ACTIONS TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION ISLAM DOES NOT LIKE

The cases cited below are just a small window pane in a myriad windows for a look at the concerted effort by fanatical Islam to prevent publication or dissemination of any information that shows the flaws in Islam as a religion of peace or a religion at all. As opposed, in many opinions, to being a virulent political "ism" no different to Fascism, Communism or similar concept of dictatorial rule from the top. Remember the religion used to be called Mohammadanism for centuries and the "Islam" connotation is relatively new as usage. A follower of Islam was called a Mohammadan more often than a Moslem. Just as Christianity has been "polluted" and oft altered by human hand and political expediency from being a great social and moral code handed down in thename of God, so has Islamic tenet, where in Iran MEN can be arrested for wearing their hair in a Western hair cut style and risk violent and severe punishment, possibly execution, if they annoy the cleric who imposes sentence. Or in Saudi arabia where young women in a dormitory which caught fire, were prevented by the morals police from escaping because they were not proprerly clothed to appear in public. So they burned to death as their dress code was deemed more important than their lives. Then of course, in real Islam, women are still considered chattel and must be owned by a man to have a formal status, which derives from the standing of the man, who owns them. Slavery? maybe not. Indentured servitude? You bet! When I hear the defensive comments that what the fanatics are doing is not real Islam, I respond that in fact anything but what they promote is NOT the real Islam. Theirs is the true Islam. The same one which Mohammad imposed by the sword, the same one where the deity "Allah" was originally a large idol he found being worshipped by the locals around Mecca and where it is "either my way or the highway - oops, sorry - my Allah way or death!" Consider, please, the Moslem religion states that Allah created all laws (about 1,400 years ago) and that anything else, specially any other law is thus a forgery and invalid - till the End of Times. Thus according to Islam today, all of us in the 21st Century must revert back to what was customary in the Dark Ages - or die as infidels and apostates! Or if we try Islam and decide we prefer another form of worship - or a more tolerant master than Mohammad, wielding his Allah stick. And consider the belief that EVERYTHING ever approved by Allah is already cited and contained in the Koran and nothing, including scientific and industrial progress or discovery has a place in Islam! And should be shunned and is harmful to Islam. THAT is the true "religion", not the "do as you think best spiritually" that has evolved in some more secular or tolerant countries - as Iran used to be. Save a woman who is not your direct kin from drowning you risk exceution for breaking sharia law of moral correctness. Again, women are mere chattel here on earth to pleasure men and the few that have risen are the exception or as with the Taleban are gunned down in their school bus to scare women away from education and presumably "rising above the status" that Allah chose for them. Islam has always been a dictatorship under Allah but unlike other unilateral rulers, and those who impose it, has no flexibility in its writings or tenets to allow for a modern world to continue and remain within the "religion". You cannot have sovereign nations, you cannot have governments, you cannot have laws, you cannot have elections, you cannot have democracy (whatever that means to you and it's not the same concept for everyone around the world). We tend to talk of "democracy" philosophically but as we perceive it when we speak, not as it appears to the listener, whose mind may not be anywhere near on the same page as us - other than in some basic concepts - as to how best to implement it for the listener in their environment. Or, as a Communist arrested under the late Shah of Iran admitted recently, "we wanted and agitated for "democracy" - for oursleves and our group - so we could promote our Communist philosophy. We did not want the same freedom for everyone else in Iran. Just for us to do our deeds". (Promote the dictatorial rule of the Communist State after overthrowing what in retrospect was a fairly decent democracy under the Shah. Not perfect, since it was a work in progress, but fairly decent nonetheless). The scandal at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. centers on embezzlement allegations made against Farzad Darui. Darui claims that the money was not embezzled, but was being used to pay off the mistresses of Abduallah M. Khouj. Polygamy is officially sanctioned under Islamic law, but since the practice is illegal in the U.S., some of these 'mistresses' were really wives. Except for the ones that weren't. At least one of these 'mistresses' is said to have been held against her will. I'm not sure how that is a good defense. Surely paying off Khouj's wives wasn't in the mosque budget--even if Abduallah M. Khouj is well connected with the Saudi royal family and was a former official at the Muslim World League and even if he was the mosque administrator. But the crux of Darui's argument is this: the charges against him had been manufactured by unnamed Saudi government officials as part of a scheme to oust him from his post. Their goal, Darui maintains, was to claim control over the mosque after Darui resisted Saudi efforts to have “radical” Wahhabi figures deliver messages of intolerance there. “Because Darui barred Islamic radicals, from the [Islamic] Center, the Saudis, via the Center, have falsely accused him of embezzlement,” Darui’s filing claims. Khouj is said to have invited Ali Al-Timimi, who is in serving life in prison for encouraging Muslims to join the Taliban and engage in jihad against U.S. forces, and Osama Basnan, who was deported because of his known association with 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, to speak at the mosque. Darui objected to the radical messages being preached. The conflict between the Saudi Wahabbi Khouj and the more moderate Iranian born Darui came to a head when Khouj decided to step down and the Saudi government, which funds the mosque, intended to replace him with a former director of the Institute for Islamic and Arab Sciences, an organization that has been investigated by U.S. officials for possible links to terrorism. (No charges have been filed against the group.) After Darui sought to thwart the move by calling a rare board meeting, “the Religious Section of the Saudi Embassy began spreading the rumor that Darui was embezzling funds.” And I thought church politics were bad in the Baptist church! ALSO: A MONEY BACKED EFFORT TO SUPPRESS A BOOK In late July, Cambridge University Press announced it was destroying all its remaining copies of Alms for Jihad, a 2006 book exploring the nexus of Islamic charities and Islamic radicalism. At the same time, Cambridge asked libraries around the world to stop carrying the book on their shelves. The reason? Fear of being sued in a British court by Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire who ranks as one of the world's richest men--and whose suspected links to terrorist financing earned him a mention in Alms for Jihad. (Excerpt - read full story at the link below). http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/13/the-forbidden-library/