saif, you are on the right track. Keep it up but it needs to be discussed more freely by the more liberal and well read Muslims. This could lead to the evolution of the New Islam, or the Liberal Islam.

elleX0 aka A. Muhd

More flexibility in formatting would be useful. Also ability for accommodating videos is useful to keep interests up.

Part III

One of the bedrock goals of the American value system has always been the ultimate assimilation of racial and ethnic groups into mainstream society; in the process, members of minority groups change their ways to conform to those of the dominant culture. In the 19th century, the United States was described as the great "melting pot," a place where immigrants of varied racial and ethnic backgrounds willingly and happily blended to create a brand-new national identity. Most people believed that opportunities for inclusion into the larger society, as well as high-paying, stable jobs, could come about only if people from different cultures gradually lost their differences and adopted the lifestyle of the majority.
Assimilation sounded good to many Americans well into the 20th century, particularly when spiced with stories of their own grandparents arriving in this country as penniless immigrants but working hard and eventually "becoming" proud Americans.
However, the inherent trap of assimilation is that although it may signal an ethnic or racial group's inclusion in mainstream society, it also requires the group to transcend its status as a disliked minority by conforming to the dominant in our society, European-American way of life.
Assimilation has sometimes been systematically forced on groups whose beliefs conflict with those of the dominant white culture. Native Americans, for instance, were forced to abandon a lifestyle that was built on values unacceptable to whites. When blacks were brought to America as slaves, they were forced to take new names, families were split apart, and they were forbidden to practice any of the traditions of their native cultures. For them, and for other minority groups, assimilation is sometimes an undesirable goal.
In contrast to the melting pot model, many people today feel that a pluralistic or multicultural society in which groups maintain not only their ethnic identity but also their own language, art, music, food, literature, and religion enriches American civilization. With the massive influx of foreign-born, non-English-speaking people into this country, it has become especially difficult to think of America as one culture and Americans as one people.
Strangely, although some see this as the strength of America, others also see that multiculturalism is divisive for national unity. So to keep to populations united in purpose, it is no coincidence that America has always had to create Satans for the people to hate and to throw stones at. For example, there was the (1) Satan in the shape of the European Monarchy, (2) the Satan of the Pope and the Archbishops who wielded great powers and control over their flock, (3) the Satan of Colonialism, (4) the Satan of Nazism, (5) The Satan of Nipponism, (6) The Satan of Soviet Communism, (7) The Satan of Sino-Communism (8) The Satan of Sino-millitarisation for example, and America has managed to slay many of these Satans.
Yet because of America's First Amendment to the Constitution, America and Americans have been blind to any religious Satans who might threaten America's security. Namely, Islam. Islam has special privileges, as a religion she is protected by the First Amendment, and with the acceptance of Multiculturalism, Islam is free to proselytise and practice her faith largely unmolested in America. Until this issue is understood and confronted by the American legislators, she will continually be undermined in her sovereignty. What must be understood is that Islam is not only a religion but it is also a complete way of life and a complete political ideology determined to rule the world. Islam has to be viewed and classed as a totalitarian fascist ideology that will stop at nothing to force Islam on everyone living.

Part II

Still, hypothetically, let us expand this concept one step further. We can understand the abhorrence of accommodating Nazis or Communists in the 1950 to 2000 into western societies because we considered them The Enemy with unacceptable ideologies, but let us extrapolate this concept further. Because of labour shortage after WWII, it would have resolved labour problems in western Europe if they would have admitted the millions of Hindus, or Buddhists, or Africans, or Chinese into their countries to help repopulate their nations, but this too would have been rejected by these governments as well as their populace. Why? Because these people were seen as having alien cultures, and they looked and behaved differently. But these peoples, the Hindus, the Buddhists, Africans, or Chinese are highly civilised and sophisticated peoples, who are all peaceful, hard-working, and would make an excellent workforce and citizens, and they were not enemies of the West. These groups of people have never had an agenda like the Nazis or the Communists who have openly declared that they wished to supersede other governments and to take over and rule the world. Yet, the barriers go up. Why?

Perhaps this is what the promoters of multiculturalism are fighting to overcome, unwarranted xenophobia. But would any western nation allow unregulated immigration from India, or Africa, or China into their nations to overwhelm their cultures? There would be a revolution in these western nations if this was contemplated. Because, deregulation would mean a flood, nay, a tsunami of of immigration of 3rd world peoples into western nations who have carefully built up their government institutions and their social welfare institutions for the benefit of all built upon the taxes they have paid for years to attain their level of social services and benefits and they want to preserve their systems, and most importantly their own cultures. Peoples of the 3rd world countries who do not have any of these social welfare safety nets in their countries would naturally swarm to where such facilities are available, especially if it is available free on their arrival. These 3rd world peoples would be transported instantly from a state of poverty and deprivation and hopelessness into "heaven." Who would want to stay in the old hell-hole where they were born and brought up when "heaven" was jut a matter to walking into a Western nation that doled such manna to all who come? Yet, non of the mentioned groups of peoples, with different cultural heritage's, like the Hindus, Buddhists, the Chinese, have any intentions or ambitions to be the dominant culture with ambitions of overtaking the government of the host country. They just want to live, let live, and live a peaceful life in harmony with the laws and culture of their host country but with the hopes of keeping their own ethnic cultures alive.

Basically the primitive tribal systems and fears of primitive societies have developed in the west into tribal nation states, amalgamating tribes into nations. But the protective and defensive instincts of man still exists buried under all that sophistication. It is a fundamental instinct of man that multiculturalism seemed to want to destroy, the primitive instinctive self preservation nature of tribalism in mankind. Is there a hidden sinister agenda manipulated some unseen Satan?

Of interest we note from the above the resistance of western nations to the influx of economic migrants or all hues to their nations because essentially there is not a limitless supply of welfare to share with the world and the fear of the take over of alien cultures with one exception, the Islamic culture. Between the end of WWII and the 21st century the influx of Islamic migrants has been continuous and overwhelming in the West. Taking advantage of the confusion after WWII, and the need for unskilled labour in the West, as well as the modern concepts of "liberalism, secularism" and "multiculturalism" the flood-gates to the West were lowered.

These immigration barriers (flood-gates) were not, in my opinion, innocently or accidentally lowered because of incompetence or inefficiency of Western governments. The relaxation of immigration regulations was a planned and carefully integrated surreptitious scheme for a positive discrimination to include Muslim and Arabs into the Western countries to re-establish Europe's once dominance in world affairs and to counteract America's role in world affairs. What are the strengths of the Muslim/Arab world, Europe's closest possible ally, that could be exploited to rebuild Europe's influence in the world?

Part I

The Paradox of Multiculturalism
Islam is what makes multiculturalism impossible.
Multiculturalism instead of creating a level playing field and equality for all, only creates segregation and dissension among the communities because it creates ghettoes and non integration.
LinkCitationEmailPrintFavoriteCollect this page
THE PARADOX OF MULTICULTURALISM Multiculturalism and Nationalism are polar concepts and it is a moral intoxicant.

Multiculturalism is the promotion of multiple ethnic cultures applied to the demographic make- up of a nation. It advocates equitable status to all the distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural community as central.

It is promoted as a fairer system that allows people to truly express who they are within a society, that is more tolerant and better adapted to social issues. It is also promoted that diversity enhances and enriches the nation. Many believe that it removes racial, and religious prejudices and equalises the stature of all citizens regardless of origins and thus guarantees them all equal rights. Its aims are to remove (state/national) racial prejudices with equal opportunities for all. A utopian solution for racial/religious harmony.

But is this view of multiculturalism a paradox? Will it in fact make the assimilation and social integration of minority groups less likely and create ghettos of ethnic groups creating for more diversity and building up distrust and animosities? [1]

Many of us are mesmerised by the over-simplification of the issue. We look at nations like Canada and America who proudly boast of their "melting pot" of the world and look at how they have grown in size and stature and now is the most powerful nation on earth. People visualise how over a relatively short period of time these multiplicity of cultures begin to fuse.

Just as the Irish, Poles, Jews and Italians, who had rubbed shoulders and more in the wake of the European immigration of 1900, had, by the 1950s and '60s, begun to intermarry en mass, so the process is beginning to take place among recent arrivals in L.A. One can find every sort of non white combination in the city now: Hmong and Salvadoran, Ethiopian and Taiwanese, Mexican and Filipino.
Which is commendable and true, but Irish, Poles, Jews, Italians, Germans, English, Spanish, are all Caucasian stock and broadly belong to the Judeo-Christian culture. Yet there are many other cultures and religions that have a much older tradition and of a different racial stock who are proud of their heritage and are much more reluctant to assimilate, integrate, intermarry into that melting pot. There are ghettos of Mexicans, Latinos, Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Ahmadis, Buddhists, Taoists, who even after generations of living in the land of milk and honey, have preferred to stay in their own cultures, discarding nothing, and not even want to integrate. But this is exactly what multiculturalism advocates and it has existed since the beginning of time. So it is nothing new. By forcing or implementing multiculturalism as a state policy only guarantees the freedom of any culture or sect to enforce its ideologies without hindrance of State intervention, and so provides special cover to any subversive activities under the cloak of multiculturalism. For example because of the Constitutional acceptance of secularism in America plus multiculturalism, it would be hypocritical and unconstitutional for America to prevent a Rabbi, a Hindu priest, a Buddhist priest, a communist evangelist, a Nazi, an Islamic preacher, and atheist promoter, and their families and entourage from entering and practising and freely spreading their ideologies. "Constitutional Secularism" should over-rule "homeland security regulations." Thus secularism is the loop-hole for the infiltration of America. And Multiculturalism would be the loop-hole for the infiltration of any nation state if that culture has sinister intent. [2]

Either you practice multiculturalism or you modify and make regulations for exceptions exempting certain groups of peoples, and that would defeat the concept of multiculturalism. Hypothetically, it would have been inconceivable to to have expected any of the Western Democracies to have accepted large influxes of Nazi, or Communist immigrants soon after WW II even when they are of Caucasian stock. So would these Western Democracies been accused of being anti-multiculturalism? Or to accuse these democracies of having double standards and hypocrisy? Of course not, the clash of ideologies would have prevented such tolerance especially when they have shown such animosity to the Western democratic system.

A Deist, following your argument, no argument can be valid because it might change. With that frame of mind, let me out of here. I know what I believe and so do you. Amen.

johnnywoods, thank you for your comments, but I believe you have been misled. As space is limited here, just follow the link for a fuller discussion. Cheers!

"Ishmaelites were not the fathers of Arabs and thus not the father of the Quraish Tribe nor the ancestor of the Prophet Mohammad

According to Robert Morey, [20] the Ishmael tribe, the descendants of Ishmael intermarried into other Egyptian families and with time they were absorbed by the Midianites and other local pagan tribes. Evidence of this appears in the Old Testament when Ishmaelites are referred to as Midianites (Gen.37:25-28; 39:1) and later Midianites are referred to as Ishmaelites (Judges 8:22-24 cf. 7:1f.) The early Ishmaelites were spread throughout Northern Arabia from the wilderness of Shur to the ancient city of Havilah. But the Ishmaelites were eventually absorbed into the larger Midianite tribe. There is no historical or archaeological evidence that Ishmaelis ever migrated south to Mecca where the Quraish tribe was located. So the probability of the Ishmaelis being the ancestors of the Quarish tribe is uncorroborated. Most modern Arabs today believe that Qahtan was the father of Arabs not Ishmael. [21]

Long before the existence of Abraham and Ishmael, Arabia was already populated by the descendants of Cush and Shem (Gen.10:7) who were the original Arabs of the region. They lived in the land of the Pharaohs, the land of many gods, and the existence of the many gods and polytheist culture was available from ancient documents and archeology. The primary god of that era, prior to the appearance of the monotheist God of Moses (1314 BCE), and of Allah of Islam (610 CE), was the Sun God, Ra who existed in pagan Arabia probably at the time of Adam the first generation referred to in the Old Testament in 3760 BCE. [20]

Parentage of Ishmael and Isaac?

An analysis by Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, M.A.Ed., [22] raises legitimate questions of the parentage of Ishmael (and Isaac) considering the age at which Abraham fathered Ishmael (Abraham was 86 and Hagar, their slave was much younger) and Isaac (Abraham was 100 and Sarah 90).

Although it is normally unlikely for older men to father children because his fertility is much diminished, there have been records of men fathering children at 90 years of age even if it has not been medically verified [23] . Hence, I have dismissed this conclusion. But unlike Mattfeld, I have been unable to rationalise Sarah having been able to conceive Isaac at the age of 90 years. This defies natural science assuming that medical intervention was unheard of in 1712 BCE. The oldest natural mother ever recorded was to a British mother of 59 years of age and this must have been some freak of nature [24] . Sarah was clearly way outside of this range. So either there was an error in historical records, or there is something that is inexplicable and highly questionable. Mattfeld's hypothesis with regard to "circumcision" is simply a nebulous and weak hypothesis regarding cultural rites of Arabs probably adopted from Jewish customs.

*Was Prophet Mohammad Descended from Ishmael? http://knol.google.com/k/islamic-origins-abrahamic-faiths-analysed#Ishmaelites_were_not_the_fathers_of_Arabs_and_thus_not_the_father_of_the_Quraish_Tribe_nor_the_ancestor_of_the_Prophet_Mohammad

What a ridiculous account? The claim that Arabs were descendants of Ishmael is false, because it was an impossibility. There was no Arab Palestinians or the land of Palestine before 1948. All the historical facts used are false.

WilliamJW: "Claiming to be a religion by Muslims does not cut it with me when
those who are your members are constrained to remain on threat
of death which is anathema to our liberal traditions and Constitution. "

elle: To Americans, Clinton, Obama, Bush, Bloomberg, Rauf, the ordinary American citizen, Islam is a religion that must be given all the same freedoms as stated in your First Amendment. And most, 97% Americans, have no idea of the true ideology of Islam and believe that it is a "peaceful religion" with only a tiny minority, 1 to 2 % (15 million at 1%) who are fanatical. That is what 97% Americans believe. Are they all wrong and misguided? If they have been misguided, who was responsible for this? The Media? The lies Washington has put out? The ineptitude of the Christian community in not educating their congregation of the dangers of other faiths and religions is unforgivable? "Love thy enemy = suicide." Why have Americans been so gullible even though you, Bill say "it does not cut with me" for which I commend you. What has gone wrong with the American freedom of information system? I'll tell you, PC, Multiculturalism, and Censorship like "you cannot link terrorist and Islam," a diktat from Washington.

Obama says, "Islam is a religion of Peace and is one of the greatest civilisation of our time." Is he wrong? Is your President so badly informed? Will Sarah Palin know any better? You guys condemned and demonised Bush when he stood against tyranny, but you let men like Rauf to pull the wool over your eyes by reminding you about the First Amendment. I think America is a long, long, long way from seeing reality. It will have to come from people like you Bill and I hope you do something about it. Forgive me, Bill, for attempting to stimulate you on.

WJW: "The 1.5 billion world Muslims would become "mulch" in a war
with and aroused and determined West."

elle: May I suggest that the above is simply wishful thinking? To do what you propose, is to assume that other nations allow you to do that with impunity. Also, America is dependent on Fuel Oil, without it you will come to a grinding halt. By "Mulching" your enemies, your will make Oil unattainable to anyone in that region for hundred or thousands of years. So in effect you will be cutting off your nose to spite your face. It won't work.

The only real solution, and you may like this suggestion, is for the only force in the world that could possibly stand up to the Islamic Ummah, and that is to fully get behind the Pope and re-invigorate the fundamental Christian Revival. With that force activated, if it is possible, to take the necessary measures to isolate Islamic insurgence and push back its boundaries. Without it, you have a mountain to climb. But with libertarianism taking charge today, it may be a very up hill battle.

WJW: "I think Americans can come up
with appropriate responses to Islam once we defeat leftism/communism
and progressive treason.."

elle: Forgive me, but I believe you may have got your priorities "arse backwards." IMHO communism is today not a serious threat to the western democracies. But Islam is a direct threat and is a current threat. American perception is a bit passé. So back to the drawing board and rearrange those lead soldiers for a different battle. The threat is the resurgence of Islam, in a very big way. You have to counter with a resurgence of Christianity.

WilliamJamesWard, unfortunately when you have a huge body like the UN to make decisions, it will become completely ineffective. It will come under the axiom of," too many cooks spoil the soup." That is what the UN has become, a showcase for inaction. To add insult to injury, it is also corrupted and bigoted. Perhaps this is why some nations, in particular America, has in many cases decided to take unilateral action.

You said, "If there is a next world war it should be against world leaders who are behind so much violence." The trouble is there can only be a world war if people, like you in America or Europe can see and identify an enemy maybe like Hitler or Stalin or Mao, or Pol Pot or bin Laden, or Ahmadinejad that you can rally against. But unfortunately the latter two cannot be the enemy, because if they are eliminated, others will appear to take up the cause. The enemy in this particular case is, Allah and his ideologies in the Qur'an. How do you fight that, an ideology. Americans cannot identify the enemy because the enemy is a "religion protected by the First Amendment?" How do you fight something that is protected by your First Amendment? That is why you (Americans)are confused. Besides this enemy encompasses 1.5 Billion souls spread over 1/3 of the world. You do not have the means to defeat such an enemy. So do you just appease them and get absorbed by Islam? Are American Christians ready to surrender their beliefs to a larger and more determined enemy? The Christian faith is even more fragmented than the American nation and libertarians today dictate policy. Islam is united under one Allah. one Muhammad and one Qur'an and are determined to conquer the world. What can Christians do? Anything?

Reality is not pretty.