Kuwaiti Legislators Move To Ban Construction of New Churches As Insult To Islam

125px-Flag_of_Kuwait.svg1024px-Stinger_Crew_Operation_Desert_ShieldWe have another close ally this month attacking the most fundamental principles of freedom of religion. While Kuwait was only too happy to see non-Muslim U.S. troops fight (right) and die to save its country from the Iraqi invasion, it announced a few days ago that it would not allow new churches to be built in the country as an insult to Islam and Sharia law.

Kuwaiti legislators announced that the initial approval of Catholic churches in Kuwait would be blocked. Islamist lawmaker Ahmad Al-Azemi explained that Islam is the official religion of the country and the main source of legislation. He insisted that Islamic scholars are unanimous in banning the building of non-Muslim worship places in the Arabian Peninsula.

Just for the record, we sent about 425,000 US troops to liberate Kuwait and U.S. taxpayers spent $61 billion on the war.

19 thoughts on “Kuwaiti Legislators Move To Ban Construction of New Churches As Insult To Islam

  1. And they tell us ,we must tolerate these countries and their morally disreputable ways. We saved them from Saddam, what a stupid, stupid thing. Another production brought to you by Corproation Bush but this time it was POPPY BUSH!

    The US must end diplomatic relations with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and others. Why is it that we can boycott South Africa and embargo Cuba but these theocrats have us and our military at their beck and cal.

    Imagine what $61 billion would have done for the people of this country! The entire mess is disgusting!

  2. NOVEMBER 15, 2008

    Excerpt: Muslim Academic Questions Muhammad’s Existence

    Below are translated excerpts from an article in German entitled, “Islamic Theology Without the Historic Muhammad — Comments on the Challenges of the Historical-Critical Method for Islamic Thinking,” by Germany’s Prof. Muhammad Kalisch, a Muslim. (See related article.)

    Muhammad Sven Kalish

    Up to some time ago I was convinced that Muhammad was a historical figure. Although I always based my thinking on the assumption that the Islamic historical narrative regarding Muhammad was very unreliable, I had no doubts that at least the basic lines of his biography were historically correct.

    I have now moved away from this position and will soon publish a book in which I will, among other things, comment on this question and explain my arguments in more detail. This essay is only a short summary of my most important arguments. It also deals with the question of what implications historical-critical research has for the Islamic theory and how I deal with my research results as a theologian.

    With regard to the historical existence of Muhammad … I consider my position simply as a continuation of the most recent research results. It appears so spectacular only because it has been said by a Muslim … Most Western scientists turn down such an hypotheses out of respect for Islam or because they are afraid of the reactions of their Muslim friends or because they think it is speculative nonsense.

    The word “respect” sounds wonderful but it is completely inappropriate here because one really refers to the opposite. Whoever thinks that Muslims can’t deal with facts puts Muslims on the same level as small children who can’t think and decide for themselves and whose illusions of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny one doesn’t want to destroy.

    Whoever really bases his thoughts on the equality of all human beings must expect the same intellectual performance. Really treating Muslims with respect would imply that they are strong enough to deal with their religion on the basis of our modern level of knowledge. “Islamophobes” think we Muslims are barbarians, the “kind-hearted” take us for “noble savages”… The result is the same: Muslims are seen as different from the rest of the world — they either belong in a “petting zoo” or in cages for wild animals, but by all means they belong in a zoo.

    The final argument is even more awful because it can only be described as cowardly. Religious fundamentalists are spreading out (not only Islamic fundamentalist) and freedom of thought must be defended no matter what. There must not be any compromise on this otherwise we set the track for a retreat into the Middle Ages and this can happen much faster than many people think.

    My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven. I, however, lean towards the non-existence but I don’t think it can be proven. It is my impression that, unless there are some sensational archeological discoveries — an Islamic “Qumran” or “Nag Hammadi” — the question of Muhammad’s existence will probably never be finally clarified.

    http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/NoMuhammad2.htm

  3. It is Pirate Territory. I want our money back. I don’t want any Christian churches there. I dont want any mosques there. What I do want is to fly over and flush. Big urdTays flying down on them.

  4. Muslims are just as dumb as Christians, more dumb than Christian Scientists, more scientific than Scientologists, more head covered than Jews, more idiotic than friggin Hindus, but not as dumb as New Yorkies and just about as self centered as a New Yorkie and just as myopic. Muslims are like New Yorkies. They emigrate. When a New Yorkie hits 62 and takes his social security check he decides to get the hell out of NYC because the real estate taxes are too high and he/she must move south to warmer climes and cheaper living. Yeah, Florida is cheaper than New York. Go figure.
    If the rest of us could figure a way to get them to move to Kuwait then the lines and waits at the grocery stores down here in FL would be a lot shorter.

  5. “While Kuwait was only too happy to see non-Muslim U.S. troops fight (right) and die to save its country from the Iraqi invasion”

    You’re kidding, right?
    The royal family may have been happy, but the people prefer NOT being bombed by the West. If the West were astute enough to keep peace without bombs, guns, and tanks, the people would have been happy.

  6. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States covered $36 billion of the costs of the Desert Storm and Desert Shield. However, next time they are on their own.

  7. Trump is right, we gave up our kids lives and our treasure keeping them free and we got nothing from all of this. Take their oil as payment and hereafter when they need help see to it that we are reimbursed, at least for the kids who fought.

  8. Send them a bill for the balance, with interest, say $100 billion. Then start to freeze their assets in the US, kind of like not allowing any Muslim bad debtors to do business in the US. Are we still that dependent on their oil? Right now would be a good time to start snipping the old cord.

  9. The following excerpts are from a treasure trove of information and analysis of the power geopolitics of the “liberation” of Kuwait, all of which may be read at the link below:

    “$11,852,329.00 for a Free Kuwait
    “Anybody who thinks advertising is a hit or miss business has been asleep for 40 years.

    “Once the Iraqi occupation had begun, the Kuwaitis found themselves in a rather precarious situation. They had to find a way to sell a war to the American public, most of whom had never before even heard of Kuwait. The illusion had to be created that Kuwait was not an oil-rich oligarchical Islamic regime run entirely by the al-Sabah royal family that had treated its 500,000 foreign workers like slaves, disallowed its citizens membership in any political parties, excluded women from the political process, banned political assemblies, and in January 1990 had broken up a pro-democracy opposition gathering of six thousand, using tear gas and batons.” (My emphasis)
    – Lynden MacIntyre, host of CBC’s The 5th Estate

    The Kuwaiti Incubator Baby Hoax
    “A key event in generating momentum for the first U.S. War on Iraq, ‘Operation Desert Storm’ was a fraudulent report of the murder of Kuwaiti babies by Iraqi soldiers. On October 10, 1990, the U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a hearing on the subject of Iraqi human rights violations. The centerpiece of the event was the emotional testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name, Nayirah. Her full name was supposedly being kept secret to protect her from Iraqi reprisals. The girl relayed a shocking story while sobbing.

    “ ‘I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital. While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.

    “The massacre never occurred. The girl was actually the daughter of a Kuwaiti emir, and had been coached by the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton to give persuasive false testimony.” (Emphasis added)
    http://911review.com/precedent/decade/incubators.html

    Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie

    “July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait) July 25, 1990 – Presidential Palace – Baghdad

    “U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship – not confrontation – regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait’s borders?

    “Saddam Hussein – As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

    “U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – What solutions would be acceptable?
    Saddam Hussein – If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab – our strategic goal in our war with Iran – we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States’ opinion on this?

    “U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
    On August 2, 1990, Saddam’s massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

    “Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy
    “One month later, British journalists obtain the above tape and transcript of the Saddam – Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

    “Journalist 1 – Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

    “Journalist 2 – You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn’t warn him not to. You didn’t tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite – that America was not associated with Kuwait.

    “Journalist 1 – You encouraged this aggression – his invasion. What were you thinking?
    U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – Obviously, I didn’t think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

    “Journalist 1 – You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country! (Emphasis added)

    “Journalist 1 – America green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay – that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) – the territories claimed by Iraq? (Emphasis added)

    “(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)”

    https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/gulf-war-fingrut.html#April

  10. Well, low tolerance for other faiths is typical of Islamic theocracies. This is also typical when we ally with countries that do not share our values. Kuwait is not Canada, England, or France. They still have the same conflict with Western values now that they did decades ago. That is why such alliances tend to be more shaky, and one should expect a divergence.

    The world seems to be a more violent place, not less. And yet our tooth to tail ratio is eroding. We are in danger of not being ready to deal with whatever military situation arises.

  11. It’s great to see that everyone agrees what nonsense this is. I hope they all equally see the foolishness and danger of the christian groups in this country who want to do the same thing. We’re lucky so far because as of yet, these religious fanatics are only a lunatic fringe here in America. But they know they are forever right, and so they will never give up. And we must remain ever vigilant.

    Meanwhile, I would be fine with sending Kuwait a bill for the balance due, including the ongoing treatment of vets who served in that war.

  12. “It’s great to see that everyone agrees what good sense Trump has,” according to voters.
    _____

    ‘Trump added, “I’ve been saying for years, attack the oil. But I said a step further, attack it but keep it. I want to keep the oil.” The businessman also cited the “banks” as allegedly “pouring money into ISIS” as a result of oil transactions.’

    ‘For comparison, Trump mentioned the huge cost of the Iraq War, saying, “we wound up with nothing.” Trump blamed that on “stupid leadership.” Trump suggested some of the region’s oil resources could have gone to help support struggling returning U.S. veterans.’
    _____

    Keep your eye on the ball.

    The Trump Doctrine

    Let ’em keep their stinkin’ churches, we’ll take the oil.

  13. To them is it really about religion in this case or business? To own a business there dont you have to be a kuwait citizen? The catholic church is not. How does this differ from catholic outfits here in usa? Here we try to change the religion’s tenants. (Lil sisters, euthasia, abortion etc). At least there they respect the catholic church
    enough to just deny a building front.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s