Wednesday, 29 September 2010

Islamic Inventions: Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide and Holocaust [by Mark Bernadiner]

- by Mark Bernadiner

In his Cairo speech, Obama accredited to arabs all fundamental inventions human race made over centuries. None of the Obama mentioned is true, as every person graduated from credible high school knows. However, it does not mean that arabs, great nation with centuries of history, has no inventions critical for human life. They have and here they are:

1. Ethnic Cleansing - invented centuries ago, implemented over 2000 years ago in Israel when they occupied Israel and disseminated Jews around the world; from 1948 through 1953 arab countries expelled a million Jews and stole their properties; in 1999, Kosovo Liberation Army stormed homes of the last 15 Jews in Kosovo’s capital, who had to clear out, with just the clothes on their backs; currently, Jews in Yemen under attack, including the murder of Jewish community leader Moshe Yaish al-Nahari. “They throw stones at us. They curse us. They want to kill us,” said Salem Suleiman of his former Muslim neighbors.
2. Genocide – invented by Turks and implemented in 1915–1917 in Armenia: over 1.5 mln. Armenians, including children, died.
3. Holocaust – invented by Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, in 1920s in Palestine (occupied territory of the State of Israel); implemented in Palestine in 1920s-30s; in 1941, Haj Amin al Husseini brought the Holocaust idea to Hitler and helped him to implement Holocaust in Europe from 1941; he organized in Europe two islamofascist brigades that operated under SS. Had their own concentration camp and killed thousand of Europeans, including Jews.

Islam is based on three fundamental principles:

1. Stealing
2. Killing, and
3. Lying

Koran is the Islamic Mein Kampf.

Koran says:
"Slay them wherever you find them. Fight against them till idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme" (Sura 2:190),
"Seek out your enemies relentlessly" (Sura 4:103),
"Make war on them till idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme" (Sura 8:36),
"When the sacred months are over slay the unbelievers wherever you find them. Arrest them, beseige them and lie in ambush everywhere for them" (Sura 9:5),
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you" (Sura 9:121),
"When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield strike off their heads" (Sura 47:3),
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate" (Sura 66:7).

Islam is fascism and must be eliminated from the face of the Earth.


  1. Sorry to be blunt mate, but this is historically illiterate bilge. I wrote extensively on my blog about the many problems with Obama's Cairo speech shortly after he delivered it, including but not limited to how he attributed basically all the inventions of the Greeks, Chinese, and pre-Islamic Persians and Egyptians to 'Islam,' but this attempted correction you have here is no more historically accurate. The assertions that the Arabs invented ethnic cleansing and that the Turks invented genocide are particularly egregious errors. This is not to say that both groups have not participated in these activities, but to say that they invented them is ludicrous. Genocide and ethnic cleansing have a long and extensively-documented history in human civilisation that pre-dates the appearance of Arabs or the Turks on the world stage by over a millennium, and is certain to have occurred in the many thousands of years of human civilisation before we have such a wealth of documentary evidence. Behaviour that could reasonably be termed genocidal has even been observed in chimpanzees. If you want to see just a fraction of the evidence for yourself, pop down to the British Museum and you can see the Assyrian bas-reliefs—long pre-dating the rise of the Arabs—that are in large part basically the Assyrian king bragging about all the different peoples he exterminated.

    As if that weren’t enough, you make the particular claim that 'the Arabs' "implemented [ethnic cleansing] over 2000 years ago in Israel when they occupied Israel and disseminated Jews around the world.” Even the most cursory glance at the history will tell you that this was the Babylonians (I’m assuming you’re thinking of the Babylonian conquest, because that was the one that ended the first Jewish kingdoms there and was famous for beginning the first Diaspora). The Arabs did not even appear on the world stage as a conquering power until after the rise of Islam in the 7th Century AD, considerably less than 2000 years ago.

    You come closest to the truth when you discuss Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini. He did of course have a strong relationship with Hitler, recruited two Waffen SS Divisions from Bosnian Muslims (who subsequently mutinied, but over pay, not ideology), and begged Hitler to bring the holocaust to Palestine. But the fact that you have included such a wealth of outrageously false claims in your blog serves only to obscure and discredit any facts that might appear alongside such fantastic assertions. You therefore sabotage any serious discussion of genocidal actions taken in the name of Islam, (some of which you cite correctly, but again, in the context of a blatantly false overarching claim,) the genuine and well-documented link between Palestinian Arabs and Nazism, the esteem in which Hiter is held by many Islamists today, and other, similar things.

    I won’t even comment on your rather succinct analysis of Islamic theology, because that’s a whole different topic. I just thought I’d address what is either appalling ignorance or complete contempt for historical truth.

  2. As the editor of EDL Extra, I did not write the post above, as I'd have thought you would have realised.

    Actually, I did take some of MB's assertions to be rhetorical - as ripostes to the rise of Islamophilia and the many statements from the Palestine/ian Lobby.

    Google MB's name and have it out with him.

    As for your take on 'Islamic theology', I'd love to hear it.

  3. Doesn't explain why you would give something so nutty an approving repost, just like Juniper there. Makes you as culpable as the writer, really. And surely you recognise the difference between rhetorical and complete tosh?

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. My take on Islam is freely available on one of my recent blog posts, but I'll repost the relevant bit here, since you ask. It's from a larger article

  6. "From my personal study of Islam, in particular what it says about how to treat unbelievers, I find it hard to believe that people are capable of taking a positive message of peace, tolerance, respect, and coexistence out of either the Qu'ran itself or the example of Mohammed. However, I am willing to accept that some people do. I can hardly doubt it, having met a few of them in person, and having read pieces by a number of others. Far be it from me to attempt to dissuade them from this admirable conclusion. But what they, and a large number of non-Muslim leftists, need to realise, is that a whole lot of Muslims--almost certainly the majority of Muslim men world-wide, if not of women or those in the Western world--don't seem to agree with them, whether that be the wild-eyed Jihadi in a cave plotting to blow up a disco, or the generally decent man in Riyadh, who goes to work every day, cares about his duty as a husband and father, wants only the best for his family just like billions of people around the world do, and who nevertheless, in the same way that we take for granted the most basic things, such as that race is irrelevant to moral worth or that we won't be arrested for reading a newspaper, takes for granted the most basic things, such as that according to Islam the Jews are hated by God and that it would be completely unacceptable for his wife to leave the house without a male relative accompanying her. Just as it is unthinkable to us that we would prohibit someone by law from converting to Islam, so it is unthinkable to him that someone would be allowed to convert from Islam.

    If even the majority of Muslims do not agree that Islam is a peaceful, tolerant, respectful, freedom-loving faith, as we understand those concepts in the West, how can non-Muslims be expected to conclude that it is those things? Sure, all Muslims are in agreement that Islam is good, but that is different from agreeing that it is something that non-Muslims would consider to be good and would be happy to welcome into their countries. Of the billion Muslims who praise Islamic tolerance, most will, by 'tolerance' mean that people of other religions are allowed to practice their religion under Islamic rule, provided they pay the jizya, don't proselytise, keep a suitably low profile, and otherwise humble themselves before Muslims, as it was in the 'Golden Age' of Islamic Spain. To them, this is as it should be, because although a limited tolerance is good, Islam, as the truth, should reign supreme. This however, is not the 'tolerance' that we praise and respect in the West, or mean when when we use the word.

  7. Like it or not, and any truly moderate Muslim will not like it one bit, the actions of the al-Qaida terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers were not so far outside of normal, mainstream Islamic thinking, either currently, or historically. The particularly modern Islamism of the Muslim Brotherhood and its siblings and offshoots may be a relatively new phenomenon, but the broader Jihad is not.

    Ultimately, the Jihad, as perpetrated by the enemies of our freedom and our way of life, is very real, and it is something that lovers of that freedom need to stand against, whether they think it is a false Jihad that goes against the teachings of Islam, and thus must be opposed, or whether they think it is in the finest tradition of an evil religion, and thus must be opposed.

    But it will do none of us any good, especially not Islamic moderates, to deny that what those moderates mean by Islam is very different from what a lot of very powerful, very vocal, very numerous Muslims across the world mean by Islam, and that it is this other Islam, the one that talks at its most radical about killing infidels, but even at its most mild about placing all other religions below Islam in an ostensibly multi-faith society, that most people, Muslim and non-Muslim, are acquainted with, and that when a Muslim or a non-Muslim refers to 'Islam,' it is to this thoroughly unpleasant ideology, not to Islam as the genuine moderates understand it, that he is almost certainly referring. If moderate, or as the moderates themselves would put it, 'true' Islam, is to be welcomed in the West, it is not just Westerners that will have to be told about it, shown it, convinced of its status as the authentic form of the religion, it is, above all, Muslims.

    Until they are convinced, there is not much point in the moderates trying to convince non-Muslim Westerners that the Muslim Brotherhood and their varied ilk do not represent Islam--there are too many Muslims willing to contradict them."

  8. Interesting to hear that Islam was around 2000 years ago. Especially since it's universally acknowledged that it all started with Mohammed, who wasn't born until circa 600 AD.
    Also interesting to read that it was MUSLIMS who conspired with Hitler. Most internet sources point to American- Jewish interests. Wherever do you find your sources?

  9. Tigger, where in the post does it say that "Islam was around 2000 years ago"? Muhammed wasn't born circa 600 AD. He was born circa 570 AD.

    There is a vast amount of documentary evidence which shows that very many Muslims, especially Arabs, "conspired with Hitler" (as you put it) and supported him. They also were at one with his anti-Jewish and totalitarian ideology.

    "American-Jewish interests" conspired with Hitler. Even if that were true, why would that automatically stop it from the being the case that Muslims also conspired with Hitler?

    However, since you sound as if you're about 15 years old, I can't be bothered to continue.