arabic language between the two words is just one dot on top of the first letter in the word “Khal”. The word “Hal” is not dotted at all. You see, one dot difference can make a huge difference in the meaning of the word in Arabic language. This huge Qur’anic problem cannot be appreciated by an English reader without live examples. I tried to clarify this matter in these two examples. As if this is not enough, vowels presented another problem for Muslims. Arabic script is consonantal. Vowels influence the meaning in Arabic language. They are represented by orthographical signs above or below letters. So, after settling the problems associated with consonants, Muslims had to decide on which vowels to employ in each case, where there is a wording issue. Using different vowel renders a different meaning! The above problems eventually led to the growth of different centers with their own traditions on how the Qur’anic texts should be pointed and vowelized. So, it is clear that Uthman did not succeed in getting rid of the older Qur’anic codices. Charles Adams observes about the Qur’an: '…far from being a single text passed down inviolate from the time of ‘Uthman’s commission, literally thousands of variant readings of particular verses were known in the first three (Muslim) centuries. Theses variants affected even the ‘Uthmanic’ codex, making it difficult to know what its true form may have been.'[8] In conclusion, I hope that the reader has a realistic sense of the impossibility of trying to ascertain the exact meaning of any “verse” or even “word” in the Qur’an. Multiple genuine problems face us, as we have seen in this article, when we try to ascertain the exact meaning of any part of the Qur’an".

From http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#4a "In addition to the multiplying number of copying errors, there was probably another reason for promulgating a standard text. Earlier we noticed two peculiarities of the Arabic language: differences in script and absence of the vowel. These also could have resulted in confusion. Steps taken by 'Uthman effectively solved the problem caused by the first peculiarity: the differences in script. His solution to the second peculiarity -- the absence of vowels -- was to send a Qari along with the copy of the Qur'an to preserve the correct reading that the hundreds of companions had learnt from the Prophet". (1693 AD note: This indicates that Uthman authorized only one reading).

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Chapter3.html : "For another thing the script in which the quran QurŸån was originally written was what is referred to as a scriptio defectiva in contrast to the scriptio plena in which it is now written. The nature of the early scripts is fairly well known from the study of early quran QurŸåns and fragments in some of the great libraries. 12 In the earliest examples only consonants are written, and even these are not adequately distinguished from one another, since the same written shape may sometimes indicate either of two consonants. One might say, then, thatthis scriptio defectiva was little more than an elaborate mnemonic device. It presupposed in the 'reader' some degree of familiarity with the text. A man with no knowledge of the quran QurŸån but who understood the script would have had great difficulty in deciphering the writing, though not so much as a person unaware of the structure of Arabic words might suppose. Certainly, however, extensive memorization is presupposed, and this is the background of the improvement of the writing and the growth of textual studies. There was a special class of men, the qurra qurråŸ or quran reciters QurŸån-reciters (sometimes called 'readers'), who specialized in memorizing the sacred text. As the centuries passed their social character changed; eventually we find that this study of the text is chiefly associated with philology, and is a regular part of higher education".

From: http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm#history : "Arabic uses dots to distinguish certain letters that are written the same way. For instance the basic symbol (not shown) represents five different letters in Arabic depending upon where the diacritical dots are placed: (not shown) baa', (not shown) taa', (not shown) thaa', (not shown) nuun, (not shown) yaa'. There are also a series of signs used to indicate vowels. However these dots and vowel signs were a later development of the Arabic script and were not used with the early Qur'ans. Thus the earliest Qur'ans did not have any dots or vowel signs. This meant that the exact spelling of a word was not written and that what was written could represent several words if the dots and vowels were placed differently. Most of the examples of differences that have been considered seem to be the result of this ambiguity; they have the same basic letters but have the dots and vowels placed in different places to make different words. Here is an Islamic scholar on this subject. 'The (Arabic) script used in the seventh century, i.e. during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, consisted of very basic symbols, which expressed on the consonantal structure of a word, and even that with much ambiguity. While today letters such as baa, taa, thaa, yaa, are easily distinguished by points, this was not so in the early days and all these letters used to be written with a straight line. ... When more and more Muslims of non-Arab origin and also many ignorant Arabs studied the Qur'an, faulty pronunciation and wrong readings began to increase. It is related that at the time of Du'ali (d. 69H/638) someone in Basra read the following aya from the Qur'an in a faulty way, which changed the meaning completely: That God and his apostle dissolve obligations with the pagans (9:3); That God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the apostle. - This mistake occurred through wrongly reading rasulihi in place of rasuluhu, which could not be distinguished from the written text, because there were no signs or accents indicating the correct pronunciation. Unless someone had memorised the correct version he could out of ignorance easily commit such a mistake'. (Von Denffer, `Ulum Al-Qur'an - An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an, pp. 57-58) Therefore, while there are some dialectal differences between these versions of the Qur'an the majority of the differences are the result of the ambiguity of the early Arabic text. It is this ambiguity of the text that has led to so many different versions".

From http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100331080537AAZjQTg "GOD chose the Arabic language for His Final Testament (20:113; 26:195; 39:28; 41:3; 12:2; 13:37; 16:103; 42:7; 43:3; 46:12).

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html : Muslims often claim that all that `Uthman sought to achieve was to cancel out the different readings of the quran QurŸan in its various dialects. The issue was, they say, purely one of eliminating different pronunciations. This line of reasoning is subjectively advanced to maintain the hypothesis that the quran QurŸan, in its written form, is a divinely preserved and therefore perfect text. There were no vowel points, however, in those early codices and any differences in pronunciation would not have appeared in the texts". Also: "Although `Uthman succeeded in destroying the other codices he was unable to suppress the fact that they had been compiled. Because the preferred method of learning the quran QurŸan was still by memorisation he could not entirely eliminate the variant readings known to exist between them and Zaid's codex. He also had to contend with the fact that many of their compilers were renowned quran QurŸan reciters". Also: "Apart from these traditions there are no records to define exactly what these seven different forms of reading were. As a result numerous different explanations have been given, some saying that this was to accommodate the different dialects of the Arab tribes and others that they were seven distinct forms conveyed to the centres of Islam by approved readers in the second century of Islam. Abu `Amr is said to have taken one of these to Basrah, Ibn Amir took another to Damascus, and so on (Sunan Abu Dawud, note 3365, Vol.3, p.1113). No one can possibly say what they were, however, as nothing more is said in the Hadith literature than that they were confined to differences in dialect and pronunciation. It is important to note that these are a different type of variant reading to those which `Uthman suppressed. The records which have been kept of the latter were, as has been seen already, of words, clauses and other real differences in the text itself. In the case of the sabat i ahruf sabÿat-i-ahruf, however, the distinction was confined to finer points of pronunciation and expression of the text. `Uthman was well aware of the different types and he obviously wanted to eliminate both of them. To erase the textual differences he simply chose Zaid's codex in preference to the others and ordered that they be burnt. To deal with the dialectal variants, on the other hand, he ordered said Saÿid ibn al-As and two others from the Quraysh to amend Zaid's text where necessary to confine the text to their dialect. The following impression of his action is very informative: 'He transcribed the texts (suhuf) into a single codex (mushaf waahid), he arranged the suras, and he restricted the dialect to the vernacular (lugaat) of the Quraysh on the plea that it (quran QurŸan) had been sent down in their tongue'. (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii `Ulum quran al-QurŸan, p.140). He succeeded eminently in eliminating the real differences in the text between the different codices by destroying all but one, but he was unable to eradicate the differences in dialect as these could not be defined in a written text that had no vowel points. It is these alone that the sabat i ahruf sabÿat-i-ahruf are said to have affected. Muslim scholars and writers in modern times often attempt to blur the distinction by suggesting that the only variant readings that existed were in the pronunciation of different dialects (lugaat) and that, although `Uthman sought to suppress them, the Prophet of Islam himself had originally authorised them. It is obvious, however, that the prime purpose of the Caliph's action was to eliminate serious differences in the actual text of the quran QurŸan and that he could not, in fact, have succeeded in deleting the dialectal variations (which would have been negligible in comparison with the textual variants). Abu Dawud records a selection of the latter type in his Kitab al-Huruf wa qiraat al-Qiraÿat ("The Book of Readings and Recitation"). These three examples show how the differences in pronunciation affected the text: 'Shahr b. Hawshab said: I asked Umm Salamah: How did the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) read this verse: "For his conduct is unrighteous" (innaha `amalun ghairu salih)? She replied: He read it: "He acted unrighteously" (innaha `amila ghaira salih)' (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol.3, p.1116). Ibn al-Mussayab said: The Prophet (may peace be upon him), Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman used to read maliki yawmil din yawmiÿl-din ("Master of the Day of Judgment"). The first to read maliki yawmil yawmiÿl diin was Marwan. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol.3, p.1119). Shaqiq said: Ibn masud Masÿud read the verse: "Now come thou" (haita laka). Then Shaqiq said: We read it, hitu hiÿtu laka ("I am prepared for thee"). Ibn masud Masÿud said: I read it as I have been taught, it is dearer to me.(Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol.3, p.1120). In each case the variant is found solely in the vowelling of the text and would not have been reflected in the consonantal text transcribed by `Uthman. It can clearly be seen that this type of variant reading has virtually no effect on the text or its meaning, unlike the other type which covers whole words and clauses found in some codices and not in the others. It was to be some centuries before serious attention was given to actually defining the sabat i ahruf sabÿat-i-ahruf, the "seven different readings". Also: "Numerous early manuscripts of the quran QurŸan from approximately one- hundred-and-fifty years after Muhammad's death have survived though none is in complete form. Large portions have been preserved intact but on the whole only fragments exist. It was generally assumed, as it is today, that the Arabic language was so familiar to its speakers that vowelling of the text was not necessary. A number of consonants were not distinguished from one another either so that only seventeen were employed in the very early texts".

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2000/aug/08/highereducation.theguardian Like other early Arabic literature, the Sa'na Koran was written without any diacritical marks, vowel symbols or any guide to how it should be read, says Puin. "The text was written so defectively that it can be read in a perfect way only if you have a strong oral tradition." The Sa'na text, just like other early Korans, was a guide to those who knew it already by memory, he says. Those that were unfamiliar with the Koran would read it differently because there were no diacritical and vowel symbols. As years went by, the correct reading of the Koran became less clear, he says. People made changes to make sense of the text. Puin gives as example Hajjaj bin Yusuf, governor of Iraq from 694-714 AD, who "was proud of inserting more than 1,000 alifs [first letter of the Arabic alphabet] in the Koranic text". Professor Allen Jones, lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University, agrees. "Hajjaj is also responsible for putting the diacritical marks in the Koran. His changes are a defining moment in the history of the Koran". After Hajjaj's changes in around the 700s, "the Koranic text became pretty stable", he says.

From http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2509&Itemid=92 "The Quran was revealed in the seventh century in Arabic, a language that had not yet a well developed script. Many Arabic words with different meanings shared the same script. The Arabs solved this problem by adding different numbers of dots to the letters that share the same appearance, but that solution came years after Mohammed's death. As an example, the Arabic word harb, which means war, has the same appearance like a dozen other words with completely different meanings, like these: (text not depicted here). The above (not depicted) words mean: war, damaged, party, tried, sadness, rewarded, caused pain, stored. If you strip the letters from their dots, all the words look exactly the same, and it was left to the readers' common sense and intelligence to work out which particular word was meant by a particular script. Ideally, for a better preservation of the Quran, Allah should have educated Mohammed and created the dots before 'revealing' the Quran". Also: "Even in our time, and after the ‘invention’ of the dots, reading an Arabic text is still a guess work. Arabic books and newspapers are printed without the diacritical marks to reduce the clutter around the words. The diacritical marks were ‘invented’ over a century after the dots. Without the diacritical marks, the fourth word in the above example, Jarab, could be read as follows: Jarraba=tried, Jurriba=has been tried, Jarab=plague, Jurub= suffering of plague!"

From http://www.solhaam.org/articles/islam02.html At the time of Caliph Uthman, there was no way of distinguishing between consonants which used the same symbol. And there was no way of indicating what vowels were to be used where, so there was no way of identifying the intended pronunciation of a word. {3}So the manuscripts of the officially approved text of the Koran, which Uthman had prepared and distributed, consisted of bare consonantal text with marks to show verse endings, but without points for distinguishing consonants and without any marks for vowels. {2, 3} As the text of the manuscripts Uthman distributed contained no vowel points and no points for distinguishing between consonants, they did not record, affect or determine how the written text was to be pronounced, or the meaning of words containing, or consisting of, symbols representing more than one consonant. {3}Hence what Uthman established and fixed was the basic consonantal text. {3}And what Uthman ordered to be eliminated were variations in the basic text, which means including some variants while excluding others, changing wording, content and arrangement {3}. This was a major review as the changes made apparently included fixing the Koran's number of chapters (suras) and the arranging of these chapters into a sequence roughly according to length of chapter rather than according to the sequence of revelation or by subject

From http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/T9S7EETVOI2PRCA20/p2 : "As I told you before that Uthman (ra) didn’t burn the original copy , rather he burnt those copies which people from different regions with different Arabic dialect wrote according to their own dialect . Observe the objection of Hudaifa (ra): “Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) DIFFERENCES IN THE RECITATION OF THE QUR'AN,…” You can see that the differences were in recitation, not in text . No chapter was more or less , nor even a single word . At that time there were 07 different Arabic dialects existed in Jaziratul Arab . Quraish was the dialect of Qur’an and in that dialect the original Qur’an was written . Hence people from different dialects wrote their own Qur’an in their own dialect . This must differ from the original Qurasih Qur’an . For example, i the word ‘COLOR’ is USA English Dioalect can be recited ‘COLOUR’ in Britsh English dialect . Hence there would be a different in the recitation of COLOR or COLOUR though they are same word with same meaning .

From http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/anonymousquran2.html : "The Qur'an was revealed in the language of Quraysh and the Arabs "An Arabic Qur'an" (12:2) and "in clear Arabic language" (26:195) 4699. It is related that Anas ibn Malik said, "'Uthman commanded Zayd ibn Thabit, Sa'id ibn al-'As, 'Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, and 'Abdu'r-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham to write out copies of the Qur'an. He told them, "When you and Zayd ibn Thabit disagree about the Arabic of the Qur'an, you shouls write it in the language of Quraysh. The Qur'an was revealed in teir tongue.' They did that." (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 69, Book of the Virtues of the Qur'an;...). And: Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510.

From http://zamanku-milis.blogspot.com/2007/07/zamanku-re-al-quran-isinya-lebih-bagus.html and http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv8.html "The Original Qur’anic Text Was Without Diacritical Points, Vocalization, And Some Of Its Letters Are Omitted. We will attempt to explain this problem to the English reader as plainly as possible. We hope he will find it exciting and interesting. The Arabic reader knows fairly well that the meanings of the words require the use of diacritical points above or below the letters, otherwise it becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to comprehend their meanings. Vocalization also is very significant in the field of desinential inflection, along with writing all the letters of the word without omitting any of them. Thus, the reader of the Arabic language cannot believe or imagine that the Qur’an was written originally without these significant requirements, but let us assure you that this is a historical fact, well-known and acknowledged by all Muslim scholars without any exception. We will also see that there is a large number of words about which the scholars could not agree as to their meanings. One simple example helps us to visualize the nature of the problem. Let us take the Arabic letter "ba". By changing the diacritical points, we get three different letters—"ta", "ba", and "tha". So when these letters are written without the diacritical points, it becomes difficult for the reader to know the word that is intended. Examine the following word. Look thoroughly at the diacritical points (I repent), (plant), (house), (girl) (abided). Another example (rich), (stupid), and so on. Without these diacritical points it is very hard to distinguish the words from each other. Thus, the meaning differs from one word to another depending on the place of these diacritical points. Many of the Arabic alphabets require the presence of the diacritical point to differentiate between one alphabet and another and hence between one word and another. Now let us quote the Muslim scholars who have the final word in these matters. 1) In his famous book, "The History of Islamic Law" (p.43), Dr. Ahmad Shalabi, professor of Islamic history and civilization remarks, "The Qur’an was written in the Kufi script without diacritical points, vocalization or literary productions. No distinction was made between such words as ‘slaves’, ‘a slave’, and ‘at’ or ‘to have’, or between ‘to trick’ and ‘to deceive each other’, or between ‘to investigate’ or ‘to make sure’. Because of the Arab skill in Arabic language their reading was precise. Later when non-Arabs embraced Islam, errors began to appear in the reading of the Qur’an when those non-Arabs and other Arabs whose language was corrupted, read it. The incorrect reading changed the meaning sometimes. The same statement is made by Taha Husayn in "Taha Husayn" (p. 143), by Anwar al-Jundi. Then Dr. Ahmad alluded to those who invented the vocalization and diacritical points and applied them to the Qur’anic text many years after Muhammad’s death such as Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali, Nasr ibn ’Asim and al-Khalil ibn Ahmad. He also added (on the same page) that "without these diacritical points, a man would believe that verse 3 of the chapter, ‘The Repentance’, would mean that God is done with the idolaters and His apostle— free from obligation to the idolaters and His apostle—while the real meaning of the verse is that God and His apostle are done with the idolaters—free from further obligation to the idolaters. Now the question we would like to ask Dr. Ahmad and all those wise men: Why was not the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad in a perfect Arabic language complete with the literary indicators and the diacritical points lest a difference or change of meaning occur? (1683 AD note: A KEY THOUGHT TO BEAR IN MIND!!) If a student of Arabic writes an essay in Arabic without the diacritical points would the teacher give him more than zero? The answer is known to two hundred million Arabs. The second question is: Did God inspire those who added the diacritical points and the vocalization through an angel, for example, to eliminate the different meanings on which the scholars disagree? Who instructed Nasr ibn ’Asim, Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali and Khalil ibn Ahmad to undertake this serious task and create the diacritical points and the vocalization for the Qur’anic text? Was it not more appropriate that Muhammad himself or some of his successors or companions like ibn ’Abbas and ibn Mas’ud should accomplish this work? Yet al-Suyuti himself tells us that ibn Mas’ud was not pleased with that (refer to "Itqan", part 2, p. 160), nor were other leading companions and scholars such as ibn Sirin and the Nakha’i. 2) Ibn Timiyya, Sheik of the Muslims (vol. XII, p. 101), tells us, "The companions of Muhammad had never used the diacritical points or the vocalization for the Qur’an. For each word, there were two readings—either to use (for instance) ‘ya’ or ‘tah’ in such words as ‘they do’ or ‘you do’. The companion did not forbid one of the readings in favor of the other, then some successor of the companions began to use the diacritical points and vocalization for the Qur’an." On pp. 576 and 586, he adds, "The companions (Muhammad’s friends) did not vocalize or provide diacritical points for the letters of the Qur’anic copies which they wrote, but later during the last part of the companions’ era, when reading errors came into being, they began to provide diacritical points for the copies of the Qur’an and to vocalize them. This was admissible by the authority of the majority of the scholars, though some of them disliked it. The truth is, it should not be disliked because the situation necessitated it, and the diacritical points distinguish the letters from each other while vocalization explains the grammatical inflection." (NOTE by 1683 AD: In this case, convenience eventually won out over the reality that diacritical points and vocalizations were not authorized in the initial Qur'an. This is where a divergence from the true, pure Qur'an begins). There is a candid acknowledgment from ibn Timiyya that diacritical points are required, but did not God and His angel Gabriel along with Muhammad and his successors know about this problem? The simplest principles of sound Arabic language demand that words should have diacritical points and their letters should be written in complete form. Didn’t they know that disagreements among Muslim scholars would take place and that they would fight among themselves and that even death would result from the differences in reading the Qur’anic text? Didn’t they know also that the differences in meaning of the Qur’anic vocabulary would be decisive in the interpretation and judgments of Islamic law? It is surprising that such things had not occurred to the mind of God, Gabriel, Muhammad, and the companions and the caliphs; then, three persons come later and insert these changes into the Qur’anic text. Yet, what is really more surprising is that when the companions discovered the differences in the readings of the Qur’anic text (as Ibn Timiyya says), they did not have any objection against any of the different readings and they did not prohibit either one. (1683 AD note: A KEY THOUGHT TO BEAR IN MIND!!) The justification for that was that Muhammad himself had acknowledged the presence of seven different readings, not just two readings as was clearly stated in the Sahih al-Bukhari, (vol. 6, p. 227). This fact is common knowledge among all the scholars. 3) Jalal-al-Din al-Suyuti. In his famous book, "al-Itqan Fi Ulum al-Qur’an" ("Adjusted Qur’anic Science"), al-Suyuti reiterates (part four, p. 160) the same words of ibn Timiyya which had been quoted by Dr. Ahmad Shalabi about those who invented the diacritical points and the vocalization of the words. He also said that some of the scholars detested that, as we mentioned before. There the Suyuti presents (part four, pp. 156,157) a list of words which could be read differently. One of them is the reading by which the Qur’an was written, though Muhammad himself had accepted and acknowledged both readings. In part one, p. 226 of "The Itqan", the Suyuti makes an important declaration in which he says that the difference in reading has led to differences in Islamic law. He illustrated that by the following example: He indicated that some scholars demanded of the worshipper that he wash himself again (the ablution) before he prays if he shook hands with a woman. Yet other scholars require him to do so only in case of sexual intercourse and not just because he shook hands with her or touched her hand. The reason for this disagreement is ascribed to one word found in the Chapter of Women (verse 43) and whether it has a long vowel a or not. The Jalalan (p. 70) and the Baydawi (p. 113) record for us that both ibn ’Umar and al-Shafi’i seriously disagree with ibn ’Abbas in the way they interpret this verse because ibn ’Abbas insisted that the meaning intended here is actual intercourse while the former said no, it is enough for a man to touch the skin of a woman or her hand to require having his ablution (washing) repeated. In four full pages (226-229), the Suyuti stated that the many arguments and various interpretations pertaining to the above word have brought about different ordinances. When we read the commentary of the Jalalan or the Baydawi, we realize that whenever they come across certain words which could be read in more than one form they say: This word is read in two different forms. Before conclude this part, let me call attention to the following everyday story: A man was asking about the place of two verses in the Qur’an. He was told that he could locate them in the Chapters of Resurrection and the Hypocrites. He made every effort to find these two chapters but in vain. Then he was told that the Chapter of Resurrection is number 75 and the chapter of the Hypocrites is number 63. He told them that chapter 75 is named "The Value" and chapter 63 is named or called "The Spenders". They told him you say so because you read them without the letter A (long vowel A) His logical answer was: "I have read them in exactly the form in which they were written without the long vowel A. Why should I add the long vowel A to the words of the Qur’an which would change the meaning?" My dear English reader have you recognized the purpose of the above paragraph? Is the word "reply" the same as "replay"? There are dozens of words like that in the Qur’an, even some of the titles of the Qur’anic chapters have been written without the long vowel A. For example, the word "masajid" (mosques) is written "masjid" (a mosque), and "sadaqat" (charities) as "sadaqta" (you said the truth). The meaning (as you see) has been completely changed, as Dr. Ahmad Shalabi and Suyuti remarked.

From http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/green.html#Vowel "Samuel Green says: ' ... owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority'. (N.J. Dawood, The Koran, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1983, p.10, ...) He adds further that: 'VOWEL DIFFERENCES - In the Arabic script of the modern Qur'an the vowels are indicated by small symbols above or below the basic printed letters. Again these were not included in Uthman's edition of the Qur'an'. It is to be made clear that the Arabic script before and during the time of cUthmân was written without vowel and diacritical marks. To say that the vowels and diacritical marks were not included in the cUthmânic Qur'an actually shows the ignorance of the Christian missionary Samuel Green concerning the evolution of Arabic script. (1683 AD note: This statement that Uthman's Qur'an ' Mushaf had vowels and diacritical points is contradicted by all sources we have uncovered). The need for vowel and diacritical marks arose only after the time of cUthmân to prevent the wrong recitation of the Qur'an by ignorant Arabs and non-Arabs. Arabic orthography at the time of cUthmân was not yet developed in the way we have known for centuries, particularly in two important areas. There was no distinction between letters of the alphabet of similar shape and there were no vowel marks. This may now give the impression that such a system must have given rise to great confusion in reading. This was not actually the case because the morphological patterns of words in Arabic enable readers to read even very unfamiliar material without the short vowels being marked. More important, however, as far as the Qur'an was concerned, was the fact that learning and reading relied above all on oral transmission. In the Islamic tradition, writing remained a secondary aid; nevertheless, to ensure correct reading of the written texts of the Qur'an, particularly for those coming after the first generation of Muslims, steps were taken gradually to improve the orthography. (1683 AD note: We should encourage Islamic Supremacists to return to the purity of a reliance on oral transmission and using the Qur'an / Mushaf solely as an aid in recitation. ) This started with the two above mentioned areas by introducing dots to indicate different vowels and nûnâtion and these were put in different coloured ink from that of the text. There were also dots to distinguish between consonants of similar shape. This work was carried out chiefly by three men: Abû-l-Aswad al-Du'alî (d. 69 / 688), Nasr Ibn cAsim (d. 89 / 707) and Yahya Ibn Yacmur (d.129 /746). Understandably there was some opposition at first to adding anything to the way the Qur'an was written. Ibn cUmar (73/692) disliked the dotting; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no more than ensuring proper reading of the Qur'an as received from the Prophet(P), and this view was accepted by the majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslims world, from the time of the tâbicûn. The people of Madinah were reported to have used red dots for vowels - tanwîn, tashdîd, takhfîf, sukûn, wasl and madd and yellow dots for the hamzas in particular. Naqt (placing dots on words in the mushaf), became a separate subject of study with many books written on it. For details please see the article Quranic Orthography: The Written representation of the Recited Text Of The Quran ( http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Scribal/haleem.html ) . Further, the conclusions of the missionary is that there was an '... ambiguity as to which vowels should be used. This ambiguity has lead to differences between the vowels in the different transmissions'. The aim of the Christian missionary here is to show that prior to the introduction of the vowel and diacritical marks, that is, throughout the period of the Prophet(P) and the Companions, as well as the generation immediately following the Qur'an was in undetermined, fluid state, a kind of limbo, and that it assumed concrete form only with the addition of diacritical marks and vocalization signs, which of course was long after the age of Revelation. In other words, for almost a century before Hijra the Qur'an was in the fluid state and as soon as the vowels and diacritical marks were introduced, the Qur'an started to crystallise in the form that we have now after going through many 'versions.' For such a situation there is no historical evidence. Neither, there is historical evidence that Muslims differed over the Qur'an unlike the Christians who differ over the extent of the canon even to this day. It must be emphasized that for Muslims down through the centuries the consensus (ijma') of the community has always been a decisive proof in all matters; and as the community is agreed that man has not contributed a whit to the Qur'an (1683 AD note: This is contradicted by considerable evidence), the matter may be considered settled. This is precisely the point which has been noted in the quote of N J Dawood used by the missionary. It is quite clear that all the Qirâ'ât are given equal authority. The above quote taken from N J Dawood's translation of the Qur'an is actually in direct contradiction of what Samuel Green had intended to show in his article, i.e., that the Muslims follow different 'sets of the Qur'an' as if they are not all authoritative. One wonders why did he choose to quote the material which does not even serve his purpose! Further evidence against the view in question may be drawn from the Qirâ'ât themselves. It is certainly germane to the issue at hand to note that in many instances where the unmarked cUthmânic canon is capable of being read in diverse ways, we find the Qurra (i.e., the Readers) agreeing on a single reading. Such agreement can most reasonably be accounted for on the basis of a firmly established oral tradition of recitation. Take for example the verbal prefixes ta and ya (or tu or yu), which in the unmarked text would be represented by the same symbol. Taking the form turjacûna and yurjacûna as a case point we note that all the Qirâ'ât use the first of these forms in 2:245; 10:56; 28:88; 36:22, 83; 39:44; 41:21 and 43:85; while all use the second in 6:36 and 19:40. There are also many words in the Qur'an which could be given different form than the one given in the readings, but in fact are not. For example, the word mukht in 17:106 is so read by all the readers, although there is no reason why it could not be read as mikth or makth. The verb khatifa-yakhtafu, which appears in 2:20; 22:31 and 37:10 could be correctly read as khatafa-yakhtifu, but all the Qirâ'ât keep the former form.[3] A few other examples can be shown by refering to the books on Qirâ'ât. So, if the Qurra invented the Qirâ'ât just because the earliest manuscripts were undotted, why then we see that they had converged to one single reading many times? The Christian missionary's last resort will be to invoke two conspiracies on a massive scale from Spain to India; first, to achieve uanimity on one reading from vastly divergent readings and second, to fabricate the ijma' on the Qur'an itself after that! The emphasis is that Muslims just do not dump any readings as they all go back to the famous Companionsof the Prophet(P) such as Ubayy, Ibn Mascud, Zaid Ibn Thâbit and cUthmân(R).

From http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm : "Prior to the collection of the verses of the Qur'an and the final compilation done by Calipha 'Uthman, Muslims living in distant areas used to recite the verses of the Qur'an in their own dialects. 'Uthman eliminated all other dialectal variations and decided that only the dialect of the tribe of Quraish, to which the Qur'an was revealed, be adopted".

From http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/anonymousquran2.html : "Besides, according to the so-called authentic narratives the Quran was 'revealed' in the Quraish dialect: II: The Qur'an was revealed in the language of Quraysh and the Arabs 'An Arabic Qur'an' (12:2) and 'in clear Arabic language' (26:195) -- 4699. It is related that Anas ibn Malik said, "'Uthman commanded Zayd ibn Thabit, Sa'id ibn al-'As, 'Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, and 'Abdu'r-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham to write out copies of the Qur'an. He told them, 'When you and Zayd ibn Thabit disagree about the Arabic of the Qur'an you should write it in the language of Quraysh. The Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did that." (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 69, Book of the Virtues of the Qur'an; ...)".

From http://www.islam4all.com/new_page_32.htm : "The Qur'an was revealed in Arabic and in the dialect of Kuraish, the tribe that was living in Mecca; this dialect was the most widely used among Arabs".

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Gilchrist.html : "The early script known as kufi was soon adapted into a form of art and calligraphy and transcribers meticulously preserved the text by writing it out as perfectly as they could. If just a stroke or letter was not faultlessly reproduced they would scrap the page and start again. ... The script changed as well after the first few centuries and the naskhi script became the most popular and most of the surviving copies of old quran QurŸan manuscripts employed it. (1683 AD note: Thus, altering the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf). The similar thuluth script was used at times and to this day a cursive script known as maghribi ("western") is still used in countries such as Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Virtually all printed quran QurŸans employ the naskhi script. The oldest surviving passages of handwritten texts dating to the second century of Islam are inscribed in a slanted text known as al mail al-maÿil. More will be said on this subject in the last section of this book".

From http://courses.unt.edu/rdecarvalho/h5040/StudentPapers/Huff,Toby.htm "Even the printing press was banned out of fears that printing the Quran and other religious texts would either defile the name of God or promote impiety".

From http://www.chowk.com/interacts/9426 : "Case in point is the day when a prototype of the Gutenberg press was presented to the Caliph of Turkey for purposes of printing the Quran. The Gutenberg press as we all know is responsible for the resurgence of Europe from the Dark Ages more than any other invention. When such an opportunity was presented to Muslims before it ever made an impression in Europe the scribes of the Quran rejected this machine and denounced it as an 'instrument of the devil'.
The rationale of the scribes was that since the printing press did not perform ablution before 'writing' the Quran it was therefore unfit but moreover it was devilish for printing the Quran without performing an ablution. ... A hurdle to understanding the Quran is its arcane Arabic. Some may argue that it's better for people to learn Arabic rather than corrupting the Quran by translating it into a native dialect. The truth is that there is no end to claiming that 'translating the Quran will corrupt its meaning'. God has so sealed the hearts of Muslims that they refuse to understand the Quran, even in Arabic. For it is an oft-heard claim of Arab speakers that they don't understand the Quran because the language is ancient and therefore beyond comprehension. If this is the case then the Islamic world has lost the message of the Quran even for the native Arab speaker. But even if we were all one billion of us to learn ancient Arabic as spoken in the dialect of the tribe of Quraish, ..."

From http://islamworld.net/docs/UUQ/3.txt : "All old Qur'anic script is completely without any diacritical points or vowel signs as explained above. Also there are no headings or separations between the sSras nor any other kind of division, nor even any formal indication of the end of a verse. Scholars distinguish between two types of early writing: - Kufi, which is fairly heavy and not very dense. - Hijazi, which is lighter, more dense and slightly inclined towards the right. Some believe that the Hijazi is older than the Kufi, while others say that both were in use at the same time, but that Hijazi was the less formal style. [5]". Also: "The writer of the History of the Mushaf of 'Uthmtln in Tashkent gives a number of reasons for the authenticity of the manuscript. They are, excluding the various historical reports which suggest this, as follows: - The fact that the mushaf is written in a script used in the first half of the first century Hijra. - The fact that it is written on parchment from a gazelle, while later Qur'ans are written on paper-like sheets. - The fact that it does not have any diacritical marks which were introduced around the eighth decade of the first century; hence the manuscript must have been written before that. - The fact that it does not have the vowelling symbols introduced by Du'all, who died in 68 Hijra; hence it is earlier than this. In other words: two of the copies of the Qur'an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph 'Uthman, are still available to us today and their text and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to, with any other copy of the Qur'an, be it in print or handwriting, from any place or period of time. They will be found identical.".

From http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=1095 : "Was there a ban on printing in Islam? I saw the following claim online here ( http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=1095 ) (NOTE from 1683 AD: The following text is taken from this link). "Printing was banned by Islamic authorities because they believed the Koran would be dishonoured by appearing out of a machine. As a result, Arabs did not acquire printing presses until the 18th century. UPDATE: Geoff Carter in the comments has been tracking it down. There is some substance to this. The urls given refer to an article by Muhsin Mahdi, From the manuscript age to the age of printed books, in The Book in the Islamic World ( http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t4LEfpCW_kQC ) , ed. G.N.Atiyeh, State University of New York Press (1995), pp.1-16. This is not a study, as far as I can see, but rather a series of questions. So we still haven’t reached bottom of this one. UPDATE 2: Searching Google books, I found this link, (http://books.google.com/books?id=OMnt1iIEzdAC&pg=PA68&dq=koran+printing&lr=#v=onepage&q=koran%20printing&f=false ) J.G.Taylor, Indonesia, Yale (2004), p.68 in support: Although the printing press reached Muslim lands from Europe in 1492, Muslim kings banned setting Arabic into type until the early nineteenth century. No footnotes, tho. A little light comes from the Quarterly Review ( http://books.google.com/books?id=GWVZAAAAIAAJ ) p.475: 'An attempt of the same kind had been made by Achmet III., so early as the year 1727: the oulemas gave their consent, but it was rendered nugatory, by excepting the Koran, for a reason, as Mr. Walsh observes, ‘ characteristic of the people—they said it would be an act of impiety if the word of God should be squeezed and pressed together; but the true cause was, that great numbers of themselves earned a considerable income by transcribing those books, which would be at once destroyed, if suffered to be printed.’ As Turks read nothing else but the Koran, the printing-office was soon discontinued. Its renewal by Selim had no better success; it languished and declined on the death of its patron, ‘ who fell a victim to the rage of the Janissaries, for attempting to innovate upon their ancient and venerable ignorance'. This tends to suggest that any ban originated with the Ottomans, and, as with so much in that miserable state, under a pretence of piety sought to financially benefit certain individuals. Once the Koran began to be printed, Karpat remarks in The politicization of Islam, p. 231 ( http://books.google.com/books?id=PvVlS3ljx20C&pg=PA231&dq=%2Bkoran+%2Bprinting&lr=#v=onepage&q=%2Bkoran%20%2Bprinting&f=false), entrepreneurs quickly issued defective Korans as fast as possible, for profit. However I have just seen a reference to a specific ban on the Koran in 1727.In Chambers Edinburgh Journal ( http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA44&dq=%2Bkoran+%2Bprinting+%2Bforbidden&lr=&id=qK8AAAAAYAAJ&output=text ) p. 44, (1848) I find the following: 'The Sultan Bajazet II. issued a decree in 1483 forbidding the use of printed books by the Turks, under penalty of death. This decree was afterwards confirmed by his son Selim I. in 1515, and implicitly obeyed by the Mohammedans, with equal ignorance and fanaticism, until the eighteenth century, when, in the reign of Achmet III., Seid-Effendi, who had accompanied his father, the ambassador, to the court of Louis XV. in 1720, was so much struck with the advantages of printing, that he determined his own country should participate in them. For the attainment of this object he employed the services of a Hungarian renegade, who was subsequently surnamed Basmadjy—’ the Printer.’ A memorial was drawn up, by means of which the grand vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, an enlightened protector of literature, obtained a favourable edict from the sultan. But fearful of wounding the religious scruples of his subjects, and of alarming the numerous class of copyists, Achmet forbade the printing of the Koran, the oral laws of the Prophet, the commentaries on these works, and books on jurisprudence—leaving to the industry of the printers philosophical, medical, astronomical, geographical, historical, and other scientific works. The renegade was placed at the head of the new establishment, but the national character was against him ; and notwithstanding his activity, at the time of his death, which happened in 1746, he had not been able to print more than sixteen works. The first was a Turkish and Arabic dictionary, 2 vols. folio, of which the impression was completed in 1729; the price was fixed at thirty- five piastres, by order of the sultan. In the following year a Turkish grammar appeared, a copy of which, with each leaf of a different colour, is still in existence'. Again, no references. UPDATE: (12th May 2009) A most interesting paper ( see initial link, as this is PDF) by John-Paul Ghobrial addresses the lack of proper references for this story. I have written to the author asking for some more details. The sources given for the ban in this paper are two: 'Nicolas de Nicolay, The navigations, peregrinations and voyages, made into Turkie by Nicholas Nicholay Daulphinois, Lord of Arfeuile. conteining sundry singularities which the author hath there seene and observed;devided into foure books, with threescore figures, naturally set forth as well of men as women, according to the diversitie of nations., T. Washington trans. (London, 1585). p.130'. '…Maranes [Marranos] of late banished and driven out of Spaine & Portugale, who to the great detriment and damage of the Christianitie, have taught the Turkes diverse inventions, craftes and engines of warre, as to make artillerie, harquebuses, gunnepouder, shot, and other munitions: they have also there set up printing, not before seene in those countries, by the which in faire characters they put in light divers bookes in divers languages, as Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, and the Hebrewe toungue, being to them natural, but are not permitted to print the Turkie or Arabian tongue.’ The other is “Busbecq”in 1560. ... here http://books.google.com/books?id=jTMQ2KRH1YMC&pg=PA255&vq=printing&dq=busbecq&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0#v=onepage&q=printing&f=false and on p. 255 we find this text: 'No nation in the world has shown greater readiness than the Turks to avail themselves of the useful inventions of foreigners, as is proved by their employment of cannons and mortars, and many other things invented by Christians. They cannot, however, be induced as yet to use printing, or to establish public clocks, because they think that the Scriptures, that is, their sacred books – would no longer be scriptures if they were printed, and that, if public clocks were introduced, the authority of their muezzins and their ancient rites would be thereby impaired. John-Paul Ghobrial suggests that the first reference refers not to a general ban on printing, but to restrictions on dhimmis (=you and me) in an Islamic state doing so in the language of the ruling Moslems. But of course that may or may not be so.

Posted on 09/20/2010 at 08:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ACT: Building bridges with a return to the Ikhtiyar - Part III

Supporting information / Appendix

Headings in this section: (1) Altering the written Qur'an / Mushaf is forbidden; (2) Translations of the Qur'an are not eligible for the title of being "Allah's Word".; (3) The eventual adding of vowels, diacritical marks and other changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf. The eventual use of the printing press. A change on one's relationship with the written Qur'an / Mushaf.

From http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=302 ) :"It is absolutely inconceivable that there are any changes or any alterations to this Glorious Book of guidance from Allah.15:9: It is We (Allah), Who has sent down this Quran, and We will assuredly guard it against corruption. Allah declares that it is He who has sent down this Quran, and it is He Who will guard it against any corruption. Allah has taken upon Himself the responsibility to safe-guard this Quran, and that is why the Quran is available today exactly the way it was revealed, and will remain so, Insha Allah, until the Day of Judgement. No changes can be made in the Holy Quran whatsoever. We must, as believers realize, is that it is a major major sin and a blasphemy to change even a letter of the Quran! No one is allowed to change even a single letter in the Quran, and the curse of Allah be upon those who change the very words of Allah Subhanah. May Allah take a severe accounting of the people who try to change anything from the original Quran. 2:79: Then woe to those who write The Book with their own hands, and then say, “This is from Allah”, so that they might gain some paltry worldly price. This writing of their hands will bring woe to them, and what they gain thereby will lead to their ruin! ".

From: http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#4a : "It is self-evident and is also required by the teachings of the Qur'an that every Muslim should do his utmost to prevent the alteration or suppression of the word of God. For in passages where there are no variations alleged the Qur'an had condemned earlier nations for altering or fabricating the "divine" scripture. Thus in one such passage we read: And woe unto those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say, "This is from God," that they may in this way obtain a small gain. Woe unto them for what their hands have written and woe unto them for what they gain thereby! (2:79). In the following passage condemns even hiding any part of the revelation, much less altering it: [God says:] Those who hide what We have revealed of the clear matters and of the guidance, after We have made it clear for the people, are accursed of God and accursed of those who (are entitled to) curse - except such of them as repent and amend and make manifest the truth. These it is to whom I turn in forgiveness. And I am the forgiving, the merciful (2:159-160)".

From http://al-quraan.org/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&cPath=4_22&products_id=146&zenid=07483929fa3784f1ef65798aff6bbdc6 : "Al-Kahf - Verses 27-7-- 'O Prophet! Recite what has been revealed to you from the Book of your Rabb: no one is authorized to change His Words and if you dare to make any change, you will find no refuge to protect you from Him (27)". Also: "No one is authorized to change the Word of Allah".

From http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/138007 : "The Qur'an claims that NO ONE can change the Word of Allah. Surah's 6:34; 10:34. To really "ink-it in," I repeat that the Qur'an is emphatic about a number of things concerning itself, and its testimony to the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures, that is, the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Allah's word cannot contain error and cannot change. Allah is said to preserve the Qur'an Surah's 15:9; 85:21-22; and the words of Allah are said to be unalterable:- "there is none that can alter the words and decrees of Allah. Surah 6:34 and:- "-------none can change his words------" Surah 18:27 see also:- Surah's 6:115, 10:64 and 50:29".

From: http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/16/lol.03.html : "The Quran, Kyra, is the holy text of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. It holds tremendous spiritual and moral power. And as one cleric, one of the most important clerics in the Muslim world said today, he said, "If you deface the Quran, you are consciously and systematically insulting, humiliating and torturing all Muslims."

From http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/contra.html "No change can there be in the Words of Allah" and "There is none that can alter the Words of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those Apostles." or "the other Apostles also said so." (Suras 10:64 and 6:34).

From http://www.quran.net/quran/ProtectionOfTheQuran.htm : "Whereas the test of former people of the book lay in perpetuating the exact wordings of their scriptures, the real test of the Muslim ummah lies in the guarding of their scriptures’ meaning. Since the Muslims’ predecessors failed in their test, God Himself undertook the responsibility of keeping the Qur’an intact. As a matter of divine trial, Muslims have to prove that they do not deviate from the text in their explanations and interpretations, and of having kept everything in the exact place designated by the Quran. In their commentaries, they must take the greatest care to make no shift in emphasis, for that would be tantamount to altering the goals of the sacred text. (Note by 1683 AD: adding diacritical marks, etc., would cause a "shift in emphasis). When presenting the Qur’an to others, they should convey exactly what it asserts, no less and no more. The failure of Muslims as the people of the Qur’an lies in their forgetting its spirit and using the Qur’an simply as a book of blessing rather than a book of guidance. When Muslims’ degeneration reaches this stage, their activities become directed away from the basics of Islam. They refer to their religion, their holy book, as being matters of national pride. Others engage themselves in show business in the name of Islam. Yet others exploit it for political gain. All these activities, even if they are indulged in the name of the Qur’an and Islam, are all deviations from sacred principles. If Muslims persist in engaging themselves in such activities, they will not escape the wrath of God. If they feel satisfied that they will be saved on the ground that they have spared no effort in preserving the words of the Qur’an, they are grossly mistaken. God will hold them responsible for having distorted the meanings of the Qur’anic text out of all recognition. It should be clearly understood that the Muslims will be taken to task for the meaning of the text just as the earlier peoples of the Book had been taken to task for having altered the wording of their scriptures. It is on this point that the Muslims are perennially tested. Having changed the meaning of the Qur’an by their self-styled interpretations, they cannot escape the wrath of God simply because they have made no change in the text. No man can be tested unless he be given freedom of action as well. Muslims are free to interpret the text, but not to alter it. One must fully grasp this point that the punishment meted out to other peoples of the Book for altering the wordings of the divine text will be meted out to Muslims for altering the meaning of the text. Herein lies the gauge of the Muslims. If by their self-styled interpretations they change the meaning of the sacred text, they cannot be spared divine punishment by the mere fact of not having changed the actual words. It is because the test of man lies in his sphere of power. Now, forbidden to change the words of the Qur’an, Muslims can change only its meaning. So it will be on this very point that they will be taken to task.

From http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_mercy.htm "Why don't Muslims adapt the Quran to the needs of the modern age? aFrequent Questions About Islam And Religion; ...). Haddad then quotes Q. 10:64 to prove his assertion: 1 Those who believe and guarded (against evil): They shall have good news in this world's life and in the hereafter; there is no changing the words of Allah; that is the mighty achievement. Sura Yunus (10) verses 63/64 ...). In fact, other passages of the Quran directly connect Allah’s claim that there is no changing his words with his books, especially the Quran: Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than God? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt. The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all. S. 6:114-115. And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him. S. 18:27. The contexts of both texts deal with the written scriptures, linking the unalterable nature of Allah’s words with his revealed books. Allah is basically claiming that his written words cannot be changed. Here is how renowned Sunni exegete Ibn Kathir interpreted Q. 18:27: The Command to recite the Qur’an and to patiently keep Company with the Believers. Commanding his Messenger to recite his Holy Book and convey it to mankind, Allah says, <None can change His Words,> ... meaning no one can alter them, distort them or misinterpret them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, (Abridged) (Surat Al-Isra’, verse 39 To the end of Surat Al-Mu’minun), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition, July 2000], Volume 6, p. 142; ...). A commentary attributed to Ibn Abbas explains Q. 6:115 this way: (Perfected is the Word of thy Lord) the Qur’an, detailing the commands and prohibitions (in truth) in His speech (and justice) from Him. (There is naught that can change His words) the Qur'an; it is also said that this means: the Word of your Lord has prescribed that His friends shall triumph. He is truthful in His speech and just in that which shall come. Nothing can change His words about His giving help to His friend. It is also said that this means: the religion of your Lord is now manifest, people truthfully believe that it is Allah’s religion. Allah’s command is just and nothing will ever change His religion. (He is the Hearer) of their speech, (the Knower) of them and their works. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; ...). Another Muslim source states: Described in the second verse (115), there are two more distinctive qualities of the Holy Qur’an sufficient to prove its being the Divine Word. It is said … (And the Word of your Lord is perfect in truth and justice. None is there to change His Word) … The sixth quality has been identified as … that is, there is no one who can change the words of Allah Ta’ala. One form in which such a change can take place is when someone proves a mistake in it because of which it has been changed; or, that some enemy changes it forcibly. The Word of Allah is pristinely pure and far beyond any such possibilities. He has Himself promised … that is, ‘We (only We) have revealed the Dhikr (the Qur’an) and, for it, We (only We) are the Protector’ – 15:9). When so, who can dare break through the protection of Allah and make any changes or alterations in it? For that matter, over fourteen hundred years have passed and there have been against it as compared in numbers, even in power, with those who have been believing it, but not one of them had the courage to introduce one tiny variance in even a vowel point of the Qur’an (1683 AD note: this is a blatant lie, as other text in this post reveals). Of course, possible there was a third form of bringing in a change, that is, it be changed through abrogation (naskh)[sic] by Allah Ta’ala Himself. Therefore, Sayyidna ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas said: ‘This verse indicates that the noble Prophet is the Last Prophet and the Qur’an, the Last Book. After this, there is no probability of an abrogation’- as it has been elucidated in other verses of the Qur’an. (Mufti Shafi’ Uthmani, Maariful Qur’an, Volume 3, pp. 444, 446-447; ...). Apart from the purely wishful thinking on the part of the above writer that no one has introduced any changes or variations into the Quran, which is contrary to the established facts, he clearly sees how this specific text is referring to the unchanging nature of God’s inspired books. Yet he also sees the dilemma of Allah abrogating or changing the verses of the Quran, which happens to be mentioned in the Quran itself: And for whatever verse we abrogate and cast into oblivion We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything? S. 2:106. And when We exchange a verse in place of another verse -- and God knows very well what He is sending down -- they say, 'Thou art a mere forger!' Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge. S. 16:101. The foregoing introduces additional problems for Zawadi. How can Allah change or replace verses that are supposed to be unalterable? How can Allah erase eternal commandments if, as Muslims erroneously believe (*), the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah? And doesn’t this again prove that Allah does change and is in fact a deceiver who cannot be trusted since he claims that his words never change but then goes ahead and alters them, thereby changing his mind? Interestingly, some Muslims used Q. 18:27 as a basis to reject the doctrine of abrogation! The late Muhammad Asad referred to another outstanding Muslim commentator ar-Razi who said: … According to Razi, it is on this passage, among others, that the great Qur’an-commentator Abu Muslim al-Isfahani based his rejection of the so-called ‘doctrine of abrogation’ discussed in my note 87 on 2:106. (Asad, Message of the Qur’an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 443, fn. 35; ...) This Muslim clearly saw the dilemma that abrogation places Allah in! In conclusion we must say that Zawadi has done nothing to disprove that Allah is not perfect. In fact, some of his points helped to prove that his god is indeed imperfect and unreliable.

From http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070109111033AAp5QmT : "What is important to realize is that the translations, more correctly know as the Intrepretations of the Qu'ran in English can no longer hold the title that which the Qu'ran holds. Which is 'God's Word'. ... Any translation of the Qur.aan no longer retains that 'official' and perfect status, however it can be tremendously helpful to beginning students wanting to learn more about Islaam". Also: "There is no reason whatsoever that forbids the translation of the "meanings", I repeat "meanings" of the Quran in any language you please. It's just forbidden to worship god by the "translated" version of the Quran, as it is subject to human interpretation and error. The authentic arabic version is the only version that can be recited during prayers, and during worship. So you can read any translation to help you understand what the Quran is about, but you'll have to memorise the least that will help you pray in arabic language".

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The eventual adding of vowels, diacritical marks and other changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf. The eventual use of the printing press. A change in one's relationship with the written Qur'an / Mushaf.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is where all of the preceding comes to a head: the presentation of evidence of obvious additions and changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf; behavior which Islamic law, as mentioned previously, would SEEM to expressly prohibit. The post-Uthman changes, to be elaborated upon below, are an established historical fact, easily seen in black and white and readily confirmable through casual research on the internet. This does not involve any endless battle of interpretations. As you will recall, the original written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf, bearing specific characteristics, was hailed by all, including the remaining Companions of Mohammed, at the time it was prepared in approximately 650 AD. No Islamic Supremacist will dare impune its position as the written "Word of Allah" or otherwise minimize its importance to their beliefs. Even though they may claim that the true Qur'an resides in the "chests" of the believers and has been kept alive through recitation from generation to generation, they will agree that the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf is supposed to be afforded great respect and honor.

Later text will address how we can apply these findings.

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Chapter3.html : "By the time of the caliph abd al malik ÿAbd-al-Malik (685-705) the inadequacy of the existing script was clear to leading Muslims and improvements began to be made. The problem of the incorrect copying of the defective script had also to be dealt with. The traditional accounts of the passage to the scriptio plena do not tally with one another, nor with the findings of palaeography. It is virtually certain that the scriptio plena did not come into existence all at once, but only gradually by a series of experimental changes. One of the more probable traditional accounts ascribes the introduction of diacritical marks and vowel points to the initiative of hajjaj al-Øajjåj, probably during his governorship of Iraq (694-714). The actual work is said to have been done by scribes such as Nasr asim ibn-ÿÅãim (d. 707) and yahya Yaøyå yamur ibn-Yaÿmur (d.746). It is hardly possible that the scriptio plena should have been introduced all at once by abu aswad Abõ-l-Aswad ad duali ad-Duÿalæ (d. 688), as is sometimes suggested. Existing copies of the quran QurŸån illustrate different methods of obviating deficiencies of the script; e.g. dots of different colours for the vowels instead of the signs now in current use. The chief matters to be dealt with were: (a) distinguishing between consonants with a similar shape; (b) the marking of long vowels, which eventually was mostly done by adding the consonants ahif waw, ya yåŸ; (c) the marking of short vowels; (d) certain other matters such as the doubling of consonants and the absence of a vowel after a consonant. The process of improving the script was completed towards the end of the ninth century. It now became possible to enforce a greater measure of uniformity than was conceivable with the original script. It is not surprising, then, to find in the early tenth century a series of moves to ensure a measure of uniformity. These are chiefly associated with the name of mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid (859-935). 13 He was not, of course, the first to concern himself with securing uniformity in the text. Malik ibn-Anas (d. 795), the great scholar of Medina and founder of the Malikite legal rite, had explicitly stated that the performance of the worship behind someone who used the readings of masud Ibn-Masÿõd was invalid. 14 The more precise script, however, enabled mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid to make more exact regulations. As a result of his studies he wrote a book entitled 'The Seven Readings' (qiraat Al-qiråŸåt saba as-sabÿa). He based himself on a Tradition to the effect that muhammad Muøammad had been taught to recite the quran QurŸån according to seven ahruf aøruf, interpreted to mean seven sets of readings', though ahruf aøruf is the plural of harf øarf which is properly 'letter'. 15 His conclusion was that the set of readings of each of seven scholars of the eighth century was equally valid, but that these seven sets alone were authentic. The conclusions of the scholar were made effective by the action of the courts. In 934 a scholar called Ibn-Miqsam 16 was forced to renounce the view that one was entitled to choose any reading of the consonantal outline that was in accordance with grammar and gave a reasonable sense. This decision was tantamount to an insistence that only the seven sets of readings were valid. In April 935 (about four months before the death of ibn mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid) another scholar, ibn shannabudh Ibn-Shannabõdh, was similarly condemned and forced to retract his view that it was permissible to make use of the readings of masud Ibn-Masÿõd and Ubayy kab ibn-Kaÿb. Up to this time some scholars had apparently been in the habit of making some use of these readings in commenting on and elucidating the quran QurŸån. The readings of ali ÿAli ibn abi talib ibn-Abæ-Þålib were also rejected by mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid. The seven sets of readings accepted by mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid represented the systems prevailing in different districts. There was one each from Medina, Mecca, Damascus and Basra, and three from Kufa. For each set of readings (qiraa qirå'a), there were two slightly different 'versions' (sing. riwaya riwåya). ... While ibn mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid's system of seven readings came after a time to be generally accepted in theory, only one of the fourteen versions, that of hafs Øafã from asim ÿÅãim, is now widely used in practice. The new standard Egyptian edition reproduces this version and thus gives it a certain canonical supremacy. The restriction to seven readers was not immediately approved by all Muslim scholars. Some spoke of ten readers (with two versions each), while others had fourteen, though with only one version of at least the last four.

From http://www.bibleprobe.com/corruptedquran.htm: "It is not without interest, that records show that the Qur'anic text was finally fixed by the two visirs ibn Muqlah and ibn-'Tsa in A.D. 933 (A.H. 311) with the help of the learned ibn Mujahid. Ibn Majahid admitted seven readings, which had developed because of lack of vowel and diacritical marks, as canonical." ("History of the Arabs" by Philip K. Hitti, page 123 as quoted from "Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran" by Arthur Jeffery and "New Researches into the Composition and Exegesis of the Koran" by Hartwig Hirschfeld).

From http://exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Quran: "Uthman's version was written in an older Arabic script that left out most vowel markings; thus the script could be interpreted and read in various ways. This basic Uthmanic script is called the rasm; it is the basis of several traditions of oral recitation, differing in minor points. In order to fix these oral recitations and prevent any mistakes, scribes and scholars began annotating the Uthmanic rasm with various diacritical marks -- dots and the like -- indicating how the word was to be pronounced. It is believed that this process of annotation began around 700 CE, soon after Uthman's compilation, and finished by approximately 900 CE".

From http://www.islam-watch.org/Kammuna/Collection-of-Quran-3.htm : "The Role of Ibn Mujahid (d. 936). This great scholar based in Baghdad canonized the Arabic language with one system of consonants and placing a limit on the vowel variations [this was a problem of astronomical proportions toward understanding the Qur’anic text. The reader is advised to read the second part of this study to understand the involved complexities]. With this canonization, seven Qur’anic systems were accepted. However, other scholars accepted ten reading, and others fourteen. Ibn Mujahid’s seven allowed, though, fourteen possible readings because each of the seven readings was traced through two transmitters. Here they are: (1) Nafi of Medina according to Warsh and Qalun; (2) Ibn Kathir of Mecca according to al-Bazzi and Qunbul; (3) Ibn Amir of Damascus according to Hisham and Ibn Dhakwan; (4) Abu Amr of Basra according to al-Duri and al-Susi; (5) Asim of Kufa according to Hafs and abu Bakr; (6) Hamza of Kuga according to Khalaf and Khallad; (7) Al-Kisai of Kufa according to al-Duri and Abul-Harith. At the present time, two versions seem to be in use. Asim of Kufa through Hafs was adopted by the Egyptian edition of 1924. Nafi of Medina through Warsh is used in parts of Africa, other than Egypt.. It is important to note here that those varied readings of the Qur’an refer to actual differences in the written and oral text. They are different “Qur’ans”, so to speak. Charles Adams notes that those seven versions refer to actual written and oral text, to distinct versions of Qur’anic verses, whose differences, though they may not be great, are nonetheless substantial. Since the very existence of variant readings and versions of the Qur’an goes against the doctrinal position toward the Holy Book held by many modern Muslims, it is not uncommon in an apologetic context to hear the seven (versions) explained as modes of recitation; in fact the manner and technique of recitation are an entirely different matter. .... So, in a sense, we do have many Qur’ans nowadays, literally. I hope that this matter has been proven in this three part study. I have no doubt that an honest reader who will read the three published parts of this research will reach this very same conclusion".

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html: "Uthman succeeded in standardising a single written text of the quran QurŸan but, as the pronunciation of words and clauses was not reflected in the earliest manuscripts, the quran QurŸan was still read in different ways. No vocalisation of the written text existed at that time and so the script (as much of written Arabic does today) was transcribed with consonants only. Vowel points were only added much later. At the same time a tradition had been recorded that the Prophet himself had stated that the quran QurŸan was in fact sent down with more than one form of recitation: 'The quran QurŸan has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you'. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.510). This statement concludes an incident where Umar one day heard Hisham ibn Hakim reciting Suratul-Furqan in a way very different to that which he had learnt it. In his typical impulsiveness he intended to spring upon him but controlled himself until Hikam had finished his reading. Umar immediately confronted him with being a liar when he claimed that he had learned his recitation directly from Muhammad himself. When they approached the Prophet for a decision he confirmed both their readings, adding the above statement that the quran QurŸan had been revealed alaa sabati sabÿati ahruf, 'in seven readings'". Also: "The Period of Ikhtiyar. Until Ibn Mujahid (section heading). For the next three centuries after Uthman there were considerable differences in the recitation of the quran QurŸan as a result of his inability to eliminate the dialectal variants, but the differences were confined to these alone. This was a time of ikhtiyar, a period of 'choice' when Muslims were free to read the quran QurŸan in whichever dialect they chose on the strength of the tradition that there were seven legitimate ways in which the quran QurŸan could be recited. During this period until the year 322 AH (934 AD), all scholars of the quran QurŸan agreed that such recitations were valid although no one could define exactly what the seven readings were. They would be at the discretion of anyone who attempted to specify them. In that year, however, the well-known authority on the quran QurŸan at Baghdad, Ibn Mujahid, took it upon himself to resolve the issue. He had considerable influence with Ibn `Isa and Ibn Muqlah, two of the wazirs (ministers) in the Abassid government of the day. Through them he managed to establish an official limitation on the permissible readings of the quran QurŸan. He wrote a book titled al qiraat Al-Qiraÿat sabah as-Sabÿah ("The Seven Recitations") and in it he established seven of the readings current in the Muslim world as canonical and declared the others shadhdh ("isolated") and no longer legitimate. He gave no source of authority for his decision and it appears it was entirely his own discretion which guided him. The seven readings now authorised were those of Nafi (Medina), Ibn Kathir (Mecca), Ibn `Amir (Damascus), Abu `Amr (Basrah), Asim, Hamzah and al-Kisai (Kufa). In each case there were certain recognised transmitters who had executed a recension (riwayah) of their own of each reading and two of these, those of Warsh (who revised Nafi's reading) and Hafs (who revised asims Asim's) eventually gained the ascendancy as the others generally fell into disuse. Warsh's riwayah has long been used in the Maghrib (the western part of Africa under Muslim rule, namely Morocco, Algeria, etc) mainly because it was closely associated with the Maliki school of law but it is the riwayah of Hafs that has gradually gained almost universal currency in the Muslim world. This has particularly been so since the printing of the quran QurŸan became commonplace. Ibn Mujahid's determination to canonise only seven of the readings current in the Muslim world of his day was upheld by the Abbasid judiciary. Very soon after his decree a scholar named Ibn Miqsam was publicly forced to renounce the widely-held opinion that any reading of the basic consonantal outline was acceptable as long as it contained good Arabic grammar and made good sense. The period of ikhtiyar duly closed with Ibn Mujahid's action. He did to the vocalised reading of the quran QurŸan what `Uthman had done to the consonantal text many centuries earlier. Just as the Caliph had destroyed the different codices so this scholar outlawed all dialectal readings in use except seven. So likewise, just as the text standardised by `Uthman cannot be regarded as a perfect copy of the quran QurŸan exactly as it was delivered by Muhammad because it only standardised the text of one redactor at the Caliph's personal discretion, so the seven readings canonised by Ibn Mujahid cannot be accepted as an exact reflection of the sabat i ahruf sabÿat-i-ahruf as they were likewise arbitrarily chosen by the redactor according to his own preference and judgment. (1683 AD note: one would think that the denial of Uthman's Qur'an / Mushaf as being perfect would be heretical). It is obvious that no one with any real authority can say precisely what the seven different readings referred to in the Hadith actually were. A very good example of the confusion caused in subsequent generations about these readings is found in the following quote attributed to Abu al-Khair ibn al-Jazari prior to Ibn Mujahid's declarations: 'Every reading in accordance with Arabic, even if only remotely, and in accordance with one of the `Uthmanic codices, and even if only probable but with an acceptable chain of authorities, is an authentic reading which may not be disregarded, nor may it be denied, but it belongs to al ahruful sabat al-ahruful-sabÿat (the seven readings) in which the quran QurŸan was sent down, and it is obligatory upon the people to accept it, irrespective of whether it is from the seven Imams, or from the ten, or yet other approved imams, but when it is not fully supported by these three (conditions), it is to be rejected as dhaifah dhaÿifah (weak) or shaathah (isolated) or baatilah (false), whether it derives from the seven or from one who is older than them' (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii `Ulum quran al-QurŸan, p.176). This statement shows how impossible it was to define the seven different readings. Any good reading was automatically considered to be one of them, not because it could be proved to belong to them, but because of other factors-its isnad (chain of authorities), its consistency with the `Uthmanic consonantal text, and its compliance with proper Arabic grammar (1683 AD note: This indicates that the lone, original Uthman Quran / Mushaf can accomodate multiple readings). . The decision rested purely on matters of discretion.bbContrary to the oft-stated Muslim sentiment that the quran QurŸan as it stands today is an exact replica of the one said to be inscribed on the Preserved Tablet in heaven, it is obvious that the book went through a long period in which distinctions in both the actual text and thereafter in dialectal reading were eliminated in the interests of obtaining a single text. The quran QurŸan became standardised into the form in which it is found today, mainly through the actions of `Uthman and Ibn Mujahid respectively but also through other means such as the gradual lapse of most of the readings accepted by the latter scholar. The book only contains a uniform, defined text because certain Muslims of earlier times made it their express purpose to reduce it to a single text upon which the whole Muslim world could be united. The evidences show, however, that whole passages are now missing from certain surahs, that considerable numbers of variant readings existed in the original codices, and that a host of different dialectal readings survived until some three centuries later until these were reduced to seven. (1683 AD note: This is saying that the Uthman effort to push one reading with the Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf had failed). Only the printing of the quran QurŸan has finally given the Muslim world a single, unvaried text. There can be little doubt that the quran QurŸan has generally survived intact and that its present text is a relatively authentic reproduction of the book as it was originally delivered. There is no justification, however, for the Muslim dogma that nothing in it, to the last dot or letter, has ever been changed or amended, or that any portion of it has since been lost or omitted. Also: " It was generally assumed, as it is today, that the Arabic language was so familiar to its speakers that vowelling of the text was not necessary. A number of consonants were not distinguished from one another either so that only seventeen were employed in the very early texts. As time passed, however, the similar consonants were separated by diacritical points above or below the letters and vowelling soon followed to clearly identify the reading of each text. Today almost without exception printed quran QurŸans are fully vocalised".

From: http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm : "The introduction of diacritical marks to the verses of the Qur'an. It was in the first centuries of Islam the diacritical marks upon the consonants were placed. Prior to that the authority of the Qurra (singular Qari, the authoritative reciter of the Qur'an) and the authority of the oral transmissions were the indispensable and essential compliments to the text that had been circulated by 'Uthman in 650. Here is an excerpt from The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse: 'As Islam became diffused among peoples whose Arabic fell far short of the Quraysh standard, or for whom Arabic was not even a mother tongue, it became a matter of urgency to remedy the deficiencies of the script, formalize grammar and preserve the integrity of the revealed text and of Arabic, the sacred language. The rapid vulgarization of Arabic that ensued in the first centuries of Islam when the language, no longer protected by its isolation, became the lingua franca of a vast realm, was a phenomenon noted and deplored by the scholars of the age'". Also: "Before we go to SITE #2 there is one other related issue: The Change of Dialects; that mean.. The Change of Pronunciations; that means.. The Additions &/or Deletions of Vowels within Words.. BUT NO CHANGE IN THE MEANING OF THE TEXT...In their desperation, the Critics have cited examples of such variations in the Arabic words as the "textual variations" in the Qur'an. For the readers who do not know the language these may appear as the textual variations, but they are not. Here is a good example from their Bible. In 'Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity', appears an illustration of the Cover from the *Byble* published during the reign of King Henry VIII. The King had repudiated the authority of Pope and published this first English Byble. Here in this sixteenth century publication one would see the words: "Bible" written as "Byble"; "Hebrew" as "Hebrue"; "Greek" as "Grcke"; "texts" as "textes" and the phrase "Old and New Testament" as "Olde and Newe Testament" and so forth and so on. Obviously, the Christians of the sixteenth century must be READING the biblical texts from their copies of the "Byble" differently from what the Christians of this era are reading. Can the present mode of "spelling" and the "style of reading" of the Holy Bible be alleged as the "textual variants" in the biblical text from that of the 16th century?

From http://www.islam4all.com/new_page_32.htm we have: "The millions copies of Qur'an in circulation amongst the Muslims these days are exact copies of the original Uthmani Mus'haf. The only differences are in the spelling of some words and the way they are written, which in no way change the meanings of the verses. (NOTE by 1683 AD: How can something be exactly the same yet have differences? Is this logical?) This stands as a clear attestation to the authenticity of the Holy Qur'an and its preservation for more than 1400 years since its revelation to Prophet Muhammad. The Qur'an is the only Holy Script that survived without changes, additions, or deletions".

From: http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#4a "Later, at the insistence of Zayd, the Governor of Basrah (45-53 H), dots were assigned as vowel points. Then during the reign of Abdul Malik (65-85 H.) Hajjaj bin Yusuf appointed scholars to assign new symbols for vowels while dots were used to distinguish different letters that were in some words looked the same".

From http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm#history : "To start our investigation we turn to an Islamic Encyclopedia written by a practicing Muslim. This scholar explains an important aspect of the history of the Qur'an. Please read this quote a few times if you are new to this area of study. -- '(C)ertain variant readings (of the Qur'an) existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died, and because the inchoate (basic) Arabic script, lacking vowel signs and even necessary diacriticals to distinguish between certain consonants, was inadequate. ... In the 4th Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse (to return) to "readings" (qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order, moreover, to ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl. ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts (al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings"), each having two transmitted versions (riwayatan) with only minor variations in phrasing, but all containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks. ... The authoritative "readers" are: Nafi` (from Medina; d. 169/785); Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d. 119/737)' Abu `Amr al-`Ala' (from Damascus; d. 153/770); Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d. 118/736); Hamzah (from Kufah; d. 156/772); al-Qisa'i (from Kufah; d. 189/804); Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d. 158/778); (Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 324, bold added)'. ... Therefore, we need to realise that the Qur'an has been passed down to us from men called "the Readers". They were famous reciters of the Qur'an in the early centuries of Islam. The way these men recited the Qur'an was formerly recorded in textual form by other men called the "Transmitters". ... What the above means is that the Qur'an has come to us through many transmitted versions. You cannot recite or read the Qur'an except through one of these versions. Each version has its own chain of narrators (isnad) like a hadith. There are more versions than those listed above but they are not considered authentic because their chain of narration is considered weak. Not all of these versions are printed or used today, but several are. ... To make things simple we will now compare two Qur'ans from different parts of the world to see if they are identical. The Qur'an on the left (not shown) is now the most commonly used Qur'an and is according to Imam Hafs' transmitted version. The Qur'an on the right (not shown) is according to Imam Warsh's transmitted version and is mainly used in North Africa. When you compare these Qur'ans it becomes obvious that they are not identical. There are four main types of differences between them. (1) Graphical/Basic Letter Differences; (2) Diacritical Differences; Vowel Differences; Basmalah Difference". ... Diacritical Differences: Arabic uses dots to distinguish certain letters that are written the same way. For instance the basic symbol(not shown) represents five different letters in Arabic depending upon where the diacritical dots are placed: baa', taa', thaa', nuun, yaa'. Here we see (not shown) another difference between these two Qur'ans for they do not have the dots in the same place. The result is that different letters are formed. ... Vowel Differences" Arabic uses small symbols above and below the letters to indicate some of the vowels of a word. Here we see another difference between these two Qur'ans for they do not have the same vowels in the same place.... The extent to which the differences affect the meaning. I am often told by Muslims that the differences between these Qur'ans are only a matter of dialect, accent or pronunciation, and that they do not have any effect on the meaning at all. However this is clearly not the case. The examples of the differences given earlier show that the differences are far more than dialect, accent or pronunciation. The differences change the subject of the sentence, whether the verb is active or passive or whether it is singular or plural. These differences do affect the meaning. ,,, We began this article by considering the following claim made by a Muslim leader about the Qur'an. 'No other book in the world can match the Qur'an ... The astonishing fact about this book of ALLAH is that it has remained unchanged, even to a dot, over the last fourteen hundred years. ... No variation of text can be found in it. You can check this for yourself by listening to the recitation of Muslims from different parts of the world'. (Basic Principles of Islam, p. 4) This claim is wrong. All of the Islamic evidence shows that there are different versions of the Qur'an used around the world today. They are different in their basic letters, diacritical dots and vowels, and this changes the meaning of words and sentences. The different Qur'ans also have a different understanding of the Basmalah, some accepting it as part of the Qur'an while others not. Therefore how the Qur'an is recited around the world today is different".

From http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/139040 : "You claim the Koran in your hands to be a book that is an exact copy of the one preserved in heaven, (as written down on leather, bones etc during the prophet's time which had no diacritical marks). But you accept that the diacritical marks were put in later so what you have now is not the one that Abu Bakr or Othman had. Simple logic. If the problem was with the Arabic language Allah could have revealed it in some other language. Allah could have accelerated the process of improvement of the Arabic script or waited till the Arabs themselves did it to reveal the Koran if the one in heaven has those marks".

From http://www.uga.edu/islam/quran.html : "On the contrary, it is a historical fact, accepted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that the writing of the text (but not the text itself) of the Qur'an has substantially evolved. One such major evolutionary difference is that originally the text was written without diacritical points--which distinguish some letters from others-- but early in the history of the writing of Qur'an, diacritical points were added. The upshot of this is the vast majority of Muslims rest assured that they are reading the exact words of revelation received by Muhammad (even though the manner of writing those words has indeed changed over time). Since Muslims believe that words themselves are those revealed by God, the act of reciting or reading the Qur'an is believed to be a means of receiving blessings (baraka) from God. Hence it is not uncommon that Muslims will learn how to read Arabic and the Qur'an without understanding it".

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html : " It took time for the quran QurŸan to become a single text and, as shall be seen, a second redaction was necessary some centuries later to standardise the vocalised text as well. One thing is quite obvious from all these readings, however-there is no foundation for the Muslim claim that the quran QurŸan presently read in the Muslim world is an exact copy of the original text at the time of Muhammad". Also: "`Uthman succeeded in standardising a single written text of the quran QurŸan but, as the pronunciation of words and clauses was not reflected in the earliest manuscripts, the quran QurŸan was still read in different ways. No vocalisation of the written text existed at that time and so the script (as much of written Arabic does today) was transcribed with consonants only. Vowel points were only added much later. At the same time a tradition had been recorded that the Prophet himself had stated that the quran QurŸan was in fact sent down with more than one form of recitation: The quran QurŸan has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.510)".

From http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103 : Like other early Arabic literature, the Sa'na Koran was written without any diacritical marks, vowel symbols or any guide to how it should be read, says Puin. "The text was written so defectively that it can be read in a perfect way only if you have a strong oral tradition." The Sa'na text, just like other early Korans, was a guide to those who knew it already by memory, he says. Those that were unfamiliar with the Koran would read it differently because there were no diacritical and vowel symbols. As years went by, the correct reading of the Koran became less clear, he says. People made changes to make sense of the text. Puin gives as example Hajjaj bin Yusuf, governor of Iraq from 694-714 AD, who "was proud of inserting more than 1,000 alifs [first letter of the Arabic alphabet] in the Koranic text". Professor Allen Jones, lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University, agrees. "Hajjaj is also responsible for putting the diacritical marks in the Koran. His changes are a defining moment in the history of the Koran". After Hajjaj's changes in around the 700s, "the Koranic text became pretty stable", he says.

Froom http://www.solhaam.org/articles/islam02.html: "Arabic Grammar. Initially there was no Arabic grammar, that is recorded and accepted grammatical rules. About the year 780 the 'grammar of written arabic was established by the Persian Sibawayh.' <2> {4}So we have: Year 780 (Grammer of written arabic established, about 150 years after the death of Mohammed. 800 (From about this time onwards, the Arabic language began to differ in some respects from that of the Koran, making misunderstandings and conflicting readings more likely, and causing them. ... Diacritical and Vowel Points. What took place has been researched in considerable detail by Gilchrist {3} who records that 'It was only in the later generations that vowel marks above and below the letters were introduced to give an exact representation of the vocal text. Diacritical points were then also added above and below the relevant consonants to distinguish between them. At the same time long vowels were also distinguished where appropriate from short vowels by the use of the three weak letters (alif, wa and ya) which were otherwise considered to be actual consonants and not vowels. Also introduced in time was the marking of the hamzah. These modifications were gradually applied to the whole text and all helped to define the actual text of the Koran more accurately. {3} The date of the final fixing of the Koran's text ('reading'), that is of the final introduction of vowel and diacritical points, is not known, and Luxenberg concludes that the process of fixing the text of the Koran took about three hundred years, that is to the end of the 'period of free choice' (ikhtiyar). {4}

From http://www.godrevelation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52 : "Changing The Original Quran? One of the biggest shocks that came to me was the fact that 200 years after Mohammad, the whole meaning of the Quran could have been lost. It was then that they changed the Arabic script which didn’t have the dots on the letters, to the modern script of today which does, as well as adding numbers to the verses. There are many letters in Arabic that are only different by the number of dots placed around them. For example lets take a look at four different Arabic letters, by removing the dots they will be one letter : (not shown) . Shockingly the Quran was preserved by memorization more than it was written. So it was very easy to add these dots without changing the meaning. I guarantee you that if the book was not memorized the whole meaning would have been lost.

From http://islamicislamic.com/quran_compilation.htm : "The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq. Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too. (1683 AD note: Then preserve the oral recitation within the oral transmission itself, don't change the text. Uthman concluded that the "recitation" would be best reprersented in the manner in which he had it written out in the written Qur'an / Mushaf).

From http://www.islamweb.net/kidsen/kids%20corner%201,2/subjects/ehsaeyat1.html : "The first one to place the dots on the letters of the Quran, was Abu Al-Aswad Ad-Dua'li, may Allaah be pleased with him. He made the Fathah sign (short vowel a) a dot above the letter, the Kasrah (short vowel ı) a dot below, and the Dhammah (short vowel u) a dot between the parts of the letter. · The first one to replace the dots with diacritical marks was Al-Khaleel Ibn Ahmad Al-Faraahidi, may Allaah have mercy on him. The first people to dot the letters of the Quran (such as ...) were Nasr Ibn `Aasim, Yahya Ibn Ya`mur and `Abdur-Rahmaan Ibn Hurmuz. This made it easy for the Arabs as well as the non-Arabs to recite the Quran. (1683 AD note: In other words, sanctity was over-ruled by demand for convenience)".

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2000/aug/08/highereducation.theguardian : "People made changes to make sense of the text. Puin gives as example Hajjaj bin Yusuf, governor of Iraq from 694-714 AD, who "was proud of inserting more than 1,000 alifs [first letter of the Arabic alphabet] in the Koranic text". Professor Allen Jones, lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University, agrees. "Hajjaj is also responsible for putting the diacritical marks in the Koran. His changes are a defining moment in the history of the Koran". After Hajjaj's changes in around the 700s, "the Koranic text became pretty stable", he says.

From http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html: "Since diacritical marks were already fixed before the first half of the first century of hijra and the vowel marks invented a little later by Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali [d. 69 AH / 688 CE], it should not be surprising to see the Muslims towards the end of first century of hijra were already using the dotted manuscripts. Abu ‘Amr al-Dani narrates a couple of reports that shed some light into this matter. ... It was to us narrated that Ibn Sirin owned a mushaf that was dotted by Yahya Ibn Ya‘mur [d. 90 AH / 708 CE]. And that Yahya was the first one to dot them. The three of these people are among the eminent successors of Basra.[53]. Khalaf b. Ibrahim said: 'Ahmad al-Makki told me: Al-Qasim told me:‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi told me from Hammad b. Zayd; from Khalid al-Hadda': I used to follow a mushaf from Ibn Sirin [d. 110 AH / 728 CE] that was dotted'.[54] It should be added that every centre appears to have practiced a slightly different convention at first. For example, Ibn Ushta reports that the mushaf of Isma‘il al-Qust [100-170 AH / 718-786 CE], the imam of Makkah bore a dissimilar dotting scheme when compared with the ones used by the Iraqis.[55] The scholars of Sana‘a' followed yet another framework.[56] However, by the close of the first century, the Basran convention became so popular that even the Madinan scholars adopted it.[57] It is not surprising to see that some of the Quranic ,anudcripts from 1st/snd centuryof hijra show the evidence of a vowelling scheme adopted by Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali. The frequency of diacritic dots and vowels signs varies and alongside fully-vowelled manuscripts one can find texts in which even the diacritic dots are left out.

From http://zamanku-milis.blogspot.com/2007/07/zamanku-re-al-quran-isinya-lebih-bagus.html and http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv8.html "Then Dr. Ahmad alluded to those who invented the vocalization and diacritical points and applied them to the Qur’anic text many years after Muhammad’s death such as Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali, Nasr ibn ’Asim and al-Khalil ibn Ahmad. He also added (on the same page) that "without these diacritical points, a man would believe that verse 3 of the chapter, ‘The Repentance’, would mean that God is done with the idolaters and His apostle— free from obligation to the idolaters and His apostle—while the real meaning of the verse is that God and His apostle are done with the idolaters—free from further obligation to the idolaters. Now the question we would like to ask Dr. Ahmad and all those wise men: Why was not the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad in a perfect Arabic language complete with the literary indicators and the diacritical points lest a difference or change of meaning occur? If a student of Arabic writes an essay in Arabic without the diacritical points would the teacher give him more than zero? The answer is known to two hundred million Arabs. The second question is: Did God inspire those who added the diacritical points and the vocalization through an angel, for example, to eliminate the different meanings on which the scholars disagree? Who instructed Nasr ibn ’Asim, Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali and Khalil ibn Ahmad to undertake this serious task and create the diacritical points and the vocalization for the Qur’anic text? Was it not more appropriate that Muhammad himself or some of his successors or companions like ibn ’Abbas and ibn Mas’ud should accomplish this work? Yet al-Suyuti himself tells us that ibn Mas’ud was not pleased with that (refer to "Itqan", part 2, p. 160), nor were other leading companions and scholars such as ibn Sirin and the Nakha’i. 2) Ibn Timiyya, Sheik of the Muslims (vol. XII, p. 101), tells us, "The companions of Muhammad had never used the diacritical points or the vocalization for the Qur’an. For each word, there were two readings—either to use (for instance) ‘ya’ or ‘tah’ in such words as ‘they do’ or ‘you do’. The companion did not forbid one of the readings in favor of the other, then some successor of the companions began to use the diacritical points and vocalization for the Qur’an." On pp. 576 and 586, he adds, "The companions (Muhammad’s friends) did not vocalize or provide diacritical points for the letters of the Qur’anic copies which they wrote, but later during the last part of the companions’ era, when reading errors came into being, they began to provide diacritical points for the copies of the Qur’an and to vocalize them. This was admissible by the authority of the majority of the scholars, though some of them disliked it. The truth is, it should not be disliked because the situation necessitated it, and the diacritical points distinguish the letters from each other while vocalization explains the grammatical inflection." There is a candid acknowledgment from ibn Timiyya that diacritical points are required, but did not God and His angel Gabriel along with Muhammad and his successors know about this problem? The simplest principles of sound Arabic language demand that words should have diacritical points and their letters should be written in complete form. Didn’t they know that disagreements among Muslim scholars would take place and that they would fight among themselves and that even death would result from the differences in reading the Qur’anic text? Didn’t they know also that the differences in meaning of the Qur’anic vocabulary would be decisive in the interpretation and judgments of Islamic law? It is surprising that such things had not occurred to the mind of God, Gabriel, Muhammad, and the companions and the caliphs; then, three persons come later and insert these changes into the Qur’anic text. Yet, what is really more surprising is that when the companions discovered the differences in the readings of the Qur’anic text (as Ibn Timiyya says), they did not have any objection against any of the different readings and they did not prohibit either one. The justification for that was that Muhammad himself had acknowledged the presence of seven different readings, not just two readings as was clearly stated in the Sahih al-Bukhari, (vol. 6, p. 227). This fact is common knowledge among all the scholars. 3) Jalal-al-Din al-Suyuti. In his famous book, "al-Itqan Fi Ulum al-Qur’an" ("Adjusted Qur’anic Science"), al-Suyuti reiterates (part four, p. 160) the same words of ibn Timiyya which had been quoted by Dr. Ahmad Shalabi about those who invented the diacritical points and the vocalization of the words. He also said that some of the scholars detested that, as we mentioned before.

From http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/green.html#Vowel "Samuel Green says: ' ... owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority'. (N.J. Dawood, The Koran, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1983, p.10, ...) He adds further that: 'VOWEL DIFFERENCES - In the Arabic script of the modern Qur'an the vowels are indicated by small symbols above or below the basic printed letters. Again these were not included in Uthman's edition of the Qur'an'. It is to be made clear that the Arabic script before and during the time of cUthmân was written without vowel and diacritical marks. To say that the vowels and diacritical marks were not included in the cUthmânic Qur'an actually shows the ignorance of the Christian missionary Samuel Green concerning the evolution of Arabic script. The need for vowel and diacritical marks arose only after the time of cUthmân to prevent the wrong recitation of the Qur'an by ignorant Arabs and non-Arabs. (1683 AD note: unless we are missing something, the immediately preceding two sentences seem to contradict each other). Arabic orthography at the time of cUthmân was not yet developed in the way we have known for centuries, particularly in two important areas. There was no distinction between letters of the alphabet of similar shape and there were no vowel marks. This may now give the impression that such a system must have given rise to great confusion in reading. This was not actually the case because the morphological patterns of words in Arabic enable readers to read even very unfamiliar material without the short vowels being marked. More important, however, as far as the Qur'an was concerned, was the fact that learning and reading relied above all on oral transmission. In the Islamic tradition, writing remained a secondary aid; nevertheless, to ensure correct reading of the written texts of the Qur'an, particularly for those coming after the first generation of Muslims, steps were taken gradually to improve the orthography. This started with the two above mentioned areas by introducing dots to indicate different vowels and nûnâtion and these were put in different coloured ink from that of the text. There were also dots to distinguish between consonants of similar shape. This work was carried out chiefly by three men: Abû-l-Aswad al-Du'alî (d. 69 / 688), Nasr Ibn cAsim (d. 89 / 707) and Yahya Ibn Yacmur (d.129 /746). Understandably there was some opposition at first to adding anything to the way the Qur'an was written. Ibn cUmar (73/692) disliked the dotting; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no more than ensuring proper reading of the Qur'an as received from the Prophet(P), and this view was accepted by the majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslims world, from the time of the tâbicûn. The people of Madinah were reported to have used red dots for vowels - tanwîn, tashdîd, takhfîf, sukûn, wasl and madd and yellow dots for the hamzas in particular. Naqt (placing dots on words in the mushaf), became a separate subject of study with many books written on it. For details please see the article Quranic Orthography: The Written representation of the Recited Text Of The Quran ( http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Scribal/haleem.html ) .Further, the conclusions of the missionary is that there was an '... ambiguity as to which vowels should be used. This ambiguity has lead to differences between the vowels in the different transmissions'. The aim of the Christian missionary here is to show that prior to the introduction of the vowel and diacritical marks, that is, throughout the period of the Prophet(P) and the Companions, as well as the generation immediately following the Qur'an was in undetermined, fluid state, a kind of limbo, and that it assumed concrete form only with the addition of diacritical marks and vocalization signs, which of course was long after the age of Revelation. In other words, for almost a century before Hijra the Qur'an was in the fluid state and as soon as the vowels and diacritical marks were introduced, the Qur'an started to crystallise in the form that we have now after going through many 'versions.' For such a situation there is no historical evidence. Neither, there is historical evidence that Muslims differed over the Qur'an unlike the Christians who differ over the extent of the canon even to this day. It must be emphasized that for Muslims down through the centuries the consensus (ijma') of the community has always been a decisive proof in all matters; and as the community is agreed that man has not contributed a whit to the Qur'an, (1683 AD note: WHAT??? Then how did the numbering, diacritical marks, etc. appear? It sounds like someone is attempting to sweep this reality under the rug). Regarding "consensus", who decides that?). the matter may be considered settled. This is precisely the point which has been noted in the quote of N J Dawood used by the missionary. It is quite clear that all the Qirâ'ât are given equal authority. The above quote taken from N J Dawood's translation of the Qur'an is actually in direct contradiction of what Samuel Green had intended to show in his article, i.e., that the Muslims follow different 'sets of the Qur'an' as if they are not all authoritative. One wonders why did he choose to quote the material which does not even serve his purpose!

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Gilchrist.html : "The early script known as kufi was soon adapted into a form of art and calligraphy and transcribers meticulously preserved the text by writing it out as perfectly as they could. If just a stroke or letter was not faultlessly reproduced they would scrap the page and start again. ... The script changed as well after the first few centuries and the naskhi script became the most popular and most of the surviving copies of old quran QurŸan manuscripts employed it. The similar thuluth script was used at times and to this day a cursive script known as maghribi ("western") is still used in countries such as Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Virtually all printed quran QurŸans employ the naskhi script. The oldest surviving passages of handwritten texts dating to the second century of Islam are inscribed in a slanted text known as al mail al-maÿil. More will be said on this subject in the last section of this book".

1683 AD note: This section of the post concludes with discussions the use of the printing press which are copied from a prior section.

From http://www.chowk.com/interacts/9426 : "Case in point is the day when a prototype of the Gutenberg press was presented to the Caliph of Turkey for purposes of printing the Quran. The Gutenberg press as we all know is responsible for the resurgence of Europe from the Dark Ages more than any other invention. When such an opportunity was presented to Muslims before it ever made an impression in Europe the scribes of the Quran rejected this machine and denounced it as an 'instrument of the devil'.
The rationale of the scribes was that since the printing press did not perform ablution before 'writing' the Quran it was therefore unfit but moreover it was devilish for printing the Quran without performing an ablution. ... A hurdle to understanding the Quran is its arcane Arabic. Some may argue that it's better for people to learn Arabic rather than corrupting the Quran by translating it into a native dialect. The truth is that there is no end to claiming that 'translating the Quran will corrupt its meaning'. God has so sealed the hearts of Muslims that they refuse to understand the Quran, even in Arabic. For it is an oft-heard claim of Arab speakers that they don't understand the Quran because the language is ancient and therefore beyond comprehension. If this is the case then the Islamic world has lost the message of the Quran even for the native Arab speaker. But even if we were all one billion of us to learn ancient Arabic as spoken in the dialect of the tribe of Quraish, ..."

From http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=1095 : "Was there a ban on printing in Islam? I saw the following claim online here ( http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=1095 ) (NOTE from 1683 AD: The following text is taken from this link). "Printing was banned by Islamic authorities because they believed the Koran would be dishonoured by appearing out of a machine. As a result, Arabs did not acquire printing presses until the 18th century. UPDATE: Geoff Carter in the comments has been tracking it down. There is some substance to this. The urls given refer to an article by Muhsin Mahdi, From the manuscript age to the age of printed books, in The Book in the Islamic World ( http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t4LEfpCW_kQC ) , ed. G.N.Atiyeh, State University of New York Press (1995), pp.1-16. This is not a study, as far as I can see, but rather a series of questions. So we still haven’t reached bottom of this one. UPDATE 2: Searching Google books, I found this link, (http://books.google.com/books?id=OMnt1iIEzdAC&pg=PA68&dq=koran+printing&lr=#v=onepage&q=koran%20printing&f=false ) J.G.Taylor, Indonesia, Yale (2004), p.68 in support: Although the printing press reached Muslim lands from Europe in 1492, Muslim kings banned setting Arabic into type until the early nineteenth century. No footnotes, tho. A little light comes from the Quarterly Review ( http://books.google.com/books?id=GWVZAAAAIAAJ ) p.475: 'An attempt of the same kind had been made by Achmet III., so early as the year 1727: the oulemas gave their consent, but it was rendered nugatory, by excepting the Koran, for a reason, as Mr. Walsh observes, ‘ characteristic of the people—they said it would be an act of impiety if the word of God should be squeezed and pressed together; but the true cause was, that great numbers of themselves earned a considerable income by transcribing those books, which would be at once destroyed, if suffered to be printed.’ As Turks read nothing else but the Koran, the printing-office was soon discontinued. Its renewal by Selim had no better success; it languished and declined on the death of its patron, ‘ who fell a victim to the rage of the Janissaries, for attempting to innovate upon their ancient and venerable ignorance'. This tends to suggest that any ban originated with the Ottomans, and, as with so much in that miserable state, under a pretence of piety sought to financially benefit certain individuals. Once the Koran began to be printed, Karpat remarks in The politicization of Islam, p. 231 ( http://books.google.com/books?id=PvVlS3ljx20C&pg=PA231&dq=%2Bkoran+%2Bprinting&lr=#v=onepage&q=%2Bkoran%20%2Bprinting&f=false), entrepreneurs quickly issued defective Korans as fast as possible, for profit. However I have just seen a reference to a specific ban on the Koran in 1727.In Chambers Edinburgh Journal ( http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA44&dq=%2Bkoran+%2Bprinting+%2Bforbidden&lr=&id=qK8AAAAAYAAJ&output=text ) p. 44, (1848) I find the following: 'The Sultan Bajazet II. issued a decree in 1483 forbidding the use of printed books by the Turks, under penalty of death. This decree was afterwards confirmed by his son Selim I. in 1515, and implicitly obeyed by the Mohammedans, with equal ignorance and fanaticism, until the eighteenth century, when, in the reign of Achmet III., Seid-Effendi, who had accompanied his father, the ambassador, to the court of Louis XV. in 1720, was so much struck with the advantages of printing, that he determined his own country should participate in them. For the attainment of this object he employed the services of a Hungarian renegade, who was subsequently surnamed Basmadjy—’ the Printer.’ A memorial was drawn up, by means of which the grand vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, an enlightened protector of literature, obtained a favourable edict from the sultan. But fearful of wounding the religious scruples of his subjects, and of alarming the numerous class of copyists, Achmet forbade the printing of the Koran, the oral laws of the Prophet, the commentaries on these works, and books on jurisprudence—leaving to the industry of the printers philosophical, medical, astronomical, geographical, historical, and other scientific works. The renegade was placed at the head of the new establishment, but the national character was against him ; and notwithstanding his activity, at the time of his death, which happened in 1746, he had not been able to print more than sixteen works. The first was a Turkish and Arabic dictionary, 2 vols. folio, of which the impression was completed in 1729; the price was fixed at thirty- five piastres, by order of the sultan. In the following year a Turkish grammar appeared, a copy of which, with each leaf of a different colour, is still in existence'. Again, no references. UPDATE: (12th May 2009) A most interesting paper ( see initial link, as this is PDF) by John-Paul Ghobrial addresses the lack of proper references for this story. I have written to the author asking for some more details. The sources given for the ban in this paper are two: 'Nicolas de Nicolay, The navigations, peregrinations and voyages, made into Turkie by Nicholas Nicholay Daulphinois, Lord of Arfeuile. conteining sundry singularities which the author hath there seene and observed;devided into foure books, with threescore figures, naturally set forth as well of men as women, according to the diversitie of nations., T. Washington trans. (London, 1585). p.130'. '…Maranes [Marranos] of late banished and driven out of Spaine & Portugale, who to the great detriment and damage of the Christianitie, have taught the Turkes diverse inventions, craftes and engines of warre, as to make artillerie, harquebuses, gunnepouder, shot, and other munitions: they have also there set up printing, not before seene in those countries, by the which in faire characters they put in light divers bookes in divers languages, as Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, and the Hebrewe toungue, being to them natural, but are not permitted to print the Turkie or Arabian tongue.’ The other is “Busbecq”in 1560. ... here http://books.google.com/books?id=jTMQ2KRH1YMC&pg=PA255&vq=printing&dq=busbecq&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0#v=onepage&q=printing&f=false and on p. 255 we find this text: 'No nation in the world has shown greater readiness than the Turks to avail themselves of the useful inventions of foreigners, as is proved by their employment of cannons and mortars, and many other things invented by Christians. They cannot, however, be induced as yet to use printing, or to establish public clocks, because they think that the Scriptures, that is, their sacred books – would no longer be scriptures if they were printed, and that, if public clocks were introduced, the authority of their muezzins and their ancient rites would be thereby impaired. John-Paul Ghobrial suggests that the first reference refers not to a general ban on printing, but to restrictions on dhimmis (=you and me) in an Islamic state doing so in the language of the ruling Moslems. But of course that may or may not be so.

Posted on 09/20/2010 at 08:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ACT: Building bridges with a return to the Ikhtiyar - Part IV

Supporting information / Appendix

Headings in this section: (1) Seven versions of aruf (Seven Readings); (2) The claim that the written Qur'an / Mushaf has remained "unchanged", or that any proven change is permissable; (3) Excuses put forth for any errors in written, historical Qur'ans / Mushafs; (4) The earliest Qur'ans / Mushafs which still exist.

________________________________

Seven versions of aruf (Seven Readings)
_______________________________
Admittedly, 1683 AD does not possess any great expertise in Islamic history or Islamic beliefs. That is why we have made it a point to emphasize the need for outside confirmation of the understandings which are being put forth in this narrative before anyone considers launching a corresponding "bridge building" effort. Please bear that in mind particularly when reading the following.

From http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html "It is a well-known fact that there are seven different ahrûf in which the Qur'an was revealed. In the Islamic tradition, this basis can be traced back to a number of hadiths concerning the revelation of the Qur'an in seven ahrûf (singular harf). ... These above hadiths serve as evidence that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf. The defination of the term ahruf has been the subject of much scholarly discussion and is included in the general works of the Qur'an. The forms matched the dialects of following seven tribes: Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqîf, Hawâzin, Kinânah, Tamîm and Yemen. The revelation of the Qur'an in seven different ahruf made its recitation and memorization much easier for the various tribes. At the same time the Qur'an challenged them to produce a surah like it in their own dialect so that they would not complain about the incomprehensibility". Also: "It is important to realize the difference between ahruf and Qirâ'ât. Before going into that it is interesting to know why the seven ahruf were brought down to one during Uthmân's ... time. -- 'The Qur'an continued to be read according to the seven ahruf until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when some confusion arose in the outlying provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by Sahaabah and all unofficial copies of the Qur'an were destroyed. Following the distribution of the official copies, all the other ahruf were dropped and the Qur'an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is available through out the world today is written and recited only according to the harf of Quraysh'". Furthermore: "Now a few words on Qirâ'ât: -- 'A Qirâ'ât is for the most part a method of pronunciation used in the recitations of the Qur'an. These methods are different from the seven forms or modes (ahruf) in which the Qur'an was revealed. The seven modes were reduced to one, that of the Quraysh, during the era of Caliph 'Uthman, and all of the methods of recitation are based on this mode. The various methods have all been traced back to the Prophet(P) through a number of Sahaabah who were most noted for their Qur'anic recitations. That is, these Sahaabah recited the Qur'an to the Prophet(P) or in his presence and received his approval. Among them were the following: Ubayy Ibn K'ab, 'Alee Ibn Abi Taalib, Zayd Ibn Thaabit, 'Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Abu ad-Dardaa and Abu Musaa al-Ash'aree. Many of the other Sahaabah learned from these masters. For example, Ibn 'Abbaas, the master commentator of the Qur'an among the Sahaabah, learned from both Ubayy and Zayd'". Furthermore: "He also discusses the Muslims' and orientalists' attitude towards the graphic transmission: 'Many orientalists who see the Qur'an as only a written document might think that in the graphic differences can be found significant clues about the early history of the Qur'an text - if cUthmân issued a definitive written text, how can such graphic differences be explained, they might ask. For Muslims, who see the Qur'an as an oral as well as a written text, however, these differences are simply readings, certainly important, but no more so than readings involving, for instances, fine differences in assimilation or in vigour of pronouncing the hamza.'. (1683 AD note: the author does not acknowledges that changes, even if "helpful", are forbidden). Brockett goes so far as to provide examples with which the interested reader can carry out an extended analysis. Thus, he states: 'The definitive limit of permissible graphic variation was, firstly, consonantal disturbance that was not too major, then unalterability in meaning, and finally reliable authority'. In the section titled, "The Extent To Which The Differences Affect The Sense", the author repeats the same point: 'The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal or graphic, between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great effect on the meaning. Many are the differences which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are differences with an effect on the meaning in the immediate context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on Muslim thought'". Also: "The reference ... has firmly established that: There is only one Qur'an; The differences in recitation are divinely revealed, not invented by humans; The indusputable conclusion that the Qur'an was not tampered with".

From http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm#history : "Muslim attitudes to the different versions (1683 AD Note: This refers to different written versions which are in existence) a. No Islamic scholars accept all of the versions. In this article we have considered the 10 Accepted Readers and looked at two of them in particular, however, there are many more Readers/versions than just these 10.[2] No one accepts all of these versions as authentic, some are accepted and others are rejected. They are judged in the same way that the Hadith are judged for their authenticity. The gradings are: sahih (authentic), shadh (irregular), da'eef (weak) and baatil (false).[3] In this way the Qur'an is the same as the Hadith. b. Islamic scholars who say that the all of the authentic versions are from God. -- '(T)is oral tradition (of the Qur'an) embraces ten distinct systems of recitation, or, as they are generally called among scholars, "Readings" (qiraa'aat), each tranmitted by a "school" of Koran-readers deriving its authority from a prominent reader of the second or early third century of the Islamic era. The slight variation among the Ten Readings is attributable to the dialectal variation in the original Revelation. ... It should be emphasized that all of the Readings were transmitted orally from the Prophet. (Labib as-Said, The Recited Koran: A History of the First Recorded Version, p. 53); Every reading in accordance with Arabic (grammar) even if (only) in some way, and in accordance with one of the masaahif of Uthmaan, even if (only) probable, and with sound chain of transmission, is a correct (Sahiih) reading, which must not be rejected, and may not be denied, but it belongs to the seven modes (ahruf) according to which the Qur'aan was revealed, and the people are obliged to accept it, no matter whether it is from the seven Imaans, or the ten or from other accepted Imaans (Abu-l-Khair bin al-Jazari; cited from Ahmad von Denffer, Ulum Al-Qur'an, p. 119.) c. Islamic scholars who say that the versions are from human error and that there is only one recitation of the Qur'an. 'The Koran was originally recited in one language and one dialect, namely that of the Quraysh. However, as soon as readers from the different tribes began to recite it, a variety of readings emerged, reflecting dialectal differences among the readers. The diversity was so great that later generations of readers and scholars had to labor intensely over the recording and careful analysis of these readings. In so doing they give rise to a special science, or rather special sciences, devoted exclusively to this enterprise. ... I should pause here to note that certain religious authorities have supposed that the Seven Readings were transmitted by a process of continuous transmission (tawaatur) on a wide scale from the Prophet himself, unto whom, so they allege, they were revealed by Gabriel. These authorities therefore consider that whoever rejects any of the established readings is an unbeliever. They have not, however, been able to produce any evidence for what they claim except that the tradition which reads, "The Koran was revealed in seven dialects (ahruf)". The truth of the matter is that the seven Readings had nothing to do with the Revelation, nothing in the least; and whoever rejects any of them is not for having done so an unbeliever; nor has he sinned or gone astray in his religion. The origin of these Readings is to be found in the diversity of tribal dialects among the early Muslim Arabs, and everyone has the right to dispute them, and to accept and reject them, or parts of them, as seems proper. In point of fact, people have disputed the Readings and argued over them, and have even accused each other of error with respect to them; yet we know of no Muslim who ever charged another with unbelief over this matter'. (Taahaa Husayn, Fi'l-Adab al-jaahilii, pp. 98-99; cited from Labib as-Said, The Recited Koran: A History of the First Recorded Version, pp. 97-99) -- 'It is generally known that there are seven or ten different recitations of the Qur'an - By recitation is meant the different wordings which convey the same or allied meanings Maalik and Malik - Such as Yatta'harna and Yat'harna. It is generally believed the recitation of the seven or the ten reciters of the first, second and third century of Islam are valid and the Muslims are allowed to adopt either of these in their reciting Qur'an and it is generally held that the origin of these various recitations go back to the time of the Holy Prophet who approved these varieties but according to the Shia Ithna-Ashari School whose views are based on the teachings of the Holy Imams, the revealed recitation of the Qur'an cannot be but one and as the Imam puts it, "Qur'an is One, came down from the One, the variation in recitation comes from the reciters not from God."' (S. V. Mir Ahmed Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary, p. 58a)

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html : "The quran QurŸan has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.510). This statement concludes an incident where `Umar one day heard Hisham ibn Hakim reciting Suratul-Furqan in a way very different to that which he had learnt it. In his typical impulsiveness he intended to spring upon him but controlled himself until Hikam had finished his reading. `Umar immediately confronted him with being a liar when he claimed that he had learned his recitation directly from Muhammad himself. When they approached the Prophet for a decision he confirmed both their readings, adding the above statement that the quran QurŸan had been revealed alaa sabati sabÿati ahruf, "in seven readings". A similar tradition stating that the quran QurŸan was originally sent down in seven different forms reads as follows: Ibn `Abbas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Gabriel taught me to recite in one style. I replied to him and kept asking him to give more (styles), till he reached seven modes (of recitation). Ibn Shihab said: It has reached me that these seven styles are essentially one, not differing about what is permitted and what is forbidden. (Sahih Muslim, Vol.2, p.390). Another tradition states that Ubayy ibn kab Kaÿb recalled an occasion where Muhammad reported that Jibril (Gabriel) had one day informed him that Allah had commanded that the quran QurŸan be recited in only one dialect, to which Muhammad replied that his people were not capable of this. After some negotiation the angel informed him that Allah had allowed the Muslims to recite the quran QurŸan in seven different ways and that each one would be correct (Sahih Muslim, Vol.2, p.391). Apart from these traditions there are no records to define exactly what these seven different forms of reading were. As a result numerous different explanations have been given, some saying that this was to accommodate the different dialects of the Arab tribes and others that they were seven distinct forms conveyed to the centres of Islam by approved readers in the second century of Islam. Abu `Amr is said to have taken one of these to Basrah, Ibn Amir took another to Damascus, and so on (Sunan Abu Dawud, note 3365, Vol.3, p.1113). No one can possibly say what they were, however, as nothing more is said in the Hadith literature than that they were confined to differences in dialect and pronunciation.

From http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm : "The Seven Readings of the Qur'an - A panel of Christian Critics contributing to site <answering-islam> and other independent as well as organized Christian Critics have lately made the subject **Readings** of the Qur'an a major issue. The variations in the modes of vocalization or the different dialectical styles of Recitations (Qirat by Qurra) are wrongfully impressed upon and/or labeled as the "textual variations".

From http://www.solhaam.org/articles/islam02.html "Year 944. About 300 years after the death of Mohammed, the wazirs Ibn Muqlah and Ibn Isa, guided by a scholar, Ibn Mujahad, settled on seven systems of reading the text. They decreed that these alone were canonical, permissible ways of pointing and vowelling the text. {2}This ended the period of 'free choice' (ikhtiyar). The 'hamza', the 'alif' indicating 'long-a', the other vowels, and particularly the diacritical points which were added later and which fixed the underlying consonantal text, had by this time all been added to the Koran's text. Luxenberg considers that these changes to the original text by themselves resulted in the text of the Koran in many places being misread and distorted. In his thorough analysis {4} he makes the point that linguists (scholars) who inserted the diacritical and vowel points assumed that the particular 'reading' they were fixing was reliable and concludes that their assumption was now in doubt. Jeffery {2} makes a similar point when he says: 'When we come to the Koran, we find that our early manuscripts <3> are invariably without points or vowel signs, and are in a Kufic script very different from the script used in our modern copies. This modernizing of the script and the spelling system, and the supplying the text with points and vowel signs were, it is true, well-intentioned, but they did involve a tampering with the text'. (1683 AD note: We contend that a true Qur'an / Mushaf would be written in the original script. Uthman did not authorize a a modern script). However, 'Over the succeeding centuries the Koran continued to be read in seven different forms until five of them largely fell into disuse. Eventually only those of Hafs and Marsh survived and, with the introduction of a printed Koran, the text of Hafs began to take almost universal prominence.' {3}

From http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/anonymousquran2.html "According to the so-called authentic Islamic reports there wasn’t one standard way of reciting the Quran, but multiple ways, which caused confusion even among Muhammad’s closest companions! 'Narrated by Umar bin Al Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to that of mine. Allah's Apostle had taught it to me (in a different way). So, I was about to quarrel with him (during the prayer) but I waited till he finished, then I tied his garment round his neck and seized him by it and brought him to Allah's Apostle and said, “I have heard him reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.” The Prophet ordered me to release him and asked Hisham to recite it. When he recited it, Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way." He then asked me to recite it. When I recited it, he said, "It was revealed in this way. The Qur'an has been revealed in seven ahruf, so recite it in the way that is easier for you." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 041, Number 601)' And: Ubayy b. Ka'b reported: I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur'an) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah's Messenger and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Apostle of Allah expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation) and there occurred in my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah saw how I was affected (by a wrong idea), he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweatingand felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear. He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy, a message was sent to me to recite the Qur'an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects. And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (for intercession). (Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 1787)

From http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/anonymousquran2.html : "... To make matters worse the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan decided to destroy six of these seven ahruf even though companions like Abdullah ibn Masud insisted that each respective Muslim community should continue reading the Quran according to harf taught to them by reciters such as himself! Difference Between Ahrûf & Qirâ'ât: It is important to realize the difference between ahruf and Qirâ'ât. Before going into that it is interesting to know why the seven ahruf were brought down to one during Uthman's time. -- The Qur'an continued to be read according to the seven ahruf until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when SOME CONFUSION arose in the outlying provinces concerning the Quran's Recitation. Some Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by Sahaabah and all unofficial copies of the Qur'an were destroyed. Following the distribution of the official copies, all other ahruf were dropped and the Qur'an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is available through out the world today is written and recited only according to the harf of Guraysh.[8] (M S M Saifullah, Islamic Awareness, Versions of the Qur'an?; ...)"

From http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16937&PID=144817 Nonsense of course, as various Hadiths from the Sahabah indicate that the Quran was revealed in seven dialects and all were acceptable. The Muslims took practical measures to stop using all but one dialect during the reign of Uthman to prevent future disagreements from arising. (1683 AD note: There was no indication that the Uthman effort was meant to be temporary). That is how serious they were in keeping the Quran from becoming like the Bible. There is nothing in Islam comparable to the divisions in Christianity where the two main sects can't even agree on the total number of books which should be included in the canon.

From http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16937&PID=144817 : "When Muslims say that the Quran is unchanged, they mean that nothing has been corrupted from the original revelation in terms of the message and the meaning! ... ...If you mean that just because some copies use diacritical marks and some don't, that just shows your st**idity and lack of knowledge about Arabic. The original Arabic is still the same. Diacritical marks are added for those whose mother tongue is not Arabic".

From http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=16090 : "But you must note that the Quran is not the ink on paper between two covers. The Quran is the living message i.e. the words themselves that we learn by heart".

From http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100204032008AAlxO2y : "The various readings are wonderfully few in number, and are chiefly confined to differences in the vowel points and diacritical signs. But these marks were invented at a later date. They did not exist at all in the early copies, and can hardly be said to affect the text of Othman".

From http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-57323-p-2.html : "The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq. Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too".

From http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/collect.html "Variant readings were common during the life-time of Mohammed. (See the following excerpts) "Variant readings, although transmitted from Companions, claim to derive from the Prophet himself." "A man recited in the presence of Umar who corrected him. The Uthman, incensed, claimed to have recited for the Prophet and he had not corrected him. They carried their dispute to Muhammad. When the Prophet endorsed the man's claim that Muhammad had personally instructed him, doubts sprang up in Umar's mind. Reading Umar's expression, the Prophet struck him on the chest, exclaiming, 'Out devil!' Muhammad then explained 'All the modes of reciting are correct so long as you don't turn a statement on mercy into one on wrath and vice-versa.' "(Tafsir of Tabari). "It is claimed that the Quran cannot be imitated. So that which is verbally inimitable can scarcely have passed through a phase of multiple wordings when the individual Companions had the Prophet's permission to substitute whichever word chanced to correspond with the meaning revealed by God." "It may be argued that there may be different readings (texts). The wording of the Quran is not its most relevant feature. The meaning matters above all. Differing readings were known to the Prophet and he lacked the pedantry to object." "Ubayy entered the mosque and, hearing a man recite, asked him who had instructed him. The man replied that he had been taught by the Prophet. Ubayy went in search of the Prophet. When the man recited. Muhammad said, 'That is correct.' Ubayy protested, 'But you taught me to recite so-and-so,' The Prophet said that Ubayy was right too. 'Right? right?' burst out Ubayy in perplexity. The Prophet struck him on the chest and prayed, 'O God! cause doubt to depart.' Ubayy broke into a sweat as his heart filled with terror. Muhammad disclosed that two angels had come to him. One said, 'Recite the Quran in one form.' The other advised Muhammad to ask for more than this. That was repeated several times until finally the first angel said. 'Very well. Recite it in seven forms.' The Prophet said, 'Each of the forms is grace-giving, protecting, so long as you don't terminate a punishment verse with an expression of mercy, or vice-versa - as you might for example say, Let's go; or, let's be off.' " (Tafsir of Tabari.). "The different readings have the Prophet's (and Heaven's) approval. Differences in utterance are not material. The meaning is paramount. The differing readings are all equally valid, having been revealed in parallel. The difference appears to consist simply in the use of this as opposed to the synonym. That ought to occasion neither wonder nor alarm, neither squabbling nor scandal. All readings are correct. All readings come down from the days of the Prophet. All readings carry the seal of his approbation. "... Differences reported from the Companions on Quran matters, which divided them already in the days of the Prophet, concerned more than merely verbal matters (see sthe following excerpts) "Abdullah reports, 'We differed about a Sura, as to whether it consisted of thirty-five or thirty-six verses, so we went to the Prophet who was engaged in conversation with Ali. When we told him we disagee over the reading, his face reddened as he replied, "Those before you perished through their disagreements." He whispered something to Ali who said, "The Prophet commands you to recite as you were taught.' "(Tafsir of Tabari). "A man complained to the Prophet, Abdullah taught me to recite a Sura of the Quran. Zaid taught me the same Sura and so too did Ubayy. The readings of all three differ. Whose reading ought I to adopt?' The Prophet remained silent. Ali who was at his side replied, 'Every man should recite as he was taught. Each of the readings is acceptable, valid.' " (Tafsir of Tabari). "Umar said, I heard Hisam b. Hukaim reciting Surat al Furqan and listened to his recital. On observing that he was reading many forms which the Prophet had not taught me, I all but rushed upon him as he prayed. But I waited patiently as he continued, and, collaring him when he had finished, I asked him, 'Who taught you to recite this Sura?' He claimed that the Prophet had taught him. I said, 'By God! you're lying!' I dragged him to the Prophet telling him that I had heard Hisam recite many forms he had not taught me. The Prophet said, 'Let him go. Recite, Hisam.' He recited the reading I had already heard from him. The Prophet said, 'That is how it was revealed.' He then said, 'Recite, Umar', and I recited what he had taught me. He said, 'That's right. That is how it was revealed. This Quran was revealed in seven forms, so recite what is easiest.' "(Tafsir of Tabari). (See also Mishkat vol.III pp. 702-705). Also, Al Baizawi (in his commentary on Suras 3:100, 6:91, 19:35, 28:48, 33:6, 34:18, 38:22, etc.) suggests variations extant in his time. (Mizanu'l Haqq, page 261). "The scholars were to disapprove of the use by the Muslims of the post-Apostolic ages of isolate Quran readings at prayer. That is not, however, the point of the report. The earliest rationalization of reading variants was that, as all had been revealed, all were equally legitimate. Abu Huraira reports the Prophet as saying, 'The Quran was revealed in seven forms and contention about the Quran is disbelief.' " (Tafsir of Tabari).

From http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm: N.J. Dawood is an Arabic scholar who has translated the Qur'an. In the introduction to his translation he says: '... owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority. (N.J. Dawood, The Koran, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1983, p. 10, ...)'. Conclusion 1. According to this Arabic scholar there are variant readings of the text of the Qur'an. Note: N. J. Dawood is a non-Muslim Arabic scholar. His article and the Critic's Conclusion, both speak about the "variant readings" and NOT about the "variant texts". The more appropriate term should be "variant recitations". This variations in "recitations" did exist due to the various dialects. Mr. Green; Can you please name a language, that is spoken in several countries and in only ONE DIALECT? Surprisingly, the above quotation reproduced by the Critic begins from the middle of a sentence. Below I have reproduced the text preceding that quotation. The important last sentence is highlighted in red (1683 AD: not shown here): 'During Mohammed's life-time verses were written on palm-leaves, stones, and any material that came to hand. Their collection was completed during the caliphate of Omar, the second Caliph, and an authorized version was established during the caliphat of Othman, his successor (644-56). To this day this version remains as the authoritative word of God. But, owing to....' (We continue below with Critic Samuel Green's article). But what is the nature of these variant readings? FACT 2. To begin to answer this question we can turn to an Islamic encyclopedia written by a practising Muslim. Here we read the following: In the 4th Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse to "readings" (qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order, moreover, to ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl. ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts (al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings"), each having two transmitted versions (riwayatan) with only minor variations in phrasing, but all containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks. ... The authoritative "readers" are: Nafi (from Medina; d.169/785); Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d.119/737); Abu 'Amr al-'Ala' (from Damascus; d.53/770); Ibn 'Amir (from Basra; d.118/736); Hamzah (from Kufah; d.156/772); al-Qisa'i (from Kufah; d.189/804); Abu Bakr 'Asim (from Kufah; d.158/778). The predominant reading today, spread by Egyptian Koran readers, is that of 'Asim in the transmission (riwayah) of Hafs (d. 190/805). In Morocco, however, the reading is that of Nafi` in the riwayah of Warsh (d. 197/812) and Maghrebin Korans are written accordingly. (Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989, p. 324, bold added). Conclusion 2. We can see from the above quote that the Qur'an has been passed down to us through seven men called "The Readers". The way in which the Qur'an was recited by each of these "Readers" was formerly recorded in textual form by other men called "Transmitters". This text made by a "Transmitter" is called a transmission of the Qur'an. Each "Reader" had two transmissions made of his recitation of the Qur'an. Thus a transmission is the Qur'an according to a particular authoritative "Reader". Any modern Qur'an will be according to one of these transmissions. Thus there are a total of fourteen transmitted versions of the Qur'an, and different parts of the Muslim world print their Qur'ans according to different transmissions. Note: The repeated use of terms; "The Readers" and "Readers" by the Critic in his Conclusion clearly indicates that the entire issue is about the "Recitation". The above quotation from the Encyclopedia appears under the sub-heading Qira'ah, which literally means "reading". The plural of it is qira'at and the one who recites is a Qari. Samuel Green has tried to mislead the readers (by not disclosing the full facts), that the authoritative "readers" (e.g. Nafi, Ibn Kathir...) are the ones from whom originated the styles or systems of the "readings'. We do not have to go very far to find out if these were the Originators. Once we next examine the SITE # 2 the Truth will manifest itself. Before we go to SITE #2 there is one other related issue: The Change of Dialects; that mean.. The Change of Pronunciations; that means.. The Additions &/or Deletions of Vowels within Words.. BUT NO CHANGE IN THE MEANING OF THE TEXT... In their desperation, the Critics have cited examples of such variations in the Arabic words as the "textual variations" in the Qur'an. For the readers who do not know the language these may appear as the textual variations, but they are not. Here is a good example from their Bible. 'In 'Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity', appears an illustration of the Cover from the *Byble* published during the reign of King Henry VIII. The King had repudiated the authority of Pope and published this first English Byble. Here in this sixteenth century publication one would see the words: "Bible" written as "Byble"; "Hebrew" as "Hebrue"; "Greek" as "Grcke"; "texts" as "textes" and the phrase "Old and New Testament" as "Olde and Newe Testament" and so forth and so on. Obviously, the Christians of the sixteenth century must be READING the biblical texts from their copies of the "Byble" differently from what the Christians of this era are reading. Can the present mode of "spelling" and the "style of reading" of the Holy Bible be alleged as the "textual variants" in the biblical text from that of the 16th century?' SITE # 2. URL: http://www.callnetuk.com/home/aperfectquran/ch6-index.html SUBJECT TITLE: THE ANCIENT QUR’ANIC DISCREPANCIES TODAY
EXCERPTS FROM THE SITE: a/ The ‘Seven Readers’. While we will examine more fully the origins of the ‘7 Readings’ later, it is necessary to introduce them at this point since the content of the texts of Caliph ‘Uthman have been relayed through history as part of Islam’s ‘oral tradition’, which is the sole record of these ‘readings’. Von Denffer makes an important point about the ‘7 readings’: "The ‘seven ‘ahruf’ are however, not identical with the well-known ‘seven readings.’ These came about in a later age." (Ulum, p. 117; emphasis added). 1 As Von Denffer states it: "The ‘seven readings’ were standardised in the second/eighth century. Ibn Mujahid, a ninth-century Muslim scholar, wrote a book entitled The Seven Readings, in which he selected seven of the prevailing modes of recitation as the best transmitted and most reliable. Others were subsequently disfavoured and even opposed, among them the readings of ibn Mas’ud and ‘Ubay bin Ka’b." (Ulum, p.119) These then are ‘reading systems’ which have become associated with the names of specific individuals through whom they are traced, although they are not declared to be the originators of these ‘systems’ . They are listed here according to the respective Islamic centres where not only did each one live, but where they would have been expected to use the ‘Uthmanic text from that centre. Thus we have: from Medinah (Nafi, d. 169 A.H.); from Meccah (ibn Kathir, d.120 A.H.); from Damascus (ibn ‘Amir, d. 118 A.H.); from Basrah (Abu ‘Amr, d. 148 A.H.); from Kufah (‘Asim, d.127 A.H. ; Hamza, d. 156 A.H. ; al-Kisai, d. 189 A.H.). In addition, three other ‘readers’ are accepted as filling this out to ‘the Ten’. The additional three are: from Medinah (Abu Ja’far, d. 130 A.H.); from Basrah (Ya’qub, d.205 A.H.); from Kufah (Khalaf, d. 229 A.H.). Note: Here we basically find the same material as seen in SITE # 1. However in SITE # 1 we discover the following Conclusionby the Critic: Conclusion 2. We can see from the above quote that the Qur'an has been passed down to us through seven men called "The Readers". The way in which the Qur'an was recited by each of these "Readers" was formerly (1683 AD note: "formally"?) recorded in textual form by other men called "Transmitters". This text made by a "Transmitter" is called a transmission of the Qur'an. Each "Reader" had two transmissions made of his recitation of the Qur'an. Thus a transmission is the Qur'an according to a particular authoritative "Reader". The final conclusion drawn by the Critic of SITE # 1 reads: Thus a transmission is the Qur'an according to a particular authoritative "Reader". The wordings of this final sentence of the final conclusion misleads the readers into believing that today there are at least FOURTEEN (or more) Qur'ans, originating from the equal number of "TRANSMITTERS", who lived during the second century of Hijrah. The final conclusion drawn by the Critic of SITE # 2 reads: These then are ‘reading systems’ which have become associated with the names of specific individuals through whom they are traced, although they are not declared to be the originators of these ‘systems’ . They are listed here according to the respective Islamic centers where not only did each one live, but where they would have been expected to use the ‘Uthmanic text from that centre. Self Contradictions between Site # 1 and # 2: 1. These Fourteen or more, so called "Transmissions" in SITE # 1, are NOT the Qur'ans but they are the 'reading systems' of the Qur'an as per SITE # 2. 2. Out of all these 'reading systems' only "‘seven readings’ were standardised in the second/eighth century." As per SITE # 2. 3. "The names of specific individuals through whom they are traced, are not "the originators of these ‘systems’." In other words the origins of these 'reading systems' developed in the second century Hijrah could go back to the same "seven modes or styles" of the Recitation that were prevalent during the first century of Hijrah and during the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him). 4. Under the SITE # 2, the Critic writes; "They [reading systems] are listed here according to the respective Islamic centers where not only did each one live, but where they would have been expected to use the ‘Uthmanic text from that centre." THE ABOVE CONCLUSIVELY PROVES FROM THE CRITICS OWN DOCUMENTS THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE 'UTHMANIC TEXT OF THE QUR'AN WITH seven standardized 'reading systems'. (1683 AD note: As long as the author of this post acknowledges that there was only one Uthman text, there is nothing here which we should get involved in with our "Bridge Building").

From http://www.solhaam.org/articles/islam02.html ; "Jeffery {2} has pointed out that 'Faced with a bare consonantal text the reader obviously had to interpret it. He had to decide whether a certain sign was a shin or a sin, a sad or a dad, a fa or a qaf, and so on; and when he had settled that, he had further to decide whether to read a verbal form as an active or a passive, whether to treat a certain word as a verb or a noun, since it might be either. And so on.' How the reader 'read' the text, that is the meaning of words and sentences the reader allocated to the purely consonantal text, was his 'reading' (interpretation) of the text.And for three centuries after the publication of Uthman's official text there existed many different accepted 'readings' (qiraat) of the Koran. This period is called the 'period of free choice' (ikhtiyar). {2}Also: 'Readings' of uncertain texts are interpretations, which means they amount to somehow deciding between alternative meanings, amount to suggesting or providing meaning where the text itself seems unclear, ambiguous or meaningless to the reader. Some scholars attempted to restrict the number of circulating alternative readings by proposing rules for comparing and testing them.According to Jeffery {2} three rules emerged, namely that a 'reading' had to: 1. Fully agree with the consonantal text. "Some claimed that so long as a reading made good sense it did not matter whether it came from the Uthmanic Codex or one of the other Old Codices, since they also came from the time of the Prophet." 2. Had to have come down from some reputable authority (isnad). "Some were contemptuous of isnad." (3) Be according to the laws of Arabic grammar. "That a reading must be sound Arabic diction <1> was naturally accepted by all.". To me these rules for comparing and testing different 'readings' relate to form rather than substance. God's revelations are neither vague, ambiguous nor meaningless. Hence our concern about the written text and language of the Koran.

From http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/anonymousquran2.html : To make matters worse the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan decided to destroy six of these seven ahruf even though companions like Abdullah ibn Masud insisted that each respective Muslim community should continue reading the Quran according to harf taught to them by reciters such as himself!

From http://www.submission.org/quran/protect.html : "God promised in the Quran to protect and preserve the Quran. [15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it. This very important verse, however, have been misunderstood by millions of Muslims. The misinformation was spread by some of the Muslim scholars who did not grasp the meaning or purpose behind this verse. [56:77-80] This is an honorable Quran. In a protected book. None can grasp it except the sincere. A revelation from the Lord of the universe. For centuries the Muslim scholars have been teaching the Muslim masses that by verse 15:9, God means He will protect the Mus-haf of any distortion or changes. The mus-haf is the Arabic name for the book in which the Quran is collected. Many Muslims refer to the Mus-haf as the Quran for short and both words have been used interchangeably. However the promise in 15:9, as we will see, has nothing to do with what the people write down as the Quran but rather it refers to the actual Quran placed into prophet Muhammad's heart, 26:194, and preserved in master tablets at God Almighty [85:21-22] Indeed, it is a glorious Quran. In a preserved master tablet. This means whatever change the people would do to the revealed Quran, whether done deliberately or not will be exposed and corrected as the original is preserved with God. God, being the Most Merciful , also provided us with a method and a proof to verify the accuracy of the Quran as we will read later. Unlike the claims made by many Muslim scholars, the Mus-hafs that exist today and around the world are not the same as many of them still carry the human errors that were not corrected. They do not match word by word or letter by letter and they are not what God promised to preserve and protect. Even after God revealed to the world the perfect measure to the accuracy of the written Quran in 1974, the majority today refuse to adopt it and for that reasons they actually are refusing the words of God in His own book.". Also: "Of the copies made by Uthman, two still exist to our day. One is in the city of Tashkent, (Uzbekistan) and the second one is in Istanbul (Turkey). From these oldest copies more copies were made and distributed throughout the world. Although many famous Muslim scholars claim that all the copies of the Quran anywhere in the world are the same, they are only exposing their ignorance to the facts and mislead millions of Muslims to believe in their wrong teachings. The only motive for them is their misunderstanding of and inability to comprehend verse 15:9. We will see later different Qurans written differently. The most standardized editions of the Quran in the world today is the one printed in Cairo, Egypt in 1924 (approved in 1918) and after that the King Fahd edition in Saudi Arabia.

Comparing the Egyptian edition to the oldest available Quran, the Tashkent Quran, will show that there have been many human errors in the Tashkent Quran that has to be corrected when the Egyptian edition was made. The errors were obvious because the Quran has always been completely memorized and kept in its oral transmission to these days and can be verified against any written book. It is impossible to consider that God meant to preserve and protect the written books for example by Uthman (the Tashkent Quran), or any other human being for this matter when they are full of human errors. (1683 AD note: The author is excusing any possible errors in a written Qur'an / Mus'haf. His claim that a written Qur'an / Mushaf written very close to the time of Mohammed and possibly an original Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf being less accurate than a modern written Qur'an Mushaf is incredulous. However, our only concern here would be if he is referencing the previously discussed reading aids). God's promise is to provide the mean to verify any written Quran against what He has in the Master tablets as we see in 85:21-22. God's promise to preserve the correct Quran was proved when the written manuscript of the Tashkent manuscript can be verified against the memorized Quran". Also: "The human errors in Uthman's copy of the Quran shows that the scribes were no more than human beings who made mistakes and their writings are not holy writings. Only the Quran, as God keeps it, is HOLY and intact and from it He will guarantee for us the accuracy of future copies of the Quran. It is of importance to mention that all these human errors in the early writings of the Quran did not change the message of the Quran and were easily detectable. After all, the Quran is a message, worship God alone, and not just another pretty book of literature".

___________________________________
   The earliest Qur'ans / Mushafs which still exist.
   ___________________________________
   We have hopefully provided sufficient evidence that shows the written Qur'an / Mushaf of Uthman has changed significantly over time; particularly by 934 AD. Of course, printing came much later than that. Further support for our case of change having taken place would seem to be available in an inspection of the oldest Qur'ans / Mushafs which exist in museums and mosques throughout the world. Such evaluations reveal that the oldest ones are devoid of the changes which were added later on. Although some claim that one or two are Uthman originals, there are conflicting reports on these claims.

From http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090609050853AAnhMnZ : "Muslims often claim that the manuscript of the Quran housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istan)ul, Turkey, is one of the oldest sources. Muslims say it dates from around 650 AD. There is an insurmountable problem with this. This document is written in KUFIC (also known as al-Khatt al-Kufi) script...dated from the mid to end of the 8th century. The only script used during and right after Muhammad's days was the JAZM (aka Hijazi script) script. The Samarkand (aka Othman Quran) in the Soviet Library in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, also uses the KUFIC script, indicating 8th century. Many believe it it the oldest in existence, although efforts to carbon date the material have been denied. To date the Othman Quran has never been carbon dated. Only about 1/3 of the original survives. Interesting to also note are the Sana Manuscripts, which were discovered in 1972, were written in JAZM (aka Hijazi) and they have been dated to approx late 600's AD to early 700's AD, some insist even earlier but carbon testings did confirm early 700's is more likely, late 600's for the Palimpsests. The use of JAZM/HIJAZI script also confirms this. The Sana Manuscripts have now been confirmed to be the oldest Quranic text in existence".

From http://www.bibleprobe.com/corruptedquran.htm : "The oldest Qur'an dates from around 790 A.D. (after Jesus), and it is in the British Library. That's 158 years after Muhammad’s death. Muslims often claim that the manuscript of the Qur'an housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey is one of the oldest sources. Muslims say it dates from around 650 A.D. There is an insurmountable problem with this. This document is written in Kufic (also known as al-Khatt al-Kufi) script. Coins in the British Museum show that the first coins using the Kufic script date from the mid to end of the 8th century. The only script used during and after Muhammad's days was the Jazm script. The Samarkand (aka: Othman Koran) manuscript in the Soviet Library in Tashkent, Uzbekistan also uses the Kufic script, indicating late 8th century. Many believe it is the oldest in existence. Only About one-third of the original survives. ... This Samarkand codice manuscript is considerably incomplete. It only begins in the middle of verse 7 of Suratul-Baqarah (the second Surah) and from there on numerous pages are missing. The next oldest Muslim manuscripts are also from the 8th-century. One is written in al-ma'il script and the other in Kufic. Neither of these correspond precisely to today's Qur'an. Also, scraps found in Yemen differ and contradict today's Qur'an so badly, that Muslims try to hide this. These Yemeni Qur'an scraps are actually the oldest found, and it is Hijazi. Hijazi (Makkan or Madinan) script, is the script in which the earliest masahif of the Qur'an were written.".

From http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/#1 " THE ʿUTHMĀNIC MANUSCRIPTS: No discussion about the Qur'anic manuscripts begins without the mention of the ʿUthmānic manuscripts of the Qur'an. Narrations differ as to how many copies were directly ordered and sent out by the Caliph ʿUthmān, but they range from four to seven. It seems certain from various Muslim historical sources that several were lost, through fire amongst other things. There are some copies that are attributed to ʿUthmān. However, it is to be added that there is a disagreement between the scholars whether they are truly ʿUthmānic. Some Western scholars have rejected the Qur'anic manuscripts attributed to ʿUthmān as "pious forgeries" without showing any scientific evidence (i.e., study of the parchment, script, ink etc.). This itself is unscientific to an extreme. We will discuss some important manuscripts attributed to ʿUthmān below. (1) The 'Qur'an of Uthman' At Tashkent (Samarqand, From 2nd Century Hijra: A folio from a Qur'anic manuscript in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, commonly attributed to caliph ʿUthmān, has recently been subject to radiocarbon tests at Oxford, United Kingdom. Although the dates generated by this radiometric technique at either confidence level do not rule out the possibility that this manuscript was produced in ʿUthmān's time, palaeographic studies suggest an 8th century (2nd century hijra) date. (2) The 'Qur'an of Uthman' At The Topkapi Museum, Instanbul, Turkey, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra: This manuscript was written in kufic script and contains 408 folios. The extant folios contain more than 99% of the text of the Qur'an. Only two folios are missing. The manuscript shows the script, illumination and marking of vowels that are from the Umayyad times (i.e., late 1st century / early 2nd century of hijra). (3) The 'Qur'an of Uthman' At The Turk ve Islam Eseleri Muzesi (Turkish and Islamic Art Museum), Instanbul, Turkey, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra: A manuscript written in the kufic script on gazelle skin, and contains 439 folios. Interestingly, on the last folio of the manuscript is written in kufic script “Katabahu ʿUthmān bin ʿAffān fī sanat thalathyn” (“ʿUthmān bin ʿAffān wrote in the year 30”). However, the script and ornamentation negates this possibility. (3) The 'Qur'an of Uthman' At St. Petersburg (Russia), Katta, Bukhara and Tashkent (Uzbeckistan), From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra: A manuscript written in the late the ḥijāzī script, containing about 40% of the text of the Qur'an, with full texts of 22 surahs and fragments of another 22. (4) The 'Qur'an of Uthman' AtThe Al-Hussein Mosque, Cairo, Egypt, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra: This monumental Qur'anic manuscript on parchment showing a well-formed kufic script, written in dark-brown ink with sparse diacritical marks and no ornamentation. Total number of folios are 1087. Size: 57 cm x 68 cms. The height of the muṣḥaf is 40 cm and weighs 80 kgs. The extant folios contain more than 99% of the text of the Qur'an. (5) The 'Qur'an of Uthman' At The Egyptian National Library (Dar Al-Kutub Al-Misriyya), Cairo, Egypt, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra: A monumental Qur'anic manuscript on parchment showing a well-formed kufic script. Total number of folios are 306. The script is slightly sloping backwards with tall ascenders and is strongly reminiscent of the type of well executed kufic script exhibited during the Umayyad period. There is no vocalisation and a very limited amount of consonantal pointing (i.e., diacritical marks) – on some folios there are no diacritical marks at all. Multi-coloured (e.g., red, green, black, brown) diagonally arranged dashes are usually used to indicate verse-endings. Groups of five verses are marked with medallions and square cartouches containing quatrefoil emblems are used to indicate groups of ten verses. There are some arcaded bands that separate sūrahs without mentioning the name of the sūrah, some containing triangular-shaped crenellations.

From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html The earliest quran QurŸan script known was employed in Arabia and is called the al mail al-Maÿil script. It was first utilised in Medina. It is unique in that it uses vertical letters which are written at a slight angle. The very name means "the slanting" script and its upright form resulted in the early manuscripts being produced in a vertical format similar to that used for most books today. Only a few pages and fragments and, in a few cases, whole portions of the quran QurŸan are known to have survived yet they are almost certainly the oldest in existence. They date not earlier than about one hundred and fifty years after the death of Muhammad. A sign of their early origin is the fact that no vowel strokes or diacritical points were used in the text and no verse counts or chapter headings were recorded. The second early script originating from Medina was the Mashq, the "extended" style which was used for a few centuries. It was the first to use a horizontal form and had a cursive and somewhat leisurely style. The most common early script, however, was the Kufi, more properly known as al-Khatt al-Kufi. Its title does not indicate its form but rather its place of origin, namely Kufa in Iraq where Ibn masud Masÿud's codex had been so highly prized until its destruction at `Uthman's direction. It took some time to become predominant but, when it did, it became pre-eminent for three centuries and many superb texts survive. Like the Mashq script it employed a horizontal, extended style and as a result most of the codices compiled were oblong in format. In time it became supplemented with diacritical marks and vowel strokes. No Kufic quran QurŸans are known to have been written in Mecca and Medina in the first two centuries when the al mail al-Maÿil and Mashq scripts were most regularly used. Nonetheless most of the early surviving quran QurŸan texts are written in Kufi script. Another script which derives from the Hijaz in Arabia is the Naskh, the "inspirational" script. It took some time before it became widely accepted but, when it did, it replaced virtually all the others including the Kufi as the standard form of transcribing the quran QurŸan. It remains so until this day and virtually all quran QurŸans printed and written out by hand since the eleventh century are written in this form. It is easily readable and also yields readily to artistic calligraphy. One of the earliest quran QurŸans to use this form which survives intact as a complete text is the famous manuscript written out by Ibn al-Bawwab at Baghdad in 1001 AD. It is now in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin in Ireland. One other script amongst a few which developed after the Naskhi is the Maghribi, the "Western" script which, as its name indicates, comes from the extreme western region of the traditional Islamic world. It was first employed in Morocco and Moorish Spain and is still used in the area to this day. It is a very cursive script, not easy to read for those unfamiliar with the Arabic language, but highly attractive when written artistically. The Topkapi and Samarqand Codices. Despite the evidences that no quran QurŸan manuscripts can be reliably dated till the late eighth century, it is a popular fiction in the Muslim world that one or more of the copies of Zaid's codex that `Uthman distributed to the Muslim provinces survives intact to the present day. The motive for this popular belief is the desire to prove from existing texts that the quran QurŸan is unchanged to its last letter from its first written codices down to its most recent copies. It is known for certain that Zaid's original manuscript, which was originally in Abu Bakr's possession and thereafter under the control of `Umar and Hafsah, came into the hands of Marwan upon the latter's decease, having been sent to him by `Abdullah ibn `Umar. It is expressly stated that this manuscript was destroyed by him immediately thereafter (Ibn Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.21). Two of the early Kufic manuscripts surviving without vowel points, however, are especially presented as originals of the copies which `Uthman made from Zaid's codex, one being a codex said to be preserved in the State Library at Tashkent in Uzbekistan. It is popularly known as the "Samarqand" codex as it is said to have first come to this city about 1485 AD and to have remained there until 1868. Thereafter it was removed to St. Petersburg and in 1905 fifty facsimile editions were prepared by one Dr. Pisarref at the instigation of Czar Nicholas II under the title quran Coran Coufique de Samarqand, each copy being sent to a distinguished recipient. In 1917 it was taken to Tashkent where it now remains. Not more than about a half of this manuscript survives. It only begins with the seventh verse of Suratul-Baqarah and many intervening pages are missing. The whole text from Surah 43.10 has been lost. What remains, however, indicates that it is obviously of great antiquity, being devoid of any kind of vocalisation although here and there a diacritical stroke has been added to a letter. Nonetheless it is clearly written in Kufi script which immediately places it beyond Arabia in origin and of a date not earlier than the late eighth century. No objective scholarship can trace such a text to Medina in the seventh century.

Its actual script is also very irregular. Some pages are neatly and uniformly copied out while others are distinctly untidy or imbalanced. On some pages the text is fairly smoothly spread out while on others it is severely cramped and condensed. At times the Arabic letter kaf is written uniformly with the rest of the text, at others it has been considerably extended and is the dominant letter. The manuscript may well be a composite text of portions from different original codices, alternatively different scribes were employed to transcribe it. It also has artistic illumination between some of the surahs with coloured medallions. The very appearance of the text compared with the known development of the early scripts prevents a date earlier than one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad's death or a place of origin anywhere in Arabia. The other famous manuscript is known as the "Topkapi" codex as it is preserved in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul in Turkey. Once again, however, it is written in Kufi script, giving its date away to not earlier than the late eighth century. Like the Samarqand codex it is written on parchment and is virtually devoid of vocalisation though it, too, has occasional ornamentation between the surahs. It also appears to be one of the earliest texts to have survived but it cannot sincerely be claimed that it is an `Uthmanic original. A comparison between these two codices in any event shows that they were not transcribed in the same place at the same time. The Topkapi codex has eighteen lines to the page while the Samarqand codex has between eight and twelve. The whole text of the former is uniformly written and spaced while the latter, as mentioned already, is often haphazard and distorted. They may well both be two of the oldest sizeable manuscripts of the quran QurŸan surviving but their origin cannot be taken back earlier than the second century of Islam. The oldest surviving texts of the quran QurŸan, whether in fragments or whole portions, date not earlier than about a hundred and fifty years after the Prophet's death.

Posted on 09/20/2010 at 07:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

08/04/2010

ACT: Car horns to serve as an audible memorial to all who have died at the hands of Islamic Supremacists.

"We must be ready to dare all for our country. For history does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. We must acquire proficiency in defense and display stamina in purpose". Dwight D. Eisenhower

We must emphasize at the outset that the approach which is set forth below is intended as a memorial and is not to be interpreted as any form of political communication. If others pick up this approach and disseminate it, it is hoped that they would keep this key point in mind. The reader may note that this concept is somewhat similar to the one we have put forth which utilizes cellular telephone ringtones. Therefore, a substantial portion of the text is the same as in those posts. It also bears some similarities, to a lesser degree, with the concept we have presented on watch alarms.

A review of various websites on the internet will reveal irrefutable evidence of Islamic Supremacist involvement in the deaths of thousands of people in recent decades and also untold millions in the many centuries which have passed since Islam came into existence. These victims deserve some form of an audible memorial, so that their sacrifices will not be forgotten. Therefore, 1683 AD encourages everyone to have their automobiles affixed with musical air horns set to play the orchestral version (without voices) of an anthem of resistance or liberation ( http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-voice-of-nations-european-national-anthems-and-their-authors-by-f-gunther-eyck.jsp ), whenever the button to the horn is pressed. A single tone option could also be considered due to legal concerns (see text below). The purpose of having one's car horn play a specific song (or distinctive single tone) is to enhance the ability of the car owner to mourn effectively and to have an audible form of memorial to the victims of Islamic Supremacist terror attacks (and other assaults). Mourning is seen by most people as something which draws upon their religious belief system. And since our Muslim friends have generally been accorded the right to issue calls to prayer over high decibel loudspeakers throughout Europe, well, our expectation seems reasonable. Of course, if we were to mistakenly assign a political intent for this action, a comparison of it with the government approved Muslim calls to prayer would not stand and it might be subject to bans.

Of the available song options, an arbitrary selection of "Hymnos eis ten Eleutherian"( http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15337858 ) by Dionysios Solomos ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysios_Solomos ) might be appropriate. It is also known as the "Hymn to Liberty" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymn_to_Liberty ) for Greece. Nikolaos Mantzaros set the piece to music in 1865. The first three stanzas are the Greek national anthem. A description of the lyrics may be found here ( http://www.helleniccomserve.com/solomos.html ) and here ( http://www.new-byzantium.org/GrceWest.html ). The composition can be heard here ( http://www.presidency.gr/en/ethn_Ymnos.htm ) and here ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_-6AEJsnh4 ). A unique thing about this piece is that it tells the story of Greece overthrowing the rule of the Muslim Turks. Another option to be weighed and considered, as touched upon above, is the use of car horns which emit a tone which is similar to that of a train horn or the sound which tripods emitted in the latest "War of the Worlds" movie (http://www.zedge.net/ringtones/484411/tripod-horn-ringtone/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzY099ihULs&feature=related. If these specific options are not suitable (or legal), then perhaps some other commercially available and legal horn with a tone of a truly distinct and uncommon quality can be found. The advantage of the train/tripod options is that the sounds would be distinctive among all car horns on the road and would likely meet the requirement in many nations of a car horn to be of one tone.

Let's examine the potential effect of car horns emitting "Hymn to Liberty" or a distinctive single tone. First and foremost, most people at this time would be outdoors or in close proximity to the sounds of the street. In each of these instances it is highly probable that the person who hears the tune may hear it again on another occasion. Eventually, they might investigate why there is a sudden popularity of the tune (or tone). When they learn of the association, they, too, may decide to install a similar car air horn. And so on.

The ultimate effect of all of this is that individual members of the general public will gradually become aware of a considerable amount of sympathy among their fellow citizens for the victims of Islamic Supremacist terror attacks and other assaults throughout history. They may then find the sound to be therapeutic and helpful in their own mourning. At some point, this level of sympathy will be impressed upon the media and government officials who unfortunately control and limit much of our public discourse.

Now, we will get into some specifics. A review of "musical car horns", "musical air horns" and other search terms reveals that many car horns of this type are designed to play only one tune or song. Others can play a predetermined series of tunes (excluding "Hymn for Liberty"). And a few enable the user to program their own tunes. We are interested in the latter. Examples of the suitable ones are as follows: the Wolo Juke Box Musical Horn Model #336 ( http://www.shopwiki.com/Wolo+Juke+Box+Musical+Car+Horn+%C2%97+Model%23+336+%7C+Air+Horns ); and the options at http://www.cogapa.com/. These are apparently available primarily in the U.S.. We would welcome input regarding European sources. As for car horns which sound like train horns, they may be found at the following: http://www.hornblasters.com/, http://trainhornsdelivered.com/ , and other locations. A forum on train horns can be found here: http://www.trainhornforums.com/index.php . There is a significant disadvantage to train horns: cost. This might be due to the mechanical requirements for a high volume. This problem might be resolved if lower volume train horns, at the same level as found on a standard care, were available. We have not listed any options for distinctive, legal, single tone car horns which are commercially available. The selection of a precise tone from the available options would need to be addressed by any pioneers in this effort who may get together and communicate with one another. This option would likely have the lowest cost of the options we have presented.

Despite a lack of restrictions against musical car horns in much of the U.S., it appears that the law does not allow them in places like the United Kingdom and France. Countries such as these only allow car horns to emit a single tone. But what exactly is a "car horn". Check out these definitions: :http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2GGIE_en&defl=en&q=define:automobile+horn&ei=ky7uSqCrNJKXtgfn4_w6&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CA4QkAE ; http://freedictionary.mobi/car+horn ; and http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/car%20horn. They all describe a car horn as a device which is "on a vehicle". It would appear that if a device such as the ones mentioned above, and others, would not qualify as "car horns" if they sat inside of a car and were not affixed or bolted to it. For example, hanging from a passenger side headrest and pointed outside. Under such circumstances, it would not be too much different from having a loud stereo speaker. The driver would certainly want to consider wear hearing protection. A device under this setup would obviously not be in a position to warn someone ahead of an emergency driving situation, since it would not be located in the usual site for a car horn. And it could definitely not be considered as a "primary" car horn. To test the viability of this approach in each country, we would need someone to volunteer being cited for the use of one of these devices and see where it goes (see final paragraph, below). We would obviously want confederates to get video of police officials reacting to the test incident.

If the arrangement as suggested is ruled illegal, then we might proceed on other options, such as stereo speakers and PA systems situated inside vehicles. In fact, we might as well have people start using those options, too (again, see last paragraph, below).

Regarding any potential government bans for all of the preceding, we might want to look into the freedom which has been granted to our Islamic Supremacist friends to issue high decibel calls to prayer. We could presume they have been exempted from sound level laws for religious reasons. There is no reason that we could not pursue the same type of exemption, since this proposal pertains to mourning and therefore has religious associations.

It is regrettable that some would view the car horn devices and the other options mentioned above to be political tactics. Again, it must be emphasized that our intent is solely to mourn in accordance with our respective religious beliefs. .

Finally, we must state that we have no guarantee that any of the above-mentioned options for having sound creation devices within a car would be safe. If you follow the steps and instructions outlined above for interior positioning of such devices it is possible that you may place yourself or others at risk for harm. Therefore, we urge you to carefully evaluate the laws in your area and consult with law enforcement officials to confirm whether following the above suggestions would be legal and safe to you and others. Do not try this strategy if manufacturer instructions for the devices state otherwise. If your own insights or the sources you consult suggest that these instructions are not suitable, we encourage you to abide by their advice and not implement them.

Posted on 08/04/2010 at 02:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

07/28/2010

ACT: Where are the feminists? - Part I (Introduction)

"Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes ... Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it". - Unni Wikan, female professor at the University of Oslo

Introduction

We will begin this post with a relevant observation by The Heresiarch: "Let's put things in perspective. The experience of Jaycee Lee Dugard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard ), kidnapped at the age of eleven and forced into a 'marriage' with a much older man, repeatedly raped, deprived of an education, forced to bear children without medical help and confined to a ramshackle tent for years on end, is normal life for millions of women in Afghanistan - except that if any of them manage to escape they face being hunted down and killed, or locked up as an "adulteress", or forced into a life of beggary and prostitution". 15 (Source shown in later text). The Heresiarch is basically saying that although the Duggard case (in the U.S.) captured the Western media's attention and the public's concern for a significant period of time, this young girl's experience was not much different from what takes place every day in the lives of women who are living under Islamic Supremacism; a reality which is effectively being ignored by the West.

As the years have gone by, many practices of Islamic Supremacism which involve the blatantly obvious mistreatment of women have come into a greater awareness within the general public of the West. Although such practices prevail in nations under Islamic Supremacist rule, many (not all - yet) have started to become evident in the West's own Islamic Supremacist communities and enclaves. The practices which harm millions of women and are attributable to Islamic Supremacism include: female genital mutilation; constant pregnancies without proper nutrition; marital rape; domestic slavery; depriving females of an education; the marriage of pre-puberty, 9-year-old girls to old men; women being placed on trial for reporting a rape; stonings for looking at men to whom the woman is not married; forced veilings; acid attacks on unveiled women; arranged marriages; the physical punishment of wives by husbands; sexual slavery; open season on the raping of non-Muslim women; honor killings; polygamy; depriving women of an education; the enslavement of women in the Sudan and elsewhere; lack of the right to vote; fewer inheritance rights than men; the man's ability to divorce a wife without notice; the virtual banning of women from public spaces; charging raped women with adultery; the authorized raping of women before their execution; being denied medical help because the only available doctors are male; sitting in segregated rooms in universities; the list goes on and on.

During the recent decades in which these atrocities have become more visible to civically engaged Westerners, any reasonable human being would have thought that the leading Western feminist (Leftist) organizations and individuals which purport to advance women's rights would at some point in time have realized that the millions of women experiencing these horrors were innocent victims and had no way to safely challenge their oppressors. One would also presume that if these self-designated protectors of women had this understanding, their natural course of action would be to step up and made their voices clearly heard in opposition to the ongoing barbaric treatment of women and, most importantly, call out, name and castigate the vile, medieval ideology which has spawned and nurtured it for centuries: Islamic Supremacism. After all, many feminists have never exhibited any hesitation whatsoever in directly condemning many aspects of Christianity and Judaism with which they have been displeased. Yet despite the lofty goals they project to the public of advancing the status of women, nary a peep is ever heard from Western feminists with respect to the continued negative impact of Islamic Supremacism on their sisters.

Without our challenging and questioning the one, key, common and uniting element of ALL the above-mentioned atrocities, Islamic Supremacism, there is no hope that they will ever cease for good. And without direct and immediate action there will be little chance of halting their establishment and growth in the West (particularly in Europe). Of course, some high profile incidents here and there, like a stoning, may be halted through intense public pressure from the West. But it is only logical to deduce that when Europe and the rest of the West gets ever closer to the Islamic Supremacist demographic tipping point, such protests (if still permitted to exist) will carry very little weight and the incidents, both high profile and "every day", will proceed unabated.

Although some may disagree with various elements of the overall Leftist feminist platform or agenda, we cannot deny that they have considerable resources, talents, influence and a reputation for being able to mobilize massive numbers of women to tackle any issue they deem to be important. Their refusal to apply these assets against Islamic Supremacism and the misogyny it feeds, a force, which threatens all women directly, speaks volumes.

The intent of this post

The main intent of this post is to explore the issue of complicity, apathy or a low-level of concern in the Western feminist community regarding the growing danger of Islamic Supremacism. We also intend to provide supplemental information regarding feminism and conclude with a detailed proposal for action.

Although this text will reveal obvious differences of opinion between Leftist feminists and those seeking a halt to Islamification, we would like to stress that we do not have any desire or intent to dismantle or eradicate the entirety of Leftist feminism. We hold no position regarding where feminists stand on a wide variety of concerns which are not directly or indirectly related to Islamic Supremacism and its treatment of women and we do not want to become embroiled in any pure anti-feminism endeavors. If some of our allies have such interests, we would request that they pursue them in some independent and separate venture. Instead, we would simply like to see Leftist feminist leaders take a long hard look at their complicity, apathy, etc. regarding Islamic Supremacism and ask themselves if they are truly looking out for the interests of women who are currently under Islamic Supremacist domination, or soon will be, when Islamification takes hold. Should they come to this awareness, we would expect this to be reflected in strong actions to educate women and fight the Islamic Supremacist threat. .

Realistically speaking, we do not expect feminists to read this text or anything written by others of like mind and respond by altering their appeasement mindsets. Therefore, we will need to challenge them publicly in any available venues. If done correctly, women in the general public will be able to discern a blatantly hypocrisy regarding the feminist claims to protect women. This can generate two responses with feminists. First, it may really jolt feminists into an honest review of their ideals and eventual fate under Islamic Supremacism when it takes over (Europe is first on the list). If they respond in this manner, break away from the overall Leftist community and simply wake up, then we should welcome them with open arms. The second effect is that feminists may remain obstinate and cling tenaciously to their hollow positions. In doing so, they will increasingly isolate themselves from women in the general public and become irrelevant oddities. They will essentially lose their mantle of the "protectors of women" to others and gradually fade away. The choice is theirs.

As for any detailed, in depth discussions on Islamic Supremacist justifications for the atrocious acts mentioned above, that is beyond the realm of this presentation. Information on the prevalence of such acts is also beyond the scope of what is intended here.

Contents of this post

This posting is rather lengthy. In order that you may have an idea of what is ahead in the following pages, we are listing the headings of each section of this post. Please note that the vast majority of this presentation consists of direct quotes taken from various authors. Ift was felt that since they presented various points quite effectively, it would be best to not attempt any paraphrasing. .

Proclamations from various authors on the apathy of feminists towards the Islamic Supremacist threat
Proclamations of various authors concerning the current focus of feminist activity
Why do we need to reach them?
Examples of how feminists denigrate attempts to alert the world to the threat of Islamic Supremacism
Feminist or women's groups which are aware of the Islamic Supremacist threat and/or are likely receptive to taking action against it
Feminist organizations which have a primarily Leftist orientation
Organizations which fight the brutal acts of Islamic Supremacism on women, but fail to name the ultimate cause of the acts
Muslim feminists
Case study of a confrontation with feminists
Why are feminists blind to the threat of Islamic Supremacism? (NOTE: This section is exceedingly long.)
Bibliography
Strategy for waking up feminists to the threat of Islamic Supremacism
Summary

Posted on 07/28/2010 at 09:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ACT: Where are the feminists? - Part II (Where feminists stand)

Proclamations from various authors on the apathy of feminists towards the Islamic Supremacist threat

The following is commentary from various authors who are clearly aware of the amazing lack of involvement by feminists in facing the threat of Islamic Supremacism, which clearly has Western women in its cross-hairs for eventual subjugation.

(1) "During the 1980s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today's campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world". ... For a brief period before September 11, 2001, many women's groups protested the brutalities of the Taliban. But they have never organized a full-scale mobilization against gender oppression in the Muslim world". 1.
(2) "Today, the Feminist Majority Foundation continues to support Muslim women around the world, but the effort has lost much of its momentum. Most of the foundation's current work is directed against what it perceives as injustices suffered by women in America. ... The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) has been intelligently fighting the mistreatment of women in the Muslim world for several years. In 1997, in a heroic effort to expose the crimes of the Taliban, Eleanor Smeal, the president of FMF, with the help of Mavis and Jay Leno, created a vital national campaign complete with rallies, petitions, and fundraisers. It was a good example of what can be achieved when a women's group seriously seeks to address the mistreatment of women outside the United States. The FMF, working with human rights groups, helped to persuade the United States and the United Nations to deny formal recognition to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It helped convince the oil company UNOCAL not to build a pipeline across Afghanistan, and it brought the oppression of women living under radical Islamic law into clear relief for all the world to see. But Smeal and her organization soon found themselves attacked by the same monitors of rectitude who disparaged Martha Nussbaum.... Today, the Feminist Majority Foundation continues to support Muslim women around the world, but the effort has lost much of its momentum. Most of the foundation's current work is directed against what it perceives as injustices suffered by women in America". 1.
(3) "Yes, NOW and the Feminist Majority have not ignored the horrors visited on women in Muslim countries. Yes, they send out updates that address global issues. Yes, they condemn honor killing. Yes, they bemoaned the burqa. But when the time comes to mobilize their forces, to hold demonstrations, to put real energy behind dangers to women, what concern do they focus on? Abortion - an issue clearly selected as part of the campaign against President Bush. Why else would they concentrate on abortion as an INTERNATIONAL issue, as last Spring's march did? I agree with Roth that feminist groups have to decide where to devote their limited resources. And that's the entire point. Is lack of access to abortion THE greatest danger to women across the planet? Does it imperil more women than a political force which would consign women to illiteracy, poverty and death by stoning? Hardly. So it is impossible for any reasonable person to believe that it was selected for any reason other than domestic politics. 2.
(4) "And when feminist groups focus on reproductive rights in this election, ... American women care deeply about it. In fact, it’s probably the one issue that moves American women to action like no other. When they see an outright assault on this right, they write letters, they make calls, they hit the streets, they become activists". 2. (NOTE: They fail to apply the same zeal to atrocities committed by Islamic Supremacists).
(5) "On the defining issue of our times, the rise of Islamic extremism, what is left of the sisterhood has almost nothing to say. Instead of “I am woman, hear me roar”, there is a loud silence, punctuated only by remonstrations against Tony Blair and George Bush — “the world’s number one terrorist” as the marchers would have it". 4.
(6) "But that aside… I have to wonder one thing. For years I have been speaking out on Islam, Jihad and Sharia, and for years I've wondered - where the hell are all the women's advocacy groups? I spoke about this before 9/11 because of the atrocities against women in Afghanistan due to the Taliban. Day after day, week after week, we read about the horrendous happenings to women the world over because of Sharia. In fact, it is occurring more and more here in America and yet, I never hear a peep from one women's advocacy group. It's not like they don't know what Sharia is doing, or capable of; the people in these groups must read the news or watch television". 6.
(7) " If an injustice is committed, a moral person has a duty to condemn it - be it forcible abortions in China, rapes in Darfur or state-sponsored oppression carried out in Saudi Arabia. Wearing white ribbons is not enough, despite Germaine Greer's protestations". 7.
(8) "When the "celebrities" of feminism could use their fame to ignite discussions of such issues in a complacent media ridden with torpor and lassitude, but fail to do so, the true failings of Western feminism become self-evident". 7.
(9) "As you look at this inventory of brutality, the question bears repeating: Where are the demonstrations, the articles, the petitions, the resolutions, the vindications of the rights of Islamic women by American feminists? The weird fact is that, even after the excesses of the Taliban did more to forge an American consensus about women’s rights than 30 years of speeches by Gloria Steinem, feminists refused to touch this subject. They have averted their eyes from the harsh, blatant oppression of millions of women, even while they have continued to stare into the Western patriarchal abyss, indignant over female executives who cannot join an exclusive golf club and college women who do not have their own lacrosse teams". 8.
(10) "Despite their vigilance in behalf of women’s rights in America and other Western nations, Women’s Studies Departments across the nation have been strangely passive in the face of the barbaric treatment of women in Islamic regimes. Numerous hours are spent in the classroom, dissecting the reasons for the ‘wage gap’ in America, violence against women and the ‘privileges’ accorded Caucasian males. But courses on the plight of women in Islamic regimes are strangely absent. Where there are a few courses that touch on Islamic women in Women’s Studies programs, the focus is often cultural and literary, while the abuses go unmentioned. This failure to confront the abuse of women who live in Islamic countries stands in stark contrast to the mission statements of many Women’s Studies departments, which describe their focus as the inequality that women suffer in patriarchal societies". 12.
(11) "Aqsa Parvez, a sixteen-year-old Muslim girl living in Canada, was, according to police, strangled to death by her father because she refused to wear the hijab. ... One might have assumed that the Left would be leading the charge against a culture that victimizes those who want to live their lives the way they want to, but that has not been the case. Leftist publications had little to say about her death. Feminist writer Katha Pollitt, as of this writing, still hasn't written a word about it. Nor has anyone else at The Nation. CounterPunch? Not a word. The National Organization for Women? Nothing. Even Human Rights Watch has shown no interest in the case of Aqsa Parvez". 13.
(12) "Now Ms. Gibbons faces up to forty lashes as punishment. Her crime? Allowing her students to vote on the name of the teddy bear. They chose to name it Muhammad. And so the government has charged her with insulting Islam and inciting hatred. Forty lashes is not a small punishment. It is physically brutal and can be fatal. Women should stand up together in outrage over the unjust treatment of this woman who has put her own life in jeopardy to teach children in a region ravaged by human rights atrocities. But where is the National Organization for Women? Are they leading the charge to free Gibbons? Are they working to bring attention to this horrible situation? Are they demonstrating and protesting and organizing letter writing campaigns? Nope. None of the above. In fact, NOW isn't doing much of anything about this". 19.
(13) "They cherry pick the causes to blast. When it's a case involving a glaring abuse of human sensibilities their silence is deafening......". 19..
(14) "In other reports, women who are captured by government forces are asked; “Are you Christian or Muslim?” and those who answer Christian, are gang raped before having their breasts cut off. This phenomenon of Islamic sexual violence against women should be treated as the urgent, violent, repressive epidemic it is. Instead, journalists, academics, and politicians ignore it, rationalize it, or ostracize those who dare discuss it". 25.
(15) "In the context of this epidemic of Muslim violence against women, and the open legitimization of it pronounced by Islamic clerics, one would think that the Western feminists of our time would be up in arms, sympathetically coming to the side of their raped sisters and standing up for women’s rights in general. But this is just not the case. The West's leftist feminists are responding with an apathetic heartlessness and deafening silence. It's all very much understandable and expected, of course: it is politically correct and cutting-edge to scream with moral indignation about a woman's right to an abortion in the West, but to actually care for - and come to the public defense of - the female victim of a gang-rape committed by Muslims is unthinkable". 31.
(16) "It has long been evident that Western leftist feminists couldn't care less about real actual breathing women; they care only about their ideological beliefs. For them, the victims of Muslim rape can be easily forgotten and dismissed -- for the pursuit of their ultimate goal: to aid and abet the West’s totalitarian enemies and to wreak the destruction of their own free societies which bestow the individual liberties and rights that they despise and abhor". 31.
(17) "In the midst of this cultural and moral struggle one element has been conspicuously missing - the feminists - the authors, academics and commentators who rose to prominence as advocates of women's rights. In Australia and Europe, their response to the growing levels of sexual intimidation, harassment or suppression of women by Muslim men has either been a deafening chorus of silence, or denial and blame-shifting". 33.
(18) "Hussein's plight has made headlines around the world, spawned countless blogs and even merited a mention from the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, he of the anti-burqa brigade. Classic feminist fodder, you might think. And yet, there is one missing element in the indignation at the injustice of Hussein's fate: her Western sisters. Their absence is glaring from a nascent internet campaign to eliminate Article 152 of Sudan's criminal law, which decrees trousers, a routine option for British women, "indecent" or "scandalous". The brief list of international groups supporting the online petition comes from countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, and even Afghanistan, but not, you can't help notice, from Britain, the United States, or even France. A placard held by one of the 100 or so protesters who gathered outside the Khartoum court may have proclaimed that "Lubna's struggle is every woman's", yet that's not the impression you get from London. Where are the women protesting outside the Sudanese embassy? Where are the feminists sticking up for the basic human right to put on what you like when you get out of bed? Where are the calls to impose tough sanctions against Sudan for oppressing women, as we did against South Africa for oppressing the majority black population in its apartheid days? Where, in short, is the International Sisterhood? Apparently it's too busy worrying about whether lads' mags such as Nuts and Loaded are degrading to women (yes) or if pictures of impossibly skinny models dent a woman's self-confidence (need I answer?). Or if women are misrepresented in adland as bloated, constipated, greying airheads overwhelmed by laundry. And our politicians are hardly helping matters. Where was their condemnation ahead of Hussein's hearing? They were too busy worrying about whether men should be trusted to run things (Harriet Harman) or about magazine pictures being airbrushed (this from the Liberal Democrats' new policy on women's issues). Now that women have largely won the big political fights in this country, Harman's concerns notwithstanding, we sisters, it seems, are too busy picking personal fights over assaults on our personal image or perceived discrimination in the workplace to worry about the big political fights still to be won in countries such as Sudan. That, at any rate, is the view of feminists such as Jean Edelstein, an author and journalist, who believes that the second wave of feminism has gone soft, with concerns about work-life balance and gender-related pay gaps taking precedence over hard issues such as subjugation of women and sexual violence" 34.
(19) "Tammy Bruce writes of the failure of NOW to speak out or make any type of statement when a British schoolteacher in Sudan was arrested and tried for allowing her 7-year-old students to name a teddy bear, Muhammad. NOW also declined to speak up or out or against the Saudi government when it arrested a young rape victim and sentenced her to 200 lashes and prison time for being in the company of a male not her father or brothers. ... 'When I searched Smeal’s Feminist Majority website to get a statement about either situation, I found none. The Smeal site has a brief newswire story about the Saudi rape victim, but no position statement or condemnation. They have absolutely nothing posted about the Gibbons situation. A search of the NOW site reveals nothing posted about either outrage. This wholesale abandonment of women by the American so-called feminist leadership on an issue that transcends party politics perfectly illustrates how vapid, and even malevolent, they have become. Where is Eleanor Smeal? Gloria Steinem? Kim Gandy of NOW has proven where she is — with the rest of her cohorts hiding behind the NOW couch, save she would be required to take a position that might “offend” Islamists. (Tammy Bruce)' ... Bruce is spot-on. She writes that today’s feminists are vapid, which is true. Where are the feminists when it comes to the issues that affect millions of women across the globe, issues that are more than just rising above a “glass ceiling” in the white collar work force? Issues which force them to address the one religion that teaches its followers to remove the female genitals of its little girls, which teaches its women are less than second class citizens? ... Most women are one man away from welfare. ~Gloria Steinem ... Why this total disconnect between white women’s rights and those of other ethnicities, such as the Muslim women throughout the world? ...A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual. ~Gloria Steinem ...The fact that so few people are now interested in obtaining a degree in women’s studies in Britain points out that feminists have become relics in an amazing short amount of time due to their own unresponsiveness to real world issues that face women". 38
(20) "When stories such as al-Hussein’s flash around the world, there’s usually a missing element: The feminist movement rarely becomes part of the narrative. The rise of shariah law constitutes the major global change in women’s status during this era, yet Western feminists remain pathetically silent. Feminist journalists like to speculate about the future of activism among women today, but you can leaf through a fat sheaf of their articles without encountering a mention of Muslim women. Feminist professors, for their part, show even less interest. Trolling through the 40-page program of the European Conference on Politics and Gender, held in Belfast last winter, I found feminist scholars (from Europe, the United States and Canada) dealing with women’s political opportunities, the implications for women of new medical technology, the politics of fashion and even women’s response to climate change. What I couldn’t find was even one lecture or discussion devoted to so-called “honour killing.” Nor was there any mention of the thousands upon thousands of women routinely flogged, raped, imprisoned or stoned to death, often with the tacit or explicit agreement of Islamic governments". 40.
(21) "Nothing seems to move Western feminists when it comes to Islam and conditions of third world women in general, not even the stoning and flogging of women going on right now in Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Muslim countries". 44.
(22) "British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons, an unimposing woman of 54, was found guilty of "inciting religious hatred" and sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation by a court in Sudan’s Khartoum after allowing her 7-year-old students to name a teddy bear “Muhammad.”In the meantime, Islamist fundamentalists have called for her execution, and her safety is in constant jeopardy. Demonstrations have increased, with crowds carrying machetes, shouting in part: “Execute her! Kill her, kill her by firing squad.” She is under such threat, Sudanese authorities have moved her to a secret location to ensure her safety. Apparently, naming a cuddly bear Muhammad insults the prophet, while mass-murdering homicide bombers named Muhammad don’t. During the past 14 years at least, certainly since Usama bin Laden declared ‘war’ on Western civilization in 1993, we’ve all been exposed to the literal madness of Islamic fundamentalism. We’ve seen the curtain pulled back on how craven American leftists can be as well. Yes, it took a teddy bear to highlight more clearly than ever the psychosis of the enemy, and the failure of the feminist establishment. There has been appropriate international outrage over the treatment of Gibbons, from virtually everyone except American “feminists.” Multiple Muslim groups in the U.K. have condemned the sentence. Even the popular little boy in Mrs. Gibbons’ class who suggested the name for the bear came to her defense, explaining that he named the bear after himself. Yet, when asked by FOX News for a comment about the situation, a National Organization for Women spokeswoman said they were not putting out a statement or taking a position. This is how depraved the American left has become. A little Muslim boy in Sudan shows more courage and conviction for a woman under fire than a bunch of women sitting in Washington, D.C., who preen themselves on being the premiere “advocates” for women. It’s been apparent for years that the American feminist establishment is nothing more than a shill for the shallow leftists in the Democrat party, wrapping themselves in the feminist label for convenience. Groups like NOW and Eleanor Smeal’s Feminist Majority, also amazingly silent in the past five years about Islamic terrorism and violence against women, use women’s issues as nothing more than slogans and chants in their efforts to gain political power. Their vile silence isn’t limited to the Gibbons situation. In Saudi Arabia, a gang-rape victim has been sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in prison. Why? Because when she was raped, she was violating Sharia law by being out with a man who was not a relative. Her sentence was actually increased when she dared to appeal her sentence. What has NOW’s and the Feminist Majority’s response been to this obscene outrage? The same silence offered to Gillian Gibbons. Nothing, because God forbid we should be reminded that there is a disturbed enemy out there worth fighting, and God forbid that for one moment we should suggest that the United States might not be heinous imperialist the left casts us to be. (NOTE: The following sentences in quotes and the two asterisk pairs were quoted previously, in #19 of this section) **'When I searched Smeal’s Feminist Majority website to get a statement about either situation, I found none. The Smeal site has a brief newswire story about the Saudi rape victim, but no position statement or condemnation. They have absolutely nothing posted about the Gibbons situation. A search of the NOW site reveals nothing posted about either outrage. This wholesale abandonment of women by the American so-called feminist leadership on an issue that transcends party politics perfectly illustrates how vapid, and even malevolent, they have become. Where is Eleanor Smeal? Gloria Steinem? Kim Gandy of NOW has proven where she is — with the rest of her cohorts hiding behind the NOW couch, save she would be required to take a position that might "offend" Islamists".** What else are we to think? That Gibbons might deserve her fate? That the Saudi gang-rape victim was at fault? It’s safe to say misogynist Islamist dictators don’t care what feminists think, but other women, and the Western world, do. By saying nothing, the American feminist establishment sends a message that this sort of treatment is deserved; these women were somehow at fault; they do not deserve advocacy; and that Islamist tyrannies that punish rape victims, execute homosexuals and imprison teachers are right to do so and should not be questioned or criticized. As an authentic feminist, my work has always been based in the belief that America, and American women especially, have a responsibility to help women internationally achieve their freedom. Our financial power is key, but so are our voices. Civil rights organizations rightly speak of the power of "advocacy" — the act of speaking up for people who are unable to speak for themselves. Calling attention to abuse, violence and oppression is something the left claims it does, but these days they’re more than willing to throw those who need our voices under the bus. Their obsession is to make sure the leftist false construct of an evil George Bush and oppressive United States won’t be eclipsed by the truth — the truth of a world where our enemy targets women on a daily basis for terror, torture, oppression and murder as our troops risk and give their lives to banish that horror from the lives of tens of millions. The abject failure of the feminist establishment is now undeniable, yet feminist work continues. Overwhelmingly, Americans in general have been appalled at the treatment of women in the Islamist world and say so. In these two instances, blogs and news sites have collectively condemned the Saudi rape victim’s further victimization by the Islamist system, and Gibbons’ terror has also been exposed, followed, and condemned by Americans of all stripes. There have also been a few organizations since 2003 that have done astounding authentic feminist work for women and children around the world, and in Afghanistan and Iraq specifically. The American military, without even a passing "thank you" from so-called feminist leaders Smeal or Steinem or Gandy, have liberated over 53 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a good 25 million of those being women and children. If the Marines were taking their orders from those so-called feminists, the same women who support and laud Hillary Clinton, those now free people would still be enslaved. The official position of America regarding the suffering of women around the world would be the equivalent of NOW’s ubiquitous “no position” position. It is the last appalling betrayal, and one that should condemn them to the dust heap of exposed hypocrites, pretenders and failures. 49.
(23) "The silence of the professional feminists in the face of the barbarities of Islam regarding women has long been a source of wonder — if not disgust — for regular folks. We keep waiting for them to speak out on behalf of women who suffer slave status in Muslim theocracies. There has been only silence…or even worse, a disturbing preoccupation with trivialities like the Vagina Monologues or the rage against those who dare to disagree with their victim whingeing. The decades-old complaint about gender inequity has been transformed into a full-fledged deep hatred of men that makes these upper middle-class women look like spoiled, overprivileged narcissists". 50.

Proclamations of various authors concerning the current focus of feminist activity

The following excerpts discuss the type of activities which seem to currently predominate in the feminist community.

(1) "Today, the Feminist Majority Foundation ... Most of the foundation's current work is directed against what it perceives as injustices suffered by women in America. On February 20, 2007, a Pakistani women's rights activist and provincial minister for social welfare, Zilla Huma Usman, was shot to death by a Muslim fanatic for not wearing a veil. And he had a second reason for killing her: She had encouraged girls in her community to take part in outdoor sports. The plight of women like Usman does not figure in NOW's "Six Priority Items," although Global Feminism is one of the 19 subjects it designates as 'Other Important Issues.' NOW hardly mentions Muslim women, except in the context of the demand that the U.S. military withdraw from Iraq. So what sort of issue does the flagship feminist organization consider important? NOW has just launched a 2007 'Love Your Body' calendar as part of its ongoing initiative of the same name. The body calendar warns of an increase in eating disorders and includes a photograph celebrating the shape of pears. There is also an image of the Statue of Liberty with the caption, 'Give me your curves, your wrinkles, your natural beauty yearning to breathe free.' The calendar bears these inspiring words: 'None of us is free until we are all free.' To breathe free, college women are encouraged to organize 'Love Your Body' evenings. NOW suggests they host 'Indulgence' parties: 'Invite friends over and encourage them to wear whatever makes them feel good--sweat suits, flip flops, pajamas--and serve delicious, decadent foods or silly snacks without the guilt. Urge everyone to come prepared to talk about their feelings and experiences.' This is pathetic". 1.
(2) But surely, if the West’s brand of feminism is to be a serious and sane force, it can’t just focus on the imperfections of our own society, but must also be on the forefront of fighting for women that are truly brutalized by barbaric misogynistic regimes. Soaud, who had gasoline poured on her and set aflame in an attempted honor killing in a Palestinian village, didn’t have the luxury of being “oppressed” by capitalist advertising. Where are the feminist demonstrations in the West on her behalf? 2.
(3) "... returning to a point Ms. Roth made, where she argued that the two largest feminist organizations, NOW and the Feminist Majority, have “maintained women’s rights as their priority, not taking positions on the Mid-East. I couldn’t disagree more strenuously. Saying that these groups have kept their focus on women’s rights begs the central question: Which women? And the choices they make speak volumes about their agendas. Take the march for women’s lives held this past Spring. Now, don’t get me wrong, I couldn’t be more pro-choice. However, when the leading feminist groups hold an enormous rally proclaiming that George Bush is THE major danger to women internationally because of his stand on abortion, they’re telling us pretty clearly that they either don’t know or don’t care much about the realities with which most women on the planet live. They were proclaiming that Bush is more dangerous to women across the globe than fundamentalist crazies who want to force women back behind the veil, more dangerous than zealots who want to deprive women of any education, more dangerous than mullahs who insisted that women be stoned to death for looking at men to whom they weren’t married. I don’t believe for a moment that the leaders of that march were ignorant. They were implicitly refusing to criticize Muslims because they’ve decided that the enemy of their enemy (Bush) should not be singled out. By taking a stand like that, they demonstrated a shocking indifference to the lives of the women they purport to defend. So I can’t buy Roth’s declaration that these organizations have maintained their focus on women. Quite the contrary. I think they’re selling out these women because they’re more concerned with being part of the 'anyone but Bush' coalition". 2.
(4) "At this horrible, perilous moment in history, I can’t see wasting my dwindling energy on concern over the facelifts of affluent women in the U.S. and Europe. Yes, women are objectified. Yes, advertising can be evil. Yes, we haven’t reached the mythic equality that so many of us have fought for. But let’s get real: How can we, in good conscience, say that we care about women's lives if (we) focus our energies more on facelifts than on the enslavement of women in the Sudan, the mutilation of women in Africa, the entire absence of choice for millions of women? It’s heinous to set yourself up as a “feminist” with priorities like that. Indeed, if we want to talk about what or who constitutes the greatest danger to women in the world, it is certainly not George Bush but Muslim fundamentalists. They’re the ones attempting to deprive Muslim women of even the few choices they have gained". 2.
(5) "Visitors to next month's Feminism in London 09mini-conference, for example, will be able to partake in workshops on several topics, including "What's wrong with prostitution", organised by the Poppy Project and featuring two "survivors" of the sex industry; "Commanding the camera and setting the agenda"; a "hard-hitting feminist anti-pornography slide show" presented by Sandrine Leveque, and a session on "Poverty and Motherhood" featuring Bea Campbell. Also (and I suspect popular) will be "Power in Bed", a "fun facilitated discussion" about "how the social forces and power dynamics we challenge publicly also shape our most intimate interactions". In there somewhere is a workshop entitled "Racism and sexism: What are the issues for black and minority ethnic women?" which might conceivably have something to say about how cultural and religious pressures impact on the lives of Muslim women. But even this will "look at how sexism and racism multiply and compound each other" - seemingly ignoring the possibility that it is not so much racism as anti-racism (i.e. multiculturalism) that multiplies and compounds sexism in some communities. And it's noticeable that there's not one session addressing issues that face women in other parts of the world. I don't claim that feminists are unaware of issues disproportionately affecting parts of the Muslim community, both in this country and worldwide: issues such as forced or forcefully-arranged marriage, under-age or inappropriately young marriage, sexual segregation, removal from education, genital mutilation (in extreme cases), "honour" crime, domestic servitude, sexist religious assumptions and cultural pressures of various kinds. It's just that they don't seem to be very high up the agenda. I looked, for example, at the website of the Fawcet Society, perhaps Britain's leading feminist organisation. The only relevant item I could find was a report on a 2006 debate about veiling. Because of its visibility, and the challenge it poses to long-held assumptions about the link between sexual integration and female empowerment, the veil does get feminist juices flowing. Yet - unlike in France - there's no feminist consensus about it, with some even arguing that it is empowering for women (though I've yet to see any non-Muslim women adopt it). There's a timidity about the feminist position here that contrasts remarkably with the clear statements feminists make about subjects that more directly affect white middle-class women. ... Compared with the horrors of domestic violence, forced marriage and honour crimes, the veil might seem to be a minor issue. Yet it's the only one they're interested in talking about". 15.

Posted on 07/28/2010 at 09:17 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

ACT: Where are the feminists? - Part III (Background information)

Why do we need to reach them?

_______________________________________________
The influence which feminists have within Western society.
_______________________________________________
As things presently stand, Western society, as a whole, is oblivious to the onrushing danger of Islamification which will soon turn life as we know it completely upside down. Assorted organizations and individuals are desperately trying to get the word out regarding this threat, but many of their efforts have been deftly thwarted by the useful idiot Leftists who dominate institutions such as the media, education and government.

It is common knowledge that these Leftists nurture numerous causes under their umbrella, with feminism constituting a major component of this aggregation. In view of an apparent symbiotic relationship between feminism and the encompassing Leftist community, it only follows that feminism would be well represented in the aforementioned institutions; either through radical feminism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism ) or the views of established, "mainstream" (though still Leftist) feminists, often termed as "second wave" feminists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism. ). Therefore, we can assert that feminist exert influence via the power they hold as part of the Leftist "family of causes" within these institutions. For a general overview of feminism as a movement we refer you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism .

We feel safe in assuming that most people in the larger society, on both ends of the political spectrum, are supportive of a number of issues which mainstream feminists have championed in the past, such as obtaining equal pay, eliminating sex discrimination and so forth. And we further believe in confidence that people generally associate mainstream feminists with these issues. However, any broad support for feminists based on past achievements along these lines often falls away when other issues on their plate are brought into the spotlight.

It is very important when considering our interests to realize that whenever the media seeks out a viewpoint on an issue which pertains primarily or exclusively to women, they instinctively consult a feminist organization (or individual) which has a Leftist orientation. In the U.S., it appears that the main organization to be called upon in such situations is the National Organization for Women ( http://www.now.org/ ). Such repeated consultations have a great propensity to cause the average, apolitical person in the viewing or reading public to associate all women's concerns as being the sole purview of these entities and these entities alone. Likewise, the predilection of these spokeswomen for street protests and other high-visibility enterprises, and the apparent absence of any conservative women's groups to challenge them in a like manner, has further served to cement a perception in people's minds that the Leftist individuals and feminist organizations are the only ones which address the concerns of women and serve as their protectors. Of course, these individuals and groups do nothing to dissuade such perceptions.

When taking into account the tremendous amount of influence which feminists hold within Western society, a good deal of concern regarding the effects of their agenda can be expected to arise among any Westerners who are alert to the evils of Islamic Supremacism when they contemplate the following three realities. First, the feminists have generally avoided initiating any hard-hitting, high visibility campaigns or criticism of how women are treated by Islamic Supremacists (in the West or abroad). Second, if they mention a specific act of female mistreatment which is in the news, they rarely, if ever, point out that Islamic Supremacism is the ultimate cause of such treatment and will continue to be so. Third, many feminists have actually issued laudatory and appeasement tinged statements regarding Islamic Supremacists. When confronted with these three realities, the aforementioned alert Westerners will likely be sickened and look at the feminist movement with great disdain; even if they have found favor with some of their past endeavors. On the other side of the coin, if the average, non-engaged (politically) Westerner is kept blind as to the threats of Islamic Supremacism and feminist complicity with their agenda, they will likely conclude that women under Islamic Supremacism are actually treated well. This, in turn, will lead to conclusions that they should have nothing to fear with the eventual Islamification of their own respective countries. They would be gravely mistaken.

Any conclusions in the minds of those in the Western public that most women under Islamic Supremacism are free and contented is completely misguided and is due in a large part to what the feminist/Leftist media (and other institutions), in conjunction with the feminist groups and "leaders", have pushed on the public or have avoided addressing.

If we can help feminists evaluate Islamic Supremacism from a realistic perspective and show them that the welfare of women throughout the world for the remainder of history may depend entirely upon their own actions, women may have hope. Such awakened feminists could in turn apply their renowned skills, abilities and influence in educating the public. Since feminists are still viewed as the protectors of women, their influence would be the most effective way of securing this hope and countering the Islamic Supremacist threat which is at hand.

_______________________________________________________________________________
Elaboration on the feminist presence within the Leftist community and our need for feminist allies.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Later text will reveal the twisted and circuitous manner in which feminists have either ignored, excused or blatantly endorsed the manner in which Islamic Supremacists treat women. The tacit or intentional approval by feminists of such treatment helps to bolster and support the larger Leftist camp and its appeasement approach to everything which is adversarial to the West. And such Leftists comprise a significant proportion of Western society.

The large number of Leftists in Western society, which is itself likely comprised of an equal number (1:1 ratio) of devoted feminists and/or their sympathizers, should be a matter of great concern to those of us who are fighting Islamification. Let's face it; as of the time of this writing in mid-2010, most of the fight against Islamification has not been head-to-head with Islamic Supremacists. They have simply been biding their time until they reach the population tipping point. Instead, the fighting has been an internecene affair, with informed, patriotic Westerners facing off against deluded, Leftist Westerners. A prime example of this conflict can be found in the UK, where the English Defence League has rather consistently been faced on the streets by the UAF (United as Fascists). The result of this situation is that Westerners are wasting valuable time feuding among themselves while a Leftist media (with feminist sympathies) continues to inhibit a free flow of factual information on the danger of Islamic Supremacists to the general population. However, if the overall Left were rebuked by the feminists within it, it would be considerably weakened, and with it, the strength of their opposition against us would decline.

Since evidence for the Islamic Supremacist animus towards women is plentiful and easy to put forth and the feminist excuses for appeasement so easy to dismantle through logical questioning (see later text), we believe we have the potential to awaken Leftist feminists and drive a wedge between a good number of them and the remaining Leftists, who value feminism much less. This would in turn lead to a significant lessening of support for Islamic Supremacists among any self-professed Leftists who have strong feminists leanings and less neglect by them of the threats to women which Islamic Supremacists convey. If the awakened feminists choose a path against the remaining fellow Leftists with respect to Islamification, we will greatly weaken the entire Leftist foundation. And through weakening their foundation we will be on our way to finally uniting all Westerners, irrespective of political persuasion, against a common foe.

We must emphasize that the feminist movement is renowned for its capacity to bring large numbers of people to the street and otherwise make their desires known. Through such efforts they have been able to secure the adoption of many initiatives throughout the Western world. A reprise of such efforts on the behalf of current and potential victims of Islamic Supremacism, arm in arm with others who may have been non-committal or in opposition to other feminist initiatives, would make a formidable, if not invincible, force for the true preservation of women's rights, and thus human rights, throughout the world.

This is why we need feminists; they have influence within the Left and are a major source of the Left's strength. Take this power from the greater Left and much of its support for Islamic Supremacists has a good chance of collapsing. Of course, the Left as a whole would eventually come to the same conclusion that Islamic Supremacism is a danger, but this would only happen when they are at the end of a hangman's noose once the Islamic Supremacists take over and they become more open with their true antipathy toward them. It always happens.

Some may say that an attempt to awaken or convert die-hard Leftist feminists is doomed to failure and that they are too far gone in their mania. But we must remember that they live off the mantle or image as a protector of women which "society" (via the media, etc.) has bestowed upon them. If we begin to shoot holes in that perception in the eyes of the general public (see later text for strategies) and clearly reveal a tacit or intentional endorsements among feminists of the mistreatment of women through Islamic Supremacism, then even typically uninvolved women will see a problem. If we persist with these efforts, any deference to these feminist groups will begin to whither away. This is the point at which the hard-core feminists might finally begin to wake-up from their dream world.

As alluded to earlier, we want the feminist leaders and organizations to realize that they are ignoring the most powerful threat to women that has ever existed. Although our efforts may entail some harsh and direct language, we hope they keep in mind that it is meant as a form of "tough love".

____________________________
The allegation of our "using" feminists.
____________________________
We predict that some will assert that our focus on securing the assistance of feminists and their sympathizers is to "use" them. Such critics fail to understand that it is precisely the maltreatment of women by Islamic Supremacists which has drawn many of us into the fight in the first place. We cannot see how the self-professed defenders of women can advocate the Islamic Supremacist agenda or turn a blind eye to a force which will subjugate and demean them and their descendants for countless generations to come. This is not a matter of "using". Instead, it is a matter of alerting and informing, with the added influence of the "average" women whom they have neglected. When they come to a true awareness of the Islamic Supremacist threat, they will likely be receptive toward a common cause effort with us. Using? They should look in the mirror and see how the Leftists have used them over the years through their sacrifice of women to the cruelty of Islamic Supremacism.

______________________________________
Who are we to say what feminists should address?
______________________________________
Many feminist leaders can be expected to ask what gives us the right to proclaim what they should be addressing, as if they themselves have been granted the sole authority to speak for all women. The answer is simple: we see this as a matter of human rights, of which the rights of women are obviously a major component. We should add that we similarly seek to counter the threats which Islamic Supremacism poses to gays, members of all non-Islamic religions, artists, writers, consumers of alcohol, Muslim apostates and yes, even Leftists. We essentially have a very broad umbrella of concerns. When all of the information is finally brought into the sunlight with respect to the horrendous lives which women under Islamic Supremacism suffer, plus the likely prospects of Westerners experiencing the same in a few decades, and adding the reality of pandering to Islamic Supremacists which Leftist feminists offer in reply, only a fool would assert that feminists honestly speak for the majority of women in Western societies, at least on this issue. Yet, with the assistance of the Leftist media and other Leftist controlled institutions, these feminists continue to hold a position of great prestige and deference within society

If one were to we perceive that an influential group or movement (such as feminism) which professes to have the protection of a specific portion of society as its mission or focus either unknowingly or intentionally neglecting concerns which can adversely affect the basic human rights of those in their stated societal sector of interest (women), that would be enough of a justification for an outside person who advances human rights to speak his mind. In the situation at hand, our side has concluded that Islamic Supremacism is the paramount threat to human rights (which includes the rights of women) in this century and beyond. This is our focus. We challenge any feminist to put forth a greater global danger which affects women and women alone for consideration; not a canard like something in which a whole society would actually be affected. A "whole society" option should be more appropriately addressed by groups which want to resolve a whole society's problem; pollution is an example. As is the status of Palestinians. In light of our conclusion as to the dangers facing women, our side cannot afford to dilute its resources and energy by addressing any other matters involving feminism which are unrelated to Islamic Supremacism which might affect also the human rights of women (i.e., equal pay). If the threat of Islamic Supremacism is eliminated, we will not only save countless women, but also save people in the groups listed in the preceding paragraph.

A parallel to our approach to this line of reasoning can be found in the following. Let's say that you live in a new community which has been built on an island which is prone to receiving hurricane hits. You have just discovered that the houses were not built to code and are therefore subject to being completely blown away in the next storm unless certain adaptations are made to the houses. You can't get anywhere with the Town Council, as they are in collusion with the builders. Meanwhile, the deficiencies in the houses are known to the local Neighborhood Group (which has considerable influence with the Town Council), but all they want to discuss is the planning of celebrations, community lighting and water services. You have talked to neighbors and despite their sharing concerns with you, they feel powerless to act. In view of all of this, wouldn't you feel justified in trying to get people to assist you in waking up the Neighborhood Group as to the danger and have them, in turn, exert their influence? After all, a hurricane hit would make all of the plans for celebrations, lighting, etc. irrelevant, as the community would no longer exist, at all. In our case, the prospect for a hurricane is Islamic Supremacism; the Town Council consists of Leftist dominated institutions and the Neighborhood Group consists of feminists.

With respect to how the average Western woman feels about Islamic Supremacism, once they are aware of the facts, we are confident that they will align with us. And when they do, and make their opinions known to the feminist leadership, they will have no choice but to acknowledge that we indeed have a right to proclaim what they should be addressing.

Of course, the feminists leaders may persist in focusing on tepid, inconsequential issues (see prior text). A continuation on such a path would make them irrelevant in the public eye.

_______________________
Importance of women voters.
_______________________
One more factor should be considered: the voting patterns of women. Generally speaking, they tend to lean more to the Left than men. As such, in tight elections, this could be of great detriment in our attempts to save Western Civilization. The author Fjordman gave an excellent analysis in his article "How Feminists' "War Againstt Boys" Paved the Way for Islam" (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1300 ). The pertinent excerpt follows: "However, I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilization as whole. The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists. And across the Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not George Bush. The standard explanation in my country for this gender gap in voting patterns is that men are more 'xenophobic and selfish' than women, who are more open-minded and possess a greater ability to show solidarity with outsiders. That’s one possibility. Another one is that men traditionally have had the responsibility for protecting the 'tribe' and spotting an enemy, a necessity in a dog-eat-dog world. Women are more naïve, and less willing to rationally think through the long-term consequences of avoiding confrontation or dealing with unpleasant realities now. Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow?"

Since women constitute the majority in most Western nations, their influence on the ballot box is tremendous. If a large number of women continue in following the feminist party line with respect to Islamic Supremacism, it will be extremely difficult to dispel the Islamic Supremacist threat.

Examples of how feminists denigrate attempts to alert the world to the threat of Islamic Supremacism.

Prior text has revealed the multiple strategies which feminists have used to avoid defending women against the reality of the widespread mistreatment of women by Islamic Supremacists and protecting women in the West from suffering the same fate. The following will present a few articles in which the authors put forth their excuses. We invite you to analyze each article in light of the quotations presented in later text of this post and discern the obvious flaws in reasoning and what is purported as fact.

Feminists aren't letting down Muslim women, by Neil Robertson ( http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/09/01/feminists-arent-letting-down-muslim-women/ )
Islam and Feminism, by Deborah Kate ( http://blinkandyoullmissit.typepad.com/momenttomoment/2005/11/islam_and_femin.html )
Scapegoating Campus Feminists, by Jesse Singal ( http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=scapegoating_campus_feminists )
Frantically waving the feminist flag, jumping up and down, blowing a whistle, tearing my hair out...*, by Laura Woodhouse ( http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/08/frantically_wav )
The Hypocrisy of "Newly Minted Feminists"... And David Horowitz Dangerous Agenda, by T. Redtree ( http://www.rwor.org/a/105/feminists-hypocrisy-en.html );

Feminist or women's groups which are aware of the Islamic Supremacist threat and/or are likely receptive to taking action against it.

This narrative ends with suggestions for action. They include a heavy reliance on securing the cooperation and assistance of conservative feminist organizations in order to form a strong framework to begin educating Leftist feminists and women in the general population about the threat of Islamic Supremacism and the need to unify. Although the approach to the Leftist feminists may be perceived as adversarial in nature, we should instead look at it as medicine which will be difficult for them to swallow. Our list of organizations is admittedly quite small. Their relative invisibility within the greater society has hampered their ability to launch massive campaigns at the level common with Leftist feminists. Still, there is hope.

If anyone has further suggestions for inclusion here, we would welcome receiving them.

Concerned Women for America ( http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp ; http://www.facebook.com/pages/Concerned-Women-For-America/77903485992 )
Independent Women's Forum ( http://www.iwf.org/ ; http://www.facebook.com/independentwomensforum?sid=d717785b0318ae501eb77fec55c8a41f&ref=search#!/independentwomensforum?v=info&ref=search )
The Phyllis Chesler Organization ( http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/; http://www.facebook.com/pages/Phyllis-Chesler/107822421806#!/pages/Phyllis-Chesler/107822421806?v=info )
Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (http://www.cblpi.org/; http://www.cblpi.org/ftp/Policy%20Express/8-1%20Darwish%20Web.pdf ; http://www.facebook.com/MiriSue?ref=search#!/pages/Clare-Boothe-Luce-Policy-Institute/21472470988?v=info&ref=ts )
EDL Angels ( http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118751929261#!/group.php?gid=118751929261&v=info )
Regards de femmes ( http://www.regardsdefemmes.fr/ ); ( http://alaskandreams.net/ekklesia/news_articles/FRANCE%20WOMEN'S%20RIGHTS%20GROUP%20PROTESTS%20ENTRY%20OF%20PRO-STONING%20SCHOLAR.htm )
Feminist Hawk's Nest ( blog - http://www.newsrealblog.com/category/feminism/ )

Feminist organizations which have a primarily Leftist orientation.

This entire narrative makes references to feminist organizations (and individuals) having a primarily Leftist orientation. Some are specifically named. It is difficult from this vantage point to ascertain which organizations bear the most influence throughout the world. Still, we will need to know which ones to focus upon in any efforts which are launched. We would therefore invite any participants in such actions (discussed at the end of this narrative) to begin by searching through the following links for likely candidates.

A review of a number of the websites of these organizations will likely reveal various mentions of horrific acts committed in lands under the rule of Islamic Supremacists. Despite such mentions, it will be highly unusual to find any mention of the ultimate cause of such evil: Islamic Supremacism. Nor will the reader have high prospects of coming across mentions of these organizations having any mass campaigns, rallies, demonstrations, lecture series, television presentations, etc., regarding Islamic Supremacist acts of cruelty. If perchance this assertion is proven wrong, we would wonder what priority it receives by such an organization in relation to their other endeavors. We expect it would be quite low, or at least classifiable as a brief, transitory fling.

Warpedia ( http://wapedia.mobi/en/Category:Feminist_organizations )
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women's_organizations )
Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminist_organizations )
Courants de Femmes ( http://courantsdefemmes.org/ )
feminist.com ( http://www.feminist.com/resources/links/links_inter.html )
Center for Women's Global Leadership ( http://cwgl.rutgers.edu/globalcenter/useful.html , http://cwgl.rutgers.edu/globalcenter/partlinks.html )
MAGEEQ ( http://www.mageeq.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 )
European Women's Lobby ( http://www.womenlobby.org/site/hp.asp?langue=EN ).

Organizations which fight the brutal acts of Islamic Supremacism on women, but fail to name the ultimate cause of the acts.

There are a number of organizations, essentially unknown to the general public, which seem to have some degree of a concern with the plight of women under Islamic Supremacist rule. Many of the projects initiated by such organizations come across as having a good intent and can be deemed quite commendable. However, as with the mainline feminist organizations, none of them seem to be capable of naming and attacking the ultimate cause for the vast majority of suffering among women throughout the world: specifically, Islamic Supremacism. Still, we must take into account that if some of these groups which have endeavours in Islamic nations were to name the ultimate problem, they would immediately be expelled or have any cooperation with the authorities instantly vanish. It should be noted that some of these groups address non-Islamic Supremacist nations, too.

We do not think it is unreasonable to presume that any success they achieve is due in great part to the use of high level connections, diplomacy, highlighting by the media and even a consideration on the part of Islamic Supremacists that they still need to project some level of "respectability" and keep up appearances for public relations reasons. Of course, "appearances" will be of no concern to them within a few decades, when they gain massive leverage within the West. One wonders if any efforts such as these which conceivably require self-censorship or toeing the line on the part of the organizations have potential for any lasting, long-term positive results. There will eventually come a time where the Islamic Supremacists will wield so much leverage and power that they will be able to deem such efforts irrelevant and brush them aside.

Again, we acknowledge a good intent with most of these organizations. They do not generally merit any castigation on our part if they devote themselves solely to helping women in precarious situations under Islamic Supremacism. But if they get into issues like the "Feminist Ant-Militarism Movement" or strict advocacy for Palestinians against Israel, all bets are off. The organizations include:

Women Living Under Muslim Laws ( http://www.wluml.org/ )
Global Campaign to Stop Killing and Stoning Women ( http://www.stop-killing.org/ )
Women's Forum Against Fundamentalism in Iran ( http://www.wfafi.org/ )
Stop Honour Killings ( http://www.stophonourkillings.com/ )
Women for Women ( http://www.womenforwomen.org/ )
Stop Child Executions ( http://www.stopchildexecutions.com/ )
Women United ( http://wucr.wordpress.com/ )
Equality Now ( http://www.equalitynow.org/english/index.html )
V-Day ( http://www.vday.org/home )
MADRE ( http://www.madre.org/index.php )
Feminist Majority ( http://feministmajority.org/default.asp )

Muslim feminists.

In addition, there are some groups of Muslim women within Islamic Supremacist nations which are striving to improve the conditions of their sisters. Part of this effort involves presenting more "women friendly" interpretations of Islamic texts. Their efforts are admirable, but they don't seem to realize that there will always be elements within Islamic Supremacism which advance one interpretation over another. And history has shown us that the interpretations which favor the oppression of women always wins out. Furthermore, their glacial pace gives us no assurance of a dramatic reversal of the Islamic Supremacist perspective on women by the time of their takeover in the West within a few decades. You will note that they dare not advocate the complete elimination of Islamic Supremacism from their respective societies, as they know what fate would await them. At this stage we do not see any pressing need for interaction with them.

Case study of a confrontation with feminists.

Realizing that a perception of complicity between feminists and Islamic Supremacists does not play well on Main Street, in 2007-2008 a self-selected groups of feminists attempted to deflect the criticism. They signed an "Open Letter" ( http://womensphere.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/american-feminists-challenge-media-misrepresentation/; http://www.thenation.com/section/David-Horowitz ). This was written in response to some well-deserved criticism which had recently been levied against them, some of which came through the 2007 Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week ( http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamo-fascism-awareness-week/49/a-students-guide-to-hosting-islamo-fascism-awareness-week/ ).

Regarding the "Open Letter", you will note that it mentions in the first paragraph a series of reasons for which many have perceived the lack of feminist concern; none of which are denied. As for the author's assertion that feminists have had a long-standing interest in the general welfare of women around the globe, no one has ever really doubted that claim. Instead, it has been the paucity of efforts on the behalf of women under Islamic Supremacist rule which have been of deep concern. The examples of international involvement stated in the letter are: V-day ( http://www.vday.org/home ); Equality Now ( http://www.equalitynow.org/english/index.html ); MADRE (http://www.madre.org/index.php?video=1 ); Global Fund for Women ( http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/ ); International Women's Health Coalition ( http://www.iwhc.org/ ); Feminist Majority ( http://feministmajority.org/; http://feminist.org/ ); and the National Organization for Women ( http://www.now.org/ ). A review of the websites for these groups in mid-2010 revealed a smattering of projects or interests which pertain to the welfare of women in Islamic Supremacist dominated (or threatened) nations, with Afghanistan figuring prominently. The letter asserts that feminists "condemn outrages against women wherever they occur", which is suggestive of a uniform, diffuse distribution of horrendous acts by some unknown entities. The letter does mention various cruel actions common to the world of Islamic Supremacism which they claim to have condemned, but it is quite revealing to note that the letter does not specifically define the single motivating force behind the vast majority of these barbaric actions; namely, Islamic Supremacism. This is akin to saying we are fighting a "war on terror", without recognizing that "terror" is simply a methodology and the true enemy is Islamic Supremacism. The letter objects to having the liberation of women in Islamic countries as a justification for military action; ignoring the fact that this was not the reason for U.S. involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. It concludes by suggesting a relatively passive approach towards securing change. After this letter came out, it elicited some comments which questioned the sincerity of the authors: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/01/horowitz-and-spencer-a-response-to-feminists-on-the-violent-oppression-of-women-in-islam.html. Here, the signatories of the Open Letter are urged to show their sincerity: http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=29814 . And this article gives evidence that the letter was just a tactic to deflect criticism of the apathy, or should we say, complicity, with regards to Islamic Supremacist brutality towards women ( http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=29402 )

Posted on 07/28/2010 at 09:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ACT: Where are the feminists? - Part IV (Why are they blind to the threat?)

Why are feminists blind to the threat of Islamic Supremacism to women?

1683 AD has reviewed all of the sources as cited near the end of this presentation for excerpts which address the rationale which feminists have used to explain their apparent lack of concern or interest with the threat of Islamic Supremacism as it relates to the welfare of women. We have also noted explanations for their behavior which feminists will not confirm, but can either be readily observed or logically deduced. In some cases, 1683 AD has also commented.

A thorough awareness of these rationales/refutations and observations will assist the reader in developing any efforts which involve interactions with feminists as well as women in the general public.

LISTING OF THE SECTION HEADINGS USED BELOW:

PSYCHOLOGY - Psychological basis for feminists knowingly aligning themselves with the enemies of women.
PSYCHOLOGY - A desire for submission among Western women.
PSYCHOLOGY - Self-hatred or death wishes as a motivation for Western feminists to support Islamic Supremacism.
PSYCHOLOGY - Appeasement as a way to acquire an illusion of security.
PSYCHOLOGY - Responding to assaults of Islamic Supremacists with self-blame.
PSYCHOLOGY - Feminist refusal to fight the obvious horrors of Islamic Supremacism because it will cause them to concede that the West is right, thus removing their desired status as "victims".
PSYCHOLOGY - Muslim women defending Islamic Supremacism as a way to safely experience respect and power (without being deemed an apostate).
PSYCHOLOGY - Muslim women internalizing misogynistic religious values.
PSYCHOLOGY - Feminists denying that women under Islamic Supremacism are oppressed, whether they know it or not
PSYCHOLOGY - Feminists who are frustrated in their attempts to halt the mistreatment of women find that America (and the West) is an acceptable target for venting their rage.
FEAR / COWARDICE- An outright fear among feminists of offending Islamic Supremacists.
FEAR / COWARDICE -Refusal to speak against Islamic Supremacists for fear of being called a "racist", "Islamophobe", "neocolonialist", etc. .
FEAR / COWARDICE - Feminist refusal to speak against Islamic Supremacism for they are aware it would shatter their beliefs.
EQUIVALENCY - Claim that the treatment of women under fundamentalist, non-Islamic religions is on the same par as the treatment of women under Islamic Supremacism.
EQUIVALENCY - Claim that women in the West are treated in a manner which is relatively equivalent to how women under Islamic Supremacism are treated.
EQUIVALENCY - Discounting any abusive treatment of women under Islamic Supremacism because Western women supposedly experience similar treatment.
EQUIVALENCY - The claim that any physical abuse experienced by women under Islamic Supremacism's dictates and allowances is comparable to any physical abuse experienced by Western women.
EQUIVALENCY - The claim that oppression regarding the female appearance or body exists among both Western women and women under Islamic Supremacism.
EQUIVALENCY - The claim that various groups in both Western and Islamic Supremacist societies oppress women in a similar manner.
EQUIVALENCY - Feminist claim that a society's solution to the mistreatment of women (or any moral problem) is appropriate, as long as it is appropriate to that society.
EQUIVALENCY - Feminist claim that the culture of Islamic Supremacism is "native" to the people under it, just as Western lifestyles are "native to Westerners; therefore, we are not in a position to criticize the former.
BLAME - Conceding that mistreatment of women exists under Islamic Supremacism, but claiming that the West (U.S.) is the cause, or the West has not done anything to help.
BLAME - Conceding that mistreatment of women exists under Islamic Supremacism, but claiming that it is due to a history of colonialism.
BLAME - Conceding that mistreatment of women exists under Islamic Supremacism, but claiming that it has been worsened by Western "interference".
CULTURE - Feminist claims that Western culture (as opposed to Islamic Supremacist culture) is adverse to women.
CULTURE - Feminist claim that Western culture is ALWAYS wrong or inferior in comparison with non-Western, adversary cultures, such as Islamic Supremacism.
CULTURE - Feminist claim that the West must not criticize other cultures (particularly Islamic Supremacism) and must always defer to them simply because they are not Western.
CULTURE - Feminist claim that the culture of Islamic Supremacism is "native" to the people under it, just as Western lifestyles are "native to Westerners; therefore, we are not in a position to criticize the former.
CULTURE - Feminist claim that Western men (not Islamic Supremacist men) are oppressors of women.
CULTURE - Feminist claim that their philosophy should prevail in Western society.
CULTURE - Feminist claim that human rights vary depending on the culture.
CULTURE: Feminist having a bigoted, elitist mindset which allows them to keep the Western liberties which they enjoy from accruing to women under Islamic Supremacism, because they are of a different culture.
CULTURE - Feminist claim that actions taken by Westerners to help women under Islamic Supremacism are elitist.
CULTURE - Feminist claim that we must celebrate diversity and respect differences
CULTURE - Feminists holding Islam to a lower standard is bigoted.
CULTURE - Feminists are aware that a problem exists with the treatment of women under Islamic Supremacism, but they realize that if they speak up to that effect they will be admitting the Western society is superior in this regard.
CULTURE - Feminist claim that until we resolve problems in our own (Western) culture, we have no right to judge other societies.
CULTURE - Feminists acknowledge the existence of an Islamic Supremacist tactic which harms women, but state that such a practice is cultural based and pre-dated Islam, meaning that Islamic Supremacism cannot be blamed.
CULTURE - Feminist refusal to concede that there should be one standard of human rights which covers all cultures.
CULTURE - Feminist claim that the West cannot impose its cultural standards on others, yet insisting that everyone be entitled to American rights.
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminists claiming to represent women, but they pursue minor inequities in the West in the face of major ones under Islamic Supremacism.
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist say criticism of Islamic Supremacists is off limits, but all other religions are fair game.
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist refusal to apply a tactic they favor in the West to fight the mistreatment of women to situations involving mistreated women under Islamic Supremacism.
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist fight for Western women to receive certain rights yet refuse to seek the same rights for non-Western women under Islamic Supremacism.
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminists castigating certain elements in the lives of Western women while praising similar elements in the lives of women under Islamic Supremacism.
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Unspoken feminist awareness that the West offers women the most, but they refuse to voice this awareness.
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist aware of the mistreatment of women under Islamic Supremacism, but they refuse to specifically name the ultimate cause of such mistreatment; namely, Islamic Supremacism.
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminists castigating Western powers for getting involved in an Islamic Supremacist nation, and once they are in, castigating them for not doing enough to protect women there.
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist aware of the mistreatment of women under Islamic Supremacism and they say they do not support it (and nothing more).
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminists railing against the West, but refusing to acknowledge the mistreatment of women in former colonies.
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminists condemn the West, where their ideas have triumphed, while ignoring the threats of Islamic Supremacism.
COMPLICITY - Lack of feminist action in the West to protect women from Islamic Supremacism helps the mistreatment of the latter to persist.
DELUSION / NAIVITY - Feminist belief that reasoning with Islamic Supremacists for the better treatment of women is possible.
DELUSION / NAIVITY - The feminist belief that Islamic Supremacists will change for the better as a matter of course.
DELUSION / NAIVITY - The feminist belief that if any change is to be effected within the Islamic Supremacist world, it must come from within.
DELUSION / NAIVITY - Western feminists expressing support for Islamic causes in manners which would get them killed in an Islamic Supremacist nation.
COLONIALISM - Feminist claim that the West is not in a position to criticize Islamic Supremacists due to their Colonial history.
COLONIALISM - Feminist awareness of the mistreatment of women under Islamic Supremacism but keeping silent to avoid charges of neocolonialism.
COLONIALISM - Feminists railing against the West, but refusing to acknowledge the mistreatment of women in former colonies.
POLITICAL ( U.S. / ISRAEL) - Feminists absolving the Islamic Supremacist world of charges of mistreating women because the Islamic Supremacist world includes Palestinians, and the political concerns of Palestinians trumps everything else.
POLITICAL (U.S. / ISRAEL) - Feminists claim that Palestinian women are the victims of alleged Israel/U.S. aggression and that such aggression supersedes any claims by our side regarding the overall treatment of women by Islamic Supremacists.
POLITICAL (U.S. / ISRAEL) - Feminist belief that there is no place for direct action (including war) against the Islamic Supremacist agenda
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that Muslims reject cruelty towards women.
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that Muslim women prefer relinquishing their rights to a "community" over having individual rights, as oppression does not exist.
MISTAKEN - Feminist claims that various acts of cruelty have no connection with Islamic Supremacism.
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that Islam protects women.
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that Muslim women do not want equality.
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that women under Islamic Supremacism themselves claim that they are not oppressed.
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that any mistreatment of women under Islamic Supremacism has arisen from unresolved social and economic conditions.
APPEASEMENT - Feminist insistence that we accommodate Islamic Supremacist expectations
APPEASEMENT - Feminist attempts to put a good face on oppressive Islamic Supremacist actions.
APPEASEMENT - Feminists working hand in hand with the Islamic Supremacist opponents of women's rights, or working to attain the same ends..
ACCUSATION - Claim that opponents to Leftist feminists "use" reports of the mistreatment of women by Islamic Supremacists and do not themselves have a real concern with the welfare of women.
ACCUSATION - Feminist strategy of "Repressive Tolerance", where Western culture is defined as inferior, therefore, since being so accused, they must be denied free speech.
ACCUSATION - Feminist claim that we do not have the "authority" to tell them what to do with regards to Islamic Supremacism.
ACCUSATION - Feminist charge that if we perceive the awakening of feminists as so important, why don't we devote 100% of our effort to it.
EXCUSES - The claim that they are already addressing the issue (primarily in Afghanistan).
EXCUSES - The claim that any dictates in Islam pertaining to the treatment of women are rarely enforced.
EXCUSES - Feminist claim that they do not have the "authority" or "jurisdiction" to challenge Islamic Supremacists regarding the treatment of women.
EXCUSES - Feminist assertion that we are powerless to do anything.
EXCUSES - The solutions a society sees for various problems are appropriate to that society and should be seen in that context. (thus slavery and child prostitution should be ignored).
EXCUSES - Feminist claim that if any action is to be taken, it must be done by the women who are already under Islamic Supremacists.
EXCUSES - The claim that until we resolve the many problems we have in our society which pertain to women (none which are equivalent to stoning, etc.), we cannot judge other societies with an attitude of conceit.
EXCUSES - Nothing can be resolved until societal and economic problems are addressed.
EXCUSES - Western feminist claim that they have traditionally only addressed issues that they have experienced first-hand; therefore, the treatment of women under Islamic Supremacism is out of their purview.
EXCUSES - Claim that the West cannot become involved because it has not perfected its own society.
EXCUSES - Western feminists failing to aid women under Islamic Supremacism because they do not see Muslim women complaining.
DEFERRENCE / INGRATIATION - Feminists placing the needs of Islamic Supremacists over the needs of women.
GENDER FEMINISM - Feminist claim that Western and Islamic Supremacist men are basically evil and that efforts to free women under Islamic Supremacist control would make things worse.

EXCERPTS WHICH ADDRESS THE FEMINIST RELATIONSHIP WITH ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM

Please note that the notation"*****" means that the excerpt which precedes it is used in at least one other section.
________________________________________________________________________________________
PSYCHOLOGY - Psychological basis for feminists knowingly aligning themselves with the enemies of women.
________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "There is something very mind-boggling here, and it is connected to the radical feminist who shows up almost nude at an anti-war demonstration taking the side of militant Islam, when the fact is that if she even showed her face under some of the regimes she supports she would be mutilated or raped or killed or burned alive. What is behind this dementia? Is it a death wish? Burkett: Dementia and death wishes can be cured, or at least treated, with therapy and the right drugs. A puerile understanding of oppression and history cannot. And I fear that's what we're dealing with. You're talking about people blinded by their own need to define themselves according to their own perceived oppression. They look around the world seeking "victims" to identify with to reinforce their own sense of victimization, to afford themselves the psychological and moral satisfaction of joining hands with the world's other oppressed. Unfortunately, since they're ultimately acting out of narcissism, they blunder into the most embarrassing possible contradictions without even seeing them. Then, when they're called on their inconsistency, they get the added benefit of feeling misunderstood and persecuted yet again. FP: Dr. Chesler, welcome. I would like to zero in for a moment on Ms. Burkett's point about these radicals acting out of narcissism and needing to feel like they are victims. You are a psychologist. Could you zero in on this dynamic for us? Chesler: I agree with some of Elinor’s and Tricia’s points. ... But, people who are themselves both privileged and aware of the world’s enormous suffering may fend off feeling guilty about their freedom, status, education, health, etc. by viewing themselves as “oppressed;” they may hope to both elevate and (secretly) redeem themselves by battling for the “oppressed” and by presenting themselves as “oppressed” too. People who are not fighting for themselves but on behalf of persecuted others, altruistically, self-righteously, can be exceptionally fierce. There is something excessive, almost pathological about the established left feminist obsession with Israel as the source of the world’s every evil and with the Palestinians as the noblest of victims. 2. NOTE: We need s brief, easily understood term to describe this pathology so that it can be dispensed when necessary. 1683 AD

____________________________________________________
PSYCHOLOGY - A desire for submission among Western women.
____________________________________________________
(1) "Writer Lars Hedegaard in Denmark does not buy into the theory that women approve of Muslim immigration out of irrational naivety or ideological conviction. He thinks they simply want it, as he writes in a column entitled “The dream of submission.” ... And Hedegaard asks a provocative question: Are women more stupid and less enlightened than men, since they in such great numbers are paving the way for their own submission? He comes up with an equally provocative answer: “When women are paving the way for sharia, this is presumably because women want sharia.” They don’t want freedom because they feel attracted to subservience and subjugation. The English author Fay Weldon has noted that “For women, there is something sexually very alluring about submission.” And as Hedegaard dryly notes, if submission is what many women seek, the feminized Danish men are boring compared to desert sheikhs who won’t allow you to go outside without permission. Muslims like to point out that there are more women than men in the West who convert to Islam, and this is in fact partly true. Islam means “submission.” Is there something about submission that is more appealing to some women than it is to most men? Do women yield more easily to power? 10. NOTE: "Outing" feminists who essentially advocate submission through all of their talk of appeasement should prove quite embarrassing to them and force them to carefully re-evaluate who they are. 1683 AD
(2) "Joseph asserted that Arab women are the “most relationship-driven” of any with which she has worked. She described Americans, in contrast, as less “relationship-driven” and American women as having fewer expectations than their Arab counterparts. Joseph offered no factual evidence for either of these preposterous claims. Given the grave circumstances under which many Arab women live, one would think it is they who are forced to have fewer expectations and not, as Joseph contended, Western women. Incredibly, Joseph theorized that Arab women want to be claimed by men, and therefore have no objection to being subjects of a patriarchal and theocratic society in which their individual rights are abridged. The audience, which appeared to consist mostly of Center for Near Eastern Studies and Women’s Studies faculty, nodded their heads in agreement with this troubling statement. In fact, those gathered reacted favorably to the lecture overall and asked no challenging questions of the speaker. Overwhelming (if understated) evidence of the systematic and institutionalized abuse of Middle Eastern women didn’t seem to factor into the equation. ... Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to come to terms with the theory that Middle Eastern women are a different breed who welcome abuse for some twisted concept of maintaining a “relationship-driven” society. If one believes, as I do, in fundamental human rights, there are moral principles that define our basic freedoms. Middle Eastern women’s rights activists such as Shirin Ebadi and Ayaan Hirsi Ali do not excuse the misogynistic and theocratic elements in their native countries. Instead, they demand freedom, even in the face of their abusers and of Western apologists". 11.

________________________________________________________________________________________
PSYCHOLOGY - Self-hatred or death wishes as a motivation for Western feminists to support Islamic Supremacism.
________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Ms. Roth, in terms of the feminists who are anti-Semitic and romanticize Islam and the Arabs, do you think there is some kind of deeper pathological impulse, perhaps something close to a death wish or some kind of yearning to have one’s own being eliminated? For instance, at one time we had Western leftist intellectuals who championed communist regimes where intellectuals were imprisoned or simply just executed. Many of these intellectuals clearly dreamed of being in a despotic society where their own role would be eliminated. Many leftist feminists I know who argue for the burqa and make all kinds of excuses for it and other forms of oppression of women under Islam are usually not the joyful, cheerful and beautiful sort of women you meet in life, if you know what I mean. They are usually the kind of women who have defeminized themselves to a large degree and are very very angry. These individuals are the ones who are usually all upset about the BET awards and the sexy dress that J. Lo or Toni Braxton wore, and they go on and on about how this is the objectification and dehumanization of women and the exploitation of the woman’s body etc. And one key reality in this is that even the idea of these particular individuals wearing the dress that they are angry about is such an impossible – and often horrifying – notion that one doesn’t entertain it too long. And I think this truth and the radical feminist’s disposition to the dress itself, have a solid relationship. These individuals, in turn, are in love with the idea of the burqa, and of putting women out of sound and sight, which large segments of the Islamic-Arab world does. They champion a society where the 'objectification' of women’s bodies cannot occur. In other words, they promote a society where their own freedoms – and female identity – will also be extinguished and mutilated. My point is that they themselves have already started the process on themselves as well. Do you think the leftist feminists’ promotion of militant Islam is, like Western intellectuals before them, just an extension of their impulse to have someone else finish the job off for them? And by the job, I mean, in some sense, the extinction of their own selves and female identity, since certain forms of self-hate are clearly at play here? 2. NOTE: We need a brief term to describe this pathology. 1683 AD
(2) "In addition, another way that white-skinned feminists could properly atone for their culture's racism was to savage Israel and America. Even as feminists tried to focus on the abysmal plight of women in the Third World, they simultaneously felt they had to 'earn' the right to do so by condemning America". 54.

_________________________________________________________
PSYCHOLOGY - Appeasement as a way to acquire an illusion of security.
_________________________________________________________
(1) "But I also think we need to note that part of this phenomenon stems from the fear that 9/11 implanted in Americans and the connection that leftists are making between their fears and Israel. It still isn’t fashionable to admit what we all know: that hatred of Muslim fundamentalists for the United States is, in large measure, a reflection of their hatred of Israel. Certainly, one way the United States could reduce its susceptibility to attack is to sell out our only reliable ally in the Middle East. I’m sure not advocating such a position. But I think that a desire to return to the illusion of safety feeds the hostility to Israel since blaming Israel and the Jews provides a morally convenient route to security. 2. *****

_______________________________________________________________

PSYCHOLOGY - Responding to assaults of Islamic Supremacists with self-blame.
_______________________________________________________________
(1) "In psychiatry, female patients are seen more frequently with self-inflicted wounds or self-destructive behaviour than men, who tend to direct their aggression outwards. It is also a well-known fact that many women blame themselves for abusive husbands, and make excuses for their abusers’ behavior. Has the West adopted some of the negative traits of the female psyche? The newly feminized West gets attacked and assaulted by the Arab and Islamic world, and continues to blame itself, while at the same time be fascinated by its abusers. It is thus behaving in the same way as a self-loathing woman towards an abusive man" 10.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PSYCHOLOGY - Feminist refusal to fight the obvious horrors of Islamic Supremacism because it will cause them to concede that the West is right, thus removing their desired status as "victims".
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "In terms of the “oppression” of women, the little girl in an Arabic-Muslim society that has her clitoris mutilated when she is eight years old, is then forced into an arranged marriage, and is then killed by an honor killing etc., that is the female I am concerned about. That is the female I think we should be fighting for. That is the culture that we can say is dysfunctional and pathological, especially when the oppression of that culture is institutionalized and legitimized by the authorities themselves. That is the society that we can say we are better than. And a radical feminist would rather die than to ever utter such words, because her greatest nightmare is to ever admit that there is anything better in our capitalist democratic world than in non-Western and, especially, adversary cultures. Because then she will lose her self-appointed status of being a victim". 2. *****

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PSYCHOLOGY - Muslim women defending Islamic Supremacism as a way to safely experience respect and power (without being deemed an apostate).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "The problem in my opinion is that Western campuses are full of Muslim militant women who found their form of feminism not in standing against Sharia, but in supporting it. That is one safe coping mechanism within Sharia that some Muslim women have found to be helpful to them and it gives them respect and power. ... Muslim women have been trained for centuries to never complain. Complaining especially to non-Muslim infidels is actually a sign of the rebellious Muslim woman and we all know what is the penalty for rebelling against Sharia. It is literally death. ... Rebelling against Islamic law is considered apostasy and because of that women who love their religion must never try to change or criticize it. A feminist movement within Islam is always considered an apostasy movement and that is why many Muslim women try to solve their problem of oppression by becoming as radical, if not more radical, than men. Thus if you cannot beat them, join them. Thus you see that some of the fiercest defenders of Islamic Sharia are women. They even defend polygamy and are the ones who report other misbehaving women. Sharia has turned women against each other and made them guards of their own prison. .". 44. ***** NOTE: Bringing this insight out into the open and confronting Islamic Supremacist women with it might be worthwhile. Further research into this, including the proper psychological terms for this pathology, is suggested. Might it be "displaced anger"? 1683 AD
(2) "They seem to live in denial and have allied themselves with and support the views of elitist and intellectual college type Muslim women who defend Islam, sharia and ignore the reality of women in the Muslim world. The problem in my opinion is that Western campuses are full of Muslim militant women who found their form of feminism not in standing against Sharia, but in supporting it. That is one safe coping mechanism within Sharia that some Muslim women have found to be helpful to them and it gives them respect and power. Consequently, since there is no Muslim feminist movement to talk about, Western feminists found that staying quiet was the best policy. If the victim is not complaining, why would anyone else come to her aid?". 44. *****
(3) "Carmen Bin Laden found herself increasingly 'frustrated, as a woman, to be surrounded by women who simply did not have the courage to resist the system'. However, she saw how such women 'threw all their courage' into religion. They were not submissive when it came to enforcing Islam. Bin Laden writes: 'I think that was simpler for them than fighting for their rights as human beings. Piety gave them the illusion that they had power. I think they believed that if they were strictly religious, then the men - like the other women - would respect that. It seemed to work. Religious women did get much more respect than the Westernized (women)'". 54.

_______________________________________________________________
PSYCHOLOGY - Muslim women internalizing misogynistic religious values.
_______________________________________________________________
(1) "Gabriel confirms that most Arab and Muslim women strongly support the very culture that demeans them, Like women everywhere, they, too, have internalized patriarchal, misogynistic cultural and religious values. She says: (quoting Gabriel) 'Even if they are doctors and lawyers, so many Muslim women actually support an anti-woman Islam with such passion and think we [westerners or Christians] are the ones who have it wrong. Fascinating! This is typical of so many Middle Eastern women. The biggest challenge is the brainwashed Arab and Muslim women. Most don't have a problem with the status quo and think we are all sluts and that we need to be more like them to be respected. It's really sad. Women are the ones who actually support and enforce brutal anti-woman treatment and traditions. It's like the mothers who insist on their daughter's circumcision much more than the fathers". 54. *****

________________________________________________________________________________________________
PSYCHOLOGY - Feminists denying that women under Islamic Supremacism are oppressed, whether they know it or not
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "She's arguing in defense of women's individual experiences of veiling. Much like any decent anthropology 101 professor, Wolf is trying to force a shift in the perspective of her Western readers so that we might seriously consider the possibility that some Muslim women truly and legitimately see dressing scantily in public as repressive and experience covering up outside of their home as freeing....To this Jamie Glazov replies trenchantly: "Ms. Clark-Flory, do you really still not get it? Muslim women don't get to 'truly and legitimately see' anything in an environment where seeing something the way they want to, and acting on it, will get them stigmatized at best and executed at worst." 32.
(2) "“If one says they are examples of male oppression, does that mean that most or all the women in these societies are not only victims but agents in their own victimization?” Cutting through the undergrowth of femspeak, that’s exactly what it means! How hard is this phenomenon to understand? Traumatize a five year old and she’ll do whatever she has to do as she grows up to remain a member of the group". 50.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PSYCHOLOGY - Feminists who are frustrated in their attempts to halt the mistreatment of women find that America (and the West) is an acceptable target for venting their rage. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Perhaps feminists are (unconsciously) ashamed that they have been so ineffective in stopping the larger, more horrifying sexual abuse of girls and women; perhaps we are seeing a 'scapegoat' phenomena: Feminists can't eliminate rapists, gender cleansing, or gender apartheid, but can vent their frustrated rage on a far more acceptable, symbolic target, namely America. Even feminists will be listened to respectfully in most academic and media circles when and if they attack America or Israel. Less attention is paid to feminist statements about women's freedom". 54.

FEAR / COWARDICE- An outright fear among feminists of offending Islamic Supremacists.
_________________________________________________________________________
(1) "But I also think we need to note that part of this phenomenon stems from the fear that 9/11 implanted in Americans and the connection that leftists are making between their fears and Israel. It still isn’t fashionable to admit what we all know: that hatred of Muslim fundamentalists for the United States is, in large measure, a reflection of their hatred of Israel. Certainly, one way the United States could reduce its susceptibility to attack is to sell out our only reliable ally in the Middle East. I’m sure not advocating such a position. But I think that a desire to return to the illusion of safety feeds the hostility to Israel since blaming Israel and the Jews provides a morally convenient route to security. 2.
(2) "For at the root of the weird twists in liberal opinion I have been arguing against lies physical fear: the fear of provoking accusation of racial or religious prejudice; the fear of provoking trouble; the fear of provoking violent retribution. Generally, people do not own up to cowardice. They prefer to dress up it up in fine clothes and call it "respect for difference" or 'a celebration of diversity'". 5. *****
(3) "I don't think either feminism or political correctness does show much respect to faith generally, but rather to Islam, presumably out of fear? Christian denominations who, for example, argue against homosexuality or the more extreme forms of feminism for example, are dismissed in the Western media as fanatical, and their leaders/spokesmen denounced as 'ayatollahs' and sectarian. As your article rightly points out, criticism of Islamic oppression of women is much more muted and 'respectful'. Or (thinking of your article about the Koran) in the case of people like Tony Blair, downright dishonest and wilfully blind, perhaps?" 15.
(4) "Perhaps multi-culturally correct feminists are ambivalent about challenging Islamist misogyny—lest they too be censured as “racists” or threatened with death". 30.
(5) (Post by "kat26") - "Another reason feminists are mute on Muslim issues? Fear. It's easy to criticize the Christian church, it's easy to criticize Judaism, it's easy to criticize the secular institutions of the west, because those targets don't kill women who speak out against them". 40.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FEAR / COWARDICE -Refusal to speak against Islamic Supremacists for fear of being called a "racist", "Islamophobe", "neocolonialist", etc. .
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "She has noticed that today’s feminists are inclined to keep quiet about the march of radical Islam. “There’s a great fear of tackling the subject because of cultural relativism. People are scared of being called racist,” Cochrane observes". 4.
(2) "Now they (police) say it is racist to intervene. They're so frightened of being called an Islamophobe, they will defend the right of men to force women to be shackled. They smugly declare that ‘we haven't got the right to impose our values on another culture' and think themselves liberal when they do it." 5.
(3) "Under the guise of avoiding neocolonialism and treating the Middle Eastern women as backward and over oppressed, many feminist - academics keep silent about the brutality committed against women. In this way, they apologise for 'their own culture', 'their own religion', 'their own community' and 'their own state'. These feminists academics keep silent about FGM, forced marriage, honour killing, mandatory veiling, sexual apartheid, stoning and many other cruelty of the Shari'a and the Islamic traditions against women. They call such brutality and cruelty 'sensitive issues'. This is simply a cover up and no way can it be considered advocacy for justice, human rights and women's rights. This is rather a dismal and cowardly apology for tribal and Islamic misogyny". 37. *****
(4) "Thus, in the Islamic context, for instance, it is clear that someone like Wolf will never act, because protecting little girls’ genitals is less important for her than protecting herself from the charge of being Islamophobic. Her anti-Americanism, ultimately, has to be prioritized in a sacred and protected place". 53

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FEAR / COWARDICE - Feminist refusal to speak against Islamic Supremacism for they are aware it would shatter their beliefs.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "So can leftist feminists say, flat out, that Bush represents and wants a better future for women than our enemy in the War on Terror? This is the problem: radical feminists cannot mouth such words, let alone even contemplate such a horrifying notion. Once they accept this reality, they would have to admit that some foreign and adversary cultures are backward and inferior, and this would shatter the entire foundation of their ideological framework and very reason for existence". 2. *****

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EQUIVALENCY - Claim that the treatment of women under fundamentalist, non-Islamic religions is on the same par as the treatment of women under Islamic Supremacism.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Frequently, when I speak about Islamic fundamentalism, someone suggests that Muslims may have Islamic fundamentalism, but the U.S. has Christian fundamentalists. The implication being that they are the same. This equivalency is flawed thinking. The U.S. is a democracy that guarantees fundamental freedoms and rights. The Christian Right is a political movement of conservative Christians. They may have political and social views and goals that you may not agree with but they operate within a democratic framework. To influence policy and laws, they use their rights as citizens to form advocacy organizations, lobby, and vote. When adherents to these views resort to violence, such as the bombing of abortion clinics, it is treated as an act of violence, and the perpetrators are arrested and punished. And most leaders of Christian Right organizations condemn these acts of political violence. I’ve never heard a Christian fundamentalist call for the take over of the U.S. government by radical preachers or priests, or have Christian or Biblical law replace the U.S. Constitution. That’s the difference between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism: One respects democracy, fundamental rights and freedoms, and the democratic process, the other doesn’t, and its goal is to destroy democracy, freedom, and the democratic process. 21.
(2) "The religious right in America would, if it could, wind back access to abortion and some other women's rights. But as far as I am aware, no Christian fundamentalist in the US has suggested banning women from driving cars, or travelling without their husbands' permission, or forcing them to cover their faces. Contrary to popular opinion, one is not the same as the other" 22.
(3) "My dear colleague, former Israeli minister Natan Sharansky, has it right. In his and Ron Dermer's book, The Case for Democracy, Sharansky writes about the 'failure of people who live in free societies to distinguish between religious fundamentalists in democratic states and religious terrorists in fundamentalist states". 54.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EQUIVALENCY - Claim that women in the West are treated in a manner which is relatively equivalent to how women under Islamic Supremacism are treated.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "The primary focus is on the "terror" at home. Katha Pollitt, a columnist at The Nation, talks of "the common thread of misogyny" connecting Christian Evangelicals to the Taliban: 'It is important to remember just how barbarous and cruel the Taliban were. Yet it is also important not to use their example to obscure or deny the common thread of misogyny that connects them with Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. . . '". 1. NOTE: The truth is that the Taliban are among the worst thing that have happened to women in recent times. Those who imply that Christian Evangelicals are in the same class cannot provide supporting evidence. Feminists use this tactic when they cannot deny the evidence against Islamic Supremacists. They will admit the evidence against Islamic Supremacists is strong, but minimize the importance of such a conclusion by claiming there is something equivalent in the West. 1683 AD
(2) "The inability to make simple distinctions shows up everywhere in contemporary feminist thinking. The Penguin Atlas of Women in the World, edited by geographer Joni Seager, is a staple in women's studies classes in universities. ... Her atlas, a series of color-coded maps and charts, documents the status of women, highlighting the countries where women are most at risk for poverty, illiteracy, and oppression. One map shows how women are kept "in their place" by restrictions on their mobility, dress, and behavior. Somehow the United States comes out looking as bad in this respect as Uganda: ... Seager explains that in parts of Uganda, a man can claim an unmarried woman for his wife by raping her. The United States gets the same rating because, Seager says, 'state legislators enacted 301 anti-abortion measures between 1995 and 2001.' Never mind that the Ugandan practice is barbaric, while the activism surrounding abortion in the United States is a sign of a contentious and free democracy working out its disagreements. Besides which, Seager's categories obscure the fact that in Uganda, abortion is illegal and 'unsafe abortion is the leading cause of maternal mortality' (so states a 2005 report by the Guttmacher Institute), while American abortion law, even after the recent adoption of state regulations, is generally considered among the most liberal of any nation". .1.
(3) "The women who constitute the American feminist establishment today are destined to play little role in the battle for Muslim women's rights. Preoccupied with their own imagined oppression, they can be of little help to others--especially family-centered Islamic feminists. The Katha Pollitts and Eve Enslers, the vagina warriors and university gender theorists--these are women who cannot distinguish between free and unfree societies, between the Taliban and the Promise Keepers, between being forced to wear a veil and being socially pressured to be slender and fit. Their moral obtuseness leads many of them to regard helping Muslim women as 'colonialist' or as part of a 'hegemonic' 'civilizing mission.' It disqualifies them as participants in this moral fight". 1. *****
(4) "When feminists are less hesitant to criticize the oppression of women in non-Western cultures, they often fall back on the kind of moral equivalence (exemplified by Ehrenreich's column), that lumbs together famale genital mutilation in Africa and attempted rollbacks of affirmative action in the United States. This approach makes it possible to take a critical position toward their own society even when they note with seeming detachment horrendous practices (such as genital mutilation) widespread in others. Consider a feminist response to the deadly riots in Nigeria in November 2002, when Muslim extremists rampaged in protest against the Miss World beauty pagent being hosted in that African country's capital. The same groups that rioted against the pagent, forcing its relocation to London, , had also imposed in parts of Negeria strict Islamic codes that were especially oppressive to women -- resulting, for instance, in female rape victims being sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. Commenting on these events on the msnbc.com website, journalist Jill Nelson wrote, "As far as I'm concerned, it's equally disrespectful and abusive to have women prancing around a stage in bathing suits for cash or walking the streets shrouded in burkas in order to survive". (She failed to note that women have not been forced to participate in beauty pagents in the West, but are forced to wear burkas in Muslim societies)". 48.
(5) "Unfortunately, there are male academics willing to climb aboard her absurd train of thought. And journalism students who are willing to report enthusiastically on the results. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Patchwork, a “Social Activism Magazine” described a lecture given by Professor Robert Daniels, a supporter of Njambi’s monumental ignorance (or denial, perhaps, given that she herself had to undergo this barbarous “ritual”). As you read his ideas, realize that we have reached, finally, the demonic convergence, we have come to the dark side - Feminislam. It took long enough, but here it is. The fems won’t be standing up for their oppressed sisters after all. Instead they’re rooting for the oppressors. It would be funny were the gropings of these strange bedfellows not so horrifying: “Female Genital Mutilation is a prejudicial term,” he said. “To speak of these practices only as operations or mutilations is like speaking of making the sign of the cross on someone’s forehead on Ash Wednesday as ‘soiling the face’ or speaking of a fraternity branding as ‘mutilating the upper arm,’” said Daniels. How’s that for an evil reductio ad absurdum? Ashes on the forehead don’t leave in their wake ruined bodies, fistulas, urinary incontinence, and all the other miseries that result from an extremely painful, germ-laden procedure done on a five year old without benefit of anesthesia". 50.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EQUIVALENCY - Discounting any abusive treatment of women under Islamic Supremacism because Western women supposedly experience similar treatment.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "My critics who seek to delegitimize my main point have now come forward and think they are scoring a powerful blow against me by, typically, pointing out that FGM is not exclusively Muslim. This is a key traditional tactic of the Left. In order to whitewash the barbarity of adversary cultures, they consistently exonerate it by equivocating about how some kind of injustice exists somewhere else — and, especially, of course, how it exists in our own society and civilization. Thus, some of the critics revel in how Lucy Semiyan Mashua, who is leading the new campaign against FGM, is from Kenya and comes from the Massai, a Christian African tribe. This is how their mental gymnastics work: FGM is not just an Islamic practice, so we can’t say anything critical about Islam when it is connected to FGM. This way we can’t say that anything is really better than anything else, and we especially can’t say that our civilization is better than Islam’s or that we have anything to teach Islamic societies. This kind of thinking deliberately incapacitates any action that could be implemented on behalf of Islam’s victims. If you try to do something on behalf of the victims, which begins with honesty about who is perpetrating the crime and why, the critics come forward and say: “Hey, but it isn’t just Muslims that do it.” Then the critics feel really good about themselves for pointing this out and, yes, go home and do nothing about the subject at hand. So in the case of FGM, the leftist feels self-satisfied that he’s pointed out that it’s not just Islam that does it, he engages in no action to help the victims and the mutilation of girls under Islam continues. Naturally Muslims are not the only ones who perpetrate FGM. Of course, FGM is practised outside of Islam, including under non-Islamic African tribal cultures. I never said anywhere that FGM is only practised by Muslims. But the key issue here is that Muslims are the principle religious group that practices this sexual violence against women. And the reality is that if you are a victim of FGM, then the chances are very high that you live in a Muslim household and in a Muslim culture.Now within the context of Islamic FGM, the barbarity is kept alive and legitimized by Islamic theology. This is the case in Egypt, where this crime against girls is waged on a massive level. The Egyptian government banned FGM in 1996, but an Egyptian court overturned the ban in July 1997 because of the ferocious uprising of the Islamic clerics, who fervently pointed to Islamic teachings to re-implement this war against women’s sexuality. The Muslim mutilators pointed to traditional Islamic teachings that sanction FGM, which include the Prophet Muhammad’s instruction that circumcising girls is “a preservation of honor for women.” Also, a legal manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, ‘Umdat al-Salik, which is endorsed by Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world — states that circumcision is obligatory for both boys and girls. Keeping FGM institutionalized also helps the Islamic mutilators keep the structure of Islamic gender apartheid in place. Keeping FGM legitimized and at work is one of the most effective means to keeping women subjugated and caged. After all, the strategy behind amputating the clitoris is clearly to kill the woman’s sexual desire and pleasure, which, in this diseased misogynist mindset, reduces the chances that she will ever toy with the notions of autonomy, equality and self-determination. ... Question: How can we possibly help Egyptian girls, and other girls who are targeted for FGM under Islam, if we do not confront the philosophy behind the institutionalization of this violence? You cannot save Muslim girls from FGM without crystallizing what it is within the religion that gives fertile soil and legitimation to FGM. The way to save human beings from this violence is to isolate those teachings and to have them nullified – and this involves confronting certain Islamic teachings. Nowhere am I saying that we don’t work against FGM in non-Muslim environments. We do that too. We do it all. But we can’t save the victims of Islamic mutilation if we are not honest about the Islamic impulses for that mutilation. That’s why the leftist forces in our society do their best to excuse FGM with the tired old mantra: it’s not only Muslims that do it – as if inaction to save human beings from evil is somehow justified because a sin might exist somewhere else.What a revolting image: the smug leftist turning his back on the victims of Islamic FGM because a non-Muslim somewhere perpetrated FGM. How does this self-satisfied inhumanity save the Muslim girls who will be mutilated in the future? How does it help the non-Muslim girls? Hypothetical question: if we could have saved the Jewish inmates from Auschwitz before they were murdered, would it have been right to abort the rescue operation (which would have involved an honesty about Nazi doctrine) upon discovering that someone, somewhere, in some other place, said or did something anti-Semitic? Hey, it’s not just the Nazis that do it. Would that have sufficed to justify not lifting a hand to rescue Auschwitz’s inmates?" 53.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EQUIVALENCY - The claim that any physical abuse experienced by women under Islamic Supremacism's dictates and allowances is comparable to any physical abuse experienced by Western women.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Shall we just ignore the United Nations Population Fund’s estimate that 5,000 women a year die in honour killings, to avoid casting aspersions on any culture? Shall we pretend it’s not happening in Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Morocco and Pakistan, to name just a few countries? There seems to be no problem with denouncing Christian culture for decorating trees at Christmastime, or displaying crosses on Remembrance Day, but when members of another culture engage in actual evildoing, we’re supposed to pretend it all just falls under the rubric of domestic violence. Since domestic violence occurs in all cultures, honour killings can be conveniently lumped into that category and we can keep pretending it’s not particular to certain cultures". 18.
(2) "Q. In your book you say that there's an epidemic of men sexually abusing boys in Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, and you imply that domestic violence is higher in Muslim and Arab countries than it is in other places. Do you have statistics to support that? Would it even be possible to have statistics to support that? A. It's not possible to have the kind of statistics that we have in the West. ... In a culture where some of my interviewees described how, if they argued against wife-beating, they would be beaten twice as hard, I doubt that it would be easy to do a study, to come in with a tape recorder and a pen and a pad of paper and say, OK, we'd like to find out how many of you are [having sex with] your male children. Uh, any hands? Q. I would think that probably one of the worst things you could say to a man in any culture is, you sexually abused your son or you beat your wife. Do you have any reluctance to make that accusation about hundreds of millions of people without statistics to back you up? A. Sometimes when you can't get the statistics, [you] begin to do [what] an anthropologist would. [They would] go into the field and they would not only observe, or have their own experiences, they would talk to informants. So I read everything I could get my hands on ... written by women and men about the treatment of women under Islam, and then I interviewed both Arab and Muslim women, and I'm relying upon what they're telling me. And then I also drew conclusions from my own experience, what I observed. And no, I don't think that 100 million or a billion Muslims all engage in high-heinous practices 24 hours a day. I think, rather, that many do some of the time and many do most of the time, depending on the practice". 27.
(3) "While murderers have repeatedly and openly defend their act by referring to Islam and the Koran in justification, many feminists, the mainstream media and western intellectuals largely try to explain these murders as part of the prevalent patterns of domestic violence against women in western societies. While the murderers, whether in the Middle Eastern countries or within the Muslim communities in the West, openly state that their act of murder are "crimes of honour", and that they are merely following the directions set down in their religious beliefs, the apologetic 'Western' intellectuals repeatedly assure us that it is not Islam and backward traditions that are to blame, but that these murders are part and parcel of the common pattern of violence that is happening to Western women too". 37.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EQUIVALENCY - The claim that oppression regarding the female appearance or body exists among both Western women and women under Islamic Supremacism.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Eve Ensler, lionized author of The Vagina Monologues, makes the same point somewhat differently in her popular lecture 'Afghanistan is Everywhere': 'We all have different forms of enforced burqas. Every culture has it. Whether it's an idea or a fascist tyranny of what women are supposed to look like--so that women go to the extremes of liposuction, anorexia and bulimia to achieve it--or whether it's being covered in a burqa, we all have deep, profound, ongoing daily forms of oppression'". 1.
(2) "But her (Eve Ensler's) 1feminist theory1 obliterates distinctions between what goes on in Afghanistan and what goes on in Beverly Hills: 'I went from Beverly Hills where women were getting vaginal laser rejuvenation surgery--paying four thousand dollars to get their labias trimmed to make them symmetrical because they didn't like the imbalance. And I flew to Kenya where [women were working to stop] the practice of female genital mutilation. And I said to myself, "'hat is wrong with this picture?''. A better question is: What is wrong with Eve Ensler? These two surgical phenomena are completely different in both scale and purpose. The number of American women who undergo "vaginal labial rejuvenation" is minuscule: There were 793 such procedures in 2005, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. By contrast, a World Health Organization 2000 fact sheet reports: 1Today, the number of girls and women who have undergone female genital mutilation is estimated at between 100 and 140 million. It is estimated that each year, a further 2 million girls are at risk of undergoing FGM'". The women who elect laser surgery, moreover, are voluntarily seeking relief from physical irregularities that cause them embarrassment or inhibit their sexual enjoyment. The practitioners of genital mutilation, in countries such as Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia, believe that removing sensitive parts of the anatomy is the best way to control young women's sexual urges and assure chastity. Genital cutting causes great pain and suffering and often permanently impairs a female's capacity for sexual pleasure. Thus, the intentions of the handful of American adults who choose labial surgery for themselves are exactly the opposite of those of the African parents and elders who insist on cutting the genitals of millions of girls". 1.
(3) "Their bad faith is evidenced by their palming of the moral-equivalence card from the bottom of the deck. I first saw it being waved in triumph in 1993 when Germaine Greer declared that attempts to outlaw female circumcision were "an attack on cultural identity". In her mind, there was no difference between religious traditionalists forcing an eight-year-old to submit to the removal of her clitoris and labia, and an American teenager voluntarily trying out body piercing. "If an Ohio punk has the right to have her genitalia operated on, why has not the Somali woman the same right?" asked the author of The Female Eunuch as she excused clitoral castration". 5.
(4) "A rich Western woman can choose the lengths to which she will go to make herself attractive to men (or to herself); a child in a poor, backward county cannot" 22.
(5) "Ridley also uses the old saw of how “oppressed” Western women are because they have to wear short skirts and skimpy bathings suits. What she neglects to note, as do all who use that argument, is that I am not bound by law to wear a bikini on the beach. I am not bound by law to wear my skirts a certain length or suffer beatings by the religious police. I can pretty much wear anything I like, at any length I like, as long as I’m not breaking any indecency laws. Custom isn’t law. Tradition isn’t law. And peer pressure isn’t law. However, I wouldn’t want to be a Saudi woman who walks out of her house without her veil". 35.
(6) " In The Beauty Myth, for instance, Wolf makes a critique of FGM only in passing, with a “everyone is guilty” theme that ends up comparing FGM with modern day breast surgery". 53.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EQUIVALENCY - The claim that various groups in both Western and Islamic Supremacist societies oppress women in a similar manner.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Katha Pollitt wrote the introduction to a book called Nothing Sacred: Women Respond to Religious Fundamentalism and Terror. It aimed to show that reactionary religious movements everywhere are targeting women. Says Pollitt: 'In Bangladesh, Muslim fanatics throw acid in the faces of unveiled women; in Nigeria, newly established shariah courts condemn women to death by stoning for having sex outside of wedlock. . . . In the United States, Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists have forged a powerful right-wing political movement focused on banning abortion, stigmatizing homosexuality and limiting young people's access to accurate information about sex'. Pollitt casually places 'limiting young people's access to accurate information about sex' and opposing abortion on the same plane as throwing acid in women's faces and stoning them to death. Her hostility to the United States renders her incapable of distinguishing between private American groups that stigmatize gays and foreign governments that hang them. She has embraced a feminist philosophy that collapses moral categories in ways that defy logic, common sense, and basic decency". 1.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EQUIVALENCY - Feminist claim that a society's solution to the mistreatment of women (or any moral problem) is appropriate, as long as it is appropriate to that society.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Post by "freebel") - "...step back and look at society as a whole, and you'll see how controlled or liberal it is, be it Singapore or Holland - each will respond to its own problems its own way, you can accept or reject those solutions, but they are 'appropriate' to that society's condition and should be seen in its own context". (Reply by GeeM") - "Freebel as I understand you, a society's solution to its moral problems are appropriate, as long as it is appropriate to that society. When you say that they should be seen in their own context, are you suggesting that they should not be addressed (?) Such issues which would include slavery and child prostitution should be ignored as long as they are appropriate for that society. These issues can then only be addressed through moral education and discipline. Who is going to decide what is moral if it is appropriate to that society?" 40.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EQUIVALENCY - Feminist claim that the culture of Islamic Supremacism is "native" to the people under it, just as Western lifestyles are "native to Westerners; therefore, we are not in a position to criticize the former.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Post by "freebel") - "The party who decides change should preferably come from within. ... Westerners can offer alternatives, but should refrain from meddling in other's cultural mores, no matter how 'disagreeable' they may find it - after all, a topless lady in the French Riviera is as native to a burka attired one in the Middle East. My suggestion to any serious critic is to live there for the purpose of anthropology - otherwise, we're merely being hypocritical in demeaning other cultures as barbaric, etc.". (Reply by "Sassylassie") - I have every intention of meddling Freebel, I shall never remain silent while inferior cultural practices allow women and children to be abused in the name of some gawd or because it's tolerant to tolerate the intolerable. This is Canada not some medieval nation that is willing to watch men treat women like animals and property". (Additional reply by "kat26") - "freebel -- yes, we should allow slavery, rape, beatings, beheadings, female circumcision, stonings, etc. etc. because that is their culture and they demand to practice it here. How dare we criticize. You, frebel, are a dingdong, a muslim apologist who enables what happened in Kingston". (Additional reply by "Keaner10") - "freebel - I find your post to be incredibly ignorant. So at what point are we allowed to say blatant violations are wrong? When we achieve western utopia? While different cultures have different traditions and values, all people have basic rights and killing and abusing women MUST be condemned no matter who is doing it in the name of what religion. Give your head a shake". 40. *****

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BLAME - Conceding that mistreatment of women exists under Islamic Supremacism, but claiming that the West (U.S.) is the cause, or the West has not done anything to help.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "But under this administration, the United States government has, for the first time, taken serious measures against international trafficking in women, has spent serious money to promote education of girls in the Muslim world, has created dozens of programs to help women in Arab countries establish small businesses and has supported the growth of female political power. Why can't NOW and the Feminist Majority celebrate those programs?" 2.
(2) "Ms. Roth, you say that Afghan women still face 'severe repression.' Yes they do. Your tone suggests that America is somehow to blame for this. Sorry, it is Islamic extremists who terrorized – and continue to terrorize – Afghan women. Are you ready to denounce the religion and culture that produces these misogynist tyrants? Or let me guess, the U.S. is supposed to take, as you say feminist groups support, more 'action'? It is fascinating how these feminist groups denounce any kind of American involvement anywhere as 'American imperialism', but when America finally goes in and liberates women from a fascist regime, it is criticized for not taking enough 'action' to achieve full liberation overnight, while it is simultaneously denounced by the same groups for having taken the action in the first place. Anti-Americanism is truly a wonder. 2. *****
(3) "Some commentators such as Sun Media columnist Licia Corbella called Thobani's comments a disgrace to feminism, pointing out that Western countries were the source of women's emancipation. "Let me get this straight: the western world -- where women enjoy more freedom and power than anywhere else -- must disappear before women can be free?" 48.
(4) "Steinem, Walker, and Ensler had earlier opposed the U.S. war in Afghanistan on the ground that it would do nothing to liberate that country's women from oppression by the Taliban. The sight of Afghan women and girls celebrating their liberation and attending school for the first time in years had not chenged their minds". 48.
(5) "Calling attention to abuse, violence and oppression is something the left claims it does, but these days they’re more than willing to throw those who need our voices under the bus. Their obsession is to make sure the leftist false construct of an evil George Bush and oppressive United States won’t be eclipsed by the truth — the truth of a world where our enemy targets women on a daily basis for terror, torture, oppression and murder as our troops risk and give their lives to banish that horror from the lives of tens of millions. ... There have also been a few organizations since 2003 that have done astounding authentic feminist work for women and children around the world, and in Afghanistan and Iraq specifically. The American military, without even a passing "thank you" from so-called feminist leaders Smeal or Steinem or Gandy, have liberated over 53 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a good 25 million of those being women and children". 49.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BLAME - Conceding that mistreatment of women exists under Islamic Supremacism, but claiming that it is due to a history of colonialism.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Afghanistan had never been colonised. My Afghan relatives were very proud of this fact. ‘Not even the British could occupy us’, they told me, not once but many times. “I was ultimately forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism, tyranny and misogyny were entirely of their own making and not attributable to colonialism or imperialism. It is what they themselves would say"." 4.
(2) The second variety of feminism, seemingly more sophisticated and especially prevalent on college campuses, is multiculturalism and its twin, postcolonialism. The postcolonial feminist ... She believes that the Western world is so sullied by its legacy of imperialism that no Westerner, man or woman, can utter a word of judgment against former colonial peoples. Worse, she is not so sure that radical Islam isn’t an authentic, indigenous—and therefore appropriate—expression of Arab and Middle Eastern identity. The postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault, one of the intellectual godfathers of multiculturalism and postcolonialism, first set the tone in 1978 when an Italian newspaper sent him to Teheran to cover the Iranian revolution. ... Even after the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power and reintroduced polygamy and divorce on the husband’s demand with automatic custody to fathers, reduced the official female age of marriage from 18 to 13, fired all female judges, and ordered compulsory veiling, whose transgression was to be punished by public flogging, Foucault saw no reason to temper his enthusiasm. What was a small matter like women’s basic rights, when a struggle against “the planetary system” was at hand? Postcolonialists, then, have their own binary system, somewhat at odds with gender feminism—not to mention with women’s rights. It is not men who are the sinners; it is the West. It is not women who are victimized innocents; it is the people who suffered under Western colonialism, or the descendants of those people, to be more exact. Caught between the rock of patriarchy and the hard place of imperialism, the postcolonial feminist scholar gingerly tiptoes her way around the subject of Islamic fundamentalism and does the only thing she can do: she focuses her ire on Western men. To this end, the postcolonialist eagerly dips into the inkwell of gender feminism. She ties colonialist exploitation and domination to maleness; she might refer to Israel’s “masculinist military culture”—Israel being white and Western—though she would never dream of pointing out the “masculinist military culture” of the jihadi. And she expends a good deal of energy condemning Western men for wanting to improve the lives of Eastern women. At the turn of the twentieth century Lord Cromer, the British vice consul of Egypt and a pet target of postcolonial feminists, argued that the “degradation” of women under Islam had a harmful effect on society. Rubbish, according to the postcolonialist feminist. His words are simply part of “the Western narrative of the quintessential otherness and inferiority of Islam,” as Harvard professor Leila Ahmed puts it in Women and Gender in Islam. The same goes for American concern about Afghan women; it is merely a “device for ranking the ‘other’ men as inferior or as ‘uncivilized,’ ” according to Nira Yuval-Davis, professor of gender and ethnic studies at the University of Greenwich, England. These are all examples of what renowned Columbia professor Gayatri Spivak called “white men saving brown women from brown men.” Spivak’s phrase, a great favorite on campus, points to the postcolonial notion that brown men, having been victimized by the West, can never be oppressors in their own right. If they give the appearance of treating women badly, the oppression they have suffered at the hands of Western colonial masters is to blame. In fact, the worse they treat women, the more they are expressing their own justifiable outrage. “When men are traumatized [by colonial rule], they tend to traumatize their own women,” Miriam Cooke, a Duke professor and head of the Association for Middle East Women’s Studies, told me. And today, Cooke asserts, brown men are subjected to a new form of imperialism. “Now there is a return of colonialism that we saw in the nineteenth century in the context of globalization,” she says. “What is driving Islamist men is globalization.” It would be difficult to exaggerate the through-the-looking-glass quality of postcolonialist theory when it comes to the subject of women. Female suicide bombers are a good thing, because they are strong women demonstrating “agency” against colonial powers. Polygamy too must be shown due consideration. “Polygamy can be liberating and empowering,” Cooke answered sunnily when I asked her about it. “Our norm is the Western, heterosexual, single couple. If we can imagine different forms that would allow us to be something other than a heterosexual couple, we might imagine polygamy working,” she explained murkily. Some women, she continued, are relieved when their husbands take a new wife: they won’t have to service him so often. Or they might find they now have the freedom to take a lover. But, I ask, wouldn’t that be dangerous in places where adulteresses can be stoned to death? At any rate, how common is that? “I don’t know,” Cooke answers, “I’m interested in discourse.” The irony couldn’t be darker: the very people protesting the imperialist exploitation of the “Other” endorse that Other’s repressive customs as a means of promoting their own uniquely Western agenda—subverting the heterosexual patriarchy. 8. NOTE: The feminists are saying that Islamic Supremacist men in former colonies of the West get a free ride when it comes to the mistreatment of women. Let's presume, just for the sake of argument, that they are correct. In such a case, one would wonder how they could deflect criticism from people in nations which did not have colonies in the Islamic Supremacist world, such as: Finland, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Ireland, Switzerland, the Baltic states, etc. What would they say if people in numerous Asian nations were to condemn these acts? We would ask the same question with respect to all of the nations of Central and South America. Do they realize that some Western nations were colonies of another nation at one time (the U.S., Australia, New Zealand)? One also wonders how someone can "suffer" from colonialism when most everyone who had lived under it is now dead. 1683 AD
(3) "The postcolonial feminist has even more reason to shy away from the predicament of women under radical Islam than her maternally thinking sister. She believes that the Western world is so sullied by its legacy of imperialism that no Westerner, man or woman, can utter a word of judgment against former colonial peoples. Worse, she is not so sure that radical Islam isn't an authentic, indigenous - and therefore appropriate - expression of Arab and Middle Eastern identity. It is not men who are the sinners; it is the West. It is not women who are victimized innocents; it is the people who suffered under Western colonialism, or the descendants of those people, to be more exact. Caught between the rock of patriarchy and the hard place of imperialism, the postcolonial feminist scholar gingerly tiptoes her way around the subject of Islamic fundamentalism and does the only thing she can do: She focuses her ire on Western men. SHE ties colonialist exploitation and domination to maleness; she might refer to Israel's "masculinist military culture" - Israel being white and Western - though she would never dream of pointing out the "masculinist military culture" of the jihadi. American concern about Afghan women? Merely a "device for ranking the 'other' men as inferior or as 'uncivilized,' " according to Nira Yuval-Davis, professor of gender and ethnic studies at the University of Greenwich, England. An example of what renowned Columbia professor Gayatri Spivak called "white men saving brown women from brown men." Brown men, having been victimized by the West, can never be oppressors in their own right. If they give the appearance of treating women badly, the oppression they have suffered at the hands of Western colonial masters is to blame". 43.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BLAME - Conceding that mistreatment of women exists under Islamic Supremacism, but claiming that it has been worsened by Western "interferrnce".
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Paradoxically, although such feminists have condemned the plight of women under Islam, once President Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq they have maintained an eerie silence about women under Islamism--except to blame American Empire for causing or worsening their condition". 2.
(2) "It is certainly plausible, as Pettitt claims, that Bush’s actions have “accelerated the radicalisation of the Islamic world tremendously”, although this popular view conveniently downplays the growing Islamic fundamentalist movement before the September 11 attacks and the huge psychological boost that it received from Al-Qaeda’s strike on America". 4.
(3) "Thus, according to their report (of Amnesty International), if Palestinian men beat or kill their wives and daughters - it's because Israel is occupying Palestinian lands, not because they are following their own Arab and Muslim codes of shame, honor, and misogyny. (Isreael is not 'occupying' Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, yet crimes against women there are epidemic.)". 54.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claims that Western culture (as opposed to Islamic Supremacist culture) is adverse to women.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "One reason is that many feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism and find it very hard to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. They are far more comfortable finding fault with American society for minor inequities (the exclusion of women from the Augusta National Golf Club, the "underrepresentation" of women on faculties of engineering) than criticizing heinous practices beyond our shores". 1. *****
(2) "On most American campuses there are small coteries of self-described 'vagina warriors' looking for ways to expose and make much of the ravages of patriarchy. Feminists like Pollitt, Ehrenreich, and Ensler can cite several decades of women's studies research supporting the charge that our culture is ruinous for women. Many scholars--including Camille Paglia, Daphne Patai, Noretta Koertge, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Christine Rosen, and myself--have questioned the quality of the findings and warned that the studies are twisted and unreliable". 1.
(3) "Like many academic feminists, she is eager to show that American women live under an intimidating system of 'patriarchal authority' that is comparable to those found in many less developed countries. Never mind that this is wildly false". 1.
(4) "In terms of the “oppression” of women, the little girl in an Arabic-Muslim society that has her clitoris mutilated when she is eight years old, is then forced into an arranged marriage, and is then killed by an honor killing etc., that is the female I am concerned about. That is the female I think we should be fighting for. That is the culture that we can say is dysfunctional and pathological, especially when the oppression of that culture is institutionalized and legitimized by the authorities themselves. That is the society that we can say we are better than. And a radical feminist would rather die than to ever utter such words, because her greatest nightmare is to ever admit that there is anything better in our capitalist democratic world than in non-Western and, especially, adversary cultures. Because then she will lose her self-appointed status of being a victim". 2. *****
(5) "So can leftist feminists say, flat out, that Bush represents and wants a better future for women than our enemy in the War on Terror? This is the problem: radical feminists cannot mouth such words, let alone even contemplate such a horrifying notion. Once they accept this reality, they would have to admit that some foreign and adversary cultures are backward and inferior, and this would shatter the entire foundation of their ideological framework and very reason for existence". 2. *****
(6) "I think it is vital to counter by saying that there is no feminist paradise on this earth, or any other kind of paradise for that matter. And to blame Israel or America for that is ludicrous, but the Left does it all the time. And that is exactly the point. Leftists consistently hold up the freest societies to a utopian ideal and find them wanting. The "problems" you pinpoint in Israel (i.e. women do not earn such and such, etc.) are not problems exclusive to Israel, but problems worldwide that have no easy and perfect solutions. The "problems" in Israel are ones that no society can perfectly mend. I think this is essential to state, since we have to delegitimize any premise that assumes that a perfect "equality" can be found among human beings, or genders, anywhere. If we do not negate that premise, then more Stalins, Maos, and Pol Pots are always on the potential horizon. Chesler: You are so right. Neither Israel nor America have to be “better” than other societies but the truth is that, imperfect as we may be, we are actually further evolved along democratic and humanitarian lines than most other cultures". 2.
(7) "Greer said: "I can talk to rape victims here. Why should I go to Darfur to talk to rape victims?" When Bone responded that the situation for such women in Darfur was worse than in the West, Greer tried to hedge the issue. She said: "Who says it is?" When Bone said that she had been to Darfur, Greer argued that changing another culture was hard. "We haven't got it right in our own courts. What good would it do for me to go over there and try to tell them what to do? I am just part of decadent Western culture and they think we're all going to hell fast and maybe we are all going to hell fast." Greer said that she cared, and was wearing a white ribbon to show she cared". 7. *****NOTE: Greer tries to disqualify Western involvement because its society is not perfect (in her belief). Thus, on that ludicrous foundation, she asserts the West should not become involved". 1683 AD
(8) "Mahmood, said Briggs, “confronted one of the legacies of a long history of orientalism and the recent wars in the Middle East: the way we are invited to see Muslim women as hopelessly, painfully oppressed, without their own autonomy, will, or individual rights.” So apparently the oppression of Muslim women has nothing to do with Islamic law or culture; it is merely a byproduct of “orientalism and the recent wars in the Middle East” – in other words, it is the West’s fault". 17.
(9) "In her Calgary Sun column defending Sunera Thobani's anti-U.S. diatribe, Brenda Wadelt writes, "I have been hearing that liberal democracy created feminism and we need to thank that system for our rights and privilege. Wrong! Feminism happened in spite of liberal democracy, not because of it ... It has been liberal democratic systems that feminist movements -- suffragette movements before them -- fought against to gain the rights women have". This claims overlook that fact that it was only under liberal democracies that feminist movements had a chance to succeed, thanks precisely to values such as individual rights and freedom of speech and association". 48.
(10) "If feminism is to regain its relevance, it must also acknowledge the role Western and specifically American democracy has played in its successes. However much we would like to regard women's liberation as a natural right, it has been the product and achievement of a complex, advanced civilization. Recent events remind us that this civilization is fragile and that its enemies are hostile to freedom for anyone -- especially women. Feminists, perhaps more than anyone else, should realize that Western values and institutions are worth defending". 48.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claim that Western culture is ALWAYS wrong or inferior in comparison with non-Western, adversary cultures, such as Islamic Supremacism.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Of all the liberal democracies, Australia is the one where the idea is most firmly entrenched among the local intelligentsia that the culture of the West is the only criminal, all other cultures being victims no matter what atrocities they might condone even within their own families". 9.
(2) "At one point our feminists, getting frustrated as the pace slowed down in the home stretch to utopia, started telling us that other cultures (cultures practising clitoridectomy, for example) were more "authentic" in the respect of female sexual identity. A woman in Somalia, we were told, at least knows she is a woman". 9.
(3) "The other crucial requirement, surely, is for the pampered intelligentsia of the West to give up finally and forever on any notion that the Third World — for all its deprivations and perhaps because of them — is some kind of Eden in which countervailing values against the excesses of the West may be found. What may be found is more often a heap of dead bodies. Most of those get blamed on the West, too, but when half of the population of Rwanda sets out to murder the other half, with no recourse to Western technology except the metal to make machetes, the explanation starts looking thin". 9.
(4) "She has been widely quoted as viewing western feminists as no different than white men who are saving brown women from brown men, and views doing so as a racist and colonial enterprise. Perhaps Spivak might view British attempts to end the practice of suttee (Hindu wives being forced to throw themselves on their dead husband's funeral pyres) as similarly racist". 54.
(5) "Why do feminists and progressives accept and even respect the fact that other people are loyal to their tribes and nation-states but despise such feelings among Americans as backward and dangerous? Why do they criticize America so obsessively for its failure to perfectionistically live up to our own high standards and yet remain so quiet about the absence of any standards and about the systematic violation of human rights in non-western countries? Why are so many American feminists so understanding about why Muslim women might 'choose' to veil themselves, accept arranged and polygamous marriages or undergo genital mutilation - but denigrate American women who 'choose' to be stay-at-home mothers or who become soldiers whose bravery and self-sacrifice may lead to greater freedom for women and men elsewhere? Why do many American feminists view America's freedoms as sometimes meant for Americans only ('We can't impose our cultural standards on others') and at other times, insist those whom we have captured in a jihadic and terrorist war they have declared against us?" 54. *****

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claim that the West must not criticize other cultures (particularly Islamic Supremacism) and must always defer to them simply because they are not Western.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Second, the notion that so-called feminist leaders shy away from criticizing Muslim fundamentalists out of allegiance to the concept of multi-cultural sensitivity is mind-boggling. Is Roth really suggesting that giving Islamic leaders a pass on their persecution of women is multi-culturally sensitive? Gee, by that logic I guess we should stay mum while the Arabs of the Sudan or Mauritania enslave Africans, or the Chinese commit female infanticide. Is that what being multi-culturally sensitive demands?" 2.
(2) "They (Feminists and Leftists) justify the most horrendous behavior and goals in the name of respect for cultural difference or defending poor, innocent Third World peoples being vilified by mean Republicans. Instead, the Left should be rallying to the aid of Muslims being cowed into submission by fundamentalists in the same way it rallied around Spain. (Can you imagine the Left of the 1930s defending Franco because he had a right to be a Catholic fundamentalist?) By refusing to address the basic question - Who is the GREATER enemy - the Left instead is feeding the modern fascists". 2.
(3) "For all the qualifications, the stubborn fact remains that mainstream opinion does not consider the oppression of women a pressing concern when it is done in the name of culture or religion, particularly in the name of once-subordinate cultures and religions. The misogyny they generate does not move hearts or stir passions. Governments that stifle half their populations do not face boycotts or demonstrations outside their embassies, motions of condemnation at international conferences or opprobrium in everyday political discourse. 5.
(4) "Their bad faith is evidenced by their palming of the moral-equivalence card from the bottom of the deck. I first saw it being waved in triumph in 1993 when Germaine Greer declared that attempts to outlaw female circumcision were "an attack on cultural identity". In her mind, there was no difference between religious traditionalists forcing an eight-year-old to submit to the removal of her clitoris and labia, and an American teenager voluntarily trying out body piercing. "If an Ohio punk has the right to have her genitalia operated on, why has not the Somali woman the same right?" asked the author of The Female Eunuch as she excused clitoral castration". 5.
(5) "I very much resent it in the West when people — maybe with all the good intentions or from a progressive point of view — keep telling me, ‘It's their culture.' It's like saying, the culture of Massachusetts is burning witches. First, there are aspects of culture which are really reprehensible, and we should fight against it. Second, women in Iran and in Saudi Arabia don't like to be stoned to death." 5.
(6) "In 1999, Greer published The Whole Woman. Here, she attempted to compare FGM - which is forced upon young girls who have no rights of refusal - with breast enhancement, which is an adult woman's choice. For Greer, an operation that robs a woman of the right to enjoy sex is justifiable as it is a part of "culture". 7.
(7) " In asserting that Westerners shouldn’t assume women in the Middle East wish to imitate secular, Westernized women, she encapsulated the ideology widespread on college campuses: multiculturalism, a form of cultural relativism that denies the ability to judge non-Western cultures on their merits, and which, in practice, judges all non-Western cultures as superior". 11.
(8) "Today, advocacy for multiculturalism has replaced support for universalism. Universalism is based universal principles of human rights, equality, freedom, and democracy, as laid out in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and before that the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Other democracies have their own constitutions and founding sets of documents. Today, these visions and commitments to universal equality among people have become secondary to advocacy for multiculturalism. Embedded in multicultural ideology is cultural relativism, the principle that all cultures are equal, must be respected, and cannot be criticized. Or if one does criticize another culture or religious practice, the speaker must immediately point out deficiencies in other cultures and religious practices, or at least those of his or her own, in this case, the U.S. One cannot advocate for relative rights and freedoms without rejecting universal principles of freedom and rights. If you unconditionally accept and respect other cultural and religious practices, the first group that always loses is women. Most discriminatory attitudes and practices are based on culture, tradition, and religion. Women’s greatest hope for freedom and rights comes with the promotion of universal principles of freedom and rights; then women can claim their equality. Today, I see students in class being fearful of discussing types of violence against women or the oppression of women. Although they may be horrified by honor killings or female genital mutilation, they feel they have to accept it because it’s someone else’s culture or religion. They think it is unacceptable to advocate for other women’s freedom and rights because it might violate another cultures or religions, and that would be imposing their view on another culture or religion. While at first glance this may sound respectful, it translated into remaining silent and accepting some of the worst human rights violations against women. Following acceptance of multiculturalism, they withdraw into isolationism. If we must respect all other cultures and religious practices, then there is nothing to do about violations of women’s rights around the world. They often oppose any efforts to improve the lives of women in other countries. They justify this isolationism by saying they have enough work on women’s issues here at home and they should concentrate on that. 21.NOTE: Excellent explanation! 1683 AD
(9) "It does not take a lot of courage for people living in Western democracies to criticise aspects of their culture that need criticising (indeed, it sometimes takes more courage to defend the culture). It takes a great deal of courage for people living in totalitarian states to speak out against the injustices done in the name of their religion or culture. The problem with politely ignoring abuses of human rights because "it's their culture" is that it lets down the brave liberals and democrats and human rights defenders who are trying to change things that so badly need to change for the welfare of women and men in their own communities and in the world" 22. *****
(10) "First, we must recognize that Islam is the largest and most systematic practioner of both gender and religious Apartheid on earth. The multi-culturalists refuse to see what is staring them in the face and civilians may not truly comprehend how ruthlessly circumscribed and endangered the lives of girls, women, and non-Muslim minorities are under jihadic Islam". 26.
(11) "It's all very much understandable and expected, of course: it is politically correct and cutting-edge to scream with moral indignation about a woman's right to an abortion in the West, but to actually care for - and come to the public defense of - the female victim of a gang-rape committed by Muslims is unthinkable. This is so because admitting the Muslim rape epidemic, and the theology and institutions on which it is based, and denouncing it, would violate the central code of the "progressive" leftist faith: anti-Americanism and cultural relativism. No culture can be said to be better than any other - unless it is American culture, which is always fair game for derision and ridicule. But to criticize any Third World culture in general - and an adversary culture in particular - is to surrender the political cause and faith. And that's why leftist feminists are also completely mum on the horrors of forced marriages, honor killings and female genital mutilation within the Islamic world". 31.
(12) "In many of the sizable Muslim immigrant communities in Europe, brutality against women is justified in the name of respecting 'other's' culture and religion. How can we respect any culture or religion that endorses violence and terrorism against women? Over the past twenty years cultural relativism has led to a culture of tolerating intolerance. Criticising these unacceptable traditions, cultures and religious beliefs and practices has been labeled racism and Islamophobia. Human beings are worthy of respect but not all beliefs can or should be respected. It is perfectly feasible to love the believer but hate the belief. Relativism and respect for misogynism is no shield against racism. Quite the opposite. It promotes racism by depriving women and girls living in European and Middle Eastern countries of their universal rights and civil liberties". 37.
(13) "But more typical is the feminist blog of Deborah Kate, who acknowledges that feminists have been accused of ignoring Muslim women. Kate comes out against stoning, enforced marriage, female circumcision, etc., and wonders idly whether countries guilty of crimes against women deserve sanctions like those levelled at South Africa in its apartheid days. No, she decides, exhibiting the fondness for fashionable moral relativism that is now epidemic in feminist circles, 'I realize I cannot force my version of feminism upon non-Western women.'". 40.
(14) "It is amazing how the Western feminist movement doesn’t want to touch Islam or Islamic Law. The same Western Feminists who revolted against and never forgave their own culture, religion or society for discrimination against women in the past, suddenly have developed great respect for religious, cultural and social customs that oppress and discriminate against women in other cultures. They suddenly say, this is their tradition and culture and we must respect them". 44.
(15) "Like other academics, feminists will not characterize a culture as "barbaric" if it is an Arab or Muslim country—not even if that culture or country is perpetrating genocidal violence against Muslims and what I call gender-cleansing—as is the case in the Sudan. Western feminists and leftists do not feel it is their right to condemn Muslim-on-Muslim violence". 46.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claim that the culture of Islamic Supremacism is "native" to the people under it, just as Western lifestyles are "native to Westerners; therefore, we are not in a position to criticize the former.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) (Post by "freebel") - "The party who decides change should preferably come from within. ... Westerners can offer alternatives, but should refrain from meddling in other's cultural mores, no matter how 'disagreeable' they may find it - after all, a topless lady in the French Riviera is as native to a burka attired one in the Middle East. My suggestion to any serious critic is to live there for the purpose of anthropology - otherwise, we're merely being hypocritical in demeaning other cultures as barbaric, etc.". (Reply by "Sassylassie") - I have every intention of meddling Freebel, I shall never remain silent while inferior cultural practices allow women and children to be abused in the name of some gawd or because it's tolerant to tolerate the intolerable. This is Canada not some medieval nation that is willing to watch men treat women like animals and property". (Additional reply by "kat26") - "freebel -- yes, we should allow slavery, rape, beatings, beheadings, female circumcision, stonings, etc. etc. because that is their culture and they demand to practice it here. How dare we criticize. You, frebel, are a dingdong, a muslim apologist who enables what happened in Kingston". (Additional reply by "Keaner10") - "freebel - I find your post to be incredibly ignorant. So at what point are we allowed to say blatant violations are wrong? When we achieve western utopia? While different cultures have different traditions and values, all people have basic rights and killing and abusing women MUST be condemned no matter who is doing it in the name of what religion. Give your head a shake". 40. *****
(2) "(Quoting of author Taslima Nasrin) Some authors in the West are coming forward in support of fundamentalists. They are trying to argue that not all customs in vogue in the third world countries are harmful for women. They find a sort of stability and social peace in the oriental world. They think that even the harems are not necessarily bad for women, because they provide a degree of autonomy and independence! May I humbly observe that all this is a plain hoax. In fact the fight is more urgent in the East, because most of the women have neither any education nor any economic independence. If modern secular education is good for western women why should the eastern women be deprived of it? The peace that some authors visualize in the Eastern countries is, clearly, the peace of the grave". 54.

___________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claim that Western men (not Islamic Supremacist men) are oppressors of women.
____________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Chesler has a point. Judging from the rhetoric of many feminists, all the oppression in the world comes from Western men, who are oppressing both women and non-Western men. Muslim immigrants are “fellow victims” of this bias. At best, they may be patriarchal pigs, but no worse than Western men". 10.
(2) "Misandry, the hatred of men, isn’t necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable. If all oppression comes from Western men, it becomes logical to try weakening them as much as possible. If you do, a paradise of peace and equality awaits us at the other side of the rainbow. Well congratulations to Western European women. You’ve succeeded in harassing and ridiculing your own sons into suppressing many of their masculine instincts. To your surprise, you didn’t enter a feminist Nirvana, but paved the way for an unfolding Islamic hell". 10.
(3) " Feminism isn't about promoting the interests of women, but about neutering Western men so that they can be overrun by non-Western men". 23.
(4) " If Western men are pigs and “just like the Taliban” no matter what we do, why bother? Western women will then be squashed by more aggressive men from other cultures, which is exactly what is happening in Western Europe now. The irony is that when women launched the Second Wave of Feminism in the 1960s and 70s, they were reasonably safe and, in my view, not very oppressed. When the long-term effects of feminism finally set in, Western women may very well end up being genuinely oppressed under the boot of Islam. Radical feminism thus leads to oppression of women". 51.

____________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claim that their philosophy should prevail in Western society.
_____________________________________________________________________
(1) "It is correct, as feminists claim, that a hyper-feminine society is not as destructive as a hyper-masculine society. The catch with a too soft society is that it is unsustainable. It will get squashed as soon as it is confronted by more traditional, aggressive ones. Instead of “having it all,” Western women risk losing everything. What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive gang of Muslim youngsters? Burn their bras and throw the pocket edition of the Vagina Monologues at them? Perhaps women can succeed in turning their men into doormats, but it will be on the cost of doing so to their nation and to their civilization as well. According to Italian American feminist Camille Paglia, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” That may be an exaggeration, but male energy is definitely a driving force in any dynamic culture". 10.

_______________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claim that human rights vary depending on the culture.
_______________________________________________________________
(1) "Equally worrying is the tendency among political leaders, academics and feminists, to reject the application of human rights discourse to personal matters, describing human rights as a purely western concept foisted on the more traditional societies of the east without adequate debate. And as far as European governments are concerned, there shouldn't be different bases for peoples rights in European countries. All should be considered as citizens and equal before the law. Society is duty bound to safe guard and protect the rights of women and girls from Muslim origin. This could be done only by abolishing all the respective discriminatory laws and regulations against these girls and women. This could be done only when there is no respect, excuse and legal justification for the misogynist Islamic and traditional beliefs and practices". 37.
(2) "Except. of course, the western feminists are perpetually 'guilty' and wish to atone for colonial and racist crimes and the eastern feminists are perpetually outraged and aggressive about the colonial racism. It's almost an @ & M relationship. But the uniformity of the feminist vision and voice represents a great loss especially because so few feminists, whether eastern or western, uphold a single standard of human rights for all. Thus, everyone is speaking the same politically correct universal language - from which a universal concept of human rights, even for women, has been utterly banished". 54. *****

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE: Feminist having a bigoted, elitist mindset which allows them to keep the Western liberties which they enjoy from accruing to women under Islamic Supremacism, because they are of a different culture.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) People on the receiving end of repression notice the air of moral superiority as soon as Western liberals refuse them their support out of "respect" for the culture which intimidates them. Liberal relativists are in this respect the true successors of their imperialist ancestors. Where once Westerners denied rights to lesser breeds without the law who were racially unsuited to enjoy liberty, now they deny them to diverse breeds without the culture who are unsuited by accidents of history and geography to exercise the freedoms white Westerners take for granted or handle the complex arguments white Westerners take in their stride". 5.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claim that actions taken by Westerners to help women under Islamic Supremacism are elitist.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Ann Russo, director of women's and gender studies at Chicago's DePaul University (writing in the International Feminist Journal of Politics), accused the FMF of practicing a kind of 'imperial feminism'. Said Russo: 'The FMF's campaign narrative is one of colonialist protection rather than of solidarity. . . . [It] capitalizes on the images of prominent white Western women, like Mavis Leno, Eleanor Smeal and other women politicians and celebrity figures, who construct themselves as 'free' and 'liberated' and thus in the best position to 'save1 Afghan women". 1.
(2) "The women who constitute the American feminist establishment today are destined to play little role in the battle for Muslim women's rights. Preoccupied with their own imagined oppression, they can be of little help to others--especially family-centered Islamic feminists. The Katha Pollitts and Eve Enslers, the vagina warriors and university gender theorists--these are women who cannot distinguish between free and unfree societies, between the Taliban and the Promise Keepers, between being forced to wear a veil and being socially pressured to be slender and fit. Their moral obtuseness leads many of them to regard helping Muslim women as 'colonialist' or as part of a 'hegemonic' 'civilizing mission.' It disqualifies them as participants in this moral fight". 1. *****

____________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claim that we must celebrate diversity and respect differences
____________________________________________________________________
(1) "For at the root of the weird twists in liberal opinion I have been arguing against lies physical fear: the fear of provoking accusation of racial or religious prejudice; the fear of provoking trouble; the fear of provoking violent retribution. Generally, people do not own up to cowardice. They prefer to dress up it up in fine clothes and call it "respect for difference" or 'a celebration of diversity'". 5. *****
(2) "The multicultural feminist canon has not led to independent, tolerant, diverse or objective ways of thinking. On the contrary. It has led to conformity, totalitarian thinking, and political passivity". 54.

______________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminists holding Islam to a lower standard is bigoted.
______________________________________________________
(1) "Finally, she made a point that I have made many times -- and which has gotten me demonized as a “racist” -- namely, that so-called western "anti-racists" are really acting as "racists" when they hold Muslims to lower standards out of some misguided notion of respect". 45.
(2) "But even as western feminists decry sexist oppression everywhere (and they do, they do), their own doctrine of multi-cultural relativism allows them to have one standard for western women and another, much lower, standard for women who live under Islam. In my view, such multicultural relativism is an ingeniously disguised form of racism and sexism". 54.
(3) "Shahrzad Mobab, writing for the Association for Middle East Studies, asks: 'On what grounds can Europe respect a culture that endorses extreme violence against girls and women? To do so is to exert another form of racism'". 54.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminists are aware that a problem exists with the treatment of women under Islamic Supremacism, but they realize that if they speak up to that effect they will be admitting the Western society is superior in this regard.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Why shouldn’t feminists want to shout out their own profound discovery for the world to hear? Perhaps, finally, because to do so would be to acknowledge the freedom they themselves enjoy, thanks to Western ideals and institutions. Not only would such an admission force them to give up their own simmering resentments; it would be bad for business. The truth is that the free institutions—an independent judiciary, a free press, open elections—that protect the rights of women are the same ones that protect the rights of men. The separation of church and state that would allow women to escape the burqa would also free men from having their hands amputated for theft. The education system that would teach girls to read would also empower millions of illiterate boys. The capitalist economies that bring clean water, cheap clothes, and washing machines that change the lives of women are the same ones that lead to healthier, freer men. In other words, to address the problems of Muslim women honestly, feminists would have to recognize that free men and women need the same things—and that those are things that they themselves already have. And recognizing that would mean an end to feminism as we know it. 8. *****
(2) "The issue at stake here is that leftist feminists pretend they care about women but when it comes to women who suffer under adversary cultures, they refuse to act, since doing so will legitimize their own societies which they despise and work to destroy. Thus, millions of women under Islamic gender apartheid have been abandoned by leftist feminists, whose devotions lie with their anti-Western and anti-American faiths. ...So the main point of my Newsreal blog, where I asked whether Naomi Wolf would join the battle against FGM, was to point out the hypocrisy of the Left’s silence on this matter. It’s a silence that stems from the fact that leftists like Wolf know that admitting the inferiority of an adversarial culture will legitimize Western civilization, a recognition that they cannot make without risking their entire identities and social belongings. ... The issue is whether she has condemned the societies and cultures within which they are practised and done so on the premise that our society is more humane and has something to teach those societies and cultures. She has not.". 53. *****

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claim that until we resolve problems in our own (Western) culture, we have no right to judge other societies.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) (Post by "freebel") - "Single motherhood. teen pregnancy, school discipline, drugs, criminality, lack or moral upbringing. These are but a few prevailing social problems troubling OUR society. Until we resolve such basic issues, we cannot judge other societies with saintly conceit". (reply by Rule Me Like You Mean It") - "That's retarded, freebel. Teen pregnancy is not in the same league as honour killing. Get a grip". 40. *****NOTE: Frebel's philosophy is that unless a society's problems in a specific area are "resolved", they have no right to criticize anyone else. Who decides what is "resolved"? What societies have ever attained such perfection?. This philosophy essentially stifles anyone from saying anything - ever. 1683 AD

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminists acknowledge the existence of an Islamic Supremacist tactic which harms women, but state that such a practice is cultural based and pre-dated Islam, meaning that Islamic Supremacism cannot be blamed.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________
Regarding this issue, it is irrelevant if a practice pre-dated Islam. The important point is that Islam has either done nothing to prohibit certain practices or they have mandated certain practices. 1683 AD

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist refusal to concede that there should be one standard of human rights which covers all cultures.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Except. of course, the western feminists are perpetually 'guilty' and wish to atone for colonial and racist crimes and the eastern feminists are perpetually outraged and aggressive about the colonial racism. It's almost an @ & M relationship. But the uniformity of the feminist vision and voice represents a great loss especially because so few feminists, whether eastern or western, uphold a single standard of human rights for all. Thus, everyone is speaking the same politically correct universal language - from which a universal concept of human rights, even for women, has been utterly banished". 54. *****

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CULTURE - Feminist claim that the West cannot impose its cultural standards on others, yet insisting that everyone be entitled to American rights.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why do many American feminists view America's freedoms as sometimes meant for Americans only ('We can't impose our cultural standards on others') and at other times, insist those whom we have captured in a jihadic and terrorist war they have declared against us?" 54. *****

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist actions are in support of Islamic Supremacism and are counter to the feminist movement's founding principles.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "But at the moment, it is being reignited by a particularly curious and - to me - terrifying - meshing of the movement (feminism) I long counted on to defend freedom and to denounce bigotry and a movement (Islamic Supremacism) which has as its clear, openly-stated goal the denial of freedom and the promotion of bigotry. While these movements might not work in concert - and while they clearly do not ultimately have the same aims - they are clearly reinforcing one another". 2.
(2) “I fear that the ‘peace and love’ crowd in the West refuses to understand how Islamism endangers our values and our lives, beginning with our commitment to women’s rights and human rights.” Women’s studies programmes should have been the first to sound the alarm, she points out: “They did not.” 4.
(3) "But I am surprised, all the same, by the persistence of the ideological blind spot that has led women who are so quick to condemn the failings of the West to make transparent excuses for the behaviour of some of the world’s most anti-feminist regimes". 4.
(4) ""Many American intellectuals, including academic feminists, are actively propagandizing students against America and against Israel - which means that in reality they are choosing tyranny and gender apartheid over democracy and human rights for women. This is quite dangerous. In the rush to be multiculturally correct, western feminists have betrayed their own founding principles. Many feminists who have tenure and leadership positions in women's studies programs either tend to be culturalists who are uninterested in foreign policy or they are leftists. As such, they have adopted a pro-PLO and pro-terrorist line of thinking without realizing that such positions have little to do with feminist agency". 54.
(5) "But, according to Diana Nammi, who runs the International Campaign Against Honour Killings, excessive tolerance for peculiar minority practices is tantamount to putting culture ahead of women's lives". 54.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminists claiming to represent women, but they pursue minor inequities in the West in the face of major ones under Islamic Supremacism.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "One reason is that many feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism and find it very hard to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. They are far more comfortable finding fault with American society for minor inequities (the exclusion of women from the Augusta National Golf Club, the "underrepresentation" of women on faculties of engineering) than criticizing heinous practices beyond our shores". 1. *****

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist say criticism of Islamic Supremacists is off limits, but all other religions are fair game.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Finally, Roth is being disingenuous when she argues that feminist leaders don't single out 'any religion, fanatic or not.' They don't hesitate to call Christian fundamentalists on the carpet for anti-women policies. They don't shy away from criticizing Israel. So why not apply the same standards to Muslim fundamentalists? And that's the salient question". 2.
(2) "Clark-Flory goes on to excoriate Chesler, Horowitz and Glazov for their assorted sins against multiculturalist orthodoxy, and then concludes: You might notice that as this conflagration spreads, more and more conservatives -- many of whom do not identify as feminists -- are rushing in to stoke the fire. As they do, the discussion becomes less about defending women's rights and more about supporting their ongoing culture war. That reminds me of a line from Wolf's essay: "Ideological battles are often waged with women's bodies as their emblems, and Western Islamophobia is no exception." Yep. That's what it's all about: "Islamophobia." This calls for a Thought Experiment! Imagine a book of the Bible. Let's call it the Book of Naomi. And imagine that the Book of Naomi ... (a list of various actions which subjugate women is put forth; they are not listed here, for brevity). If such a book of the Bible existed, do you think Naomi Wolf would be wringing her hands about "Christianophobia"? Of course she wouldn't. She would be on the front lines denouncing this terrible misogynist book and calling upon those who believe in it to reform. But of course the quotations above are all from the Qur'an. And that changes everything for Naomi Wolf". 32
(3) "She also raised the issue of double standards among Western liberals: "Why does the legitimate questioning of some people (Muslims, for instance) carry the charge of being racist while legitimate questioning of other people (say, non-Muslim Americans) doesn't?"" 33.
(4) "Another asked: "Where are the feminists? Where is the outrage? If this was some conservative Christian sect that beat their women for wearing pants can you imagine the coverage this type of thing would get?"" 34.
(5) "It is amazing how the Western feminist movement doesn’t want to touch Islam or Islamic Law. The same Western Feminists who revolted against and never forgave their own culture, religion or society for discrimination against women in the past, suddenly have developed great respect for religious, cultural and social customs that oppress and discriminate against women in other cultures. They suddenly say, this is their tradition and culture and we must respect them". 44.
(6) " Those same feminists who condemn Christianity and Judaism for more minor (but still serious) misogynist practices only whisper about major Islamic misogyny—lest it be viewed as politically incorrect criticism of a formerly colonized culture". 46.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist refusal to apply a tactic they favor in the West to fight the mistreatment of women to situations involving mistreated women under Islamic Supremacism.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Let me suggest that American feminists who have, correctly, demanded police intervention for battered women and criminal penalties for those who batter them may have failed to grasp the importance of military intervention when terrorism becomes battery writ large. Feminists know that you can't reason with or appease a batterer. Feminists may need to apply this way of thinking to Islamo-fascist terrorists who are not freedom fighters seeking justice for their people". 2. ***** NOTE: A very important concept here, one which should be built upon. Feminists will not deny the need (at least in Western society) to apply the force of law to punish or otherwise inhibit men who abuse and mistreat women. If they acknowledge this reality, then they will have no logical basis to defend Islamic Supremacism, under which such adverse treatment flourishes without impediment. 1683 AD

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist fight for Western women to receive certain rights yet refuse to seek the same rights for non-Western women under Islamic Supremacism.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "The emancipation of women is necessary and essential for white-skinned women in London but not for brown-skinned women in Lahore. Or, to move from the global to the local, the emancipation of women is necessary and essential for white-skinned women in Hampstead and Highgate but not for brown-skinned women in Bethnal Green and Bow.When pressed, the characteristic response to accusations of indifference is for hypocritical Westerners to protest that of course they do not support the imprisonment of rape victims. True, but they do not oppose it either". 5.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Faminists castigating certain elements in the lives of Western women while praising similar elements in the lives of women under Islamic Supremacism.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "She observes, "It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling -- toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home." There was "demureness and propriety" outside of the home, "but inside, women were as interested in allure, seduction and pleasure as women anywhere in the world." How interesting that the same things that Western feminists have scoffed at for decades -- "marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home" -- become warmly appealing when they see them in the Islamic world". 32.
(2) "Incredibly, those same Western feminists who condemn as patriarchal Western institutions of marriage, biological motherhood, heterosexuality, and religion now view Islamic veiling, the hijab (head scarf), purdah (seclusion of women), arranged marriage, and polygamy as sacred religious rights". 46.
(3) "Why are so many American feminists so understanding about why Muslim women might 'choose' to veil themselves, accept arranged and polygamous marriages or undergo genital mutilation - but denigrate American women who 'choose' to be stay-at-home mothers or who become soldiers whose bravery and self-sacrifice may lead to greater freedom for women and men elsewhere?" 54. *****

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Unspoken feminist awareness that the West offers women the most, but they refuse to voice this awareness.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "So can leftist feminists say, flat out, that Bush represents and wants a better future for women than our enemy in the War on Terror? This is the problem: radical feminists cannot mouth such words, let alone even contemplate such a horrifying notion. Once they accept this reality, they would have to admit that some foreign and adversary cultures are backward and inferior, and this would shatter the entire foundation of their ideological framework and very reason for existence". 2. *****
(2) Why shouldn’t feminists want to shout out their own profound discovery for the world to hear? Perhaps, finally, because to do so would be to acknowledge the freedom they themselves enjoy, thanks to Western ideals and institutions. Not only would such an admission force them to give up their own simmering resentments; it would be bad for business. The truth is that the free institutions—an independent judiciary, a free press, open elections—that protect the rights of women are the same ones that protect the rights of men. The separation of church and state that would allow women to escape the burqa would also free men from having their hands amputated for theft. The education system that would teach girls to read would also empower millions of illiterate boys. The capitalist economies that bring clean water, cheap clothes, and washing machines that change the lives of women are the same ones that lead to healthier, freer men. In other words, to address the problems of Muslim women honestly, feminists would have to recognize that free men and women need the same things—and that those are things that they themselves already have. And recognizing that would mean an end to feminism as we know it. 8. *****
(3) "The issue at stake here is that leftist feminists pretend they care about women but when it comes to women who suffer under adversary cultures, they refuse to act, since doing so will legitimize their own societies which they despise and work to destroy. Thus, millions of women under Islamic gender apartheid have been abandoned by leftist feminists, whose devotions lie with their anti-Western and anti-American faiths. ...So the main point of my Newsreal blog, where I asked whether Naomi Wolf would join the battle against FGM, was to point out the hypocrisy of the Left’s silence on this matter. It’s a silence that stems from the fact that leftists like Wolf know that admitting the inferiority of an adversarial culture will legitimize Western civilization, a recognition that they cannot make without risking their entire identities and social belongings. ... The issue is whether she has condemned the societies and cultures within which they are practised and done so on the premise that our society is more humane and has something to teach those societies and cultures. She has not.". 53. *****

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist aware of the mistreatment of women under Islamic Supremacism, but they refuse to specifically name the ultimate cause of such mistreatment; namely, Islamic Supremacism.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "It’s not that these groups have overlooked women living under Islamist rule, but they have not credited the oppressor by name -- instead they’ve addressed the individual policies or incidents. They’ve not identified the agenda of any religion, fanatic or not -- for many of them embody anti-woman policies". 2.
(2) NOTE: This is a central problem which we have with feminism. Some feminist-related groups actually address the effects of Islamic Supremacism in an impressive manner, but from a long-term perspective, this comes across as a waste of energy if no attention is ever paid to the ultimate cause. This would apply to any problem where the cause is not addressed. 1683 AD

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminists castigating Western powers for getting involved in an Islamic Supremacist nation, and once they are in, castigating them for not doing enough to protect women there.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Ms. Roth, you say that Afghan women still face 'severe repression.' Yes they do. Your tone suggests that America is somehow to blame for this. Sorry, it is Islamic extremists who terrorized – and continue to terrorize – Afghan women. Are you ready to denounce the religion and culture that produces these misogynist tyrants? Or let me guess, the U.S. is supposed to take, as you say feminist groups support, more 'action'? It is fascinating how these feminist groups denounce any kind of American involvement anywhere as 'American imperialism', but when America finally goes in and liberates women from a fascist regime, it is criticized for not taking enough 'action' to achieve full liberation overnight, while it is simultaneously denounced by the same groups for having taken the action in the first place. Anti-Americanism is truly a wonder. 2. *****

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist aware of the mistreatment of women under Islamic Supremacism and they say they do not support it (and nothing more).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Feminists claim that they are against an Islamic Supremacist practice, and nothing more. In such a situation, they refuse to condemn the practice. And that is the same as actually supporting it in the first place. 1683 AD.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminists railing against the West, but refusing to acknowledge the mistreatment of women in former colonies.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "But mainly, an increasing number of feminists were leftists and left-dominated liberals. As such, they would happily and repeatedly talk (and scream) about going up against America as an oppressor, but they would not even whisper words that opposed any (brown-skinned, formerly colonized) Third World Muslim tyrant - not even when he was systematically terrorizing and slaughtering equally brown-skinned and formerly colonized women, children, men - and Muslim feminists, both male and female". 54. *****

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminists condemn the West, where their ideas have triumphed, while ignoring the threats of Islamic Supremacism.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Many feminists are out of touch with the realities of the war that has been declared against the secular, Judeo-Christian, modern West. many feminists continue to condemn the United States, a country in which for the most part, their ideas have triumphed. Human rights work is not the province of any one ideology. Saving lives and defending freedom are more important than loyalty to an outdated and too-limited feminist sisterhood ... Twenty-first-century feminists need to reassess the global threats to women and men, rethink their vision, rekindle their passion and work in solidarity with pro-democracy forces around the world to liberate humanity from all forms of tyranny and slavery". 54. (quoting Donna Hughes in "Feminism in the 21st Century", in the Washington Post)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY / DUPLICITY - Feminist claim that the West cannot impose its cultural standards on others, yet insisting that everyone be entitled to American rights.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why do many American feminists view America's freedoms as sometimes meant for Americans only ('We can't impose our cultural standards on others') and at other times, insist those whom we have captured in a jihadic and terrorist war they have declared against us?" 54. *****

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLICITY - Lack of feminist action in the West to protect women from Islamic Supremacism helps the mistreatment of the latter to persist.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "But there are men all over the world who really do want to kill women on a point of honour. What kind of honour is that? When are these dreadful men, and all who encourage and "understand" them, to be condemned as the homicidal maniacs they are? It could be said that there is not much point in condemning what we can't change, but in our own countries, where it could be changed if the will existed, condemnation would surely be a useful first step, and it might help some of the countries of origin to at least see the point". 9. *****
(2) "It does not take a lot of courage for people living in Western democracies to criticise aspects of their culture that need criticising (indeed, it sometimes takes more courage to defend the culture). It takes a great deal of courage for people living in totalitarian states to speak out against the injustices done in the name of their religion or culture. The problem with politely ignoring abuses of human rights because "it's their culture" is that it lets down the brave liberals and democrats and human rights defenders who are trying to change things that so badly need to change for the welfare of women and men in their own communities and in the world" 22. *****

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
DELUSION / NAIVITY - Feminist belief that reasoning with Islamic Supremacists for the better treatment of women is possible.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Feminists know that you can't reason with or appease a batterer. Feminists may need to apply this way of thinking to Islamo-fascist terrorists who are not freedom fighters seeking justice for their people. The other day, an Iranian judge hung a sixteen year old girl for having addressed the court with "a sharp tongue." Although America can't intervene everywhere, do feminists believe that such state-sanctioned extremist misogyny can be reasoned with or should be appeased?" 2.
(2) " ... but we can be sure that any monolithic state which resists the very idea of educating women has no intention of liberalising itself. This principle holds true all the way up to — or down to, if you like — the level of Saudi Arabia, which even the West's most ardently anti-Western feminists are ready to concede is an organised insult to their gender. (They would probably be less ready to concede this if Saudi Arabia were a declared enemy of the United States, but that's by the way.) Where women are concerned — and where women are concerned we are all concerned, or should be — Saudi Arabia is such a horror show that it would constitute all on its own sufficient reason for the West to wean itself off oil, ... Countries in receipt of free money are under no compulsion to develop a real economy, and are thus less likely than ever to see even the material benefits, let alone the moral ones, of setting women free". 9.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
DELUSION / NAIVITY - The feminist belief that Islamic Supremacists will change for the better as a matter of course.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Democracy is the best chance for women. Or if that sounds too naive, too pro-western perhaps, then let's put it this way. The absence of democracy is seldom good news for women. Or, to get down to bedrock, if women can't vote for women, then they haven't got many weapons to fight with when they seek justice. My own view, which I'm ready to hear contested, is that this is the main reason why some feminists in the west have been so slow to get behind those women in the world's all too numerous tyrannies who have to risk their lives to say anything. It's just too clear a proof that men have a natural advantage when it comes to the application of violence. When you say that women have little chance against men if it comes to a physical battle, you are conceding that there really might be an intractable difference between the genders after all. Ideological feminists in the West were for a long time reluctant to concede this, because they preferred to believe that there was no real difference, and that all female handicaps were imposed by social stereotyping that could be reversed by argument. But this belief was really possible only in a society where the powers of argument had a preponderance over the powers of violence. And since many western feminists are still convinced that the social stereotyping of the West is the product of fundamental flaws within liberal democracy itself, they have a tendency to believe that undemocratic societies are somehow valuable in the opposition they offer to the free countries which the feminists are so keen to characterise as not free enough. I have to pick my words carefully here, because this is the touchiest theme I have ever tackled in these broadcasts, but I do think it's high time to say that if feminist ideologists find liberal democracy unfriendly, they might consider that the absence of liberal democracy is a lot less friendly still". 52

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DELUSION / NAIVITY - The feminist belief that if any change is to be effected within the Islamic Supremacist world, it must come from within.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Some feminists may concede that Islamic Supremacism leads to the mistreatment of women in many non-Western nations, or within the Islamic Supremacist enclaves of Western nations, but they assert that any change must be generated from within. In addressing this belief, we will of course recognize the usual "cultural" theme. However, it reflects complete ignorance of the realities that if women dare to speak up, or even dress in a Western manner in many of these nations, they will literally be shot down by Islamic Supremacists via government, community or family. They have no ability to join together and establish any form of power base. 1683 AD. *****

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DELUSION / NAIVITY - Western feminists expressing support for Islamic causes in manners which would get them killed in an Islamic Supremacist nation.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "For the last five years, many feminists and lesbian-feminist demonstrators (in anti-globalization and anti-war marches) have waved the Palestinian flag and worn Arab headdress. In the Arab world, they would not have that right, because they are wearing Arab male kaffiyehs. Were they marching anywhere in the Islamic world, they'd be wearing chadaris, burqas, head scarves, and veils. And if they weren't, they would be beaten, jailed, raped, possibly flogged, perhaps even stoned to death. A willful blindness to the reality of the Islamic world seems to go hand-in-hand with support for Palestine". 54.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
COLONIALISM - Feminist claim that the West is not in a position to criticize Islamic Supremacists due to their Colonial history.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "...hard left thinking which, by definition, idealizes internationalism but romanticizes all tribal and ethnic identities as anti-colonialist liberation movements save one: that of the Jews. Thus, dangerously reactionary regimes such as exist in the Islamic/Islamist world are, paradoxically, seen as forms of resistance, liberatory or otherwise. Zionism, which is the liberation movement of the Jewish people is seen as colonialist, and illegitimate. Also, feminists who believe that there is always a victim and therefore always a victimizer and that both America and Israel are illegitimate powers have, simplistically, without context or fact, decided that America and Israel are the victimizers (even in the matter of 9/11), and that Arafat and bin Laden and their gangs of masked mass murderers are the noble and innocent victims. 2.
(2) "What is striking is their capacity, once they run out of injustices in liberal democracy that they can blame on capitalism, to look for injustices in the rest of the world that they can blame on liberal democracy. In sub-Saharan Africa, especially, criminal states are regarded as victim states even when their sole concern is the victimisation of their own people". 9.
(3) "When Muslims, who above all else like to present themselves as victims, enter Western nations, they find that much of their work has already been done for them. They can use a pre-established tradition of claiming to be victims, demanding state intervention and maybe quotas to address this, as well as a complete re-writing of history and public campaigns against bigotry and hate speech. Western feminists have thus paved the way for the forces that will dismantle Western feminism, and end up in bed, sometimes quite literally, with the people who want to enslave them". 10.
(4) "Both conservatives and feminists need to support western democracy since democracy cannot exist without women's full civil participation. If feminists are serious about anti-colonialism then surely they must oppose Arab jihadic colonialism, not glorify it. If they are serious about anti-racism, they must oppose Jew-hatred by any other name". 26
(5) "Unfortunately, the good Professor isn’t quite done: Daniels referred to a feminist critique by Wairimu Njambi, a circumcised woman, to support his argument. “Anti-FGM discourse perpetuates a colonialist assumption by universalizing a particular western image of a ‘normal’ body and sexuality,” Njambi wrote. “This discourse includes not only a missionizing Christian bias, but also a Western sexist bias by considering women’s issues as separable from men’s,” Daniels said. Daniels critiqued the common feminist notion that the rituals are an extreme form of male oppression. “If one says they are examples of male oppression, does that mean that most or all the women in these societies are not only victims but agents in their own victimization?” Cutting through the undergrowth of femspeak, that’s exactly what it means! How hard is this phenomenon to understand? Traumatize a five year old and she’ll do whatever she has to do as she grows up to remain a member of the group. 50. NOTE: Yes, they are agents in their own victimization. These women are so controlled that they risk severe punishment if they do not fulfill the Islamic Supremacist expectations. Doesn't a simple understanding of people make you think that if the perpetrators were allowed a choice on whether or not to inflict such trauma on their daughters that most would choose not to? Of course they would, if they had a choice. 1683 AD
(6) "Abu-Lughod, like her Columbia University colleague, Gayatri Spivak, views a western-style fight for women's rights in the Muslim world as a dangerous diversion. She recommends that we continue to focus mainly on the 'colonial enterprise'. Why? Perhaps as a way of reminding western thinkers - heirs to the colonial adventure - that, given their ancestor's past crimes, they dare not feel 'superior' to the Islamic world and above all, they dare not intervene to free Muslim prisoners from Muslim jailors, or African slaves and female sex slaves from their tormentors". 54.
(7) "Except. of course, the western feminists are perpetually 'guilty' and wish to atone for colonial and racist crimes and the eastern feminists are perpetually outraged and aggressive about the colonial racism. It's almost an @ & M relationship. But the uniformity of the feminist vision and voice represents a great loss especially because so few feminists, whether eastern or western, uphold a single standard of human rights for all. Thus, everyone is speaking the same politically correct universal language - from which a universal concept of human rights, even for women, has been utterly banished". 54. *****

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
COLONIALISM - Feminist awareness of the mistreatment of women under Islamic Supremacism but keeping silent to avoid charges of neocolonialism.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Under the guise of avoiding neocolonialism and treating the Middle Eastern women as backward and over oppressed, many feminist - academics keep silent about the brutality committed against women. In this way, they apologise for 'their own culture', 'their own religion', 'their own community' and 'their own state'. These feminists academics keep silent about FGM, forced marriage, honour killing, mandatory veiling, sexual apartheid, stoning and many other cruelty of the Shari'a and the Islamic traditions against women. They call such brutality and cruelty 'sensitive issues'. This is simply a cover up and no way can it be considered advocacy for justice, human rights and women's rights. This is rather a dismal and cowardly apology for tribal and Islamic misogyny. These feminists and intellectuals repeatedly tell us that these topics are not specifically Middle Eastern but also found in the West. In this discourse, any criticism of Islamic and traditional values is labeled as "West's Orientalist obsession with women's sexuality in the Arab world and the tendency to use crimes of honour as an example of Arab male oppression of women". (Leila Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam, New Haven, Yale University Press). By emphasising religious and tribal dimensions, I do not intend to picture Middle Eastern culture as a homogeneous misogynist culture and therefore overshadow or ignore the egalitarian and progressive component of this culture. A component which due to political position is largely ignored, or is less known and affirmed". 37. *****

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
COLONIALISM - Feminists railing against the West, but refusing to acknowledge the mistreatment of women in former colonies.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "But mainly, an increasing number of feminists were leftists and left-dominated liberals. As such, they would happily and repeatedly talk (and scream) about going up against America as an oppressor, but they would not even whisper words that opposed any (brown-skinned, formerly colonized) Third World Muslim tyrant - not even when he was systematically terrorizing and slaughtering equally brown-skinned and formerly colonized women, children, men - and Muslim feminists, both male and female". 54. *****

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
POLITICAL ( U.S. / ISRAEL) - Feminists absolving the Islamic Supremacist world of charges of mistreating women because the Islamic Supremacist world includes Palestinians, and the political concerns of Palestinians trumps everything else.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Take psychology professor Phyllis Chesler. ...In a recent book, The Death of Feminism, she attributes the feminist establishment's unwillingness to take on Islamic sexism to its support of 'an isolationist and America-blaming position.' She faults it for 'embracing an anti-Americanism that is toxic, heartless, mindless and suicidal.'". 1.
(2) "On the other hand, after 9/11, many feminists became very protective of Muslims and Arabs, fearing a backlash against these groups. But in their attempt to address injustice, some have made the rights of Palestinians (their uber-underdog) their dominant concern. When this is done, the rights of women, particularly those living in Arab countries, tend to get ignored. To do otherwise would challenge a precarious and rigid ideology – an ideology based on absolutes". 2.
(3) "Everywhere I went, Muslims insisted that the Jews had staged the World Trade Center attacks in order to turn Americans against Arabs. Ironically, when the attacks seemed to have that effect on conservatives, so-called leftists then felt a need to take the opposite position. In American these days, everything seems to reduce to being against what your perceived enemy supports. Bush attacks an Arab country, so that means that Arabs must be great". 2.
(4) "Instead, feminist leaders are either silent on the dangers of Islamist jihadic terrorism, or blame America or the Israelis for it". 2.
(5) "Burkett is right on target when she says that (liberal, left, gender-neutral and institutionalized) feminists have given a savagely murderous, terrorist, anti-infidel, and anti-woman Islam a generous "pass" and are more obsessed with hating and/or defeating President Bush (and America) than with anything else". 2.
(6) "Dislike of George Bush's foreign policy has led to an automatic support of those perceived to be his enemies. Paradoxically, this leaves the left defending people who hold beliefs that condone what the left has long fought against: misogyny, homophobia, capital punishment, suppression of freedom of speech. The recent reaffirmation by Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie has been met by virtual silence; as has the torture and murder in Iraq of a man who would be presumed to be one of the left's own - Hadi Salih, the international officer of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. The hard left these days is soft on fascism, or at least Islamofascism". 22
(7) "Someone recently asked me: "As a feminist, how can you justify your being pro-American and pro-Israel?" I answered: "Because I oppose totalitarianism and gender and religious apartheid. Although both Israel and America are far from perfect, what we have here would constitute a revolution in any Islamic country." 26.
(8) "Many feminists are now more concerned with the alleged “occupation” of Palestine than with the occupation of women’s bodies under Islam, and they tend to blame America and Israel for the sins of Islam". 30.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
POLITICAL (U.S. / ISRAEL) - Feminists claim that Palestinian women are the victims of alleged Israel/U.S. aggression and that such aggression supersedes any claims by our side regarding the overall treatment of women by Islamic Supremacists.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Feminists will focus on Palestinians and say that Israel and/or U.S. actions have an adverse impact on women in Palestinian areas which are far worse than any of the forms of mistreatment which our side has put forth as being products of Islamic Supremacism. The problem with their approach is that they are blaming something (war/conflict) which is not "women exclusive". (Note: We do not accept their argument that Israel or the U.S. are wrong in their actions). They cannot point to any type of action which has specifically and intentionally targeted Palestinian women to the exclusion of Palestinian men. Therefore, they create a convoluted, Rube Goldberg path to arrive at such a conclusion. For example. they might say that Israeli or U.S. actions have interfered with the transport of construction materials, which has caused women problems in obtaining shelter. Still, in this example, they cannot say that women would be the sole target and that men would not be affected in the same manner. If one uses the opposition's rationale, one could claim that virtually any outside force could "affect" women when, in reality, men would also be affected. Examples of broad issues that are blind to sex include: pollution; lack of housing; infectious diseases; famine; lack of mass transport; bad weather: anything. Furthermore, no one can show an intentional targeting of women alone in any of these randomly examples. As for our claims of the Islamic Supremacist mistreatment of women by men, we can easily point to an intention. And such mistreatment being confined to women alone is as clear as day. Have you heard of any dictates in Islam for wives to beat their husbands? The only way in which individual feminists can be intellectually honest if they oppose any Israeli / U.S. actions is to simply remove themselves from feminist settings and forums when voicing their position. If individuals were to join in efforts which are strictly pro-Palestinian and voice concerns regarding any perceived injustices which they believe are affecting Palestinians as a whole, that would be logically valid. As for feminist organizations, unless they can prove a direct effect on women (and women alone) of any Israeli / U.S. actions or any intent by these nations to conduct acts which would affect women alone, they have no logical basis for even getting involved in the issue. In view of their current involvement despite not meeting these two qualifiers, it seems reasonable to conclude they are involved solely to keep in good graces with their fellow Leftists. 1683 AD

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
POLITICAL (U.S. / ISRAEL) - Feminist belief that there is no place for direct action (including war) against the Islamic Supremacist agenda
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Let me suggest that American feminists who have, correctly, demanded police intervention for battered women and criminal penalties for those who batter them may have failed to grasp the importance of military intervention when terrorism becomes battery writ large. Feminists know that you can't reason with or appease a batterer. Feminists may need to apply this way of thinking to Islamo-fascist terrorists who are not freedom fighters seeking justice for their people". 2. ***** NOTE: A very important concept here, one which should be built upon. Feminists will not deny the need (at least in Western society) to apply the force of law to punish or otherwise inhibit men who abuse and mistreat women. If they acknowledge this reality, then they will have no logical basis to defend Islamic Supremacism, under which such adverse treatment flourishes without impediment. 1683 AD

___________________________________________________________
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that Muslims reject cruelty towards women.
___________________________________________________________
(1) "But if the non-fanatical majority can't find a voice to condemn the few among their fellows who see nothing wrong with killing their own women for imaginary crimes, then they either condone that attitude or are afraid of those who hold it: either way, not a very encouraging start towards the more liberal Muslim future that we have been promised". 9.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that Muslim women prefer relinquishing their rights to a "community" over having individual rights, as oppression does not exist.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1). "Briggs has good news: Mahmood spent two years – two years! – in Egypt and discovered that that oppression is just a mirage: “But after two years of fieldwork in the women’s mosque movement in Egypt, Mahmood asks us to consider a new question: what if community, as much as or more than the notions of individual rights, is a route to living meaningfully? Perhaps we ought to rethink the idea that women’s agency and personhood spring from resistance to subjection, and attend to the ways that in conservative religious communities, the cultivation of virtue and of closeness to God, of certain emotions and of forms of embodiment, are challenging but hardly one-dimensional ways of producing the self.” Clearing away the pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, Briggs is apparently saying that if women feel fulfilled in being subjugated as inferiors under Sharia law, then their good feelings outweigh their oppression and subjection. One wonders what Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem might have said in the 1960s if this same argument-from-fulfillment had been posed to them regarding American women. But aside from being inconsistent with what has been the feminist view of women’s oppression for decades, Briggs’s words also represent a betrayal of the Muslim women whose suffering is objective, ongoing, and largely unnoticed. To take just one of many available examples, wife-beating is largely tolerated, and even encouraged, in many Muslim cultures ... Dominating their women by violence is a prerogative Muslim men cling to tenaciously. ... But to this – and to genital mutilation, honor killing, polygamy, and so much more that is sanctioned or tolerated by Islamic law – Briggs and Mahmood would apparently turn a blind eye, as long as the women involved were “living meaningfully.” And our concern for them? “Orientalism”!" 17.

____________________________________________________________________________________
MISTAKEN - Feminist claims that various acts of cruelty have no connection with Islamic Supremacism.
____________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "It is frequently argued that honor-killings, like female genital mutilation(FGM) have nothing to do with Islam. This does not explain why such abuses of women take place predominantly in Muslim societies". 7.
(2) "The Daily Kos was not moved. It devoted one of its two posts on the killing of Aqsa Parvez to asking, "Why, why, WHY is it that whenever someone who is Muslim, or has a Muslim-sounding name, does something... it's automatically blamed on Islam?" Of course, the answer to this is that Muslims who commit acts of violence so often explain those actions by reference to Islam, but that possibility isn't part of the Left's worldview".
(3). "In Australia, Lebanese Christians have assimilated and become a respected part of our community. The Premier of Victoria is a Lebanese Christian as is the Governor Of New South Wales. However, Lebanese Muslims have encountered serious problems because of their refusal to accept our right to live our way of life. Nothing so clearly demonstrates that it is not an issue of race — but of culture". 25.
(4) "Ridley can go on for pages about how the Saudis are not following the Koran, but they are far from the only nation to have such restrictive laws on women. As Ridley knows first-hand, the Taliban did it in Afghanistan, and Muslim nations throughout the world are using the Koran to oppress and subjugate women. In fact, Somalia has just forbidden women to swim in public, even fully clothed in those nineteenth-century swimsuits they’re forced to wear". 35.
(5) "The core issue is that Wolf does not voice her moral indignation against Islamic FGM and the Islamic theology that serves as its fertile soil. She does not condemn African tribal FGM for its African tribal roots, but in the context of how a universal misogyny is somehow guilty or responsible". 53.

____________________________________________
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that Islam protects women.
____________________________________________
(1) "Their literature stated that they would advance women’s right by protecting them from the kind of harassment and violence that western women are subjected to. Wearing the veil or hijab would protect them from sexual harassment and sexual assault. The political tracts stated that they respected women and would allow women to stay in the home and take care of their families where they would be protected by their fathers, brothers, and husbands. These were not presented as choices for women, but their roles and destinies under Islamic rule". 21.

_________________________________________________________
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that Muslim women do not want equality.
_________________________________________________________
(1) "Q. You say in your book that Muslim women need to be "deprogrammed" in order to obtain freedom. Are you saying they don't know what's best for themselves? A. Women, to survive, will do anything. They're human beings, like men. ... When I was working on my second book, "Women, Money and Power," in the early 1970s, I would ask women, do you feel discriminated against on the job? And, pretty much, they would say not at all. And when I would say, well, do you know that your male colleague in the next cubbyhole is earning almost twice what you're earning or your male boss is earning six times what you're earning, the response was, well, you know, they have families to support. So women in America, before their consciousness was raised and before it was safe for them to recognize discrimination, failed to do so. So, likewise, women in the Arab and Muslim world -- it's not safe for them, most of them, to demand their rights and to protest their limitations.Q. I understand what you're saying about consciousness-raising in the U.S. and that feminists have often thought that women didn't fully understand their situation and would do well to be educated. There's still a difference between being educated and deprogrammed. Deprogrammed sounds like you're coming out of a cult. A. You're right. But to the extent that Islam has not evolved as a theology and given that it's been hijacked by the most reactionary of fundamentalists with little resistance from the moderate Muslims so far, it is a closed system. There is a xenophobic and jihadic element to it, and anyone who lives inside it and has been subjected to it round the clock, 24/7 -- for example, propaganda against the Jews and against America -- is no longer thinking, "Well, I've read 20 different newspapers today, I've seen one contradict another, I have access to a variety of opinions, and here's what I think." They only get one opinion, and they get pretty much molded to obey authority and not depart from what is the conformist or authority opinion. So it is like a cult, and deprogramming only means opening up information so that there's diversity, both of opinion as well as fact". 27.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that women under Islamic Supremacism themselves claim that they are not oppressed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "It is not surprising that oppressed people may have a hard time even realizing that they are oppressed, so thoroughly brainwashed they have been since birth (just think of those women in some African countries who actually practice genital mutilation on their own daughters). But for people outside the immediate cultural influence of conservative Islam, it is a no brainer that completely covering the body of a woman is a straightforward way to deny her personality and to limit her social interactions. In other words, she is being oppressed, whether she realizes it or not". 39. *****
(2) "The problem in my opinion is that Western campuses are full of Muslim militant women who found their form of feminism not in standing against Sharia, but in supporting it. That is one safe coping mechanism within Sharia that some Muslim women have found to be helpful to them and it gives them respect and power. ... Muslim women have been trained for centuries to never complain. Complaining especially to non-Muslim infidels is actually a sign of the rebellious Muslim woman and we all know what is the penalty for rebelling against Sharia. It is literally death. ... Rebelling against Islamic law is considered apostasy and because of that women who love their religion must never try to change or criticize it. A feminist movement within Islam is always considered an apostasy movement and that is why many Muslim women try to solve their problem of oppression by becoming as radical, if not more radical, than men. Thus if you cannot beat them, join them. Thus you see that some of the fiercest defenders of Islamic Sharia are women. They even defend polygamy and are the ones who report other misbehaving women. Sharia has turned women against each other and made them guards of their own prison. .". 44. ***** NOTE: Bringing this insight out into the open and confronting Islamic Supremacist women with it might be worthwhile. Further research into this, including the proper psychological terms for this pathology, is suggested. Might it be "displaced anger"? 1683 AD
(3) "They seem to live in denial and have allied themselves with and support the views of elitist and intellectual college type Muslim women who defend Islam, sharia and ignore the reality of women in the Muslim world. The problem in my opinion is that Western campuses are full of Muslim militant women who found their form of feminism not in standing against Sharia, but in supporting it. That is one safe coping mechanism within Sharia that some Muslim women have found to be helpful to them and it gives them respect and power. Consequently, since there is no Muslim feminist movement to talk about, Western feminists found that staying quiet was the best policy. If the victim is not complaining, why would anyone else come to her aid?". 44. *****
(4) "As an Arab Muslim female intellectual, Sabbagh finds herself in a bind. If she criticizes Arab misogyny, she fears her work will be used by the 'Arab-bashing camp' against Arabs. If she minimizes Arab female suffering, she will be seen as too 'complacent'". 54.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MISTAKEN - Feminist claim that any mistreatment of women under Islamic Supremacism has arisen from unresolved social and economic conditions.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) We should note that there are many nations around the world which are not under Islamic Supremacist control and have "unresolved social and economic conditions". It would be an extreme rarity if any of these nations were to authorize, approve or endorse the mistreatment of women through their governments or non-Islamic Supremacist religious institutions. Furthermore, the women in wealthy Islamic Supremacist families generally do not have the freedom to do as they please. 1683 AD *****

____________________________________________________________________________
APPEASEMENT - Feminist insistence that we accommodate Islamic Supremacist expectations
______________________________________________________________________________
(1) "The worldview of Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, is perfect in representing leftist feminists' stand on Muslim rape and Islamic gender apartheid. Wikan's solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women stresses neither the punishment of the perpetrators nor the repudiation of the Islamic theology that legitimizes such abuse of women. Instead, Wikan recommends that Norwegian women veil themselves. This is because, in Wikan's view, Western women must take their share of responsibility for the rapes, since they are not dressing and behaving according to Muslim understanding. The Norwegian women, in her view, are to realize that they live in a multicultural society and should, therefore, adapt themselves to it. Sheikhs Taj al-Din al-Hilali and Shahid Mehdi would be proud. 31.

________________________________________________________________________________
APPEASEMENT - Feminist attempts to put a good face on oppressive Islanic Supremacist actions.
________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Now watch Ridley use some sleight-of-hand: 'Some young Muslim feminists consider the hijab and the nikab political symbols, too, a way of rejecting Western excesses such as binge drinking, casual sex and drug use. What is more liberating: being judged on the length of your skirt and the size of your surgically enhanced breasts, or being judged on your character and intelligence? In Islam, superiority is achieved through piety — not beauty, wealth, power, position or sex'. None of the arguments she raises here have anything to do with feminism. In fact, she is making good use of a few logical fallacies here in her inept attempt to conflate Western feminism with wearing the veil. Ridley has built a straw man argument and uses it to bash Western society and feminism. I don’t believe we’ve ever heard any of the major feminist spokeswomen urging Western women to get breast enhancements as a mark of liberation. Ridley is using false arguments to distract from the point. The point, of course, is that the Koran most assuredly does not give women the same rights that modern feminists fought for in the 1970s. The point is almost exactly the opposite of that: The Koran today is being used by millions of Muslims to take away women’s rights—the right to education, to work outside the home, to wear what she chooses to wear when she chooses to wear it, to be around men who are not members of her family, to choose her own husband (or none at all!), to divorce her husband if she so desires, to seek redress in a court of law—all of these rights have been or are being taken away from millions of Muslim women". 35.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPEASEMENT - Feminists working hand in hand with the Islamic Supremacist opponents of women's rights, or working to attain the same ends..
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Women pushing their children in buggies bearing the familiar symbol of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament marched last weekend alongside banners proclaiming 'We are all Hezbollah now' and Muslim extremists chanting 'Oh Jew, the army of Muhammad will return.' For Linda Grant, the novelist, who says that 'feminism' is the one 'ism' she has not given up on, it was a shocking sight: 'What you’re seeing is an alliance of what used to be the far left with various Muslim groups and that poses real problems. Saturday’s march was not a peace march in the way that the Ban the Bomb marches were. Seeing young and old white women holding Hezbollah placards showed that it’s a very different anti-war movement to Greenham. Part of it feels the wrong side is winning.' As a supporter of the peace movement in the 1980s, I could never have imagined that many of the same crowd I hung out with then would today be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with militantly anti-feminist Islamic fundamentalist groups, whose views on women make western patriarchy look like a Greenham peace picnic. Nor would I have predicted that today’s feminists would be so indulgent towards Iran, a theocratic nation where it is an act of resistance to show an inch or two of female hair beneath the veil and whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is not joking about his murderous intentions towards Israel and the Jews". 4.
(1) "Senior Western institutions for higher education such as Harvard are thus simultaneously serving as outlets for Saudi Islamic propaganda and for left-wing radical feminists. This may on the surface look like quite a paradox, but in different ways both groups discredit traditional Western culture by highlighting its “history of oppression and injustice,” and they both stifle ideological dissent and suppress criticism of their holy doctrines". 51.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ACCUSATION - Claim that opponents to Leftist feminists "use" reports of the mistreatment of women by Islamic Supremacists and do not themselves have a real concern with the welfare of women.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Rather than making the hijab murder a cause celebre the way it did, for instance, with the Matthew Shepherd murder, the Left has, moreover, attacked Horowitz and Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week for raising concerns about Muslim women in the first place. "The Islamofascist Awareness people aren't interested in what's actually going on in the Muslim world. They just use the woman question as an easy way to target Muslims." So said Columbia University anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod over the phone to Pollitt, who highlighted the quote in an attack on Horowitz in The Nation. Pollitt airily dismissed the central charge of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week organizers--that the academic Left was ignoring the plight of women in the Muslim world--with a flick of the wrist: "And how likely is it that women's studies professors think female genital mutilation is great and honor killing is 'just their culture'?" Abu-Lughod also told her that Columbia's women's studies department was offering three courses on women in the Islamic world, "none of which paints a rosy picture." But if this is the case, why is every Islamic crime of violence against Muslim women--and the Parvez case is just the most recent in a long line--met with silence? Why hasn't Katha Pollit been using her bully pulpit to make this murder a major story? Because she is more interested in protecting "the Muslim world" than its victims. The silence extends also to Noorjehan Barmania, who took up Pollitt's criticism of Horowitz in The Guardian. "It was Katha Pollitt," she declared, "who made me see it....She speculated that by focusing on the oppression of women, Horowitz had found an easy way to target the Muslim world." Well, then, why doesn't Barmania offer an alternative from the Left? Why doesn't she outdo Horowitz in championing the rights of women in the Islamic world? Why doesn't she demand justice in the Aqsa Parvez case and eloquently, more eloquently than David Horowitz, decry this barbaric murder? Because to do so would be to break ranks with the Left's vision of an America that is inauthentic in everything except its Islamophobia. Barmania and Pollitt seem impervious to the irony: although they attack Horowitz for allegedly being a faux feminist, his FrontPage magazine is one of the few places that is actually standing up for this poor girl, and calling for an end to the conditions that led to her murder in the first place". 13.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ACCUSATION - Feminist strategy of "Repressive Tolerance", where Western culture is defined as inferior, therefore, since being so accused, they must be denied free speech.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Feminism has hurt us by encouraging public accept for intellectual hypocrisy, which later paved the way for Islamic infiltration. The official mantra is that men and women are not just equal but identical, but at the same time that women are also somehow superior. Both of these claims cannot, logically speaking, be true at the same time, yet both are being made simultaneously. This gross double standard closely mirrors that of Multiculturalism, where all cultures are equal but Western culture is inferior and evil. This is a technique labeled Repressive Tolerance by the cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse in 1965. Briefly speaking, those who are deemed to belong to “dominant” groups of society should have their freedom of speech suppressed by progressives and radicals, and simply be denied access to discussion forums, in order to rectify the “institutional oppression” in society. Marcuse's ideas had a huge impact in the 1960s and 70s. He also advocated free sex without any constraints as a method of freeing people from religious morality". 51.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ACCUSATION - Feminist claim that we do not have the "authority" to tell them what to do with regards to Islamic Supremacism.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) (Adapted from earlier text.) Many feminist leaders can be expected to ask what gives us the right to proclaim what they should be addressing (particularly if a man brings up the issue), as if they themselves have been granted the sole authority to speak for all women. The answer is simple: we see this as a matter of human rights, of which the rights of women are obviously a major component. We should add that we similarly seek to counter the threats which Islamic Supremacism poses to gays, members of all non-Islamic religions, artists, writers, consumers of alcohol, Muslim apostates and yes, even Leftists. We essentially have a very broad umbrella of concerns. In our review of things as they stand, we do not see Leftist feminists as being representative of the views of the silent majority of truly informed women in the general population regarding the severity and anti-woman nature of the Islamic Supremacist threat which is on the horizon. . When all of the information is put out on the table with respect to the horrendous lives which women under Islamic Supremacism suffer and the pandering to Islamic Supremacists which Leftist feminists offer in reply, only a fool would assert that feminists honestly speak for the majority of women in Western societies, at least on this issue. Yet, with the assistance of the Leftist media and other Leftist controlled institutions, these feminists continue to hold a position of great prestige and deference within society. If one were to we perceive that an influential group or movement (such as feminism) which professes to have the protection of a specific portion of society as its mission or focus either unknowingly or intentionally neglecting concerns which can adversely affect the basic human rights of those in their stated societal sector of interest, that would be enough of a justification for an outside person who advances human rights to speak his mind. In the situation at hand, our side has concluded that Islamic Supremacism is the paramount threat to human rights (which includes the rights of women) in this century and beyond. This is our focus. We challenge any feminist to put forth a greater global danger which affects women and women alone for consideration; not a canard like something in which a whole society would actually be affected. A "whole society" option should be addressed by groups which want to resolve a whole society's problem; pollution is an example. In light of our conclusion as to the dangers facing women, our side cannot afford to dilute its resources and energy by addressing any other matters involving feminism which are unrelated to Islamic Supremacism which might affect also the human rights of women (i.e., equal pay). If the threat of Islamic Supremacism is eliminated, we will not only save countless women, but also save people in the groups listed in the preceding paragraph. A parallel to our approach to this line of reasoning can be found in the following. Let's say that you live in a new community which has been built on an island which is prone to receiving hurricane hits. You have just discovered that the houses were not built to code and are therefore subject to being completely blown away in the next storm unless certain adaptations are made to the houses. You can't get anywhere with the Town Council, as they are in collusion with the builders. Meanwhile, the deficiencies in the houses are known to the local Neighborhood Group (which has considerable influence with the Town Council), but all they want to discuss is the planning of celebrations, community lighting and water services. You have talked to neighbors and despite their sharing concerns with you, they feel powerless to act. In view of all of this, wouldn't you feel justified in trying to get people to assist you in waking up the Neighborhood Group as to the danger and have them, in turn, exert their influence? After all, a hurricane hit would make all of the plans for celebrations, lighting, etc. irrelevant, as the community would no longer exist, at all. 1683 AD
(2) Feminists will likely claim that since they represent women (according to themselves), no one else has any authority to tell them what to do regarding Islamic Supremacism. Of course, organizations have the complete right to do whatever they choose to do. However, they must acknowledge that until Islamic Supremacism takes over, we have the right to voice our opinions and urge them to carefully reconsider their stance. Furthermore, when we see a looming threat which stands to imprison all of humanity, with special cruelty authorized to be meted out to one sex by the other, we have the moral right to pursue our efforts and awaken those who could assist in forestalling this fate. 1683 AD

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ACCUSATION - Feminist charge that if we perceive the awakening of feminists as so important, why don't we devote 100% of our effort to it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Feminists may question our devotion to protecting women if we do not direct 100% of our collective efforts to awakening them to the danger at hand. This charge fails to take into account that the treatment of women is just one of many areas of concerns and worries which Islamic Supremacism brings. We must understand that this is a multi-front battle. Consequently, need to alert the public to all of the dangers at hand and also pay attention to other groups which will be targeted when Islamic Supremacists rule. We do not believe that any targeted group deserves greater attention than the other, since they are all in the same boat. 1683 AD

________________________________________________________________________
EXCUSES - The claim that they are already addressing the issue (primarily in Afghanistan).
__________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Neil Robertson claims that western feminists are, in fact, engaged in work with women in Muslim countries, and with Muslim women in the West: For this characterisation to be true, we would have to ignore the western feminists who run Women for Women International, the Feminist Majority Foundation, or the Global Fund for Women, and ignore all the work they do in Muslim countries. Similarly, we would have to ignore the feminists who’ve campaigned to help the women of Afghanistan, support those protesting for democracy in Iran and end the practices of stoning & ‘honour’ killing. I wouldn't deny that for some feminists the suffering of the women of Afghanistan is an important issue. It's not that feminists never talk about these issues. It's just that I seriously wonder why they ever talk about anything else. Some, influenced by a pernicious relativism, appear to think that to acknowledge the vast gulf between the status of women in countries like Saudi Arabia and those in the West would somehow let Western society off the hook; that since Europe is not a feminist utopia, concentrating on conditions elsewhere is an "excuse for complacency" or a means of distracting attention from the real issues that Western women still face. 15.

______________________________________________________________________________________
EXCUSES - The claim that any dictates in Islam pertaining to the treatment of women are rarely enforced.
______________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "In Sharia, four witnesses have to catch a pair of illicit lovers in flagrante before they can both be killed. We are supposed to be reassured by these rigorous requirements of sufficient evidence, and are thought to be niggling if we question the assumption that the death penalty is mandatory if the case is proved. The requirement that the culprits should be killed goes unexamined". 9.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXCUSES - Feminist claim that they do not have the "authority" or "jurisdiction" to challenge Islamic Supremacists regarding the treatment of women.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Do feminist rights stop at our own national doors or do feminists have a responsibility to at least conceive of such rights as global?" 2. *****
(2) " The amoral individuals who complain that Saudi punishments have nothing to do with them should think each time they fill their cars with gasoline about how they financially support such injustice". 7. *****

_______________________________________________________
EXCUSES - Feminist assertion that we are powerless to do anything.
_______________________________________________________
(1) "But there are men all over the world who really do want to kill women on a point of honour. What kind of honour is that? When are these dreadful men, and all who encourage and "understand" them, to be condemned as the homicidal maniacs they are? It could be said that there is not much point in condemning what we can't change, but in our own countries, where it could be changed if the will existed, condemnation would surely be a useful first step, and it might help some of the countries of origin to at least see the point". 9. *****

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXCUSES - The solutions a society sees for various problems are appropriate to that society and should be seen in that context. (thus slavery and child prostitution should be ignored).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) If we agree that any society has the right to approach any issue in a manner it sees fit (through government or other institutions) without honoring mankind's unalienable rights, then we would be allowing in the Islamic Supremacist world slavery, pedophilia, disfigurement, etc.. Since such acts are violations of our unalienable rights as human beings, we would obviously be discarding that concept. And with it, we would be signing the death warrant for civilization. 1683 AD

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXCUSES - Feminist claim that if any action is to be taken, it must be done by the women who are already under Islamic Supremacists.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Do feminist rights stop at our own national doors or do feminists have a responsibility to at least conceive of such rights as global?" 2. *****
(2) " The amoral individuals who complain that Saudi punishments have nothing to do with them should think each time they fill their cars with gasoline about how they financially support such injustice". 7. *****
(3) Some feminists may concede that Islamic Supremacism leads to the mistreatment of women in many non-Western nations, or within the Islamic Supremacist enclaves of Western nations, but they assert that any change must be generated from within. In addressing this belief, we will of course recognize the usual "cultural" theme. However, it reflects complete ignorance of the realities that if women dare to speak up, or even dress in a Western manner in many of these nations, they will literally be shot down by Islamic Supremacists via government, community or family. They have no ability to join together and establish any form of power base. 1683 AD. *****

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXCUSES - The claim that until we resolve the many problems we have in our society which pertain to women (none which are equivalent to stoning, etc.), we cannot judge other societies with an attitude of conceit.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) (Post by "freebel") - "Single motherhood. teen pregnancy, school discipline, drugs, criminality, lack or moral upbringing. These are but a few prevailing social problems troubling OUR society. Until we resolve such basic issues, we cannot judge other societies with saintly conceit". (reply by Rule Me Like You Mean It") - "That's retarded, freebel. Teen pregnancy is not in the same league as honour killing. Get a grip". 40. *****NOTE: Frebel's philosophy is that unless a society's problems in a specific area are "resolved", they have no right to criticize anyone else. Who decides what is "resolved"? What societies have ever attained such perfection?. This philosophy essentially stifles anyone from saying anything - ever. 1683 AD
(2) "Why do they criticize America so obsessively for its failure to perfectionistically live up to our own high standards and yet remain so quiet about the absence of any standards and about the systematic violation of human rights in non-western countries?" 54. *****

_______________________________________________________________________
EXCUSES - Nothing can be resolved until societal and economic problems are addressed.
_______________________________________________________________________
(1) We should note that there are many nations around the world which are not under Islamic Supremacist control and have "unresolved social and economic conditions". It would be an extreme rarity if any of these nations were to authorize, approve or endorse the mistreatment of women through their governments or non-Islamic Supremacist religious institutions. Furthermore, the women in wealthy Islamic Supremacist families generally do not have the freedom to do as they please. *****
(2) Since we can show that social and economic concerns are not the causes of the mistreatment of women under Islamic Supremacist control, then any attempts at resolving such issues would have no effect on the treatment of women. 1683 AD.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXCUSES - Western feminist claim that they have traditionally only addressed issues that they have experienced first-hand; therefore, the treatment of women under Islamic Supremacism is out of their purview.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Any assertion of the Islamic Supremacist treatment of women being out of the purview or area of interest of feminists raises come concerns. First in line: If that is the case, then please explain he feminist involvement in the Palestinian cause. Explain the partnership with other Leftist causes. Also, feminists cannot deny that many of the women-treatment issues arising from Islamic Supremacism have already reared their ugly heads in Western nations, placing them clearly under their "jurisdiction". 1683 AD

__________________________________________________________________________________
EXCUSES - Claim that the West cannot become involved because it has not perfected its own society.
__________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "Greer said: "I can talk to rape victims here. Why should I go to Darfur to talk to rape victims?" When Bone responded that the situation for such women in Darfur was worse than in the West, Greer tried to hedge the issue. She said: "Who says it is?" When Bone said that she had been to Darfur, Greer argued that changing another culture was hard. "We haven't got it right in our own courts. What good would it do for me to go over there and try to tell them what to do? I am just part of decadent Western culture and they think we're all going to hell fast and maybe we are all going to hell fast." Greer said that she cared, and was wearing a white ribbon to show she cared". 7. *****NOTE: Greer tries to disqualify Western involvement because its society is not perfect (in her belief). Thus, on that ludicrous foundation, she asserts the West should not become involved". 1683 AD

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXCUSES - Western feminists failing to aid women under Islamic Supremacism because they do not see Muslim women complaining.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "It is not surprising that oppressed people may have a hard time even realizing that they are oppressed, so thoroughly brainwashed they have been since birth (just think of those women in some African countries who actually practice genital mutilation on their own daughters). But for people outside the immediate cultural influence of conservative Islam, it is a no brainer that completely covering the body of a woman is a straightforward way to deny her personality and to limit her social interactions. In other words, she is being oppressed, whether she realizes it or not". 39. *****
(2) "The problem in my opinion is that Western campuses are full of Muslim militant women who found their form of feminism not in standing against Sharia, but in supporting it. That is one safe coping mechanism within Sharia that some Muslim women have found to be helpful to them and it gives them respect and power. ... Muslim women have been trained for centuries to never complain. Complaining especially to non-Muslim infidels is actually a sign of the rebellious Muslim woman and we all know what is the penalty for rebelling against Sharia. It is literally death. ... Rebelling against Islamic law is considered apostasy and because of that women who love their religion must never try to change or criticize it. A feminist movement within Islam is always considered an apostasy movement and that is why many Muslim women try to solve their problem of oppression by becoming as radical, if not more radical, than men. Thus if you cannot beat them, join them. Thus you see that some of the fiercest defenders of Islamic Sharia are women. They even defend polygamy and are the ones who report other misbehaving women. Sharia has turned women against each other and made them guards of their own prison. .". 44. ***** NOTE: Bringing this insight out into the open and confronting Islamic Supremacist women with it might be worthwhile. Further research into this, including the proper psychological terms for this pathology, is suggested. Might it be "displaced anger"? 1683 AD
(3) "They seem to live in denial and have allied themselves with and support the views of elitist and intellectual college type Muslim women who defend Islam, sharia and ignore the reality of women in the Muslim world. The problem in my opinion is that Western campuses are full of Muslim militant women who found their form of feminism not in standing against Sharia, but in supporting it. That is one safe coping mechanism within Sharia that some Muslim women have found to be helpful to them and it gives them respect and power. Consequently, since there is no Muslim feminist movement to talk about, Western feminists found that staying quiet was the best policy. If the victim is not complaining, why would anyone else come to her aid?". 44. *****
(4) "Gabriel confirms that most Arab and Muslim women strongly support the very culture that demeans them, Like women everywhere, they, too, have internalized patriarchal, misogynistic cultural and religious values. She says: (quoting Gabriel) 'Even if they are doctors and lawyers, so many Muslim women actually support an anti-woman Islam with such passion and think we [westerners or Christians] are the ones who have it wrong. Fascinating! This is typical of so many Middle Eastern women. The biggest challenge is the brainwashed Arab and Muslim women. Most don't have a problem with the status quo and think we are all sluts and that we need to be more like them to be respected. It's really sad. Women are the ones who actually support and enforce brutal anti-woman treatment and traditions. It's like the mothers who insist on their daughter's circumcision much more than the fathers". 54. *****

________________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFERRENCE / INGRATIATION - Feminists placing the needs of Islamic Supremacists over the needs of women.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "The topic of the Fawcett debate (which featured, among others Madeleine Bunting, Joan Smith and Respect's Salma Yacoob) was defined as "how do we ensure that the womens' rights agenda reflects the needs of Muslim women?" It's telling in itself that such a broad topic was entirely restricted to the one issue of the veil - but equally, notice how that formulation acknowledges the superiority of the religious claim. Why should the womens' agenda reflect the needs of Muslims, rather than Islam better reflect the needs of women? Why this automatic genuflection towards faith? Why are only Muslim voices respected when they state that a woman's place is in the home?" 15.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
GENDER FEMINISM - Feminist claim that Western and Islamic Supremacist men are basically evil and that efforts to free women under Islamic Supremacist control would make things worse.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) The first variety—radical feminism (or gender feminism, in Christina Hoff Sommers’s term)—starts with the insight that men are, not to put too fine a point upon it, brutes. Radical feminists do not simply subscribe to the reasonable-enough notion that men are naturally more prone to aggression than women. They believe that maleness is a kind of original sin. Gender feminists are little interested in fine distinctions between radical Muslim men who slam commercial airliners into office buildings and soldiers who want to stop radical Muslim men from slamming commercial airliners into office buildings. They are both examples of generic male violence—and specifically, male violence against women. ...(A)ccording to Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, who teaches “The Sexuality of Terrorism” at California State University in Hayward. ... The war in Afghanistan could not possibly offer a chance to liberate women from their oppressors, since it would simply expose women to yet another set of oppressors, in the gender feminists’ view.... If guys are brutes, girls are their opposite: peace-loving, tolerant, conciliatory, and reasonabl... Real women, they believe, would never justify war. ... Gender feminism’s tendency to reduce foreign affairs to a Lifetime Channel movie may make it seem too silly to bear mentioning, but its kitschy naiveté hasn’t stopped it from being widespread among elites. ... Too busy celebrating their own virtue and contemplating their own victimhood, gender feminists cannot address the suffering of their Muslim sisters realistically, as light years worse than their own petulant grievances. They are too intent on hating war to ask if unleashing its horrors might be worth it to overturn a brutal tyranny that, among its manifold inhumanities, treats women like animals. ...Yet the gender feminist idea of superior feminine virtue is becoming an increasingly tough sell for anyone actually keeping up with world events. ... Now it’s clearer than ever that the dream of worldwide sisterhood is no more realistic than worldwide brotherhood; culture trumps gender any day. Mothers all over the Muslim world are naming their babies Usama or praising Allah for their sons’ efforts to kill crusading infidels. ... Maternal thinking, indeed. 8.
(2) "Why the sisterly silence? It is helpful to think of feminisms - plural rather than singular. Though not entirely discrete philosophies, each of three different feminisms has its own distinct reasons for causing activists to "lose their voice" in the face of women's oppression. The first variety - radical feminism (or gender feminism, in Christina Hoff Sommers' term) - starts with the insight that men are, not to put too fine a point upon it, brutes. Radical feminists believe that maleness is a kind of original sin. Masculinity explains child abuse, marital strife, high defense spending, every war from Troy to Afghanistan, as well as Hitler, Franco and Pinochet. Thus, the war in Afghanistan could not possibly liberate women from their oppressors: It would simply expose women to yet another set of oppressors, in gender feminists' view.If guys are brutes, girls are their opposite: peace-loving, tolerant, conciliatory and reasonable - "Antiwar and Pro-Feminist," as the popular peace-rally sign goes. Real women, gender feminists believe, would never justify war.Yet this idea of superior feminine virtue is becoming an increasingly tough sell for anyone actually keeping up with world events. Mothers all over the Muslim world are naming their babies Osama or praising Allah for their sons' efforts to kill crusading infidels. Last February, 28-year-old Wafa Idris became the first female Palestinian suicide bomber to strike in Israel, killing an elderly man and wounding scores of women and children. And in April, Israeli soldiers discovered under the maternity clothes of 26-year-old Shifa Adnan Kodsi a bomb rather than a baby. Maternal thinking, indeed". 48.

Posted on 07/28/2010 at 09:07 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

ACT: Where are the feminists? - Part V (Bibliography)

Bibliography

Posted on 07/28/2010 at 09:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ACT: Where are the feminists? - Part VI (Strategy - Plan for action)

Strategy for waking up feminists to the threat of Islamic Supremacism

As touched upon many times in earlier text, it would serve our effort (and the overall welfare of women) if feminist leaders were to realize that the greatest, ultimate threat to women throughout the world is Islamic Supremacism and the growing Islamification of the West. Furthermore, they must be made to see that most of the endeavors in which they are currently devoting their time and effort will be all for naught when Islamification is established. All past accomplishments will similarly be cast aside in the new, Taliban-oriented Caliphate of a conquered West. Should such a realization of what is developing on the horizon ever develop and grow within the feminist movement, one might assume or hope that it would eventually coalesce into various concrete actions to counter the threats at hand. Due to the considerable influence which Leftist feminism holds in institutions such as the media, government and education, their participation in fighting the threat could be a significant factor in attaining a full and complete victory.

We should stress to the fullest extent possible that our efforts should not be on attacking the entire feminist agenda. If some on our side wish to follow that path, we would urge that it be done independently of the framework we will soon discuss. Our effort should be focused solely on stimulating a reconsideration among Leftist feminists of their appeasement oriented positions regarding Islamic Supremacists and their encouraging their adoption of a strategy to resist the growing Islamic Supremacist encroachment. However, in seeking their participation, we anticipate there will be considerable resistance and a strong pushback. We hope that their leadership would be open an honest as to the realities which face women in the decades ahead and implement a reversal in their position on Islamification and Islamic Supremacism.

Should a re-evaluation not be forthcoming (which will likely be the case), they must realize that they may become increasingly marginalized by women in the greater society and pushed into a position of irrelevance, once the word of their complicity with misogynist Islamic Supremacist domination becomes more well known. At such a point one could foresee them being supplanted by new feminist organizations which are more in touch with the real world. Again, destroying them is not our goal, but they may indeed fade into obscurity if women throughout the West begin to realize the type of subjugation which they and their daughters will likely experience within a few decades.

In launching our effort, we would suggest the following.

____________________
Formation of an alliance.
____________________
We would begin by urging that the feminist and women's rights groups which are concerned about of the Islamic Supremacist threat make an effort to open lines of communication with each other. Some of these groups are mentioned in prior text. They are reprinted here:

Concerned Women for America ( http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp ;http://www.facebook.com/pages/Concerned-Women-For-America/77903485992 )
Independent Women's Forum ( http://www.iwf.org/ ; http://www.facebook.com/independentwomensforum?sid=d717785b0318ae501eb77fec55c8a41f&ref=search#!/independentwomensforum?v=info&ref=search )
The Phyllis Chesler Organization ( http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/; http://www.facebook.com/pages/Phyllis-Chesler/107822421806#!/pages/Phyllis-Chesler/107822421806?v=info )
Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (http://www.cblpi.org/; http://www.cblpi.org/ftp/Policy%20Express/8-1%20Darwish%20Web.pdf ; http://www.facebook.com/MiriSue?ref=search#!/pages/Clare-Boothe-Luce-Policy-Institute/21472470988?v=info&ref=ts )
EDL Angels ( http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118751929261#!/group.php?gid=118751929261&v=info )
Regards de femmes ( http://www.regardsdefemmes.fr/ ); ( http://alaskandreams.net/ekklesia/news_articles/FRANCE%20WOMEN'S%20RIGHTS%20GROUP%20PROTESTS%20ENTRY%20OF%20PRO-STONING%20SCHOLAR.htm )
Feminist Hawk's Nest ( blog - http://www.newsrealblog.com/category/feminism/ )

We would also urge that the organizations mentioned above be joined by any other sympathetic organizations which have designated women's divisions, wings or auxiliaries. The formation of such a coalition will not magically happen. It will require at least one interested person, preferably a woman, to take the initiative and spur some interaction among these groups.

Once communication is established, this informal coalition could work out a strategy on approaching the mainline (Leftist) feminist organizations and urging them to respond appropriately to the danger at hand. We would urge that the suggestions as outlined below be considered in developing a strategy, although the final decision of what steps to take would be up to the alliance. It would be ideal if a single, close-knit team could be created to coordinate various activities.

An important task to accomplish in this formative stage would be to select spokespersons (and one key spokesperson) who could speak intelligently about the movement and the threat which Islamic Supremacists and the Islamification of the West holds for women. Ideally, these spokespersons should have a good degree of credibility in the feminist community. There are a few likely feminist candidates out there who have already chosen to be on the good side of history.

______________________________
Research and foundation laying stage.
______________________________
The first proposed stage in this endeavor would involve research which could be completed entirely on the internet. It is suggested that the coordinating group conduct a thorough analysis of all the prominent feminist groups (including university organizations and programs), leaders and editorialists which have Leftist orientations. Careful attention should be drawn to their respective positions (or lack thereof) regarding Islamic Supremacism. This would include past public statements, published articles, news reports, position / mission statements and so forth. Also, research to ascertain the subject areas of feminism in which they have focused their attention over the years should be conducted, with special attention given to any calls for action they may have issued. We anticipate that any calls for protests, letter writing campaigns, boycotts. etc. did not involve very many instances, if any, in which Islamic Supremacism was the cause of a problem. The following links (reprinted from above) can assist in discovering various groups:

We would also urge a review be conducted of all the prominent incidents within a certain number of years in which women were the victims of some aspect of Islamic Supremacism. These should be compiled in a proper manner. Of course, we realize that every day in the life of women under Islamic Supremacism could qualify as an "incident", but we must acknowledge that the news media seems to only latch onto things like stonings, hangings, honour killings and so forth. With a list in hand, a corresponding effort should be made to see whether any of the above-mentioned feminist groups, leaders and editorialists took a position or launched any action in response to any of these incidents. If there is evidence suggestive of some form of activity, the degree of emphasis should be compared to other endeavors in which these entities were engaged at the time.

In addition, research could be conducted into the groups mentioned earlier which are addressing some of the manifestations of Islamic Supremacism, such as stoning and honor killing. They are listed again here, for your convenience:

The focus with these groups should be on whether they actually came into the open and named Islamic Supremacism as the ultimate cause of most of the aforementioned atrocities on women. In doing so, we must realize that if they were to name the cause, as we do, it would put their admirable operations within Islamic Supremacist nations in a precarious position. Still, that should not inhibit other feminist entities from explicitly naming the ultimate cause of these tragedies: Islamic Supremacism. If any of these groups have been consistently honest and placed the blame on Islamic Supremacism for various acts which have degraded, subjugated and/or killed women, they should be brought into greater visibility and encouraged in their efforts.

We would urge that members of this proposed alliance use its master list of feminist leaders, organizations, etc. and create Google news alerts, news feeds and other mechanisms to ascertain their ongoing status. Such alerts should include various keywords involving Islamic Supremacism. The same search methods could also be applied to find new accounts of the mistreatment of women by Islamic Supremacists. The team should subscribe to various newsletters which focus on Islamic Supremacism, as shown here: http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/06/learn-email-newsletters-and-commentary-subscriptions-news-alerts.html . This link also speaks of news alerts. The team could also subscribe to any newsletters of the feminist organizations which interest them, including their local chapters. Once this system is set up, it will basically operate on its own.

We believe it would also be worthwhile to fine-tune, condense and otherwise refine the preceding "excerpt based" discussion of the "rationale" and excuses feminists make for refusing to face the Islamic Supremacist threat which will eventually consume them. This would prepare the alliance members on expected rebuttals to their requests for cooperation. Of course, we realize that feminists will come across the text of what is written in this post. This is of no concern, as we want everyone to have an insight into the feminist mindset and see how easily their arguments regarding Islamic Supremacism can be taken apart.

We would also urge that a library of sorts be built up which focuses on: (1) source text from Islamic scriptures which is pointed to as justification for certain anti-woman actions; (2) pronouncements by current Islamic Supremacist leaders which endorse the mistreatment of women; and (3) a compilation of numerous repulsive acts over recent decades which the Islamic Supremacists have committed on women.

In anticipation of public discussions on this topic, we would urge that experts be lined up who can attest to the complicity of feminists with Islamic Supremacists. Also, experts who can point to specific Islamic Supremacist directives which target women should be sought out.

Finally, we would suggest that a selection of internet forums which are devoted to feminism be compiled. This would enable direct access to many of the leaders and active members in the feminist movement.

______________
Action - overview.
_______________
Having established a strong foundation of pertinent information in the preceding research stage, various tactics to help effect change could be considered for implementation. At first, a strictly internet / telephone focus might be the best path to pursue. After this begins to bear fruit, steps could be taken to challenge Leftist feminists in various "real world" settings. This is not ironclad; some of the actions stated for each of these two stages could take place concurrently with one another without any problem.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
Action - internet or telephone based. - Submitting questions for interviews and discussions involving feminists.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
We could begin by taking note of whenever specific feminist leaders (discovered in our research stage, above) are slated to make a public or semi-public appearance, such as at press interviews and public speeches or discussions before non-partisan audiences. Universities would be a prime setting. This is where our news alerts would come into play on a daily basis. When situations such as these are discovered, the coordinator of the information gathering should quickly seek out any means by which pertinent questions can be put to them, directly or indirectly, via telephone or the internet. There is no guarantee that the questions will get through, but there is always a possibility. The information on question submission, along with pertinent information already on file regarding the leader (and their organization, if there is one) and her position on Islamic Supremacism issues, would in turn be relayed to the membership in a timely manner. If there has been a recent incident in the news regarding the Islamic Supremacist mistreatment of women and we have the leader's response (or lack of a response) to it, this would be similarly forwarded.

The recipients of this information would, in turn, submit questions which focus on feminist beliefs, attitudes, concerns, worries, etc., regarding Islamification and Islamic Supremacism, or perhaps a recent incident. These questions should not be restricted to matters within Islamic Supremacist dominated nations, but also include Western nations, with an eye on what the future portends.

Let's elaborate a little further on the concept. If we have a situation where we know that a certain reporter will interview a specific person, we could e-mail or call them with suggestions for questions. People could call in and ask questions of their own (live or in advance), if that option is available (television or radio). Bear in mind that we would only have a chance for a question getting through if the involved settings are non-partisan and open to contrasting points of view. The feminist guests could be asked to justify how they can claim to speak on the behalf of women when they ignore the Islamic Supremacist threat. Recent incidents of the Islamic Supremacist mistreatment of women could be brought up and the feminist guest could be challenged as to why she or her group has remained silent on the issue. They could be challenged on any statements they may have made in the past which indicated a supportive or ambivalent attitude on Islamic Supremacism with respect to the treatment of women. There are many possibilities. Questions regarding other feminist issues should not be touched, as this is not to be a battle against feminism in its entirety and they are irrelevant when considering the main threat at hand. And since we already know their likely responses (see the "excerpt" text, above), we will be capable of refuting them on the spot, without hesitation.

See also later text, in the "public realm" area, for putting questions to political candidates.

__________________________________________________
Action - internet or telephone based. - Calling in to talk radio.
__________________________________________________
Despite the viability of the preceding, we anticipate that there will not be too many opportunities for getting challenging questions to these feminists. Therefore, we should simultaneously pursue another strategy: securing the involvement of talk radio. The following tactic will have its greatest chance for success in the U.S., since true freedom of speech seems to exist only there. Once the effects are made known through talk radio, we might expect it to spread to the blogs and cable news. At that point, the overall message will have a greater chance of becoming well known to the public and consequently make some headway in Europe and elsewhere.

The approach is simple: whenever a talk radio host mentions the occurrence of some type of Islamic Supremacist mistreatment of women and there has been no condemnation of it by feminists, callers should raise questions regarding feminist apathy and/or cast doubts as to the claims of feminist groups and leaders to represent women. Likewise, if feminists are discussed in general terms without any mention of Islamic Supremacism, the validity of their claims to represent women can be challenged due to their overall complicity with Islamic Supremacists.

This tactic would require some preparation. But once the preparation is completed, the system should operate quite smoothly. First, staff at a central location should have information which indicates the general coverage area of each talk radio station in the country, in terms of zip code or postal code. In addition, the central office should compile a website listing of the links for all talk radio stations; with attention paid to the respective pages which allow live listening and provide call-in numbers. Once this is established, we would need to secure a substantial number of members to monitor talk radio on a daily basis and/or be available to call in when the need arises. These potential participants (both show monitors and potential callers) would need to have their contact information on file at a central location. This information should include their zip code or postal code. The national radio shows (primarily from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM) could be covered by perhaps a dozen or so trusted participants. Local radio shows (primarily from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM) could be covered by a larger number of people in the general membership. The main task of the monitors would be to notify a designated person in the alliance of any line of talk on a program which concerns the Islamic Supremacist mistreatment of women (including mentions of incidents) or any discussion on the overall status of feminism. Notifications to our point person could be made by telephone (including Skype -http://www.skype.com ), tweets ( http://twitter.com/ ), text messages and/or e-mail. If there is some type of inexpensive, legal system which could record program discussions for forwarding, it should be used by monitors so that the central location can have complete details regarding what was said.

Under this arrangement, if a local radio host mentions an incident of the type stated above, a registered listener in the area can notify the national contact person. After the national contact person confirms the report through their own live review of broadcast via the station's website (or recording), they would notify other members in the appropriate listening area (via the zip code information) so that they can take action. The notification for local radio shows would include a brief mention of the issue, the station's call letters and the station's call-in phone number. Notifications regarding national programs would include a brief mention of the issue and the respective show's call-in number. Potential callers would be notified by a national based person to telephone their respective talk show hosts through Skype (http://www.skype.com ), tweets ( http://twitter.com/ ), text messages and/or e-mail. Obviously, these alerts would be time sensitive.

Obviously, any Leftist who is reading this concept may think they have found a weapon they can use to their own ends. To that we say, "Go for It"! Since most talk radio hosts in the U.S. are conservative and therefore think logically (as opposed to emotionally), they relish any calls from Leftists, on any topic. Leftist callers are easily eviscerated.

See later text, in the "public realm" area, for a related discussions regarding local political candidates.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Action - internet or telephone based. - Urging talk show hosts to incorporate the evidence of Leftist feminist apathy or complicity with the Islamic Supremacist mistreatment of women into their discussions.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Aside from radio talk show listeners generating discussions on the deficiency of Leftist feminism concerning the Islamic Supremacist mistreatment of women with their call-ins, it would be even better if the radio talk show hosts would drive the message home. After all, they control the microphone. Of course, getting this message for them to consider may take a bit of effort, particularly with respect to those with national programs.

The first step to take in pursuit of this goal would be to simply use any connections which our side might have with the hosts. Should none be available, attempts to contact local show hosts might be productive. They would seem to be more accessible, particularly to people who are in their respective markets and are familiar with their political philosophies. Yet another option would be to have our spokesperson(s) make themselves available for live, on-air interviews.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Action - internet based. - Spreading the word through blogs and forums devoted to fighting Islamic Supremacism, as well as blogs and forums which have a Conservative focus.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
An excellent way to spread messages which challenge Leftist feminists to take a position to defend women against the depravity of Islamic Supremacism would be through encouraging blogs and forums which are sympathetic to our side. Although it is unlikely that many feminists would read materials from these types of websites, it is quite likely that our message would eventually break into other outlets which are more likely to catch their attention. In doing so, the message will also be seen by people in the general population.

_________________________________
Action - internet based. - Feminist forums.
_________________________________
As stated in prior text, our goal is to wake up Leftist feminists to the threats at hand. We should not be challenging feminism as an overall concept or philosophy.

One of the best ways to engage these feminists is through the use of forums which center on feminism and women's rights. We would urge that men not join any of them, for it is likely that any comments they may make will be arbitrarily shot down. As for the approach to use, we would urge that it be respectful and that it stick to the facts. If a participant presents solid information regarding the treatment of women by Islamic Supremacists, it will be impossible for them to refute. Of course, they will attempt to use the arguments as outlined in our selection of excerpts, but a consultation of this resource should give the participant suitable ammunition with which they can counter. Hopefully, such conversations would stimulate an honest re-evaluation of positions among the feminists.

We would urge that only those members of the proposed alliance who have feminist sympathies (excluding their position on Islamic Supremacism) join such forums. The best way to confirm whether you meet this qualification is to join and comment on various issues that are posted which do not pertain to Islamic Supremacism at all; subjects in which you have a genuine interest. If you find that you are generally agreeing with much of what is said, then you will have proven to yourself that you are generally of like mind with them. This should, in turn, give you more confidence whenever you post your first comments regarding Islamic Supremacism and feminism. On the other hand, if you find yourself disagreeing with the majority of feminist concepts, we would suggest that you not move on to any discussions regarding Islamic Supremacism. We would also urge that you use a name which is different from what you may use within other sites on the internet, for a quick Google search would reveal to anyone where you stand on other issues. If your position on the other issues lean to the conservative, you will be automatically branded and immediately cut off. Instead of addressing points you raise, they may use your comments from elsewhere to change the topic or polarize others against you. Also, there isn't anything wrong with having Conservative viewpoints known, but many Leftists cannot comprehend that a significant number of Conservatives actually share many feminist beliefs. A different name would help forestall such kneejerk reactions. Again, if you do not share a number of beliefs with feminists, you should not be on their forums.

If a list of forums is created for distribution, we would urge that it be thorough and complete. A listing of just one or two would defeat our purposes. Such a list should be coordinated by one central entity, with the assistance of individuals from various nations throughout the world.

______________________________________
Action - public realm. - Seeking local assistance.
______________________________________
Eventually, an effort should be made to come into the public realm. In order to do this effectively, one must have created actual groups and networks. The following link can be studied for clues on establishing groups: http://1683ad.typepad.com/blog/2010/03/act-forming-a-group-and-making-it-grow.html . In the U.S., the most efficient way to secure fellow participants in your community who would sympathize with this effort would likely be through attending local Tea Party meetings or finding appropriate groups on http://www.meetup.com/ . The focus should be on obtaining the participation of women only.

__________________________________________________________________
Action - public realm. - Spreading the word at suitable conventions and meetings.
__________________________________________________________________
Although we have presented in prior text the suggestion that blogs and forms affiliated with our side be informed of our approach to feminism, there is one more way to reach these allies and get their assistance in driving the message home. Simply have a booth or some other form of presence at national or regional level conventions or meetings of groups which would be sympathetic to us. In the U.S., this would include Tea Party meetings, C-PAC ( http://www.conservative.org/cpac/ ) and others.

_____________________________________________________________________
Action - public realm. - Attending speeches and programs and putting forth questions.
_____________________________________________________________________
One option would be to utilize the previously mentioned research mechanism and find out where feminist leaders will make an appearance, such as on a locally produced television show (with a live audience), open lectures, etc. These settings would provide a greater opportunity for follow-up questions; if not by the initial questioner then at least by confederates in the audience. In doing your internet research, special attention should be paid to the events section for websites of local universities and television & radio stations. Setting up news alerts would help, too. Always seek some clarification from the authorities as to whether the event in question is open to the public and get a confirmation on record. This will come in handy, should the feminist seek to expel people because of the questions they ask. When a local opportunity arises, simply coordinate with your like-minded associates in attending it.

____________________________________________
Action - public realm. - Attending local feminist groups.
____________________________________________
People with a true concern regarding the welfare of women could also seek out local feminist groups such as chapters of national groups or independent endeavors such as those which may be found on: meetup ( http://www.meetup.com/ ; http://feminism.meetup.com/ ); or this UK resource ( http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=uk&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=102532469720084776976.00048732c8db421919feb&source=embed&ll=52.656394,-2.724609&spn=8.9485,22.258301&z=6 ) Don't forget to check out local universities. However, we would deeply urge that you follow the same general guidelines as mentioned above for joining feminist forums. Only attend if you genuinely share most feminist concerns (excluding their position on Islamic Supremacism). Remember, the goal is to awaken the feminist to this clear and present danger to all women, not confront them in an angry tone.

This may seem like a minor activity. However, if women in a handful of local groups or chapters are awakened to the danger, their concerns will percolate up to other levels and cause those individuals to also reconsider their positions.

________________________________________________________
Action - public realm. - Challenging feminist programs at universities.
________________________________________________________
Another option would be to challenge the feminist programs in universities, in a manner similar to what was done in a previous Islamo-Supremacism Awareness Week ( http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamo-fascism-awareness-week/49/a-students-guide-to-hosting-islamo-fascism-awareness-week/ ) However, criticisms of the prior endeavor should be taken into account. See: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=scapegoating_campus_feminists ; http://www.rwor.org/a/105/feminists-hypocrisy-en.html. Therefore, extensive research of the programs should be conducted in advance, such as a review of required texts, syllabi for courses, course descriptions, the writings of professors and so forth. A brief overview of Women's Studies can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_studies .

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Action - public realm. - Challenging political candidates who receive endorsements from prominent feminists or feminist organizations.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With all of the accumulated information on utterances by leading feminists and statements issued by feminist organizations, it is quite likely that a number will be found as either supportive of Islamic Supremacists or clearly ambivalent to the danger they possess. If such entities endorse a political candidate, these candidates could be challenged regarding the association. Therefore, we would urge that local leaders conduct research to ascertain who has endorsed various local candidates. If they find feminist leaders and/or organizations endorsing a particular candidate, the names of the endorsers should be cross referenced with whatever is on file with the national coordinator regarding their respective positions on Islamic Supremacism. This should also be done with any local resources. Once the incriminating information is in hand, we could pursue various options in which the candidate is asked how he can accept the endorsement of a group (or individual) which purports to protect the welfare of women, when in fact they look the other way when it comes to the Islamic Supremacist mistreatment of women. This question (and similar ones) will have the effect of diminishing any value of such endorsements and could cause a candidate (depending how far Left he is) to distance himself from Leftist feminists.

Such questioning could be effected through various measures. First, the information could be made available to local talk radio hosts. Should the subject be brought up on the air, fellow compatriots could be notified through the above-mentioned alert system to call in and add fuel to the fire. In addition, questions could be put forth at open public meetings (not partisan meetings). Finally, questions could be submitted to interviewers in advance (see prior text).

_______________________________
Action - public realm. - Street protests.
_______________________________
Finally, protests could be contemplated. For example, picketing could be conducted at national conventions of the leading feminist groups or wherever a prominent feminist is scheduled to speak. A calendar containing such events could be compiled by a national contact person. We would urge that the protesters be comprised solely of women.

It also might be possible for any organizations which are devoted to fighting the overall threat of Islamification have special protests which are strictly dedicated to the "theme" of the Islamic Supremacist mistreatment of women.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Action - public realm. - Attend events sponsored by organizations that are dedicated to fighting the stoning of women, honor killing, etc.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
We would urge that a national coordinator keep a calendar of all events which the anti-stoning (etc.) groups as mentioned above have planned. This would include any local chapters. Alliance members should be urged to attend and take part in their programs if they are officially stated as being open to the public. Even though these groups may not name the ultimate cause of these atrocities as Islamic Supremacism, one would think that they have a better grasp of things than most feminists. Our participation would help highlight the problem at hand. In addition, it would provide opportunities for one-on-one conversations that could lead to discrete assistance for our own efforts. We must bear in mind that many of these organizations do not name the cause of the atrocities because they have to keep channels of communication open to Islamic Supremacist nations. It would be a death sentence to their operations if they were to voice anything which condemns Islamic Supremacism. However, there should be no worries if their lower level activists took part in our efforts in a discrete manner and made no mention of their association with specific anti-stoning groups.

Summary

If all of the preceding were to be conducted, there is a reasonable probability that the public will begin to awaken to the rank hypocrisy which exists among feminists. This will help to fracture the Left and put the momentum on our side.

Posted on 07/28/2010 at 08:51 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

07/20/2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS & QUICK LINKS TO ALL EARLIER POSTS

Posted on 07/20/2010 at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

06/04/2010

LEARN: E-mail newsletters and commentary subscriptions, news alerts.

"This nation will remain the land of the free so long as it is the home of the brave". - Elmer Davis

Overview

Many of those who are reading these words have already conducted a considerable amount of research regarding the threat of Islamification and the Islamic Supremacist agenda. If you have come to this page, it is reasonable to presume that you have already encountered enough information on the topics at hand to enable you to arrive an informed opinion. And like most others who seek the preservation of Western Civilization, you are probably angry with the progress being made by Islamic Supremacists with their Leftist allies and the overwhelming sense of complacency which exists within the general population of Western nations.

Obviously, there are many other worthy issues or causes within society which vie for our attention and some of us may feel drawn to becoming active in helping to resolve them. Yet in contemplating such involvement, we should keep in mind the long-term perspective. Simply ask yourself what the status of such an issue might be in a world which has been completely Talibanized. One suspects that it would be completely subordinated to the will of whatever our Islamic Supremacist "scholar"/overlords deem is worthy. In other words, the importance of most other current issues become moot when considering the potential fate of the world permanently under Islamification.

If you are with our forces now, it is important for the fate of Civilization that you stay. And an excellent way to keep your interest is for you to remain informed on a consistent basis of the despicable acts and travesties which continue to spew forth from Islamic Supremacism. As Aldous Huxley once said: "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will make you mad". Such anger can be a powerful motivator. Since it is unrealistic to expect you to conduct research around the clock, we believe that an ideal option to consider is subscribing to e-mail newsletters which have done all of the research for you. The use of Google News Alerts and other news alerts can further supplement such a flow of information.

Below is a selection of e-mail newsletters which a free to anyone. They are organized according to language. Most focus on presenting news reports, whereas some have an editorial focus. The links are for the exact pages which contain enrollment information. Where applicable, we have added a few words which can direct you to the portion of the page which has the enrollment information. Some of the links are accompanied by brief, descriptive text regarding the corresponding newsletter. Although all of these e-mail subscriptions are worthwhile, we have done a bit of editorializing and pointed out a few which we believe excel (noted as "EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!").

We have not included options such as news readers or RSS feeds. Also, we have not included options whereby a person can obtain daily or periodic e-mail reports which pertain primarily to a specific organization's activities. Twitter alerts are not included. Please understand that this is not a list of websites which focus on presenting news reports, of which there are many. The emphasis is with links which enable the receiving of pertinent e-mails.

With respect to news alerts, we direct you to the information which follows the newsletter listing, below.

A request(s)

Now that you have this information, we would encourage that you share these links far and wide. If you are in an organization which is fighting Islamic Supremacists and Islamification, we would urge that you encourage your leadership to make the newsletters and news alerts known to all members whenever they join and on a consistent basis thereafter. An automatic mention in all e-mail communications from organizations is one example of a consistent reminder. We are confident they will understand that a steady exposure to news accounts will help keep their respective memberships sufficiently informed and inspired to continue with the fight, no matter how long it takes. If you have a blog, we would ask that you set aside a special area on your main page to list these links.

If you are aware of any other e-mail newsletters which fit the basic parameters of what is presented below, we sincerely urge that you submit them to 1683 AD for consideration. We have a particular need for non-English newsletters.

In addition, we would welcome translations of our news alert keyword list (below) into various non-English languages. If you submit a list, we request that it be in the same order as our English list, below. If a word is same in English as in another language, please repeat the mention so that the new list is consistent with the English list.

Finally, we would welcome submissions of other e-mail news alert options beyond what is stated below.

E-mail newsletter and commentary subscriptions

CZECH
Mediaoislamu - http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=mediaoislamu&loc=cs_CZ; http://mediaoislamu.cz/ (far right of bar at top of page which is below heading)

ENGLISH
American Freedom Alliance (the Western Word) - http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/Default.aspx (right side, near the top) - Weekly, multiple editorials.
Campus Watch - See Middle East Forum
Center for Security Policy - http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.xml (bottom right corner) - Editorial reports which address Islamic Supremacism, though not exclusively.
Citizen Warrior - http://www.citizenwarrior.com/ (right side, top)
CreepingSharia - http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/ (left side, near the top) - Single topic news oriented e-mails, multiple per day. EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!
Daniel Pipes - See Middle East Forum
EuropeNews - http://europenews.dk/en/newsletter_en (see top center) EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!
Family Security Matters - https://www.familysecuritymatters.org/my_fsm/ - Multiple times per week, editorials with news.
FrontPageMag.COM - http://newsrealblog.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&id=57e32c1dad - News reports which focus on Islamic Supremacism, though not exclusively.
Islamist Watch - See Middle East Forum
JihadWatch - http://www.jihadwatch.org/ (top right corner) Daily news. EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!
Keep America Safe - http://www.keepamericasafe.com/ (very bottom of the page, near the center) - Good weekly selection of articles.
LogansWarning - http://loganswarning.com/ - EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!
Middle East Forum - http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php (multiple newsletters)
Political Islam - http://politicalislam.com/ (left side of page, near the top) - Multiple newsletter topics.
PoliticallyIncorrect (English version) - http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=PoliticallyIncorrect-EnglishVersion - Daily
RadicalIslam.org - http://www.radicalislam.org/ (right side, near the bottom) Weekly, multiple news reports.
Winds of Jihad, by Sheik Yer'Mami - http://sheikyermami.com/ (right side of page, down just a little bit) - Almost every day. EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!

FRENCH
Le Web Resistant - http://webresistant.over-blog.com/ (right side, not far from top)
Observatoire de l'islamisation - http://www.islamisation.fr/ (near top, right)
Verite, Valeurs & Democratic (periodic - editorial) - http://verite-valeurs-democratie.over-blog.com/ (subscribe lower right side of page)

GERMAN
EuropeNews - http://europenews.dk/de/newsletter_de (see top center) EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!
PoliticallyIncorrect - http://www.pi-news.net/ (top right side) - Daily

ITALIAN
Lisistrata - http://www.lisistrata.com/cgi-bin/lisistrata3/index.cgi (right side, near very bottom of page)
Una Via per Oriana - http://www.unaviaxoriana.it/cgi-bin/uvpo/index.cgi (right side, near very bottom of page)

NORWEGIAN
Human Rights Service - http://www.rights.no/publisher/publisher.asp?id=1 (Left side, just above "HRD Media" section)

News alerts

News alerts, such as those provided by Google, Yahoo and any others can serve as an excellent way to get the latest news. Simply go to the following links and enter appropriate search terms. Suggested search terms might include the following:
Eurabia; "fundamentalist Islam"; "Islamic Europe"; "Islamic extremism"; "Islamic extremists"; "Islamic fascism"; "Islamic fascists"; "Islamic fundamentalism"; "Islamic fundamentalists"; "Islamic supremacism"; "Islamic supremacists"; "Islamic Terrorism"; "Islamic Terrorists"; Islamic Supremacist; Islamification; Islamisation; Islamization; Islamofascism; Islamofascist; Islamonazi; "Muslim extremism"; "Muslim extremists"; "radical Islam"; "radical Islamists".

Google Alerts - http://www.google.com/alerts
Windows Live Alerts - http://alerts.live.com/Alerts/Default.aspx
Yahoo! Alerts (see "Keyword News") - http://alerts.yahoo.com/

Posted on 06/04/2010 at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

05/29/2010

ACT: Creativity with Arabic script, and more

"With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men, I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost". - William Lloyd Garrison

Disclaimer, Overview and Quick Snapshot

Readers should be aware that 1683 AD strives to present posts which will not violate any of the hosting entity's requirements regarding content. We would urge that you keep this in mind when reading the following, as the language may come across as a bit stilted or strained when compared to other posts. However, an astute reader should be able to readily discern both the intent and considerable potential of each concept in question.

This presentation is set up to first establish some background information with various topics This will all be brought together with the actual concept presentations, towards the end.

This presentation is quite long (as usual). If you want to see exactly what the proposals are, go directly to the headings which begin with "Actions ...", towards the end (and also read the next paragraph). Be warned - the framework set forth below is very far "out of the box" and requires a willingness to break away conventional thinking. If the concepts are not deemed workable, then hopefully this presentation will at least encourage the development of a new line of thought among others.

Briefly stated, the central concept is a suggestion for the development of a Latin (or other non-Arabic) alphabet which could be incorporated into protest signs, pamphlets and other productions issued by our side. This proposed alphabet would incorporate within its structure, in the body of each respective letter, various excerpts from the Qur'an written in small lines of Arabic script. If the opposition or authorities attempt the destruction of our materials which utilize this unique text, we could charge them with blasphemy and "hate crimes". In other words, we would turn this whole political correctness thing with regards to Islamic Supremacists upside down. The end result (should this theory be confirmed) would be de facto free speech on our side, as the larger letters which hold the Arabic script would spell out words which convey our own messages without any limitation. This presentation also includes an adaptation of this basic concept for radio, television, etc..

This text includes numerous mentions of respectful treatment of physical excerpts from the Qur'an in pursuit of this new form of writing. This would be necessary in the implementation of this text if the text is to serve our interests. We are essentially working with a double-edged sword; we just want the edge of the opposition side to be dull.

"Hate Speech" background, with a UK emphasis

The concepts under consideration focuses primarily on the presentation of text and images having a special design, in both written and electronic forms (including audio), for public consumption. Due to certain distinguishing characteristics, they might be able to confer to our side unbridled free speech, something which to date seems to have only been in the possession of the Left and Islamic Supremacists.

Since the thoughts which our allies seek to express may either directly or indirectly touch upon the ideology/religion of Islamic Supremacists, there is always the potential for some governmental authority (primarily in Europe) to arbitrarily claim that the phrasing or imagery involved constitutes "Hate Speech". And since a conviction for such a violation can result in severe penalties and can seemingly arise from any sort of criticism made in an off-hand manner, many on our side have effectively silenced themselves to avoid any such risk. In view of the stifling effect of these laws (primarily in Europe), it would behoove us at this time to conduct a brief examination of them. In this case, our examination will be limited to the United Kingdom.

This Wikipedia link looks at "Hate Speech" laws in multiple nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech. The laws in the UK are discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom . Our focus is on religion, which is more fully discussed in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006; http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2320532. This law appears to allow some criticism of a religion, but some of its requirements appear to be subject to interpretation. In other words, there is no freedom in the UK for a person to say anything they wish. We will come back to these UK laws in later text.

Prohibitions regarding the defilement of written or spoken excerpts from the Qur'an

It is universally conceded in Islam that it is blasphemy to defile, deface or desecrate both the Qur'an or any specific verses or other excerpts taken from it (particularly if they incorporate the name of "Allah"). From the perspective of Islamic Supremacists, the terms "defile, deface and desecrate" may be applied in various situations.

Examples of recent incidents regarding the violation of any form of excerpt from the Qur'an (excluding violations of the Qur'an as a complete text) include: the distribution of soccer balls which had a declaration of faith from the Qur'an (as seen on a Saudi Arabian flag on the balls); http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6964564.stm); the presumed depiction of the name of "Allah" on Nike shoes (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1997/06/25/bus_nike.html); the presumed depiction of the name of "Allah" in an ice cream label (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/09/uk-allah-ice-creams-banned.html ); touching a Qur'an by a non-Muslim (http://www.opendoorsuk.org.uk/news/news_archives/001870.php ); the planned use of excerpts from the Quran on handbags ( http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/193/editorials/editorials/ ); tearing a religious sticker which mentioned Mohammad (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christians.persecuted.under.blasphemy.laws.in.pakistan/13822-2.htm ); tearing up paper with excerpts from the Qur'an ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/05/athens-muslim-protests-renewed-over-alleged-koran-desecration.html ); and tearing up a book with excerpts from the Qur'an http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000609.shtml ); These are just a few examples.

As an aside, the above examples are not the only things which seem to "offend" Islamic Supremacists. Many others can be found here: http://thingsoffensivetoislam.blogspot.com/ This is an extraordinary blog; too bad it has not been updated since 2008 (as of this writing in mid-2010).

According to Islamic law, there does not seem to be an outright prohibition against writing in Arabic or another language, on a "suitable" object, a verse which appears in the Qur'an. However, it would be deemed as very inappropriate if the excerpt was written specifically in Arabic and also applied to something which would definitely be brought into an "unclean" setting or brought into direct contact with something seen as undesirable. Therefore, an inscription on a shoe would be banned. As would an inscription on a woman's hand bag, as the woman bearer may be "unclean" (see prior link). One would think that an excerpt from the Qur'an would be allowed on a tee-shirt for a Muslim man or a "clean" Muslim woman, but it appears that this can only be done if there is an assurance that such individuals would not enter "unclean" places (like lavatories). Since it is improbable that the average person would want to be inconvenienced by constantly removing such attire when entering "unclean" settings, it would be very rare to find any clothing with such inscriptions. One expects that Islamic Supremacists would likely assert that it would be prohibited for an infidel to wear such clothing. But the wearing of an additional layer of clothing beneath such an inscribed shirt would tend to negate such an objection. After all, the use of gloves by infidel police or military in handling Qur'ans seems to have been deemed acceptable by all concerned. And gloves are essentially an intervening layer( http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/06/dhimmitude-at-gitmo-kid-gloves-for-the-quran.html ). Further insight would be welcomed here.

Excerpts from the Qur'an may be transposed in Arabic to paper, however, precautions must be taken to assure that the paper does not end up as scrap and thrown in with general waste materials. Muslims have special procedures through which they may retire any Qur'an or excerpts derived from it.

We would now like to briefly touch upon prohibitions regarding the audible voicing of excerpts from the Qur'an and/or the name of "Allah". Examples of prohibitions in recent times include the use of exerpts from the Qur'an in a rap song (http://www.insidedesi.com/music/519/busta-arab-money-muslims/ ); and excerpts from the Qur'an being heard in the background of a PlayStation 3 game http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/10/17/littlebigplanet-has-global-recall-for-qur-an-quote/1 ).

In addition to these recent incidents which involve listening, we should also understand that the name of Allah should not be uttered in the bathroom, at least during moments of elimination: ( http://www.paklinks.com/gs/religion-and-scripture/222395-can-we-recite-allah-tallahs-name-in-the-washroom-2.html; http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1950.html; http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/20620; http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503547398&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar; http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f16/saying-allahs-name-while-bathroom-9716/.

As for the Koran being heard on the radio, it seems to have been deemed permissible ( http://books.google.com/books?id=xP_jUdvbGPIC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=%22qur'an+on+the+radio%22&source=bl&ots=F58xNtfuRN&sig=Dn54Eqi7hX7NC15--dm99A4ui-g&hl=en&ei=DO79S_v8BIOC8gbrkITUDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22qur'an%20on%20the%20radio%22&f=false

With respect to images, it is universally agreed within Islam that depictions of Mohammed are prohibited. Although other forms of image depiction may be prohibited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam ), the sanction against depictions of Mohammed is the most consistent throughout the Islamic world. An example of the reaction to depictions of Mohammed can be found in researching the "Cartoon incident" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy ). Image depictions of Mohammed restricted solely to the internet are also prohibited (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126976755&ft=1&f=1004 )

We will consult the preceding information considerably in later text.

Freedom of Speech

Those who are allied to our cause are generally ambivalent with respect to the overall beliefs of Muslims with regards to images and a desire to treat the Qur'an in a specific manner. We do, however, have deep concerns where members of the Islamic Supremacist community demand that the honoring of such expectations be commanded of non-Muslims and that anyone who violates their wishes be subjected to the punishment of Islamic law. Or at least be punished under special provisions in Western law, i.e., "hate crimes". If such demands were to be honored within Western society, we would essentially be placing Islam in a position of having special privileges afforded to no other religion. Wait a minute. We've already done that.

In our current climate in the West, the authorities have found themselves in a difficult situation whenever anything has taken place where a Westerner has intentionally or unintentionally violated any Islamic prohibitions regarding imagery or excerpts from the Qur'an. The "cartoon incident" (see above) is the most prominent of these cases to date. When backed into a corner, these appeasement oriented authorities have generally given a hesitant, grudging acknowledgement of the right to free speech. But in the process, it seems that they have often done everything possible to side with Islamic Supremacists in expressing outrage. Some have also explored any possible ways to punish the perpetrators to placate the Islamic Supremacists. If they can get away with labeling an action as "hate speech", they will take any opportunity to do so.

Obviously, the authorities come across as weak in the commitment to the principles of free and unfettered speech

Who can claim to be a Muslim?

In later text, an understanding of who can claim to be a Muslim will be needed. Essentially, it requires a person to simply pronounce the Shahada (or Declaration of Faith) with "sincerity and conviction". Nothing more (at least at the time this phrase is spoken). Details can be found here: http://www.muslimconverts.com/howtoconvert/; http://islamworld.net/docs/become.html; http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-6.htm. Readers, please bear with me on this; there is a reason.

What constitutes "letters" and "words"?

If we read the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 (see above) , we can see that it discusses the use of "threatening words or behavior, or displays (of) any written material which is threatening ...". It also discusses "a person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening ...". We can only conclude that a sense of what might be threatening would have to be drawn from what is said in a grouping of words, in the form of a phrase or sentence. Nowhere does this law define what comprises a "word"; nor does it really address images. Regarding "words", it would be reasonable to assume that they consist of a grouping of well established letters which convey a generally understood meaning.

The general definition of a "letter" is "a written symbol or character representing a speech sound". Although there are a wide variety of fonts and styles within the Latin alphabet, an authentic letter is generally "complete", without segmentation. Thus, an authentic word should have the same characteristics. Of course, some words may be handwritten in a sloppy manner, but they can usually be discerned as having the required components for each letter.

It is important to understand that through the principles of perceptual and optical illusions, we can have "letters" which are "officially" seen as incomplete. Such incomplete letters would not have all of the required components to officially be called "letters", but, due to their artful design they are still perceived as being letters. Essentially, the mind inserts the "missing" elements. 1683 AD has seen examples of such text in years past, but unfortunately cannot recall the exact place. Hopefully a reader who is enthusiastic about optical / perceptual illusions can secure some samples for review. Phrases and sentences formed in the mind by such "illusionary" letters might be able to escape the jurisdiction of the law, since no one would be able to honestly demonstrate any sort of official meaning from each one on their own, at "face value". The authorities might try to deduce a meaning, but that would be subject to the perceptual abilities of individuals. In other words, since "illusionary" letters cannot be officially deemed "letters" (and thus form phrases and sentences), it seems reasonable to deduce that any such "text" could be impervious to the "Hate Speech" allegations of the authorities. Of course, legal authorities on our side would need to evaluate this proposition further to determine if it is truly valid. Although this is an important concept which will be mentioned in our concepts, we are not entirely dependent on it.

One other aspect concerning the letters utilized in words, whether such letters are "official" or "illusionary", is that the components which comprise them can all be seen as being "blocks" of varying sizes. For example, the letter "T" has vertical and horizontal blocks. The blocks are generally solid and continuous in nature and they all have length and width (being two dimensional). Of course, the width of the vertical (not horizontal) portion of the letter "T" is exceedingly small in the example you are now viewing, but it does exist. We should also understand that if a block were to be segmented, with a small gap between each segment, the perception of a complete block would still persist.

An understanding of what may constitute a word in Latin lettering is imperative in order to comprehend the concepts which we will be setting forth.

The urgent need for unique lettering which will provide us with an advantage

As we have discussed above, "illusionary" letter characters exist (somewhere) which do not meet the specific legal requirements of what a letter must have to form a word. Yet they still enable the mind to perceive words effectively. Should such letters be acquired, it might be possible to use them in various printed displays and "say" whatever we want to say, without the authorities having any justification to charge us with anything. This is because the individual letters would not pass legal muster and there would consequently be no way for the authorities to legally charge us with saying something. Of course, these assumptions require legal confirmation.

Next, it might also be possible for us to incorporate into both "conventional" and "illusionary" letters (which comprise words, phrases and sentences) exceedingly small lines of Arabic script which depict excerpts from the Qur'an. These small lines would effectively segment the "block" portion of each letter, removing their usual continuous quality. If you imagine each letter as consisting of a stack of closely packed text lines which begin and end at the unseen border of the blocks, you will understand what we are describing. When viewed from a reasonable distance, these text lines would (en masse) create the impression of complete letters. This tactic would have a number of benefits. First, it would give us readable letters (conventional or "illusionary"). Next, it would enable us to be of assistance to our Islamic Supremacist friends, as, despite the message which the large, composite letters might convey, we would be helping them to propagate their own beliefs. How nice of us! Yes, they may need binoculars to read the Arabic script, but it would be there. As we know, we cannot place any limits on the capabilities of words from the Qur'an - in Arabic, when they are confronting infidels. It only follows that the Islamic Supremacists should be pleased by our efforts. Later text will go into detail regarding the specifics of such displays.

Before we can really progress with this concept, we need someone to devise a set of characters which would meet our specification and make them available to all of us on the internet. Without such a resource, we really cannot proceed with the plans as outlined below. This need is urgent! We implore you to do anything within your means to work towards developing such lettering.

Actions which involve written, "non-electronic" excerpts from the Qur'an and/or the name of "Allah"

In reading the concepts , ideas and proposals in this presentation, we urge that you consult the appropriate authorities to confirm whether their implementation would be legal within your own country. 1683 AD can provide no assurances in this regard. Also, the following presents a number of assumptions which would need to be confirmed through further research.. We urge that you fully evaluate your safety situation if you implement any of the concepts in this presentation.

PROTEST SIGNS, STICKERS, ETC. - It is suggested that signs used in protests incorporate letters which are "illusionary" or "conventional", while simultaneously having excerpts from the Qur'an in Arabic Script filling in the blocks areas of each letter. Like regular lettering which has been used in protests up to this point, this modified lettering would obviously be integral in conveying a basic message. But it might also give our side a considerable advantage. Namely, it would place the authorities, as well as opposition groups (like the UAF - United As Fascists, in the UK), in a rather difficult position. If they were to dare any physical assault on protesters carrying these special signs, one thinks that they might risk committing blasphemy and offending Muslims. They would have no assurance that their assault would not tear the signs and desecrate the name of "Allah" written in the Qur'an excerpts. Nor could they guarantee that blood would not soil the excerpts. As a result, if they went ahead with an assault, one suspects that they could be accused of "Hate Crimes" under the corresponding laws of the country involved. Another benefit would arise from the ability to say anything we want to say in the messages formed with this special lettering and not worry about "Hate Speech" laws. This is because if the authorities attempted to confiscate a sign from a protester, they would risk damaging it and thus committing blasphemy. Furthermore, with the use of "illusionary" letters, the authorities would not be able to claim that our side actually said anything which violates the law in the first place. They would be making assumptions based on what they might have "perceived" on an individual basis.

It is understood that the authorities is some nations demand to approve the text on protest signs in advance. We would have a few options in this regard. Concerning signs bearing "conventional" letters and Islamic text within the blocks, they could be told of the large, overriding message and not told of the smaller Islamic text within the blocks, as the latter would not be deemed readable from a distance. Or, they could be told of the Islamic text. It is up to the organizer to decide. If told of the Islamic text and they refuse it to be allowed solely for that reason (with the main message allowed), they could be publicly accused of "Hate Speech", particularly if we assert that Muslims would be holding the signs (see below). If we use "illusionary" signs, we could simply say that the Arabic excerpts from the Qur'an would be displayed, as there would not be an "official" major message (since the letters would be "illusionary"). Again, the "Hate Crime" allegation could be levied if this was refused.

Some may argue that the protesters from our side would be treating the inscriptions in a disrespectful manner simply by holding them. However, if the flag of Saudi Arabia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia ), which includes the text of "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah", is allowed to be displayed out in the open, what is to prohibit the display of a poster? Of course, opponents might then say that an infidel touching something which bears excerpts from the Qur'an is forbidden, as shown in the various links, above. If that is they case, then the protesters on our side could wear gloves, just as the police have been told to do when encountering Qur'an's. If that protection is somehow deemed insufficient, then some of the protesters could "become Muslims" (see prior text) immediately prior to obtaining a sign and holding it respectfully. If the official strategy for becoming a Muslim is followed, then who would have the authority to challenge it? Apparently nobody. In fact, since our side is generally penned in during the protests (particularly in the UK), no long-standing, devout Muslims would even be in a close enough proximity to engage in conversation with the "new" Muslims. Who could prove that a person who just became a Muslim was not sincere? Nobody again. Is a brand-new Muslim of two minutes less of a Muslim than one who has been raised in the faith? We haven't seen anything written to that effect. What authority with an Islamic perspective would be in a position to immediately command new Muslim protesters on our side to stop holding the posters? We don't see any. Of course, we would insist that any of our protesters carry the signs in a respectful manner, and they would be disposed of in a proper manner, too. These last points regarding respect are very important, for if we follow every expectation to the nth degree, we cannot be accused of being antagonistic. As to whether these protesters become apostates immediately after the protests, that would be a matter of individual decisions. By the way, there would be one new advantage, at least in the UK, for becoming new Muslims just at the start of protests: they would be afforded an exclusive right by the authorities to throw shoes at anyone they wish ( http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/04/scotland-yard-sanctions-muslim-shoethrowersallowed-to-throw-shoes-at-politicians-police-etc.html )! Finally, we would be granting our Islamic Supremacist friends a gift, in that we would be displaying words of the perfect, noble Qur'an for all to see! Such words would of course have the effect of overpowering whatever is written in the larger text, and thus we would actually be assisting them. How could they be against that?

Regarding stickers and any other display which would be left on its own, we would use the same lettering strategy as discussed with the protest signs, above. Similar considerations as to who would post stickers in public places or otherwise distribute them would be followed. With stickers, it is imperative that they be made with materials which would not allow a smooth removal. In other words, if a person attempted to remove such stickers, they would likely tear. As a result, any Islamic Supremacist, Leftist, or police official who would attempt to remove (or cover) such stickers could be accused of blasphemy and "Hate Crimes".

CLOTHING - We mentioned previously that although there does not seem to be a direct prohibition against the wearing of a tee-shirt or other attire with an excerpt from the Qur'an on it, this practice is generally not performed in the Islamic world due to the inconvenience it would cause if someone had to enter an unclean environment, such as a lavatory In our situation, we would suggest that clothing which bears subject matter as discussed in protest signs, above, be utilized. All of the other considerations as described above regarding proper treatment of the inscriptions should be considered. This might include the "new Muslim" approach, above. Reasoning suggests that when properly worn in a clean environment, attempts by the opposition or police to injure a wearer (who wears the attire properly) or to remove the attire would risk committing blasphemy. We would deeply urge that such attire only be put on at the commencement of protests and removed immediately afterwards. This is not something which you would want to be caught wearing alone, if encountered by a gang of Islamic Supremacists.

BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS- Books and pamphlets offer tremendous possibilities. If the letters in books could be printed with microscopic Arabic script, as discussed above with other applications, one suspects that the entire book or pamphlet would command protection from harm. Obviously, they would merit the same treatment as we have put forth previously. One wonders if Bibles or the texts of other religions could finally be introduced into "peaceful" Saudi Arabia with this approach. If they are to stand by their prohibitions against harming the word "Allah", we don't see how they could destroy such texts. Although this may sound good in theory, it is hard to perceive that the development of such lettering would be possible, due to size limitations.

THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECTS - It is obvious that certain three-dimensional objects (not all) are forbidden to bear inscriptions of the Qur'an over their entire outer surface. It is unknown whether a so-covered forbidden object would be destroyed or not, since the act of destruction of the object would desecrate the inscriptions on the exterior. There is no real desire (or need) for an activity which would draw from this approach.

TATTOOS - Existing Muslims are forbidding to wear any form of tattoo, particularly if it contains text as we have discussed above. This may not necessarily apply with Shia Muslims. Tattoos do not restrict a person from becoming a Muslim (http://www.muslimconverts.com/cosmetics/tattoos.htm ). Here are examples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/farshadebrahimi/127728989/; http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx?Page=article&sectname=News%20-%20City&sectid=2&contentid=20090119200901190252246906371d0fc. The point of raising this issue is that it might be possible to claim that a planned or potential assault by authorities or the opposition on multiple bearers of such tattoos would risk damaging tattoos directly, thus constituting blasphemy. Furthermore, if any sort of assault in any setting resulted in the bearer's death, that would bring an accelerated destruction of the tattoo and thus be considered blasphemy also. This reasoning suggests that an awareness of such a tattoo by the police or opposition, even if miniscule and well hidden, should make the bearer immune from assault. Since they may not me able to display such a tattoo in a public setting for verification, the opposition and the authorities would have to accept such an assertion at face value, or risk charges of blasphemy or "Hate Speech". And as a long-standing Islamic Supremacist would be rare to possess such a tattoo (or any tattoo), it would be unlikely that they would claim similar protection.

IMAGES - Images of any type, (be they angular geometric in nature or otherwise), consist primarily of lines. Arabic script can be formed into curved or angular lines. If an image was created in this manner which was deemed objectionable, the question arises with what to do with it. Destruction would destroy the text, which would have its own repercussions under Islamic law.

Actions which involve broadcasted excerpts from the Qur'an and/or the name of "Allah"

Many who read the posts of 1683 AD have come to realize that on various occasions we have voiced serious concerns regarding our Islamic Supremacist friends and suggested various ways to assist them. Examples may be found in our discussion on the stamping of currency and the presentations of Taliban Faires. We would like to express a similar spirit of helpfulness in mind with three specific situations of a technological nature. Should you concur through further research (which will definitely be needed) which shows that the concerns are indeed valid and that the actions have potential, we would urge that you pursue the implementation of these concepts through any available means. However, as things stand, the remaining concepts rest on premises which have not been confirmed and could actually be in error.

ADDRESSING THE PRACTICE OF UNFETTERED BROADCASTS - Our first issue involves the audible or visual broadcast via radio, television, cell phone ringtones or the internet of any excerpts from the Qur'an or other Islamic texts; specifically those which mention the name of "Allah". As we are aware, transmissions of this nature are ongoing throughout the world. A concern arises from the fact that the above-mentioned excerpts can be heard or seen by anyone, including non-Muslims, in any location. Also, when excerpts are accessed on the internet, they readily can be printed out. The problem is that since the potential "distribution points" for these visual or audible excerpts have been made seemingly boundless with these modern tools and cannot be controlled, there is no way to ensure that they will never be heard or seen by Muslims and non-Muslims alike in "unclean" (or haram settings), particularly bathrooms.

As we have seen in prior text, it is particularly forbidden to mention the name of "Allah" while in the bathroom, more specifically during the act of bodily elimination. Furthermore, visual, written depictions in such a location of the name of "Allah" are firmly prohibited. It only seems logical to conclude from the various examples regarding bathroom activities cited above that the introduction of excerpts from the Qur'an and the name of "Allah" in unclean settings through the stated technological means would be a great offense to Muslims everywhere. It is not a far reach to also deduce that a continuation of media throughout the world which has such content would be akin to placing an "cyber" printing press for Qur'ans in bathrooms. Should others conduct extensive research and confirm that the presentation of excerpts from the Qur'an over the airways would actually constitute a direct violation of Islamic beliefs because of the inability to limit where it is heard, it would behoove us to reach out, through the press, and encourage Muslims to respect the Qur'an and ban all direct quotations from it on the internet, television, radio, etc. We could only expect a great deal of appreciation from the Muslim world for such a gesture of concern. Something tells us, however, that a convenient excuse for the continuation of broadcasts will be found.

ADDRESSING THE JAMMING OF WESTERN-BASED BROADCASTS - Our second issue involves radio and television. It might be termed a "fairness doctrine" of sorts, whereby we would demonstrate to the Islamic world that despite any differences we may have, there is a way in which we could give them an opportunity to speak in an ideal manner through these media on their own behalf, at our expense. The issue concerns broadcasts made into Islamic dominated nations via radio or television by Western entities. One would expect that such broadcasts would be jammed if deemed contradictory to the interests as decided by the governments of the respective nations. We should point out that the act of "jamming" essentially destroys transmission signals ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming ). When you take into account the destructive capacity for jamming, it would appear that the authorities of these nations would have a big problem if they jammed signals which conveyed excerpts from the Qur'an, particularly those with mentions of the name of "Allah". After all, by jamming such transmissions they would be "destroying" these excerpts and thus constitute blasphemy.

If these understandings are confirmed by others, we might consider a new tactic for any Western-generated transmissions. This would entail the placement of a continuous recitation of the Quran within any broadcasts (radio or television). Such a recitation would be at a lower volume than the main part of the broadcast. The rate of speech would also be accelerated to a point where the words would still be discernable, but bordering on sounding like a constant "hum". On television, a similar approach could be taken with the visual element by having a small running line at the bottom of the screen depicting the text which is being spoken. Once Western broadcasts are armed with the Qur'an, so to speak, any Islamic government which attempts to jam the transmissions could be charged with blasphemy, as they would be actively "destroying" the Qur'an. As a result, free speech could finally be introduced from abroad into many Islamic nations.

We should keep in mind that in every second which such broadcasts would be on the air, the use of this strategy would enable the faith of Islam to be propagated; at no expense to Muslims! In addition, we would be using the most supreme form of expressing Islamic ideals, the Qur'an itself. This would generate the "Fairness Doctrine" effect (an old concept from U.S. broadcasting which is adored by Leftists). Obviously, the use of direct words from the perfect Qur'an would easily dispel and overwhelm any conversations or images being depicted in the "main element" of the broadcast. And the use of accelerated speech would ensure that a greater volume of knowledge from the Qur'an is absorbed by viewers or listeners. Our Islamic Supremacist friends would be most grateful for such a gesture! Of course, the Western hosts would have their main message conveyed with a bit higher volume and a larger area on the screen, but that would pose no problem for the powerful words from the Qur'an!

Before concluding, we must acknowledge that the jamming concept contradicts the premise of the approach which immediately precede it. We'll let that issue be battled out by anyone who gets involved.

ADDRESSING THE LIMITATIONS ON FREE SPEECH WITHIN EUROPEAN RADIO AND TELEVISION - A key factor which has, at the time of this writing in mid 2010, kept the United States from falling into the abyss through the actions of the Marxist President Obama and his fawning myrmidons, has been the voice of American Talk Radio and a number of the commentators on the Fox News Channel. Their ability to speak freely without having to give "equal time" to the opposition has enabled the public to become accurately informed about all of the President's schemes and it has emboldened them to defy their implementation.

Although 1683 AD is by no means fully versed on European broadcasting (and the assumptions made herein may need considerable correction), it seems that a major reason Europeans have not awoken to the threat of Islamification is that radio and television in Europe has to conform to all sorts of restrictions which favor the Left and their Islamic Supremacist allies. Although much of broadcasting in Europe seems to be government dominated, it appears that it exists in many areas alongside private broadcasting. However, just because a broadcaster is "private" does not appear to give him the freedom under European laws to say what he wishes.

We will not go into detail here regarding the specifics on the limitations placed on radio and television broadcasting. However, with private broadcasters, it might be possible to implement the same approach as mentioned in the "jamming" concept, above. This might make them legally immune to demands for equal time by the opposition for any statements they may make regarding Islamification. And when the broadcasted topics drift to a discussion of Leftist practices, a reading of Marxist documents could be played in the "background". Again, Islamic Supremacists (and Marxists) would be afforded the same benefits as described in the discussion on jamming if this concept were implemented in Europe. Even if this concept is unworkable, something needs to be done to correct this glaring deficiency.

Posted on 05/29/2010 at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Alerting you to the growing threat of global Islamic Supremacist domination.

08/02/2012

02/22/2011

02/13/2011

Overview

Forums focused on Islamic Supremacists

Forums for ex-Muslims

Forums which have a Right wing (Conservative) political orientation and do not have an Islamic Supremacism focus

12/29/2010

Introduction

The options

Points to keep in mind with message selection and placement

Image creation and image sharing

Making these items available to large numbers of people

Considering the manufacturers

The importance of this tactic

12/19/2010

11/27/2010

11/19/2010

10/23/2010

Introduction

The Plan for Challenge Radio in Europe

Initial research

Detailed research of the available alternative means for radio transmission and listening

Research legal issues pertaining to censorship

Research miscellaneous topics prior to the launch of Challenge Radio

Our recommended strategy - an overview

Organizational stage - technology oriented

Organizational stage - host oriented

Promotion and launch stage for Challenge Radio

Late entry options for consideration

09/20/2010

Introduction

The organization of this posting.

Background information.

Strategy for "Building Bridges".

08/04/2010

07/28/2010

07/20/2010

06/04/2010

05/29/2010