| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
This is one of the things that makes a blogger wonder how much he may be contributing to the public debate. I believe I may have been among the first to discuss how Sharia culture is a perfect cancer on Judeo-Christian culture. Our beautiful Judeo-Christian culture teaches us to care about each other's feelings. Sharia culture teaches people to attack each other's feelings -- even their own -- with many Islamofascists purposely sending their own children to their deaths by suicide attack. Sharia culture teaches people to be offended by anyone who isn't also a supporter of fundamentalist Islam.
This makes Sharia culture a perfect cancer on Judeo-Christian culture. We are taught to care about their feelings; they are taught to take offense at everything in the Judeo-Christian culture. Unassimilated Islamists here claim offense, for example, at our right to free speech, and our caring people even consider sacrificing free speech so as not to offend.
So I was glad to see in today's paper, a Brewster Rockit cartoon, which makes a similar point. Click here to see the specific cartoon I'm referring to. Evidently, word is getting around. I wonder if I may have made some contribution in that regard.
However, the word is only starting to get out. A recent column by Jonah Goldberg appears to indicate the same trustingness with regard to unassimilated Islam, which has put the culture of Europe in danger of being overtaken and destroyed:
America is fortunate that our Muslim population is vastly more moderate than, say, France's or Denmark's. We're debating how to accommodate girls' basketball teams. Europeans are debating their civilization as some Muslims try to overturn the foundations of secularism and call for the beheading of those who stand in their way.
This doesn't mean we're not in for some screaming matches - or worse - as we deal with Muslim Americans as the new frontline minority, or with the dilemmas of Muslim immigration. But those are subjects for a million future columns.
Goldberg blithely assumes that 'the dilemmas of Muslim immigration' will be 'dealt with' via 'debates' and 'screaming matches' which will provide fuel for 'future columns.' He is reassuringly unconcerned that what will really happen will be hundreds of cars being burned nightly as in France, embassies being burned as in the cartoon riots, etc. etc. His naivete on this subject, if widely adopted here, would lead to the grave danger Europe is currently in.
As I documented in this recent post, there are many unassimilated Islamists in this country. These Islamists are already seeking to destroy U.S. free speech. Goldberg's 'million future columns' will not come into existence if they were to achieve their goals.
The Judeo-Christian culture is going to have to adapt to counter this threat. We're going to have to learn to say, unassimilated Islamists are seeking to destroy our laws and our culture; and either they have to assimilate and give up those pursuits, or we'll have to expel them.
Page 2 of 2 pages of comments for this article.
#201
#202OMG! From some Al Sharpton/Jerimah Wright hypocrite reverend, “Deliver us from the favoritism of the rich???...... When Black Not Be Asked to Give Back???? When Brown Stay Around?????? When Yellow be mellow, Red man get ahead, man. When White man embrace WHAT IS RIGHT??????” Pitiful. This garbage after we have JUST (stupidly) ELECTED THE FIRST BLACK MAN AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Absolutely disgraceful, disgusting, and the American People did this totally casting aside his hearing Jerimah Wright “preach” for twenty years of wasted Sunday mornings, and somehow “was unaware” of his hateful message? Totally stupid to believe that, just not plausible.
And “Go back to your places of worship, your churches, your MOSQUES???????????????????” This were they are told to tell everyone that “Islam is a religion of peace,” and that the Quran says “To kill a single human being is to kill all of mankind,” fully knowing, and unfortunately most Americans too stupid and ignorant to know that all this was abrogated by the latter chronologically
#203“The Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5: ‘fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem; but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practice regular Charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft – Forgiving, Most Merciful.’” (This is the well – known aspect of Islam, in brief, “Convert or die.” They are taught to do this in mosques, I am sure, in the spirit of al Taqiyya (VicR, will post this at www.bigpicweblog.com ), the divinely - mandated lying to Unbelievers and to conceal their true Muslim beliefs.
And then we heard from BHO this tough stuff to terrorist states about “If your governments do these evil things your people will throw them out.” Ridiculous, absolutely absurd, as absurd as the quest for the unicorn, totally stupid, they will not and they have not since Muhammod in 610 AD had the words of Lucifer resonate within himself when he went up on that mountainside. Check out the Nobel Prize awards in Arts and Sciences, even though out of 6.5 billion people on the planet there are 1.5 ish billion Muslims who have contributed NEXT TO NOTING TO MANKIND SINCE THE 10th CENTURY!
#204“The Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5: ‘fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem; but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practice regular Charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft – Forgiving, Most Merciful.’” (This is the well – known aspect of Islam, in brief, “Convert or die.” They are taught to do this in mosques, I am sure, in the spirit of al Taqiyya (VicR, will post this at www.bigpicweblog.com ), the divinely - mandated lying to Unbelievers and to conceal their true Muslim beliefs. And then we heard from BHO this tough stuff to terrorist states about “If your governments do these evil things your people will throw them out.” Ridiculous, absolutely absurd, as absurd as the quest for the unicorn, totally stupid, they will not and they have not since Muhammod in 610 AD had the words of Lucifer resonate within himself when he went up on that mountainside. Check out the Nobel Prize awards in Arts and Sciences, even though out of 6.5 billion people on the planet there are 1.5 ish billion Muslims who have contributed NEXT TO NOTING TO MANKIND SINCE THE 10th CENTURY! No Beethovens, since Muhammod said music was evil, no Nikola Teslas, Isaac Newtons, Michaelangelos, James Clerk Maxwells, Benjamin Franklins, Alva Edisons, Indira Ghandis, George Simon Ohms, Alessandra Voltas, Christian Huygens, Galliea Gallieos, Nickolas Copernicus’s, Tyco Brahes, Louis Amperes, Karl Fredrich Gauss’s, ……NOTHING BUT EVIL. This man is CLUELESS, as Rush surmised, “An empty barrel makes the most noise.
#205For you follows some words from Serge Trifkovic’s Defeating Jihad, the sequel to The Sword of the Prophet. These two books are analogous to the Old Testament and New Testament with regard to what Islam is. Page 290: “Conditio sine qua non all along is to accept and declare that the First Amendment does not protect Jihadists. It is in the American tradition that nothing ought to protect those who advocatet he overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence, and, at bottom, that is what the Jihadists are up to. Legal regulators need to grasp that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to American values and institutions. No court in any democratic country should uphold the constitutionality of any measure targeted at a particular religion. But if th facts were known about what is going on in MOSQUES, and what is the nature and goal of worldwide Jihad, the necessary legal regulation may be accomplished. The First Amendment protection to political speech should not extend to Sharia bexause of its inherently discriminatory nature. We do not need new legal theories, or a different conception of the First Amendment; WE NEED AN EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN. The dominant view in the academy and in the courts is that any thought oor political idea ought to be protected, so the educator’s job is to convince legislators that we are dealing with a new phenomenon more dangerous even than anarchism, fascism, or communism:
#206‘If that is ever done, then the precedents from 1903 or 1920 basically kick in, nd the Jihadists get perceived not as exercisers of First Amendment rights, but as dangerous subversives. Anyone trying to do that will have to plunge into the thicket of what a religion actually is, however, and the Courts are notoriously unclear on that.’ Professor Stephen Presser to Mr. Trifkovic in a letter, January, 2005 Radically new form of legal clarity on Islam’s political nature is needed before the acceptance of our proposals becomes reality. It is badly needed because the proposed measures recognize that we are in a War of Ideas (me: Read Walid Phares book with this title) and in th midst of a MEGA-CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, whether we want that or not and however much we HATE THE FACT. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep belief that the West is on its last legs (Me: And today is the apex so far of that belief by Muslims, January 20, 2009). The success of its demographic onslaught on Europe enhances the image of a ‘candy store with the busted lock,’ and that view is reinforced by THE EVIDENCE FROM HISTORY THAT A CIVILIZATION THAT LOSES THE URGE FOR SELF – PERPETUATION IS INDEED IN PERIL.”
"Islamics understand that their most powerful secret weapon is the Liberal Mindset, while at the same time despising it." -- Serge Trifkovic, "Defeating Jihad"
"Tolerance of Intolerance is not Tolerance." -- Mark Steyn, "America Alone"
”The basis of the social and legal order and source of all obligation in Islam is the Kuran, the final revelation of Allah’s will that is to be obeyed by all creation. His divine sovereignty is irreconcilable with popular sovereignty, the keystone of democracy.” -- Serge Trifkovic, "The Sword of the Prophet"
#207What is your definition of "assimilated"? For example, if someone obeys US laws, goes to work, has a family, but in their own time they attend a mosque, don't drink, pray 3 times a day, etc. are they assimilated?
I'm asking because there is a fine line between assimilation and preserving your culture. Americans have done the latter forever, and it's part of what makes America great. I like that I can go into China town and be in a place that has not fully assimilated.
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with not assimilating as long as it doesn't seek to change the prevailing culture...in other words, the assimilation should exist in a small bubble within the greater overall US bubble. I don't see US muslims trying to change the previaling culture, although it's arguable that it is happening in places in Europe.
---
Alan S.
<A href="http://www.avvo.com/dui-dwi-lawyer/ca/san_diego.html">San Diego DUI lawyer</A>
#208I should also point out that there are many places where Muslims have successfuly assimilated, and there have been times in the past where people have accused Europeans of not wanting to assimilate. For example, during one of the great waves of German immigration, people were complaining about all sorts of things and how Germans were going to ruin American culture. This is not to say that assimilation concerns aren't legitimate. It just means there's historical precident for jumping to conclusions.
#209Assimilation??? It depends how you define "muslims". There are many who've driften so far from their pure creed - the "real" islam - as to be all but token. There are many - more than you might think - who've converted to Christianity. My former Moroccan neighbour is one. Having seen islam from within, he made a private and self-aware, voluntary decision to leave it. One of the most prominent Anglican Bishops in the UK, comes from a muslim family. He's under no illusions at all about the potential damage unassimilated islam and "real" muslims can cause. He's not hostile to muslims per se, but very alert to the difficulties islam poses and is against this. Yet again is the recently established, but rather clandestine for obvious reasons, Council of ex-muslims, set up in Britain but with branches throughout the EU. And there's the interesting conversion to Christianity of Mossab Hassan Yousef, son of a Hamas leader from Ramallah. He moved to America and now attends the Barabbas Rd Church in San Diego. Islam is not having it all its own way. There's a slow drift of "muslims" from it. many convert; many more become merely muslims (minus the emphasis).
Islam, at heart, is a separatist cult. Muslims are enjoined to avoid kaffirs. To divorce themselves from their society. To overthrow the Dar al Harb. Lots do this. Lots in the West preach this. But those that abandon this muslim requirement and integrate instead, are slipping away from it. All the better for them. As for the others, we have to see them and their faith for what it is. Certainly, those that have left do.
#210For example, during one of the great waves of German immigration, people were complaining about all sorts of things and how Germans were going to ruin American culture.
But they were Jewish and Christian.
Many of the German Jews ended up assimilating through the new Reform Jewish Congregations started in the US by Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise
The Christian Germans were either part of established Lutheran churches or assimilated with other immigrants and native born Americans into the Roman Catholic church.
Both the Reform Jewish and the Roman Catholic congregations became melting pots for the European and other immigrants. Many marriages united two people of different nationalities and cultures, but were of the same faith.
Additionally, both groups had roots in colonial America - especially in Pennsylvania.
So the German immigration was not as counter-cultural as Islam.
Perhaps a better example would have been the influx of Asians who practice many non-JudeoChristian faiths: Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs However their faiths do not advocate a 'convert or die' theology or the overthrow of nations.
These immigrants have been able to assimilate more successfully into the American fabric.
#211The Irish weren't particularly popular as they immigrated here in droves during the 19th century. The Italians were not trusted that much either. Lots of bad things were said about them before they "assimilated". Those words were born out of fear, and fear is born out of ignorance.
I submit the following which I copied from About.com's list of the top 10 myths about Islam...
7. Islam promotes "jihad" to spread Islam by the sword and kill all unbelieversThe word Jihad stems from an Arabic word which means "to strive." Other related words include "effort," "labor," and "fatigue." Essentially Jihad is an effort to practice religion in the face of oppression and persecution. The effort may come in fighting the evil in your own heart, or in standing up to a dictator. Military effort is included as an option, but as a last resort and not "to spread Islam by the sword."
#212Anyone here speaking in a Native American tongue?
The Muslims aren't here to overthrow our nation....but if they do, we will only have gotten as good as we gave.
#213Jesus was not a prophet, but a witness to he who is, was, and is to come...I looked an behold I saw a women clothed in the sun and the moon at her feet, and she was with a man child. This is the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ..Todays prophesy is that Jesus, the Son of God, the Son of man walked in the flesh to suffer all things, even death. By his blood he purchased unto God a new kingdom
#214Azbastard....yep, Jesus rocked, but that's not really the point. George Bush says Islam is a religion of peace...and I agree with him that a fanatical minority have twisted their religion into a justification for their inhumanity to man....just like people have tried to do to Christianity in the past.
#215But that is precisly the point. If any man or religion does not belive this, then he will feel the wrath of God. Its pretty clear to me that the saints, bought by the blodd of Jesus, and the beast that rises out of the sand, will butt heads. Which side are you on?
#216Azbastard.....Always with the wrath..the blood...battling the beast. Your Jesus offers vengeance. My Jesus offers the Golden Rule. You see demons everywhere. I see the Children of God. You see good vs. evil. I see Yen and Yang. You await Victory delivered by the Sword. I wait for nothing...I'll let God determine the worth of my life....not others who say I am lost for not believing as they believe. You should read less Revelations and more Sermon on the Mount....because really, you sound like a talking gargoyle.
#217Jamie..I will leave you with this. If you believe in Christ, then you are a brother. I want to live in peace and judge no man. I do not wrestle with good and evil, because I have reeived the comforter, a gift from our Lord Jesus. Know the faith and patience of the saints. Things that have happened in the past, now, and in the future were written since the foundation of time. Open your eyes.
#218@ Jamie, #211:
I submit the following which I copied from About.com’s list of the top 10 myths about Islam…
7. Islam promotes "jihad" to spread Islam by the sword and kill all unbelieversThe word Jihad stems from an Arabic word which means "to strive." Other related words include "effort," "labor," and "fatigue." Essentially Jihad is an effort to practice religion in the face of oppression and persecution. The effort may come in fighting the evil in your own heart, or in standing up to a dictator. Military effort is included as an option, but as a last resort and not "to spread Islam by the sword."
This passage is strictly accurate, but may communicate an inaccurate understanding of Islam to non-Muslims.
It is helpful to also reference this other passage, also from about.com:
A crucial distinction made in Islamic theology is that between dar al-harb and dar al-islam. To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign.
Islamic theology declares war against regions where Islam does not dominate.
The headline on the passage you quote states that it is a myth that "Islam promotes "jihad" to spread Islam by the sword and kill all unbelievers". This is strictly accurate. Islam doesn't promote jihad to kill all unbelievers. However, it does promote jihad to kill and/or subjugate all unbelievers.
The passage states that the military option is included. It states that jihad is the effort to practice Islam "in the face of oppression and persecution." As we know, Islam considers free speech to be un-Islamic oppression of Muslims. In short, reading all the about.com material together, we have a cogent explanation of how Islam opposes free speech and demands that Islamists must be at war with non-Muslims.
[Continued in next comment]
#219[Continued from previous comment]
It is always important, when discussing Islam, to go to the source material. The Hadith are accounts of the sayings and doings of Mohammed, and are the second most holy books of Islam, after the Koran. You can search the Hadith on this USC page. (However, only check one checkbox - it appears that in some cases if more than one box is checked, search is disabled.) Searching the hadith of Bukhari, we quickly find the following:
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)."
Note carefully that it says, "Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." I did not add the parenthetical expression, "(religious fighting)" - that is actually in the USC translation of the hadith.
Here's another one (same link).
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."
"Sariya" means army unit. Here again, the word "jihad" refers to violent fighting and killing.
By one estimate, fully 97% of the references to "jihad" in the Bukhari Hadith, are violent; only 3% are about non-violent inner struggle:
...what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the references to jihad are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle.
Jamie, now that you have seen references in Islamic holy texts stating that jihad is violent fighting, and saying that one way into paradise is for Muslims to die in "Holy battle", do you now recognize that these Islamic holy texts urge Muslims to do violent fighting?
#220Vic Rubenfeld....I don't believe you have to accept Jesus to go to Heaven. That means I'm not a Christian to a lot of people. I don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I do believe that Jesus had an inspirational message. I also believe the Tao Te Ching holds an inspirational message. I've read only a few passages from the Koran....to be honest, it just kind of bores me. I don't doubt the existance of violence in the Koran. I know for a fact that I can find darkness in the Bible. From what I've seen in life, a fundamentalist Christian and a Fundamentalist Muslim are two sides of the same coin. They deny equal rights for women. They don't tolerate other cultures. They accept free speech only when it's on their side. They are 100% convinced of their righteousness as they preach doom and gloom to the masses, pulling the weak of mind and spirit into a black hole of extremism.
Religous texts are subjected to translations, interpretations, and editing. If you want to believe that God guided that process and that the hand of man was not allowed to interfere as the Bible we know today was assembled, then fine. But I don't. If someone finds comfort reading the Koran, then fine. But I don't. Live and let live...that's the American way. But when you get in the way of my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happiness, then we have a problem. We are at war with terrorist, who just happen to follow a hard core, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. If you don't believe that maintstream Islam is a religion of peace, then you have a disagreement with a lot of people who happen to include our former President George Bush. I would think it disheartening for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to hear you say that any nation with Islam as it's primary religion is doomed to failure. By your logic, anything other than the total destruction of people from Morroco to Indonesia falls short of ensuring a chance at peace.
When I was in high school, I went with a friend to his church. My parents, moderate Baptist, didn't want me to go. I had no idea why. Their church was Baptist too...what was the difference? There was a big difference. The pastor there preached hate to a full house. They were fundamentalists...and as the preacher made jokes about the pope going to hell...about Baptist like my parents going to hell...I felt like I was in a Nazi pep rally. Their type of Christianity took over the churchI grew up with. As a member of a church belonging to Southern Baptist Convention, I grew up believing that I didn't need a priest to tell me what to believe. They taught me tolerance and respect for others. Now if I say "Baptist", people think of intolerance. My parents started going to a Methodist Church...but it's never been the same.
I agree that fundamentalist theology is a dangerous thing...just as dangerous to Christianity as it is to Islam. But if we're going to analyze why the Middle East is such a messed up place, perhaps we should also examine the effects of colonialism by Europe. Perhaps if the lines drawn in the Arabian sands had given more consideration to demographics, nations like Iraq wouldn't suffer from the struggle of three distinct cultures. Perhaps that was the plan of Christian Europe...to set these nations up for failure.
You're a smart guy. You know you can't wipe Islam off the map. Instead of focusing so much on learning it's bad side, why don't you try to find a way to work with moderate Muslims? I guarantee, if a group of Christians and Muslims got together, they could agree on certain universal principles that might provide hope for peaceful coexistance. No killing in the name of God. No beating up on women allowed. Leave out any arguments about Jesus verses Mohammad, and I'm certain the meeting will go just fine.
#221I don’t doubt the existance of violence in the Koran.
Do you doubt that the Koran calls on Muslims to kill and subjugate non-Muslims?
#222Nice how you totally avoided any of my other comments and only want to talk about this issue. Fine.....let's look at something you said earlier.
As we know, Islam considers free speech to be un-Islamic oppression of
Muslims.
Is there something in the Koran that explains your assertion that free speech is un-Islamic? The lack of free speech seems more symptomatic of political rather than religous oppression. Certainly fundamentalist Muslims aren't fond of free speech...but neither are fundamentalist Christians (book burning types).
So anyway, I'm not sure specifically what verse you're referring to, but this one mentions killing oppressors. Taking the "kill them wherever you find them" would sound pretty bad if taken out of context.
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
So give me something out of Islamic religous texts that forbids freedom of speech, and we'll go from there. But if you could actually answer my question regarding European colonial influence on the destiny of the Middle Eastern nations, that would be a bit more of an interesting topic for me.
#223My post #219-220, addresses a position you appeared to take in your post #211, that jihad is non-violent. I will be happy to address other subjects once that has been resolved. Given the material we have been discussing from about.com, and the quotes I cited from the hadith, do you agree that the Koran calls for Muslims to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims?
#224Those who say all nations who have Islam as the religion of state cannot succeed are correct. Islam as the theocracy is not compatilbe with any other religion, it is not as if you can decide to check out a Methodist church one weekend and a Baptist another, no free will and without that no enlightnment, no doing the right thing for your fellow man, no doing the very best for the person who stands in front of you, no do unto others as you would wish them to do to you. Only servitude to Allah who has preordained everything and commanded you to make perpetual war against the unbeliever until he converts, becomes a second class nonentity Dhimmi and pays the Jizya non - poll tax, or is killed. This is inhumane and it is evil, and it should not be with us today.
Yes, you can go to crazy fundamentalist snake handling redneck churches, this is religion for stupid people. But the point is, you do have a choice. And if you do not have a choice, why even bother to be here? If you cannot seek the truth, if you do not have the truth, then just what do you have. If you only have the choice, no, not even a choice, if you must do this five prayer thing and the Mecca thing, which is really nothing but some sort of moon god pagan stuff where Muhommad would come to and the go over there and throw some rocks into a canyon or something, I mean the whole thing is totally stupid. And that would not be so bad were it not for all the beheadings and storming into villages and cities for fourteen centuries and murduring all the men and rape and orgy and pillage for three nights and then the women become slaves. What kind of decency is it to tell these barbarians to promote Islam by killing everyone and your payoff is that you get to loot. Is this not pure demonic evil? This is what it means eupheumistically to "Spread Islam by the Sword," these harsh words do not do justice to the reality of what happened. I think that if it were only Smyrna, 1922, the Destruction of a City, then it may be dismissed as an abherration. But this is not what happened, and it was not just Smyrna, it was all of Anatolia, and then Eastern Thrace, and in this very day, the Islamics are taking over Macedonia. What a horrible thing it is for the Greeks to be so close to this evil.
#225And the talk about the dar al Islam and dar al Harb. But there is also a twilight zone, dar al Sulh, the house where Islam temporizes until their numbers are sufficient, exactly what happened to the people of Mecca, a ten year truce but Muhammod after only two years deceides his numbers are sufficient so he sacks Mecca and personally has about 8 to nine hundred of the al Querrish (? spelling) tribe dig trenches and behead them five at a time. then the rape and pillage and orgy thing, and this is still with us? Europe, write down dar al Sulh and google it, you need to pay attention. And America and the rest of the world, your turn will come if the fourteen century progression is not halted. And forget the bad stuff in the bible and the bad things Christians did a long time ago, look at the calender, and please, none of this about how Islam will progress into the light just like Christianity did, their religion forbids it, Christianity does not, this is the Do unto others religion, it is not the Slay the Unbeliver whereever you may find him, it simply is not.
Can goodness arise from the Muslim masses? Only if they are separated from the evil ones who they submit to. What can the rest of us do? I do not think force alone will work, we in America with a single nuclear ICBM submarine could take out most if not all of the Islamic world, and I am not sure if they fully realize just what one submarine could do. But surely we are better than that, but Islam must be confronted, this Final Crusade must happen, and reasonable people must realize that the current path is perilious and it is lunacy to just let things evolve. Islam needs to be confronted with what it is and that it is NOT COMPATIBLE with other religions and so if they are to go to Europe or here then certain understandings and safeguards need to put into place. It simply is not fair to decent innocent people to let such evil as Muhammod Atta and the Blind Sheik come here in the name of multiculturalism and sensitivity. This is rubbish and it is suicide. The mantra "know your enemy" is germane. And Islam as such is the enemy of all others.
#226From the Times Online:
Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’
One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.
Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20 years as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He is an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered.
He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.
Mr Usmani’s justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book” because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.
[.....]These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.
#227Vic Rubenfeld....Do I agree that the Koran calls for Muslims to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims? I asked you to give me something out of Islamic religous texts that forbids freedom of speech, and we’ll go from there. If you can't do that, then verses 2:190-193 sounds to me like it reads that violence would only be permitted if I were actively persecuting or attacking Muslims. So maybe there's a better example somewhere in the Koran that contradicts this statement? But then we get into that classic debate about what the true intention of the religous text is...just like the same age old debates that Christians engage in.
Der Alleswisser....I had a Spanish professor who was led away from his family and held for six months as a political prisoner in Chile. Have you heard of Augusto Pinochet(Catholic)? How about Charles Taylor (Baptist), who led the National Patriotic Front of Liberia? Lots of death and torture there. François "Papa Doc" Duvalier--Haiti (Catholic)...30,000 dead. Leopold II of Belgium(Catholic), owner of the Congo Free State. He relied on forced labor for the extraction of rubber and ivory from the Congo which resulted in the deaths, torture and maiming of millions of Congolese. Yakubu Gowon (Anglican? - Nigeria). His parents were missionaries, but that didn't stop him from leading the nation into a civil war in which his army raped, looted, and executed people while a million other civilians starved. You're obsessed with what happened in Smyrna in 1922, but the millions more who were killed in Christian Europe you consider an aberration and ancient history. Military dictatorships exist in both Islamic and Christian countries. Indonesia has more Muslims than any other nation in the world, and it has a dark history like every nation on the face of this planet....but they are a functioning democracy. And if you don't believe a democracy can survive in an Islamic nation, then let me hear you say George Bush was a fool to try and deliver it to Iraq.
Both Vic and Der...The only thing you guys have proven is that humanity is capable of hideous acts of depravity. Front page headlines that news is! I'm not asking you to like Islam, I'm asking that you not write them off as so evil that we can't fight together against our common enemy...the terrorists. We were allies with the communist against the fascists, weren't we? Like I asked before, if there are Muslims who would agree to certain basic principles, like free speech and no killing people just because they're Christian, Jewish, or Muslim...couldn't we work with those people and let God judge who was right and wrong on the rest when we reach the Golden Gates?
You evade questions that I hope will move the debate along, but you're not going to let that happen, are you? You don't want a debate...you've made up your minds. I am indeed the biggest fool here...am I wasting your time and mine?
#228Vic Rubenfeld....since you didn't get my point in post #222 about your point in post #218 which read, "As we know, Islam considers free speech to be un-Islamic oppression of Muslims", let me make sure you understand my question. Since I'm not as well versed on the Koran as you are, please help me find the passage you are talking about that would connect free speech to oppression, thus giving Muslims the a-ok to do me in via verses 2:190-193. I feel like I'm repeating myself...but if you ask me one more time if I "agree that the Koran calls for Muslims to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims" without clarifying this issue, I will know that I have officially become the dog who chases his own tail.
And let me be absolutely perfectly clear once again. I am not an expert on Islam. It's not even my fourth favorite religion. I am simply not convinced by the argument presented here that it is a religion of undisputable evil. I can't prove that there aren't evil Muslims...because it's a hard cold fact that there are evil people in this world and Muslims account for their fair share of them. Der Alleswisser has filled me in on more than enough of their atrocities...rehashing that territory isn't accomplishing anything. The text of the Koran has been presented as the keystone of this issue. Since Muslims can't even agree with each other on their religion any more than Christians can, I am perplexed as to how you consider your interpretation of the text to be the definitive one. Are you able to read the language it was originally written in, so that you are not at the mercy of translation?
#229We can never achieve anything without a Moral Imperative, and that must include appealing to the goodness of the human soul to do the right thing. This is made difficult by the teachings of the Quran, as it seems easy for many to absolve themselves of any effort at creative thinking as they buy into the notion that everything is preordained, and thus abandon any pursuit of intellectualism.
Islam certainly does not have a monopoly on evil. There have been the Pol Pots, Pinocets, .... and even Hitler came from the land of Beethoven, Haydn, Wagner, and a nation that has produced some of most intellectual and creative people. What is dangerous is that Germany was a nation of maybe 60 million and now you have Islam having no geographical borders and 1.5 billion of about 6.5 billion people on the planet. If there are say just 15% of them that are purely evil (and this is likely an underestimate), then with the nuclear genie coming more out of the bottle, you do the math, you should be very afraid.
#230But the biggest enemy is not Islam, it is ourselves. The Democrats simply are too naive on Islam, they do not understand it, they think all religions are the same, they do not understand its nuances and its monothesiasticness. They are letting Murdurers go from GiTMO in the spirit of lets just be nice and it will all work out. We have left Islam to itself for too long, and while it is not useful to rehash the atrocities of Islam, we must understand that they have produced no great leaders to lead them out of the darkness, and it is not reasonable to expect them to do so. We need to get reasonable people to come up with a action plan about how mosques operate and are overseen and under what restrictions Muslims who immigrate should be placed. They are simply not the same as Hindus, Protestants,.... and it is folly not to understand this. Condemn them all as evil? No, that would not be a moral imperative. But to make them understand that if they are to come here, they leave their religion home, at least the non-compatible aspects of Islam.
#231The doing of America will be Americas undoing. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" allows evil to come in the back door and to burn down the house. What I've seen these past years happening right before my eyes gives me understanding. Brother against brother and the persecution of Christians. I can now understand it happening in the not so distant future. The bellys of evil men will not be filled to all things good, is devoured. Will the saints just set back and watch the slaughter? I don't think so. Amazing to me Jamie is that you are only worried about free speech. You're neither hot nor cold
#232Azbastard....what are you talking about? My mention of free speech is in response to Vic Rubenfeld's assertion that it is a form of oppression according to Islamic teachings; so I've asked for clarification of something more specific to move the dialougue along. That said, free speech was a high priority to our founding fathers....and I make no apologies for the worrying that you've perceived.
Der Alleswisser...Like it or not, not everyone held at GiTMO was guilty. The place has come to be seen as a convenient spot for Americans to hold people indefinitely without any attempt at due process. That combined with photos showing Americans (however few) torturing prisoners in Iraq has tarnished our reputation and is inconsistant with the moral fabric that makes this nation strong. Take those detainees, try them, and let's move on. It is not about being nice and letting murderers go free. If you have some evidence that proves everyone held at Gitmo is guilty, let's hear it.
A Moral Imperative...I like it. You may believe it clashes with Islamic teachings, but we'll never know if people don't give the concept a chance. You know, I don't disagree about a lack of leadership in the Muslim world. But Republicans don't really have a strong leader right now either...that doesn't make them bad people. I am absolutely begging you...can you address my point that the long term effects of colonial rule by European nations and the arbitrary creation of nations might have contributed to the instability we still see today? So much fighting has occurred within the Islamic community, I honestly think all there potential great leaders were killed before we even knew who they were. I'm not asking that you agree, I'd justl like someone to engage the issue. Please?
#233Just in case I'm blamed again of dwelling on the past, understand that I'm not trying to give Christians or Europeans a guilt trip. It has been put to me time and time again that the troubles in the Middle East stem from Islamic doctrine found in the Koran. I'm saying third world Christian nations are in a mess too, so have trouble seeing a definitive correlation between religious doctrine and the destiny of a nation. There are other factors at play worthy of being considered.
It took a hundred years after the end of slavery for black Americans to break through the segregation walls and have a real opportunity at equality. But even then, a community held down for so long did not find success overnight. The case can even be made that with an African American in the White House, the journey is still not complete.
#234Vic Rubenfeld....since you didn’t get my point in post #222 about your point in post #218 which read, "As we know, Islam considers free speech to be un-Islamic oppression of Muslims", let me make sure you understand my question.
On the contrary, it's a very good question, and I'm happy to discuss it. First, however, I would like to complete the discussion we are already having. In #211 you appeared to take the posiition that jihad is non-violent. I have presented you with info from about.com, from the Hadith, and from an Islamic scholar, showing that the Koran calls for Muslims to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims. Are we in agreement on this at this time that the Koran calls for Muslims to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims?
#235The exact verses in the Quran that forbid free speech are not at my fingertips, but this anecdotal bit does point to the problem. It was a CNN or Fox interview of an Islamic lady with the title of something like "Special Consult or Expert of Middle Eastern Affairs" during the 2006 Israeli - Hezbolla conflict. She was asked "Why does the Islamic world criticize or even acknowledge that Hezbolla is using human sheilds in Lebanon?" She replied "It is forbidden for a Muslim to criticize another Muslim." This dichotomy of the Believer and the Unbeliever, the Kipling East - West "Never the twain shall meet."
If you watch "Suicide Killers," one hypothesis is the shame and despair of the Islamic world, and they cannot accept shame. This being I suppose the success of the Western world and the Muslim world being confronted with this, thus the Twin Towers are attacked, and Hollywood is hated for the images of America proliferated throughtout the world and this humiliates them. It is ironic and apparently they do not know how liberal and even America-hating some (much?) of Hollywood is.
Were all their leaders killed in the past? Don't think genetics works like that. It must be something else that surpresses free expression, and that must be the religion. And is it that somehow they know their despair and failure, and so just don't play to preserve honor? That is the teachings of the Quran: you do not need to think because Allah has pre-ordained everything, you are divenly ordained to be intellectually indolent??"
#236What will happen to Israel, surrounded by 300 million who hate them, and rising more rapidly than any other people, while Israel has perhaps 30 million? What does the rest of the world do, wait for something truelly horrible as 9/11 just did not do it, and then decide what to do? Suppose four bombs go off (nuclear) simultaneously in LA DC NY AND chicago? are we to just wait for this? what will be the democrats response? do they really think that another attack is not coming?
and gitmo >>>> serge trifkovic reported in defeating jihad that fifty gitmo releasees have been found killed on the battlefield and sean hannity on his program about a month ago said that the number is sixty one (my keyboard is acting up) >>>>> this does not include of course those who have not been killed and they no doubt have blood on their hands >>>> the democrats know this is not tracable back to them and even one murder is not acceptable >>>> let them tell the next of kin that it is >>>>> and it was all over the news a couple of weeks that a gitmo releasee is the al qaeda deputy commander in yemen> >>>>> the democrats have a rich history of pandering to lawyers and the "victims" the represent >>>> the spilled coffee smokers oj simpson trial stuff this is americas soft underbelly and the terrorists know it>>>> and the democratic party is the lawyer party >>>> a big party at the expense of the taxpayer >>>>>> the gitmo releasees just may be the karma that brings the floodlight onto the democrats that reveals their venality and corruption to all >>>> and iraq a democracy???? we will soon find out but those who study islam do not think so >>>> is it that any democracy in the islamic world will bring another islamic republic like iran?
#237Greed and the lust for power is what destroys a nation. The have and the have nots is what causes the conflict within. I watched the enginering of the roman empire the other night, and I was astounded at what they had done. That once great empire lays in waste, but their ideas live on. The devil deceives the world and with that deceit comes power, wisdom, lust, and greed. The world becomes a world full of covetnous people. They want more and more to satisfy their belly. America who broke away from colonial rule is facing total collapse. Was it because of the desire for freedom? God allowed America to be great, but now we have become a nation who wants to be politcally correct and to turn our back on God. Paul the apostle who had just witnessed wonderfull things and the resurrection of the first born of the Spirit of Christ was already saying the time is nigh and the end would be soon. Already saying be vigilent for he would come like a thief in the night.
#238Vic Rubenfeld....what we have here is a failure to communicate. Let's try again.
If, as according to you, the Koran says free speech = oppression, then yes, verses 2.190-193 would be hazardous to my health.
However, to prove this theory, I need the missing link....which is a verse in the Koran that indicates free speech is oppression. If such a verse doesn't exist, then I will have to assume the word oppression carries the traditional meaning that I'm familiar with. If it does exist, my position may be weaker than I thought and I will have to back up and reconsider my position.
What this person said or that person did is not relevant to this particular question, because we are going after specific text out of the Koran. If the Koran is held liable for the actions of its followers, we must hold the Bible to the same standard.
Der Alleswisser....if the lack of leadership in non-muslim third world nations also due to religion? Was the lack of leadership in the black community before MLK the fault of their religion?
Azbastard....you make the biggest case of all of why I'm wasting mine and everybody else's time here. I don't believe what you believe....so wish me luck on my highway to hell.
#239There's no failure ot communicate. You stated that jihad was non-violent - I provided lots of documentation to the contrary and asked if you now agreed that the Koran calls for Muslims to kill and subjugate non-Muslims - and you have so far refused to answer.
#240Jamie, there are so many things about this religion that tells you that it is not a religion for the people, for goodness, for the right thing, it is a religon about the afterlife, not the here and now. It deals with the concept that life on Earth is miserable, and that the only purpose is to serve Allah, do his bidding and you will be rewarded with the dark - eyed hourises, and for the sexually deviant, as Muhammod was, the eternally young "youths". (Boys). There is no reason in this religion, and when one looks at the Islamic world, it seems that this religion somehow understands their despair and so the religion tries to make being Islamic somehow noble. The business of "we know we cannot contribute and that we have no intellectual contributions, but it is ok because Allah said so and we will be rewarded in the afterlife and you will burn and when your skin burns off Allah will give you some more skin so it can burn off too." And somehow this stuff sells????
On page XVIII of "The War of Ideas" by Whalid Phares you have: "Salafists, Wahabis, Fakfires, Tablighis, ans other Sunni Islamists reject the concept of pluaralism (this is the word Jamie, Pluralism) and radically oppose the rule of the people. Only Allah and his teachings, they postulate, are the basis for governance. The Shia-born Khumeinists condemn Western - style liberalism but co-opt concepts and words from international democratic institutions such as the idea of a republic. They installed an Islamic republic in Iran, but its mandate is believed to be divenly - inspired and not subject to the approval of civil society. Islamics from all schools of thought, and violent jihadists in particular, have an ideology of their own, based on ideas diametrically opposed to classical liberal democracys.......They plan to resume what they believe is a millennial project: world domination."
It is a religion of divenly - mandated lying (al Taqiyya), and Smyrna and the Armenians are just a small part of this. One huge lie is about the "Plight of the Palistinean People," and unfortunately these lies are mainstream American ideas. We unknowingly champion evil, throw money at it.
#241And now Barack Obama, going 180 degrees from the truth. And yes, Azbastard, we are in trouble, we voted for this pack of lofty rhetoric and airy platitiudes in droves, and only now maybe the indolent masses who did this are starting to realize what the abandonment of basic financial principles and generational theft means. Those who vote on the Dow Jones certainly do, every move he makes and the stock market plunges yet again. And Obama blames it on 8 years of Bush and makes no mention of Franklin Raines, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Franks, Gregory Meeks, Maxine "California Freeloading Waters, the Community Reinvestment Act, this cancer that Carter started, Acorn, and all of the rest of the Democrat pandering for votes. Dishonest, corrupt, and so yes, we are going the way of the Romans and yes, no one held a gun to our heads or marched us to the gas chambers, we chose and we chose corruption and decline.
But did the Europeans mess this up and are they to blame for the so - called Palistinean problem as you questioned, what about this Palistinean lie? On page 123 of "war of Ideas," there is: "In 1947, UN resolution 181 divided British - mandated Palistine into two states: Jewish and Arab. The Jews chose to call their entity Israel, accepting the UN decision. But on the other side, it was the Arab League, not Palestinian elected officials, who made the choice. .......Arab regimes rejected the UN resloluton and the emergence of a non-Arab, and non -Muslim state on what they considered an Arab and Muslim land.........The clearest ideological position against the existence of the Jewish state came from the Salafists, Whabis, Ikhwan, and other Takfiris: a Jewish sovereign entity (or any infidel entity, for that matter....) to the Islamists, the whole debate about what land, which borders, when the Jews settled, and where it is is simply irrelevent. Any territory, affirmed the docrtinaires of fundamentalism from Najd to Cairo, that has been under the caliiphate at any time not only cannot become a non-Muslim state, but also should report to the future caliphate.
#242The jihadi position is not about the unfairness of removing Palestinian populations and replacing them with Jewish ones, it is about an intangible mabd'a aqa'idee (doctrinal principle): land that was once ruled by the laws of Allah cannot be ruled by other laws afterwards......The same principle would apply elsewhere: French Algeria, Spain, Kashmir, China's Singkiang, Chechnya, Bsonia, Kosovo, and beyond....The Arab-Israeli conflict isn't about the fate of the Palestinians, but the purification of of Palestine as a Muslim land from invading kuffar. Even if Muslim rulers strike deals or peace treaties with Israel, including the return of lands, these deals or treaties are not valid. ..... What many intellectuals in the West have never been able to understand or explain to their public is the total, relentless, and irreversible attitude of Islamic fundamentalism regarding Israel and any other similar entity perceived as occupying lands in the middle of an area defined as Islamic by the jihadists."
And so we continue to elect idiots like Carter, Clinton, and now Obama who simply have not done the required reading. Nevermind that the Israelites were there first, this religion is pure evil, it does not want to be reasoned with, it does not want to be compromised with, it wants to be obeyed. Watch a segment in "Islam: What the West Needs to Know About Radical Islam," and you will see a short clip of Tony Blair which reveals he know nothing about Islam, but he cuts off the clip to go talk to some Islamic clerics. Nothing but lies he was told I'm sure, and he did not realize it. Even GWBush said in a speech after 9/11 that Islam was a religion of peace, but I believe he knows the truth and simply said that as part of that "Moral Imperative," which lasted only a bit.
Anyone who reads and fully understands the above knows that this is a death struggle between Israel and Islam for now, and eventually the rest of us will have to deal with Islam.
#243Islam is the antichrist. It's beyond me how out of their own mouths they say death to Israel, America, and now Christians, and nobody hears it. When Jerusalem is surrounded by her enemies know the end is nigh. These are very troubling times. Europe will be burning and islam lit the fire. When I saw the planes hit the world trade centers, I thought who ever did this just cut their own throats. The moderate Muslims are just like the Christians who keep the pews warm. I have been away from the Lord for 28 years. Just in the last couple of months, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, I have been welcomed back in the fold. I'm soaking the word up like a sponge. I'm not like a gargoyle, but the nicest guy you would ever want to meet. I'm not full of hate or condemnation. I love my fellow man and treat all with respect. I pray for wisdom so that I and my family are not caught up in the lies that are being told my government. I dont want the mark. I just read this morning how they are looking to put radio chips in our drivers license.
#244Vic Rubenfeld.....#219..the USC link you recommended to me provides the (religious fighting) reference in the Sahil Bukhari translation, but the Sahih Muslim translation says...
He (the inquirer) said: What next? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Jihad (struggle to the utmost) in the cause of Allah.
"Struggle to the utmost" can mean a lot of things, depending on your interpretation of it. Your about.com reference lists the names for regions Muslims label as territories of chaos and territories of peace...and what a shocker, they consider areas devoted as lands of peace. Your next statement "Islamic theology declares war against regions where Islam does not dominate" is your statement, and not the statement of verses 2.190-193 in the Koran. Translations, interpretations, and verses out of context...seems to me like any other religous text to me.
"As we know, Islam considers free speech to be un-Islamic oppression of Muslims". Consider me daft, because I don't know that. Bring me the verse that connects free speech to oppression. If you can do that, then verses2.190-193 would not protect us.
Since Muslims can't agree on the meaning of the word "jihad" anymore than Christians can agree on the nature of the "Holy Trinity", I cannot agree with your statement "the Koran calls for Muslims to kill and subjugatge non-Muslims". I can agree that someone can interpret it that way if they want to, but there's ample evidence online that not all muslims accept that interpretation. However, your Islamophobic agenda will most likely prevent you from giving any postive views of that religion any consideration.
#245Azbastard...you are so wrapped up in your own self rightousness, I have trouble believing you are truly "soaking the word up like a sponge". Not full of hate or condemnation? No... but people come to this website and spill out venomous attacks that accuse Muslims of being "Satan's people" and you sit silent as if to say "amen, brother." Muslims are not just 19 terrorists that flew planes into the world trade center. They are living and breathing men, women, and children of God's creation...no different in that respect than you and me. You would do well to remember that it is not you who will be sitting by the right hand of God on Judgement Day.
You are the worst example of Christianity...the kind that preaches "If any man or religion does not belive this, then he will feel the wrath of God". Coming to Jesus out of fear that you will be destroyed is not the message he gave us. It is this very kind of language that so many here claim comes from Islam.
#246Vic Rubenfeld....In my quest to find the meaning of the word "Jihad", I thought what better place to look than the dictionary? Here's what I found....
An individual's striving for spiritual self-perfection. A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels. A crusade or struggle: “The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke” .
[Arabic jihād, from jahada, to strive.]
So maybe a holy war...maybe spiritual struggle? Once again, I am at the mercy of interpretation. Sigh.
#247Der Alleswisser....in post #240, you write "One huge lie is about the "Plight of the Palistinean People". What's the lie that you claim mainstream America believes? A website I found called Israelnationalnews.com had a headline from Nov. 2008 titled....
Poll: Across the Board, Americans Support Israel
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz
So sympathies being squarely on the side of the Israelis, I would argue that the average American is not familiar with the plight of the Palestinians at all.
I don't think Israel is the "bad guy"...but if we don't make an effort to hear out both sides, we make peace in the Middle East that much more difficult to achieve.
#248Jamie...By your words it shows you are pretty much out of step in whats happening under your nose. They also speak volumes on where you stand.
#249It is true that we must as a people strive to bring out the best in the Muslim masses. However, their history is very troubling, their educational systems provide them with no useful job skills, just Quranic stuff, and what useful are you going to do with that. (Of course, our public schools are becoming increasingly useless, everyone a victim and nothing but PCness, but I digress). The biggest experiment with Islam is Iraq, and to see what happens when we leave. Will evil prevail, or will Maliki be able to form a consensus and run a nation that seeks the betterment of his people? GW Bush may go down as a heroic and great president, much to the dismay of the Democrats, who hoped so badly for him to fail there, and even pronounced gleefully that he had.
What is Jihad, is it the struggle for one's betterment or is it a call for unprovoked attacks against Nonbelievers and is it solely to propogate the religion? On page 299 of "The Legacy of Jihad," by Andrew Bostom, you have: "It may thus be true that the object of jihad as prescribed and enjoined in the Koran, was not the direct propagation of the Faith: but there can be little doubt that the extension of Islamic rule was one of its main objects. With regard to Arabia itself, there is no questioning the fact that war was enjoined on the Moslems till Arabia became wholly believing. Whether the motives which lay at the back of the conquest of Arabia for Islam by force of arms, were religious or were political, the fact remains that the Arabs were given the alternative of Islam or the sword. No tribute was to be accepted from an Arab, and any Arab apostatising was to be killed off-hand.......'Let there be no compulsion in religion' preceded and was abrograted by the Verse of the Sword (Sura 9:5). And the command in sura 2:186-187 to fight against those who fight but not to transgress by attacking first, was, according to Zamakhshary and others, abrogated by the command 'Fight aginst all the Idolators' (Sura 9:36 --- don't forget that the chronological final chapter of the Koran was the ninth and so it abrogates all others)."
#250On page 295 of the same book there is "Jihad is the taking up of arms in defense of Islam when an attack is made on it, and jihad is only lawful when such an attack is made." The problem with that is that bin Laden claims that 9/11 was in response to an attack by America (Gulf War 1), and he also claims that Allah has given him permission to kill I think the number is 30 million innocents. The intransigence of Islam is leading to the Clash of Civilizations as named by Samuel Huntington in the 1990s. This unless the silent masses assert themselves, and can they do so without our help? We should not sit back and wait for more horrible things to occur, we need to be proactive and confront Islam with its incompatibility. Or do we wait around for the Islamic Nuclear Pearl Harbor before the liberals are swept aside as they were in 1941?
And the Palestinian thing, I dare say that Islam is very good at proclaming the victims of their aggression the aggressors. Most seem to think Muslims were the victims of the Crusades while it was and is the exact opposite, and most seem to think the Palestinians are victims, and ignore that they voted for Hamas, and ignore that we have thrown money at this problem for the last 50 years and have nothing to show for it.
#251Islam always portrays itself as the victim, there is nothing said that is true about this in our public schools and universities in the spirit of PCness. Are they Satan's People? Collectively, yes, but individually, no, most, as Earnest Renan said 150 years ago, are the first victims of Islam. And our "Muslim Allies." Does anyone really think Turkey or Egypt is an ally? They are Islamic, and we are not, and that is the long and short of it.
For example, some talk of how Indonesia was a model of democracy and goodness in the Islamic world. On page 213 of "The Sword of the Prophet," by Serge Trifkovic, there is:"The precursor of it all was the murderous terror of Indonesioan Muslims against Christians in East Timor, unknown in America although Washington tolerated ex president Suharto's carnage on a scale worthy of Pol Pot. By 1989, Amnesty International estimated that Indonesia had murdreed 200,000 East Timorese, otu of a population of 600,000 - 700,000. Suharto was not a devout Muslim but he nevertheless used Islamic fanatics as alies in various campaogns: notably against Chinese communists and their alleged accomplices that killed over 500,000 people, many of them Christians, in 1965. Indonesia's treatment of religious minorities had already been tested in West Papua.
#252Suharto's anticommunist credentials enabled him to preserve the support of the US government while he terrorized the inhabitants of Dutch New Guinea, which was handed over to Indonesia in 1962 andits name changed to Irian Jaya. The tribal people of West Papau hd nothing in common with Indonesia, ecept that both had previously been ruled by Holland. They are Melanesiaons and not Indo-Malays, and Christians or animists. Under Suharto the army rounded up all the children and made them and forced them to attend state schools. Passive resistance to Indonesian control was widespread, and zealous Muslim officers responded by ordering the soldiers to kill the villager's pigs, an important element in their basic economy. They soon proceeded to killing people: by September 1973, over 30,000 civilains had been killed by Indonesian troops, the number rising to an estimated 100,000 by 1990. The story was in the US media, and uncommented upon by the Nixon Administration."
So there you have it, our media did not want to "Offend an Ally," exactly the same thing that happened to the Greeks and Armenians of Anatolia and finally Smyrna. If there were a Day of Reckoning, know you well that we have blood on our hands.
#253Azbastard...I stand by my words. If I'm a fool...so be it. I would rather be a fool than a hypocrite. People didn't follow Jesus around to hear about the wrath of God falling upon their enemies. And I'm certainly not interested in hearing it from you. You have said nothing here that indicates to me that you understand the message that Jesus left for us. But that's just my opinion...and not really for me to judge.
Der Alleswisser....Here we go again with the numbers. You know, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Muslims kill Christians....it's a fact. It's also a fact that Muslims kill other Muslims, and Christians kill other Christians, and Christians kill Muslims too. 200,000 Muslims systematically murdered in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. You say it's true that we as a people must strive to bring out the best in the Muslim masses. We won't do that by following Bush's lead. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, and he let Osama Bin Ladin slip through our fingers into Pakistan, then turned around and invaded a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Hussein commited atrocities..but the collateral damage of 100,000 dead civilians did not make the best of impressions on the Muslim masses. That said, I think Bush did what he thought was best for our nation. But we had four aces (in the form of worldwide support for our cause) when we invaded Afghanistan, but Bush folded and put all his money on Iraq. Forgive me if I don't feel foolish for not thinking Bush will be as highly praised by history as you do.
#254Vic Rubenfeld.....#219..the USC link you recommended to me provides the (religious fighting) reference in the Sahil Bukhari translation, but the Sahih Muslim translation says…
He (the inquirer) said: What next? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Jihad (struggle to the utmost) in the cause of Allah.
Jamie, it's great that you are starting to go to the Islamic source text, so that you can find out if your understanding of Islam matches up with the facts.
The error you make here is in thinking that Bukhari and Muslim are two translations of an identical document. In fact, they are two separate and unique documents.
In my quest to find the meaning of the word "Jihad", I thought what better place to look than the dictionary? Here’s what I found....
An individual’s striving for spiritual self-perfection. A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels. A crusade or struggle: “The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke” .[Arabic jihād, from jahada, to strive.]
So maybe a holy war...maybe spiritual struggle? Once again, I am at the mercy of interpretation.
As the definition you cite shows, the word "jihad" sometimes is used to refer to an inner struggle, sometimes is used to refer to violent war. I have documented this previously in our discussions. From #219:
By one estimate, fully 97% of the references to "jihad" in the Bukhari Hadith, are violent; only 3% are about non-violent inner struggle:
...what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the references to jihad are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle.
Jamie, I have shown you info from about.com, from the Hadith, and from an Islamic scholar, showing that the Koran calls for Muslims to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims. Do you now agree that this is the case?
#255Im confused. I don't know how saying that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, makes me a hypocrite. Is it because I count Islam as my enemy? Is it because I don't like what I see happening in this world today? Lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blashemers, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. This simple truth will cause the saints to be persecuted. Will you stand up in our defense or rejoice saying, we got what we deserved.
#256There is nothing wrong about being religious unless your religion tells you to harm others since they do not believe the same things you do. Whether or not Islam is in violation of this is the crux of the matter, as some dismiss Islam's violations by pointing out (true in the distant past, although there have been aberrant departures such as Hitler and Pol Pot in the last century that were about radical ideologies and not religion) that Christianity has been non-tolerant. Is Islam compatible, or is it dangerous? Gotta run.
#257Vic Rubenfeld...to conclude that Muslims are instructed to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims completely depends on the interpretation of the word Jihad. To say, as you do, that it sometimes refers to "inner struggle" and sometimes refers to "violent war" is an interesting choice of wording. It implies that it means both of these things to all Muslims, but my research indicates that some Muslims reject the definition that calls for aggressive actions against non-believers. I have not read all of the material, but what I have read seems to authorize violence as a means of defense against oppression. Therefore, I feel that those Islamic scholars who call for peaceful "jihad" are not so out on the fringe of their own religion that I would not be able to accept them as representatives of that religion. To hammer home your definition of Jihad would only serve to distance ourselves from people that I believe America can work with to find peace in the Middle East. It seems to me you're more interested in discrediting the entire religion than engaging these potential allies against our common enemy.
Der Alleswisser....How was Hitler an aberration? It doesn't matter if he was religious or not, he was surrounded by millions of Christians who either carried out his instructions or sat on their hands and watched it all happen. And are we to consider the atrocities against Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo to be the distant past?
Azbastard....Of course you're confused. You are a hypocrite because you hide behind Jesus as a defense for attacking your enemies. Your words reveal your own pride..." This simple truth will cause the saints to be persecuted. Will you stand up in our defense or rejoice saying, we got what we deserved". You don't engage discussion...you regurgitate Scripture that you don't even understand.
#258...to conclude that Muslims are instructed to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims completely depends on the interpretation of the word Jihad.
Given that the majority of the references to jihad in Bukhari refer to violence, as I noted previously in this thread, how can you deny that the word jihad often refers to violence?
Given the following, which I quoted previously in this thread, from about.com, how can you argue that Islam does not call for Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims?
A crucial distinction made in Islamic theology is that between dar al-harb and dar al-islam. To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign.
Given the following, which I quoted previously in this thread, from the Times Online, how can you argue that Islam does not call for Muslims to engage in battle with non-Muslims?
Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’
One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.
Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20 years as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He is an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered.
He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.
Mr Usmani’s justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book” because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.
[.....]These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.
#259In Serge Trifkovic's "Defeating Jihad" he states several sources that say that we bombed the wrong side in Bosnia/Kosovo. This because Clinton and the Democrats (like Madeline Albright, and yes, she and the other Democrats of Clinton are back, in the spirit of Change) were just so giddy about buddying up with Islam and convincing them (????, no, these Democrats just do not understand Islam, so shallow are they) to all of a sudden after fourteen centuries of aggressive inertia decide they like us. Political folly. And he also claims that the so-called genocide and massacres were overblown by Islamics, as they have had great success using Carter and then Clinton as useful fools. Carter's idiot advisors told him that the Allyatolla had "Ghandi-like" allure, so the stupid things fostered his removal and brought us the Islamic Republic of Iran. Islamics are history's grand masters of portraying themselves as victims, just like calling everyone "Crusaders" when it is in fact they who a are the aggressors. Recommend you read this book, to lay out Bosnia, and all the others, as it is not really what the Quran says that is important, it is what Islam does.
It was not just smyrna, it is everywhere they go, and the Democrats let them come here with no restrictions. And let them go from GITMO after being fed lies about how they are just innocent victims. Some may have been, but get the lawyers out of this, the OJ Simpson stuff just promotes evil. This nation has a lawyer disease.
#260(above I am refering to Carter insuinuating the Shah's overthrow for "Human Rights," turning on an ally in favor of an enemy, just like Britain, Italy, and France turned on Greece in favor of Turkey for the oil in 1922).
Read in the same book about how in 1974 the Islamics invaded Cyprus and soon all Christians in the parts of Cyprus they occupied were murdured or escaped. And are the Greeks mad at us for this, yes they are, just like Smyrna we did it again "for our Turkish ally." With more people as time goes by you would think that we would have smarter people to elect, but somehow this does not happen. Just like Walter Williams said, sitting in for Rush, "We today would never elect a James Madison, as he is too principled and in tune with the constitution," as we apparently only want handouts for our state/district/.... a big pork grab, and a dysfuntional political system. John McCain just said that 40% of the Pork in this supposed "bailout" was for Republicans. Disgraceful.
#261Vic Rubenfeld....We have limited time, so our arguments must be precise. We can quote people back and forth all day, just like I've quoted historical facts and figures back and forth with Der Alleswisser. The core of the issue is the text, which is susceptible to interpretation and translation.
Let's go back to a hadith from which you quoted "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause." As far as I'm concerned, I've engaged in "religous fighting" with Azbastard right here! Yes...Muslims want everyone everywhere to worship Mohammed. Don't Christians want everyone to follow Jesus? Ahh...but the difference is that Christians don't use violence, right? Well, history tells a different story, as the conquering of nations played a huge role in spreading the message of Jesus across the globe (often to people we looked at as "savages"). But that's distant history, correct? What about today? I might suggest that huge oil profits are the perfect fuel for a neverending battle for power and control...but whatever the cause, Muslims have some serious issues that desperately need to be resolved. I've asserted that there is hope for Islam if we ally ourselves with Muslims who embrace the "inner struggle" meaning of Jihad, but you insist that the evidence contradicts that definition.
"dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate." And? Calling us a territory of war and chaos might be insulting or simply condescending, but it's not inherently a threat. Azbastard has made it clear he views his beliefs superior to mine...I'd like to think that as a fellow American he'd run to my rescue if someone tried to oppress me, but I think it just as likely that he'd stick as many of his religous beliefs into our laws if half given a chance. Why should oppression by him worry me more than oppression by them? Ironic too...there are so many political issues that many members of both faiths agree about....opposition to abortion, homophobia, censorship(burning books and whatnot), and the constant itch to ban alcohol.
Life...please give a definition of that word that will be accepted by everybody. You can't do it. Words are such a poor method of communication. But I will play this game a little longer, and explore the meaning of Jihad with you.
#262Using the link you provided, and searching the word Jihad, let's look at the many examples that come up. I am picking these at random....
Volume 3, Book 29, Number 84:
Narrated Aisha (mother of the faithful believers):
I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shouldn't we participate in Holy battles and Jihad along with you?" He replied, "The best and the most superior Jihad (for women) is Hajj which is accepted by Allah." 'Aisha added: Ever since I heard that from Allah's Apostle I have determined not to miss Hajj.
Holy battles....hmmm...violent. But I can think of plenty of battles that Christians have fought to protect land they considered Holy. It doesn't make them bad people. "Holy battles and Jihad"...hmmm....does this mean they're not the same thing? Otherwise, it's a bit redundant, eh? Let's move on..."the best and most superior Jihad (for women) is Hajj". Ok, so we can officially let the women suicide bombers know that a hike to Mecca would be far more pleasing to Allah than fighting in a battle, no matter how holy it is.
#263Vic Rubenfeld....trust me...these are random...I pledge to stick to my own rule.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 113:
Narrated Muslim from Abu Aqil from Abu Al-Mutawakkil An-Naji:
I called on Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari and said to him, "Relate to me what you have heard from Allah's Apostle ." He said, "I accompanied him on one of the journeys." (Abu Aqil said, "I do not know whether that journey was for the purpose of Jihad or 'Umra.") "When we were returning," Jabir continued, "the Prophet said, 'Whoever wants to return earlier to his family, should hurry up.' We set off and I was on a black red tainted camel having no defect, and the people were behind me. While I was in that state the camel stopped suddenly (because of exhaustion). On that the Prophet said to me, 'O Jabir, wait!' Then he hit it once with his lash and it started moving on a fast pace. He then said, 'Will you sell the camel?' I replied in the affirmative when we reached Medina, and the Prophet went to the Mosque along with his companions. I, too, went to him after tying the camel on the pavement at the Mosque gate. Then I said to him, 'This is your camel.' He came out and started examining the camel and saying, 'The camel is ours.' Then the Prophet sent some Awaq (i.e. an amount) of gold saying, 'Give it to Jabir.' Then he asked, 'Have you taken the full price (of the camel)?' I replied in the affirmative. He said, 'Both the price and the camel are for you.' ''
You got me on this one...the Prophet undeniably hit the camel with his lash. Seriously...they seem to be on a journey...but it doesn't sound like a conquering army to me. Umra would be a pilgrimage to Mecca (different from Hajj?). Jihad could be interpreted as a spiritual journey if I simply went by this hadith.
#264Der Alleswisser....You say "it is not really what the Quran says that is important, it is what Islam does". Yep...lots of examples of Muslims doing bad things. Lots of examples of Christians doing bad things. Even Republicans do bad things on occasion. People everywhere seem to do bad things. What's up with that?
Serge Trifkovic denies the Srebrenica Massacre. Following is a clip from Wikipedia concerning that incident.
The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II.[8] In 2004, in a unanimous ruling on the "Prosecutor v. Krstić" case, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) located in The Hague ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide,[9] the Presiding Judge Theodor Meron stating:
By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity.[10]
Some people deny the Holocaust. It's easy to do. All you have to do is say, "that didn't happen". I certainly can't prove it happened. I wasn't there. I doubt you were there. Guess it all depends on who you believe, which might be predetermined by what we want to believe.
#265Volume 4, Book 52, Number 217:
Narrated Yali:
I participated in the Ghazwa of Tabuk along with Allah's Apostle and I gave a young camel to be ridden in Jihad and that was, to me, one of my best deeds. Then I employed a laborer who quarrelled with another person. One of them bit the hand of the other and the latter drew his hand from the mouth of the former pulling out his front tooth. Then the former instituted a suit against the latter before the Prophet who rejected that suit saying, "Do you expect him to put out his hand for you to snap as a male camel snaps (vegetation)?"
Ummm....hmmmm....honestly, I don't know how anyone created a religion out of this stuff. But the "Ghazwa of Tabuk" part caught my attention. I searched it and came up with the following....
The Campaign to Tabuk was the result of conflict with the Roman Empire that had started even before the conquest of Makkah. One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah (or Zat-i-Itlah). Only Ka'ab bin Umair Ghifari the head of the delegation succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad incident. Besides this Shurahbll bin Amr the Christian governor of Busra who was directly under the Roman Caesar had also put to death Haritli bin Umair the ambassador of the Holy Prophet who had been sent to him on a similar minion.
These events convinced the Holy Prophet that a strong action should be taken in order to make the territory adjacent to the Roman Empire safe and secure for the Muslims.
Jihad here does mean war....but if the story is accurate, the war is a retaliation, and thus defensive in nature. Perhaps the story is not accurate, but if they acted on bad intelligence, are they any worse than we were in Iraq?
#266Narrated Al-Walid bin 'Aizar:
I heard Abi Amr 'Ash-Shaibani saying, "The owner of this house." he pointed to 'Abdullah's house, "said, 'I asked the Prophet 'Which deed is loved most by Allah?" He replied, 'To offer prayers at their early (very first) stated times.' " 'Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To be good and dutiful to one's parents," 'Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, To participate in Jihad for Allah's Cause." 'Abdullah added, "The Prophet narrated to me these three things, and if I had asked more, he would have told me more."
Morning prayers? Not violent. Dutiful to one's parents...What Christian would argue with that? "To participate in Jihad for Allah's Cause"....I think this does mean the spreading of Islam. But I still don't see it as necessarily violent. By itself it doesn't exclude violence, but of course I've cited verses before that specify violence is only acceptable when battling oppression.
I can't condemn Muslims for wanting to spread Islam anymore than I can begrudge missionaries who seek converts to Christianity. As long as they don't engage in unwarranted aggressive actions, we have no quarrel.
#267Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out."
If someone gave their life to spread the word of Jesus, they too would be a martyr. There is nothing here that specifically instructs someone to physically attack someone unprovoked. Unless you define Jihad as violent, pre-emptive strikes against unbelievers. I suppose we see here what we want to see.
#268Vic Rubenfeld...I'm not sure I see the logic of demanding that "jihad" is violent. There are Muslims who reject that definition of the word, and I don't see why we don't let them make that claim. Why engage them in an argument? What does it benefit us? If people follow your lead and view Islam as beyond redemption, then we turn this whole discussion into "us" against "them". Why can't we have some of "them" on our side?
You want me to agree with you that Islam calls for Muslims to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims, and you won't move on in the discussion until I have answered that question to your satisfaction. I have given the exploration of that issue serious effort in hopes that you might address other issues (specifically the ones I have just reiterated above). I fear that you won't allow that to happen, but I hope that you will prove that fear unfounded.
#269Jamie,
Your argument has been reduced to pretending I haven't presented the facts to which I have asked you to respond. You have ignored this:
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah’s cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."
...because there is no way you can pretend that this refers to a peaceful inner struggle. ("Sariya" means army unit.)
You ignored this:
From the Times Online:
Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’
One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.
Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20 years as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He is an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered.
He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.
Mr Usmani’s justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book” because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.
[.....]These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.
...because it would be absurd for you to disagree with an internationally-known Islamic scholar regarding your view of Islam.
You have expressed an opinion that you are able to maintain only by ignoring the facts.
#270Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah’s cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."
Vic Rubenfeld....I have ignored nothing. There is nothing here that specifies that these holy battles are to be fought as an offensive action. I have indicated text in the Koran that very specifically instructs violence is only to be taken in defense against oppression. Not as noble as turning the other cheek, but not a call for terrorist acts against innocent people.
As for Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani, what is written about him by The Times Online may or may not be true. It's not relevant to me what he says, because I know for a fact that not all Muslims interpret Jihad as condoning terrorism. Religion is always open to interpretation. The Pope is a Christian scholar, but does he speak for all Christians? I have asked that you recognize those Muslims who reject terrorism, and accept violence only as a defensive measure. You have totally ignored that suggestion, and instead clung fast to your efforts to discredit the entire religion. If you want to have an "our religion is right and yours is wrong" discussion, then fine. But if your concern is for helping our cause in the war against terror, then I am asking you what harm is there in reaching out a hand to Muslims that prove themselves to have peaceful intentions? Perhaps they are fewer in number than they should be, but they do exist. I, with my limited knowledge of Islam, have searched them out and read their websites to educate myself during this debate. I have also come across some that are not peaceful...I don't deny that we have an enemy out there.
If George Bush can recognize those who follow Islam as a peaceful religion, then why can't you? If it is pure evil, then why are we trying to help people in Iraq in Afghanistan? Why would you not just call for all their heads on a stick like Joseph? Maybe because you're not a barbarian...I believe you have better sense than that. I am not here to sing the praises for a religion I don't even like. I am asking that you focus less on bashing their religion and more on searching out those with moral principles worthy of being embraced as allies in the war against terror. To this you have responded with absolute silence.
#271As for Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani, what is written about him by The Times Online may or may not be true.
When your argument is reduced to alleging that Usmani's book, "Islam and Modernism," is misquoted in the Times, and to asserting that "It’s not relevant to me what he says", you are documenting that you are ignoring the facts.
There is nothing here that specifies that these holy battles are to be fought as an offensive action
From the Koran:
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Do you now agree that the Koran calls on Muslims to kill and subjugate non-Muslims? You're going to have a lot of ignoring to do to continue to maintain the reverse.
It’s not relevant to me what he says, because I know for a fact that not all Muslims interpret Jihad as condoning terrorism.
If your view is that not all Muslims and/or former Muslims condone terrorism, that is certainly true. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, and the late Tashbih Sayyed all come to mind. However, all of these people maintain that the Koran does call on Muslims to kill and subjugate non-Muslims. For example, from Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
On the issues of holy war (jihad), apostasy and the treatment of women, the Koran and Sunna are clear. It is the obligation of every Muslim to spread Islam to unbelievers first through dawa, or proselytizing, then through jihad, if the unbelievers refuse to convert. It is the obligation of the unbelievers to accept Islam. Exempted from this edict of conversion are the people of the book: Christians and Jews. Both peoples have a choice. They may adopt Islam and enjoy the same rights as other Muslims, or they may stick to their book and lead the life of a dhimmi (lower citizen). Legally, the rights of the dhimmi are not equal to those of a Muslim. For instance, a Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but Jews and Christians are not allowed to marry Muslim women. If a Christian or a Jew kills a Muslim man, they should be killed immediately. In contrast, the blood of a Muslim should never be shed in recompense for the blood of Christians or Jews.
#272Vik Rubenfeld...
According to the Quran, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), thus, no one can be forced to become a Muslim. Going by this, my answer is no... I do not agree that the Koran calls on Muslims to kill and subjugate non-Muslims.
At its worst, the Koran is contradictory. It is for Muslims to debate between themselves, just as Christians debate the inerrancy of the Bible. I have made my case as best I can that we should support (and seek as allies) Muslims who reject terrorism as an acceptable form of jihad, and that attempting to discredit their entire religion is counterproductive in our struggle (fight) for world peace. If it is not good enough for you, then so be it. Repeatedly hurling quotes at each other accomplishes nothing. BTW...specifically, I did not say the Times misquoted anybody...I wrote, "what is written about him by The Times Online may or may not be true." If it is true, then the Usami does not qualify as a potential ally.
I wonder, do you ever worry that someone will take your words and turn them into action? Your argument that Islam is an evil religion could be used as a justification for violence, which is how terrorists brainwash new recruits (America as the Great Satan). It's not that I'm accusing you of inciting violence....but you aren't exactly Ghandi either. The "love thy enemy" message is well camouflaged here.
I don't agree with Islam, I am not a pacifist, and I am by no means a bleeding heart liberal. I believe covert operational strikes against terrorist would have been less costly than engaging in nation building (if Islam is not compatible with Democracy as many here assert, what's the point anyway?). I think we've done a very weak job in marketing our values and message to people in the Arab nation (certain not equal to our efforts to reach the general public that was held behind the Iron Curtain for so long). I think listening to our allies and working with them and not trying to dictate "our way or the highway" would have been more beneficial. And last but not least, cutting off communication and not leaving diplomatic options open never helps push us any closer to peace.
In short, I think you've missed the "big picture".
#273Thinking about it, I want people to understand what I mean about covert operational strikes. It doesn't mean launching the occasional missile at suspected targets as Clinton did. His actions in this regard were lame...certainly weak and ineffective.
Now, if Obama were to convince the Pakistani government to let us cross their border without advertising it to everybody and worked in conjunction to put the squeeze on Osama, that might produce some results. Afghanistan is the only place I can think of where taking down the whole government may have been necessary....and even that might be debatable.
Just wanted to clarify a little on that.
#274...we should support (and seek as allies) Muslims who reject terrorism as an acceptable form of jihad...
This is a good goal, and I support it. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to be aware of the facts about Islam.
According to the Quran, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), thus, no one can be forced to become a Muslim. Going by this, my answer is no... I do not agree that the Koran calls on Muslims to kill and subjugate non-Muslims.
At its worst, the Koran is contradictory. It is for Muslims to debate between themselves
This is what you and I would call a reasonable view. However, it is not the current view of Islamic scholars. The verses of the Koran are considered to be the direct word of Allah as delivered to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. As such, it is not considered possible among Islamic scholars for Muslims to accept some verses and reject other verses, (with the exception of the principal of abrogation - see below). Mohammed, considered the perfect man in Islam, spent 20 years in wars of aggression. Therefore your view of the Koran, while reasonable, is considered inaccurate by the majority of Muslim scholars today.
Regarding abrogation, many Islamic scholars believe that when there is a contradiction in the Koran, the later verse abrogates the earlier verse. The principal of abrogation is founded on a verse from Sura 2, the same Sura you quoted from. From the Koran, 2.106:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
The more peaceful verses in the Koran, such as 2.256 which you quoted, are from the earlier period in which Mohammed was living in Mecca. Later, he went to Medina and became a powerful warlord. The verses in the Koran dating from the Medina period are the more violent ones, and they are considered to abrogate the earlier, peaceful verses.
Your wish to construct a view of the Koran under which violent jihad can be rejected, is excellent. There are people today who are seeking to achieve this. Daniel Pipes has identified a line of thought, originated by a Muslim, which enables Muslims to do just that.
...note the original thinking of the Sudanese theologian Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85). Taha built his interpretation on the conventional division of the Koran into two. The initial verses came down when Muhammad was a powerless prophet living in Mecca, and tend to be cosmological. Later verses came down when Muhammad was the ruler of Medina, and include many specific rulings. These commands eventually served as the basis for the Shari'a, or Islamic law.
Taha argued that specific Koranic rulings applied only to Medina, not to other times and places. He hoped modern-day Muslims would set these aside and live by the general principles delivered at Mecca. Were Taha's ideas accepted, most of the Shari'a would disappear, including outdated provisions concerning warfare, theft, and women. Muslims could then more readily modernize.
Taha was executed in 1985, by the Islamic government in Sudan, for these views, exemplifying how such a view of Islam has yet to take hold among the majority of Muslim authorities today.
#275Vik Rubenfeld...As you say, Mahmud Muhammad Taha may not represent the majority of Muslim scholars. What I'd like to know is how are we backing up Muslims like Taha? Your efforts to convince me that the Koran calls for the killing and/or subjugation of non-believers suggested that Islam is evil at it's root. 1)this validates to people like Joseph and Azbastard that Muslim scholars who embrace a violent interpretation of Jihad are the true standard bearers of Islam. 2) It is a stab in the back of Muslim allies like Taha.
You say Mohammad spent 20 years in wars of aggression. I have also read the opinion that those wars were spent fighting off Pagan and Christian aggressions. I've asked Der Alleswisser to give me a total list of the dead left in the wake of Christian verses Islamic nations. If he were to take the task to heart...we probably wouldn't hear from him for a while, and if the count were done without bias, I'd be inclined to believe Christianity would have the higher total. Again...if you are right about Mohammad as the aggressive conquerer, how have you helped the cause of people like Taha by spreading that message? Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but you seem more interested in proving me wrong than Taha right.
I have tried to address the issue of how we go about winning the War on Terror. How you and I interpret the Koran is not as important as the question, how do Muslims interpret the Koran? For every Christian that you convince Islam is pure evil, you distance us further from potential allies. If we were purely discussing theology, my words would not be so forgiving to Islam. I don't embrace the Koran as a model for how to live my life, and make no recommendations as to what religion anyone here should follow. However, when people seek to demonize an entire religion while totally forgiving the misdeeds of their own culture, I'm inclined to point out the hypocrisy of that argument.
So I still have no answer from anybody here who sees Islam as incapapble of maintaining anything productive as to how they reconciliate that notion with their support for Bush's attempts at nation building in Iraq? By their own beliefs, is that effort not futile? As we withdraw from Iraq, I hope the recent trend towards stability holds, and that history will applaud our efforts there and forgive the mistakes made by invading in the first place.
There have been no comments made for/against my suggestions in the last paragraph of my post #272 as to how best to proceed in the War on Terror. Maybe I'm on the wrong website...is this discussion purely theological?
If you don't hear back from me...maybe you'll discuss it amongst yourselves. I am having computer problems and may not be back...we'll see.
#276Let's hope GW Bush was right on Iraq, and yes, to try to make Iraq a decent democracy that champions the rights of its citizens, including bringing equality to its women and others that are oppressed, goes in the face of all that is Islam as defined by the Quran. This would be a blessing for all, and there are at least some postive anecdotal stories here. GW Bush did try to do the right thing for these people, nevermind they do not realize it, but was it a feasible thing?
But if it fails, as the Democrats badly hope for and tried to surrender long ago, then brace yourself for Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. But at least there is a chance, and we can hope that the evil of Islam in the past simply fades away due to this impetus from abroad. The lies about us being there for oil and occupation should not be painfully obvious as lies now, and this sustained the evil elements of Islam there. All the stonings, beheaddings, ... gone?? But kid yourself not, it was and is evil, the deeds of bin Laden and his ilk, and bringing those back from the Darkside would be a triumph of humanity.
And it is not the past body counts that are meaningful, it it the future, Iran gets nuclear weapons (has), and previous body counts become irrelevent. The Fault Line of this Clash: Israel and Iran, and sooner than you think.
#277Der Alleswisser....I hope Iraq holds, but we'll never know for sure until we leave. Who ever called for us to surrender? It's the war on Terror...not the war on Iraq. Bush said it himself...Iraq was just one battlefield. Saying it was a fight we never should have engaged has nothing to do with surrendering. As for the issue of oil...would you not agree that America's connection to oil makes anything that happens in the Middle East tied to our own interest? Wouldn't it be great to be free of that connection? Let's spend some money on new technologies and offshore drilling too for that matter...whatever it takes to break that which ties us so tightly to that part of the world.
You know it...you've agreed with it...we took our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan. Quit looking for things to gripe about and recognize that democrats and republicans are all Americans and we all want Osama Bin Ladin dead. Forget behind bars. Dead will do nicely.
As far as Iraq goes...we've done our best to make up for mistakes that were made. We've opened the door for them... but Sunnis and Shias must put aside their differences and learn to work together if they are ever to have true peace. That's the definition of victory in Iraq, so therefore ultimate victory has always been in their hands alone...never ours. Where are leaders failed, our soldiers have succeeded in providing the citizens of Iraq the opportunity to achieve that victory.
#278Let's be honest now, the Democrats badly wanted Bush to fail, not for the good of the county but so they could discredit the Republicans and win the election. Sadly, the American People just did not have the cognitive ability to realize that it was Barney Franks, Franklin Raines, and basically the Democratic Party that forced banks to make toxic loans to people who could not pay, that brought the whole house of cards down. Tragically, this is not just a loss of an election, but this vast indolence and intellectual deficiency of a national electorate portends the End of an Empire. Mistakes can be made and survived, but when an entire people actually cozy up to the Big Bad Wolf, know you well that we are a failed nation.
And let's be real, the whole world heard Harry Reid's surrender speech, and the whole world heard the Democrats call General Petreyus "Betray Us." We have met the enemy and he is us, the Democrats are apparently us. It is not pretty, it is fatal.
#279Der Alleswisser...Democrats hoping Republicans will fail is certainly no better than the reverse. My problem is that you keep lumping everyone into one group or the other. There are a lot of moderates voters out there for each party, not to mention all of the independents. There's even a few Libertarians out there. And what about Ron Paul?...his supporters seem worthy of mention as well.
So you think Obama is the Big Bad Wolf, or the Democratic Party? Certainly some Democrats are now drunk with power, and that worries me whenever it happens to either party. I've been following Obama since 2005, and personally I feel better about the direction our nation is headed in. But feel free to hold on to your fatalism as long as you like.
#280Let us hope he has more going than just being smooth and a triumph of style over substance. His spending is way out of control, and since August 2008 when it became obvious that he would win, the economy as been moribund. A huge vote of No Confidence. Was it that any black would have won just so liberals would feel good about voting for a black? If so, it is a shame that it was not Condelezza. Or maybe it had to be a Democrat, that bastion of liberalism, victimology and the symbiotic relationship they have with lawyers, who are overwhelmingly Democrat, and Political Correctness.
#281Der Alleswisser.... Liberals will always vote democratic and conservatives will vote Republican It's the moderates and independents that decide who wins, so if you're looking at someone to blame then fuss at them....not the liberals.
To say Obama has been responsible for the condition of the economy since August 2008 is absurd. Absolutely and utterly not worth as much response as I've already given.
#282The Democrats are responsible, they took over in 2006, they do not understand the creeping evil of Islam, and so they fight wiretapping without regard to those who will lose thier lives to terrorist attacks. Right now the Attourney General, Eric Holder, represents 19 GITMO detainees, and the Democrats have let many already go, who have returned to terrorism. Watch this, dismiss it if you will, but you should be very frightened, and know you well it is the democrats and the lawyers they promote in their party who are responsible, and who are Proxy Murderers: watch and heed http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=185279&page=1
And on the home front Americans are becoming increasingly alarmed at how inept the Obama govenment is, now the AIG thing, bonuses to Democrat voters, people who should not get a nickel of taxpayer money. Just corruption, and I could not say I am sorry for them because they voted for this, but it is all of us the Democrats are dragging down with their corruption. And they do not realize it but it is also their children's future they are destroying, oh they may inherit their ill-gotten bonuses and earmarks, but if the country is destroyed where are they going to spend it?
#283Say what you about Rush, dismiss him if you will, but I suggest you check out what he says, as I think it is correct, he would not just say this unless he could back it up, and what he says is that these AIG bonus getters are just rich Ivy league types who live in the Hamtons, know nothing of business, the money will create no jobs, not alleviate any hardship, it is just payback to Democrat supporters, just stealing.
And the rest of the world is becoming alarmed at the Obama administration and its ineptitude, in particular the Chinese who are heavily invested in US Treasury bonds. Where does this lead? Market collapse, revolution?? No where good, and so I hope your rosy opinion is correct, but am not at all optimistic. Rotten at the core, we all implode. It all boils down to basic values and ours are rotten. At least the values of those in power.
#284Your efforts to convince me that the Koran calls for the killing and/or subjugation of non-believers suggested that Islam is evil at it's root. 1)this validates to people like Joseph and Azbastard that Muslim scholars who embrace a violent interpretation of Jihad are the true standard bearers of Islam. 2) It is a stab in the back of Muslim allies like Taha.
"Evil at its root" is not a phrase I have used and, since it is a metaphor ("root" is a metaphor in this sentence), is not a phrase I would use in this discussion on this subject. Taha would certainly disagree with that phrase, and I support Taha's views. So you are arguing against a statement I have not made.
As you say, Mahmud Muhammad Taha may not represent the majority of Muslim scholars. What I'd like to know is how are we backing up Muslims like Taha?
By calling attention to Taha's work and stating that it would be very good for Muslims to follow it.
I've asked Der Alleswisser to give me a total list of the dead left in the wake of Christian verses Islamic nations.
You should do your own research. To be relevant to this discussion, you would have to seek the number of people killed by Christians claiming to be following commands of the Bible to kill all non-Christians, and the number of people killed by Muslims claiming to be following commands of the Koran to kill all non-Muslims.
Since there are no passages in the Bible calling on Jews and/or Christians to kill or subjugate all those who are not Jews and/or Christians, while there are many many passages in the Koran calling on Muslims to kill or subjugate all those who are non-Muslims, the number you would get would be 0 on the side of Christianity, and millions on the side of Islam, as you know perfectly well after reading this thread.
#285Vik Rubenfeld....Of the 13 featured posts I currently see at the top of this page, 11 are commentaries on the dark side of Islam. NONE of them are about Mahmud Muhammad Taha or anyone like him.
No...you never used the word "evil at it's root"...but that's clearly the implication in your writings. Anyway, how can you believe the Koran calls on Muslims to kill and/or subjugate non-believers and NOT believe the religion is "evil at it's root"(my term, not yours). If I could not accept the interpretation that this violence is only permitted as a defense against oppression, my conclusion would have to be that the religion is evil. So your logic seems contradictory to me...perhaps you can clarify?
#286The bad deeds of Muslims are put forth here as evidence against Islam as a religion of peace. Yet the well documented dark side of Christianity is written off as an aberration of people who weren't "true followers". Christians have used their religion as a justification to kill others (even other Christians) and Muslims have done the same. You're interpretation of the Koran may convict the Muslims and absolve Christianity in your eyes, but killing is killing in mine and whether they're holding a Bible or Koran in their hand doesn't make any difference. Those that see the struggle between these religions as a battle of good verses evil miss the point...the battle is waged in the heart of the individual.
Jesus didn't call for his followers to kill anybody. He didn't sit around dwelling on the evils of the Roman Empire either. The energies of this website seem far more devoted to fault finding than bridge building. You may have a lot of cheerleaders here, Vik Rubenfeld. But out in the real world, the majority of people in this country have grown weary of being bombarded by negativity. They embraced someone who brought them a message of hope...one you may see as a false hope. Time and history will be the judge of that, but my point is to offer you a different strategy for approaching this website. You seem to think people aren't aware of the problems...but I assure you most of us are. People are hungy for hearing about what we can do, not what we can't. Certainly Republicans better start worrying more about that and less about Obama, or the party may suffer losses from which it might never recover (and believe it or not, I think that would be a bad thing...I, for one, think we need at least two strong parties to balance and challenge each other). Sorry for the digression...but I hope my words add value to the discussion.
#287Der Alleswisser..."Say what you about Rush, dismiss him if you will, but I suggest you check out what he says, as I think it is correct, he would not just say this unless he could back it up".
I spent some time years ago fact checking Rush Limbaugh. Nothing he said then held up any better than the countless forwarded e-mails that I've fact checked using Snopes and Factcheck.Org. So know, I haven't listened to him lately. But why should I believe he's telling the truth now when he wasn't then? How often have you reviewed his comments with a critical eye? Have you read ever read one of Obama's books (the whole way thru, that is...not just random quotes)? If you have, then tell you what...let me know and I'll tune into Rush for a while and see what he's saying these days. I occasionally listen to another Obama hater...some show called "Savage Nation". His commentary one night was that white men who voted for Obama (like myself) suffer from low self esteem and abuse drugs. I feel pretty confident in myself, and I know damn well I've never abused drugs. Life is too short to listen to too much crap like that.
#288...how can you believe the Koran calls on Muslims to kill and/or subjugate non-believers and NOT believe the religion is "evil at it's root"(my term, not yours).
I'm not quite sure what you intend to refer to by the use of the word "root." Can you specify what you mean without the use of a metaphor?
People are hungy for hearing about what we can do, not what we can't.
A very good point. I have cited these suggestions made by Robert Spencer:
- Monitor the mosques.
- Control immigration.
- Call on American Muslims to back up their claims that they are against killings committed in the name of Islam.
- Tie foreign aid to a policy that nations who receive it must halt the teaching, in their schools, of hate and violence.
Also, please see this post: To Eradicate The Islamist Killers, We Must Destroy The Mechanism That Produces Them. The mechanism I refer to in that post is identical to the one discussed by a Saudi columnist just last month:
“If we want to protect our young children from one day becoming fanatics or terrorists, we need to provide them with a completely new culture that is radically different than the religious, intellectual, and social culture that has dominated us for many decades, and still does. Instead of teaching your children hostility, or letting someone else teach them hostility, towards those of other religions, teach [them] religious tolerance, which will [ensure that while] they differ from others in religion, they will share with them their common humanity…
“If he listens to the imam at the mosque praying at the top of his voice for [Allah] to destroy [others], ask him to forget what he heard, and to remember to love all and harbor hatred towards none, and [tell him] that the values that [should] motivate him are those of coexistence and cooperation.
“The families whose children have gotten involved in terrorism responded entirely favorably to this kind of hostile culture, and set extremist individuals as models of what was good and proper for their children.
“If you want to keep your son from being a terrorist, you must teach him to read religious texts not in a fanatical, narrow, and literalist manner, but in a rational manner that is open to changes in reality. The families that lost their children to terrorism abandoned them to those who inculcate in them extremist thoughts based on their extremist and ideological view of the Koran and the sunna. [For them,] one hadith or one Koranic verse read and interpreted in an extremist manner becomes an expression of the essence of the religion, whereas the [true] essence of the religion is love, mercy towards one another, humility, and high moral standards.”
So that's how it works. Imams preach hatred in mosques and as a result, random members of the mosques decide to commit violence. It appears that this may be a link in the chain that we can go after. After all, we don't permit people in this country to preach hatred of any racial groups; why should imams be exempt from this requirement, just because they can quote from the Koran to support their arguments? it may be useful to seek an approach that can respect our traditions of free speech, and at the same time, prevent imams from preaching hatred and inciting violence.
#289Vik Rubenfeld....it is late and I am tired, but there are certainly points of agreement here.
Monitor the Mosques. Obviously you can't have government censors sitting in the back reviewing every word the Imam says. But just like our government when it takes on religous cults that threaten violence to themselves or others, the rights of free speech should not protect such people even within the sanctuary of a church or mosque.
Control immigration. Yep...responsible immigration policies are very important.
Call on American Muslims to back up their claims...? What does this mean? If they say they're against killings commited in the name of Islam, what else exactly do you want them to do?
As for foreign aid, who do hurt when we cut it off? The government, or the people we're trying to reach out to? The point is well taken, but I think the issue warrants more critical thinking than I'm capable of at this late hour. Let me just add this...how about we not cozy up to dictators just because they play nice with us. You never hear about Qadafi in Libya anymore because he started cooperating with us...but he's still the same old brutal dictator.
The Saudi columnist wrote..."one hadith or one Koranic verse read and interpreted in an extremist manner becomes an expression of the essence of the religion, whereas the [true] essence of the religion is love, mercy towards one another, humility, and high moral standards.” These are his words....how often have you expressed that sentiment in your own words? I will confess...I haven't read everything here. Perhaps you have written that many times and I have simply missed it. I certainly wasn't getting that message when you kept repeating that the Koran calls for Muslims to kill and/or subjugate non-believers.
You need me to explain the metaphor I used to express my feeling that your writing implicates that the foundation of Islam is evil? You really don't "catch my drift"? Fine...whatever...I don't know how to say it any more simply, so let's just put it to bed.
Good night.
#290It is not just Rush but Hannity, Mark Levin, Fox TV, and generally I am getting a lot of email from friends who are very preturbed about what is happening to their nation. Many of them are veterans who have fought for their country (as I am) and these are very patriotic proud people. There is a general malaise and miasma, distrust, not at all confident and even worse distrustful of Obama.
What I fear is that this is a massive redistribution of wealth , in the fallacious assumption that the economy is just one big fixed pie and so he will slice it differently, while stiffling initiative and creativity, and most of all fairness. The AIG thing is a canary in the mine as to how incompetent these Democrats are, this is not going to help at all, this just sows more distrust. And I am afraid the wheels will come off. None of these bailouts have helped, in fact they have hurt. I wish I could conclude that Rush was just trying to win more listeners (and according to him he is doing so with huge numbers-- and this is also indicitive of the national mood).
If we had a president that formost we could trust, and I cannot say that I do, we could move forward together, we could all get behind that and the rising tide would lift all boats equally.. I suspect his agenda and it even may be a hidden racial agenda, is dishonest, He seems inept and seems to want to steal from the taxpayers for earmarks to Democrats for political reasons. He claims there are none but this is just lies.
#291Now this stuff about not giving combat veterans health care for combat wounds, dishonest and un - American.
As far as Islam is concerned, the history is troubling, the thing with Israel seems doomed and not because of Israel, they have given up land and been very patient as we have tried vainly to buy the peace. If Islam is evil at the core, and it is hard to see otherwise, nothing but silence, no outreach to anyone, then we are going to go into new territory more dangerous that last or any century's. The juxtaposition of the Believer and the Unbeliver, lots for Europe to worry about within ten years, and then if that goes as some say, a horrific conflict to follow, or maybe, the West dies with not a bang but a whimper. That appears to be where Europe is headed, just all fought out and tired, pampered by the US they have lost the primal instinct for survival.
In America Alone, Mark Steyn does not say 12 offspring per Islamic mother in Europe, he says it is 3.85, as compared to 1.4 averaged over all of Europe, from 1.1 for "We are so outraged about you bombing our trains and killing over 200 of us, we surrender and we elect the candidate for president you Muslims want," Spain, and also Russia, to a bit higher for the Netherlands. But it takes 2.1 children per mother to just stay even, and so Europe will simply become Islamic as time goes on. Will this be a bunch of beheaddings and Allah Akbar?
Something for you to ponder as you look at your children and grandchildren. You need to hope all this good stuff you say about Islam is not just hope and there is some basis for it. The only thing I see is some at least seemingly nice Islamics here in the states, but what happens if they become the majority as they are becoming in Europe? And keep in mind that most of those Islamics there are very young and Europeans are becoming older, and if this ever gets to a street fighting thing, age may bring wisdom but it does not bring good street fighters. That wisdom had better be sufficient to prevent this becoming a street fighting thing, because if it ever does, today's Europeans are in for the horrors of Constanople, India, Smyrna, and all the other lands where Islamics have murdered and raped and Pillaged for fourteen centuries. Do not ignore this. And then the ones that live become Dhimmis. This unless somehow miraclously Islam sheds fourteen centuries of inertial evil and becomes civilized. If not, back to the Dark Ages.
#292Der Alleswisser....Let me sum up your ramblings for everyone in the form of mathematical equations.
Democrats + Muslims = End of Western Civilization.
Obama x 4 years = the Union of Socialists States of America.
Rush Limbaugh + Hannity Jones + Vik Rubenfeld = The Holy Trinity
As for me...
Der Alleswisser + 10,000 words = Me not really caring.
Sorry...I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
#293jamie you got your head so far up your ass, you won't know whats happening till the cock crows
#294I try to be objective about Democrats and Islamics. Always thought the latter were folks just like anyone else until 9/11. And heard about the Muslims being victims of the Crusades just one too many times, and then a background process was running telling me that isomething did not add up. This in view of all the terrorist attacks that had being going on since Black September in 1972 at Munich, all the hijackings after that, the murdered cripple on the ocean liner, all these horrible things being done in the name of Allah, all of this conflicted with the widely-held assumption that Islamics are victims in Palestine, Crusades, .... then I started reading. And with each new book came a growing realization of what creeping evil Islam is. There is hope, but not much, but I hope I am wrong, that all these books ( and there are many), but the average American does not read, only listens to the national media which is hugely - biased and scrubbed for PC-ness, the stuff about it being disadvantaged "Youths" burning cars in Europe, somehow thinking that if no one mentions that these are Muslims it will all be ok.
You may have noticed and heard about all the newspaper layoffs, this why, and declining viewership at CBS, ABC, all the feel - good liberal PC media. This is why, they become irrelevant, they fade away. And our public schools teach meaningless history, no mention of any thing but drivel and revisionist history about Islam. You would not know about Smyrna, as a matter of fact you would not even know about all the vanquished and murdered people in Persia, Egypt, all of the Middle East, even into Spain, you would not know that the Jewish people were the original people of Jerusalem and what is now Israel, you would have no idea of the millions murdered in the name of Allah.
The Democrats, I could support them if they just stood for the right thing, were honest. The tendency for a democratic society is more government and more liberalism. Jefferson said so. Liberals are emotional types who look as everyone as victims and ergo all the lawyers. Conservatives look for solutions. It is easy to be a liberal, just lament about how pitiful everything is, then tax and throw taxpayers' money at it, buy those votes, dumb us all down.
#295Being conservative is not so easy, the quickest word to failure is "yes," (Mike Smith, pilot of the Challenger when it blew up, and yes, I knew him). Sometimes you have to say "No" to serve the common good, hard decisions must be made and solutions sought.
This includes the economy, and it includes an unbiased analysis of Islam, with the above mentioned measures of controlling immigration, monitoring mosques, .... as quoted from Robert Spencer. Meet him in 'Islam: What the West Needs to Know About Radical Islam." Yes, some may cry about profiling, but we must be strong enought to present the facts as to why this is necessary. Failure to do so is weak, emblematic of a society that more government has softened to the degree that it no longer has the primal instinct for survival.
The Liberal Democrat viewpoint that we need to not acknowledge these things but instead handle the Islamic problem as a legal problem. The liberal sluffs off any responsibility to protect decent innocent Americans in favor of protecting the rights of a people at least a significant percentage of whom are pure evil. They know they cannot be held accountable, as they are lawyers, and make it that way. This is what most lawyers do and it is immoral, and within the Democrat Party is where these lawyers are and it is this party that implements policy (smoking, GITMO, spilled coffee, suits against Wal Mart,.....) that are in the financial interests of of lawyers and Democrats.
Lawyers = Democrats = Protection of the Guilty = Cover for Islamic Fifth Column in America
Multiculturalism + Denial of the Facts About Islam = Innocents Die From Terrorist Attacks
Liberal Democrats = Socialism = Stealing from Taxpayers
#296Der Alleswisser...you never answered my question as to whether or not you have ever read any books by Obama?
Sure...there are plenty of books to support what you say. There are also plenty of books that don't support what you say. Out of 6 billion people on this planet, you won't find any two completely alike. So as much as we all like to categorize others, when you really get to know those people on an individual level things get a lot more slippery. For example, someone named Sherry just blasted Nancy Pelosi for her comments about immigration. Like most Republicans, I think Mexicans are at the top of Sherry's list when the topic of immigration comes up. But Vik Rubenfeld and yourself have said unassimilated Muslims are the danger to this nation losing it's identity...not unassimilated Mexicans. I like Mexicans just fine, but I don't like it when they come here and make no attempt to respect our laws or learn our language, and their numbers are far greater than Muslim immigrants. Muslim immigrants from Iraq who took our side when we invaded and ended up having to escape their own country should have been welcomed here with open arms....but instead most of them got you, Vik, George Bush, and the door slammed in their face. But I digress...the main point is that you sound out of step with a lot of people who call themselves Republicans and consider Mexican immigrants a threat to our way of life. So therefore, you and all Republicans are not alike. Democrats are not all alike either.
There are smart people representing each party...and there are plenty of fools to go around as well. I respect the Republican position that government can't fix all our problems. But I think our nation needs someone to blow the whistle now and then and not let the game get out of control...that's what being a democrat should be about. It's not about socialism. If I believed in socialism then I'd just call myself a socialist. The fact that you can't find anything positive to say about Democrats tells me you are incapable of empathy and that the only opinion you're interested in is your own.
I liked Reagan. I didn't agree with everything he did, but the man was a leader. George Bush the first was ok...but I'm afraid his son was never of that ilk. For all of his decisiveness going into Afghanistan, his obsession with Iraq got him off path and he never found his way back. He abandoned fiscal responsibility and fooled our country into riding along with him on his year quixotic journey to nowhere. Nice guy...but I'm sorry, he had no clue what he was doing. How you can seriously blame all of the problems we face now on the Democrats who have semi-controlled Congress for 2 years and Obama who has been President for 2 months is ludicrous. You will have to wait a bit longer than that to know what the true result will be of the direction we as a nation have now decided to take.
Azbastard....very constructive criticism. Always nice to hear from my Christian friends.
#297Der Alleswisser....You wrote, "I try to be objective about Democrats and Islamics. Always thought the latter were folks just like anyone else until 9/11."
First of all...ignorance is no excuse. As a whole, our nation (Republicans and Democrats alike) kept our heads in the sand while Osama Bin Ladin built up Al Qaeda. It's not like the guy was keeping his intentions secret (WTC 1993, Africa Embassy bombings, the USS Cole). Then 9/11...19 guys kill 3,000 innocent people. The world was outraged and on our side. We go into Afghanistan and I'm thinking Al Qaeda picked the wrong country to pick a fight with. But then Iraq. What the hell?
So meanwhile, after 9/11 you're spending all kinds of time believing every negative thing you can find to read about Islam. Bush says Iraq is the enemy, and you bite. All Muslims are the enemy...and you're gung ho to take the fight to them. So we crush Saddam and eliminate the entire power structure in a nation with three distinct ethnic/religous groups that have hated each other for centuries. 100,000 Iraqis are killed in the resulting violence. Some by their own hands...some by errant American bombs...but the fact that so many American's are unable to empathize with the anger people felt towards the force that opened Pandora's Box...it boggles my mind. Yes...I can sit here in the comfort of my den and rationalize and justify our actions. But if I forget to remember the impact those actions have on the lives of other, then I lose the better part of my own humanity. That is the road you choose when you allow an entire religion to be defined by the evil of a radical minority. When you consider the Holocaust in Christian Europe an aberration and the destruction of Smyrna damning evidence against all of Islam, you have lost perspective. Before you know it, victory at any cost become acceptable...even at the loss of your own soul. You do not destroy evil by becoming it.
What about my words seems weak? Does my desire to see Obama's skull in a museum sound weak? Does the fact that I'm pissed off that we followed Bush's quixotic journey into Iraq make me weak? Should I fell guilty for believing CEO's and executives who continually hoard a larger percentage of their company's profits should pay an equally larger percentage of the taxes needed to keep our nation up and running? I don't believe in prayer in school because I don't want other people instructing my kids how to pray...does that make me Godless? I don't believe in torture...does that make me un-American? If lawyers hadn't taken on the lawyers who represented Big Tobacco, do you think they would have stopped lying to the American public about their product on their own? If Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond had had their way, where would civil rights be now? And if I want our government to help us find a way to make sure everyone gets a right to medical care in spite of pre-existing conditions, does that make me a socialist? I don't want anyone telling me I have to join a union anymore than I want someone telling me I can't...what's weak about that? I believe in our ability to discover new technologies that will free us from the ties that bind us to Arab oil...what's wrong with that?
Geez Der Alleswisser...you've got me rambling worse than you do. Whenever someone takes a position that seems counterintuitive to common sense, ask why they feel that way. Maybe they have a good reason. Or just lump everyone into large groups and label them as Democrat, or Muslim, and write everything they say off without any consideration.
#298Jamie, in response to your question:
Call on American Muslims to back up their claims...? What does this mean? If they say they're against killings commited in the name of Islam, what else exactly do you want them to do?
Just saying they are against killings in the name of Islam, is insufficient, when so many of their co-religionists are burning cars, burning buildings, and committing murders in the name of Islam.
If they really mean what they say, they must march in the streets and say to all the world that Muslims who burn cars, burn buildings, and kill people in public places such as planes, trains, restaurants, etc., do not go to paradise. They must demand that Imams who call for Muslims to kill in the name of Islam, be driven out of the mosques.
But we never see any such marches. Why? Because many have read the Koran, and are aware that many verses in the Koran do indeed call for such killing. In short, many are not in fact against killings in the name of Islam, and when they say they are, they are doing dawa. From about.com:
In Islam, da'wa means a "call" or "invitation," and has been used to refer to a person being "called" to follow Islam. However, it has developed into the idea of a "mission" or "propaganda," either in a political or religious sense.
In other words, many are saying that Islam is peaceful, even though they know it is not; they are fooling you.
#299http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/perspective-on-mazen-asbahi.html
Read it. Say what you want. In my opinion, the kind of rhetoric that one finds here is what leads to the witch hunts like the one perpetrated against Mazen Asbahi. Here is another article on the same story.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/06/politics/main4326211.shtml
Here is how another website with views closer to this one presents Mazen Ashabi. I suppose many here will say this is the more accurate story.
http://www.barackbook.com/Profiles/MazenAsbahi.htm
I suppose you can make a case either way that people believe what they want to believe. As to what Vik Rubenfeld believes, it's difficult to tell. In post #288 he offers us a quote from a Saudi columnist that includes this quote..."For them,] one hadith or one Koranic verse read and interpreted in an extremist manner becomes an expression of the essence of the religion, whereas the [true] essence of the religion is love, mercy towards one another, humility, and high moral standards.” In post #274 we have "Your wish to construct a view of the Koran under which violent jihad can be rejected, is excellent. There are people today who are seeking to achieve this. Daniel Pipes has identified a line of thought, originated by a Muslim, which enables Muslims to do just that." But in countless other post we get "the Koran calls on Muslims to kill and subjugate non-Muslims", and now "many are saying that Islam is peaceful, even though they know it is not; they are fooling you."
Are there violent Muslims? Yes....
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp
But make sure you read what Ashgar Bukhari, the Chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee has to say about it. He is on record as saying those Muslims should have been stopped by police. I also support David Winnick's suggestion that these protesters be prosecuted and deported. Please note that the Walsall North MP added, that the overwhelming majority of Muslims have the same distate as the rest of us about these thugs.
Vik Rubenfeld. You want the Muslims to protest violence committed by others of their own religion? Maybe one day they will apologise for their silence. It only took the Catholic Church a little over 50 years to get around to it. So tell me Vik, when you here of hate crimes against innocent Muslims here in American, how do you go about showing your abhorrence of such violence? I think you could learn a few lessons from a website that knows what the term "religous tolerance" really means...like what I found here....
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter1.htm
Why don't you write Muslims in your own local community and ask them to have a protest march against violence and religous intolerance with you? Have you already done that? Did they say no?
#300When God has kindled the fire, how can man put the fire out? In the book of Daniel, Michael fought with the prince of Media and Persia. The King of the north against the King of the south. The King of the north being Judea and the King of the south being Jerusleum. The King of the North will plant his tabernacles between the seas in the glorious holy mountain. But, God in all his wisdom, and out of the seed of the first born of Christ, will build the walls of Jerusleaum that cannot be breached. All things are done for Gods will. The only way to Him is through Jesus and His Spirit, which speaks louder that any words. Will Christians be persecuted for this belief? Will they be persecuted for their morals? Will they be persecuted for their saltiness? America is the last stronghold. America was made great because we helped the oppresed and our government was on the shoulders of Jesus. But, now many want to take God out of the equation and blasphemy his name becaue we feel that we are above God, and do not fear God. America is in trouble big time. The attack of Sept.11 was an eyeopener, but over time we grow weary and we put our guard down and draw back the watchman. For the record, Obama is an idiot, a court jester. But, God put him where he is at, for His purpose. Thats a real eyeopener also
#301Big problem with these Islamic groups here in the US, and this guy Asbahi who supposedly is a great innocent guy, where are he and his so-called followers when horrific evil is committed in the name of Allah? He and his silence....
Let us not be so easily fooled, as the Democrats have consistantly been (Carter, Clinton, Hillary, and now Obama, waiting to be played the fool by Iran). On page 154 of Defeating Jihad by Serge Trifkovic, you have "In September 2004, the Chicago Tribune revealed the existance, methods, and ultimate goals of the offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the 'world's most influencial Islamic fundamentalist group.' .....The Brotherhood's slogan, ever since it was founded in Egypt in 1928, has been clear: 'Allah is our goal; the Messenger is our model; the Kuran is our constitution; jihad is our means; and martyrdom iin the way of Allah is our aspiration.'.... The Brotherhood's leaders call for the destruction of Israel, and assert that THE US HAS NO PROOF THAT AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME FOR 9/11.. Its proselytizing in the US is backed by the Saudi Arabian government, which shares the Brotherhood's fundamentalist goals..... The Tribune article claims that 'because of its hard - line beliefs, the US Brotherhood has been an increasingly divisive force within America, fueling the often bitter struggle between moderate and conservative Muslims.' (Yes there are some good Muslims but petrodollars from Saudi Arabia proliferate the Satanic Sect of Islam: Whabillism, these are Satan's People, but don't forget what the Turkish Islamics did to the Armenians and Smyrna, not all evil within Islam is Whabalism, much evil in Islam, the world's most evil people throughtout the history of mankind."
Translation: This is pure evil, and if this Ashabi speaks here, it is evil he speaks of, and he knows the Democrats are stupid enough to believe his al Taqiya lying to tell them how peaceful the Brotherhood is.
On page 155: "the MAS Chicago web site states matter of factly that Western secularism and materialism are evil, adn the Muslims should 'pursue this evil force to its own lands' and 'invade its Western heartland.'
"
One thing for this evil that is CAIR and MAB and the others, you are here only because of the stupidity of the Democrats. Myself or others who think as I do ever get control, your sorry evil demonic a***s get locked up for good, and kill anyone and you pay the price. Leave if you do not like it here, go back to your evil backwards Allah countries, back to the seventh century. See if you can make a door that opens and shuts, see if you can make a wheel and then a bicycle. Demonic evil, darkness, leave.
#302Der Alleswisser...You say there are good Muslims but that the entire religion is evil...way to roll out the welcome mat for Muslims who love America. You want them all to leave so don't even bother with the token sentiments about their being "good Muslims". What incentive do you give them to march the streets in protest against the extremists when you would just as soon give them the boot out of the country as well?
We've survived the Salem witch hunts and McCarthyims, but if you or people like you ever get control, the national anthem might as well be changed to AC/DC's "Highway to Hell".
Azbastard...Will you laugh with glee in heaven as Muslim children follow their parents down into the pits of eternal damnation on Judgement Day? Will you pour your saltiness into the eyes of old Muslim men? Will you stand on the right side of Jesus as the women in their burkhas are poked and prodded into the burning flames of Satan's grasp? Azbastard...I'm blinded by your rightousness...I see the light! Muslims must never be allowed to persecute our Lord's humble Christian soldiers again. We must ban them from our government, our schools, our malls, our entire nation. Drag them out of their homes and into the street for all to see them for the evil pagans they truly are. Let them dry up and blow away in the desert sands from which their sorry souls originated. As God as my witness, I will never see them as humans like the rest of God's children...they are demon seed, fit for fertilizing the bottomless hole of Hell that their empty hearts will one day inhabit for eternity.
God bless you all!
#303BTW Der Alleswisser...moderate Muslims aren't standing in silence. They speak but you don't hear. They give but you don't receive. How vocal were you against the hate crimes committed against innocent Muslims in the wake of terrorist attacks? They hid in their homes because they know as well as anyone that it's human nature to want someone to blame. The fact is...they're Americans and don't owe you an explanation for something they didn't do.
#304Here is a story offered by that bastion of liberal elitism...FOX NEWS.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131580,00.html
They may be a minority in the world, but moderate Muslims deserve our support. Support does not include denying them the peaceful interpretation of their own holy text and writing the entire religion off as misguided evil. If it all came down to who's view of God I didn't agree with, then I'd want to kick the Muslims and over half the Christians out of the country. But that's not what America is about. America is about religous tolerance. That doesn't mean just the Baptist and the Presbyterians. It means peaceful followers of ALL faiths (and atheist too).
#305
#306Hillary and BJ (Bill Jefferson) Clinton have had millions thrown at them by the Islamics, who realize their venality and stupidity.
If you want an absolute proof of the evil of CAIR, read "Willful Blindness, a Memoir of the Jihad," by Andrew McCarthy, lead prosecutor of the Blind Sheik, and the other terrorists who did the first WTC attack. You will finally realize the truth when you read of how they spoke out for this demonic man, Satan on Earth. CAIR knows that most Americans do not read, and will believe anything they read in the newspapers or see on the CBS Evening News. All that is drivel, all that the Democrats say is lies, propogating their corrupt agenda. Read the book and then you will see thru all this, but realize that the man in the street, those who went to vote last November, they have no inkling of the depth of this evil, they think Islamics are like everyone else. Without all the petrodollars funding this evil religion and its spreading, without the stupid Democrats, the Moral Majority of Islam may find itself, but it does not look good. All 19 of the 9/11 terrorists were Whabbalists. And they have built many mosques here, as they know that the indolent American will look at that just like a Baptist or Methodist church, clueless.
On page 270 of "The Sword of the Prophet" by Serge Trifkovic you have: "Prior to September 11, the Islamic vanguard in the US had grown confident - even cocky. CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations) and the the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) all protested the US designation of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations (Ever heard a bigger lie than this? This is totally stupid, and only a stupid person would believe it, and so we must have many).
#307According to the Muslim World Monitor, the groups said that characterization was wrong, because 'Palestinian resistance orgainzations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad have never committed any act outside of occupied Palestine and have only fought forces of the Israeli occupation (How about those lies, and the Democrats buy this stuff, realize that Obama is begging the Iranians to lie to him, re - read that last sentance, and get the word "Occupied.") This was at the time when a spokesman for Hamas openly declared that 'there are no such terms as compromise and surrender in the Islamic cultural lexicon: if the only alternative is destruction and death for the enemies of true Islam, so be it. (Do you really want this evil here? Do you want to worry about family members who went to the mall that this evil attacks in the future, do you not see that these are the words of Satan, and that this evil is simply not compatabile with a western democracy. How can we as a people allow such evil in our mist, how do you put this stuff up about how innocent and peaceful CAIR is?? How so gullible?? Do you not read????) Hezbollah's spiritual leader, Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, concurred.......
(NOW GET THIS:) "CAIR has called the verdict in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing 'a travesty of justice because it 'represents the degree to which an anti-Muslim venom has penetrated into society.' (Not enough for me, read the aforementioned book and you will know the truth about this evil, these people are the ones who should be burned at the stake, far more evil than anything at Salem.)....CAIR, AMC, and MPAC joined forces at a rally in Lafayette Park, in front of the White House, at which Abdurahman Alamoudi, former executive director and current member of the board of directors of the AMC, said, 'we are all supporters of Hamas, Allahu Akbar! I am also a supporter of Hezbollah.' All three groups also condemned the August 1998 retaliation against Osama bin Laden in the aftermath of the bombings of two US embassies in Africa.
#308(I would have sent the Marines into that rally, and none of the evil would have lived, this is Satan, and it is our nation's stupid people who allow this evil in our mist, our Democrats, our lawyers, the only thing the Islamic terrorists of the first WTC Attack said they liked about America is its lawyers, I am not making that up. Read the book.) In its statement about the August 8, 2001 bombing of a Sbarro pizzeria in Tel Aviv that killed 15 young Israelis, MPAC described it as 'the expected bitter result of the reckless policy of Israeli assassinations...."
And on it goes, but you get the idea (hopefully).
Deporting these people would actually be inadequate, they need to be destroyed. Will this happen? No, not with the Democrats and the lawyers, who are one and the same. Most will read the lies in the posts about CAIR and MAB and how sweet they are and not realize that this is the breath of the beast. They know better than do a Pearl Harbor, even the 9/11 stuff is not what the astute ones want, they know it is our stupid Democrats and the lawyers that is the soft underbelly of America, just keep telling them lies about how peaceful and tolerant Islam is. This is what they WANT to hear, so they will believe it.
#309Jamie, why do you keep barking up the wrong tree? You're quick to paint Chritians as the evil ones. You think we just set and wait to slay muslims? You think we have anything to say on judgement day? I'm peacefull with my belief. It's big government that we have to watch out for. Many wonderfull things will be happening to cause most to believe that government, is the answer to their many problems. I bleive that you have fallen into that snare. You don't fear God, because you set on the throne. You blashemy God and you think its a joke, because you, in all your knowledge, have the answers. The simple truth escapes you and the cross is foolishness. God has made Islam great for his promise to Ismael, the bastard son. So who am I to say anything against that. For all things are for his purpose, not mine. Very troubling times are ahead, there will be no peace.
#310Der Alleswisser....You confuse intelligence with judgement. To assume people are stupid just because they don't reach the same conclusions as you is the epitome of arrogance. George Bush, in spite of his lack of eloquence, is intelligent (dumbasses don't graduate from Yale). I've questioned his judgement, never his integrity. Your comments regarding Obama's intelligence simply make you sound like an ass.
Have you ever seen the movie "Patton" with George C. Scott? In it, Patton says, "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!" You need to read Obama's "Audacity of Hope". You don't have to like it. I just don't see how you can speak with such authority about Obama when you haven't even read his book. I read books and listen to shows that cross the entire political spectrum...how else can one expect to stay informed? I forgot...you're a ditto head...you like your info spoon fed to you.
Universal health care does not have to mean socialized medicine....it simply means that everyone is covered. The job can be done utilizing private insurance companies. If you look at nations like Japan and the Netherlands, you will not find the same system that Canada and the UK adopted. What good does having the best health care in the world do us if fewer and fewer people can afford it? And insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions is a big concern to me. If the Republicans have an idea regarding that issue, I'm all ears.
Azbastard...your reading comprehension sucks. I haven't painted Christians as the "evil ones". I'm suggesting that people like you who claim to be Christian or Muslim but manipulate scriptures to satisfy their own need to spread hate are the "evil ones". What you call a joke I call serious questions asked in a blunt and provacative way. Why should I believe good people burn in hell just because they're not Christian? We don't even have to talk about Muslims...tell me how you justify believing God is perfect, but created us with obvious limitations, and then we're condemned regardless of our actions in this world if we don't accept Jesus? I grew up in a Christian home, and to this day I find the teachings of Jesus inspirational. But at no time has the notion the "only thru Jesus" rule made any sense to me. God...save me from your followers!
You're right...I don't fear God. I see no merit in a heart that acts based purely on a system of rewards and punsihments (heaven and hell). I see God's love in those who follow the Golden Rule without preset conditions. That may mean I'm not a Christian in your book. I don't care. There may be troubling times ahead...but the greatest danger to Christianity comes from the inside, and not from outside influences like Islam.
#311Yes, I saw Patton, and yes, I remember the line about Rommel. The movie is most famous for its opening speech by Patton, which the re-release indicates were actually his words, just not all in one speech.
Is Obama ok? Are the ones like Rush who say they want him to fail correct? This is said because of the fear of big government and the rush to socialism. Big government does nothing well, because it is hampered by all the regulation and minority set asides that are not coexistant with efficiency.
Look at it this way. If I reach into my pockets and take out to give to someone in need, this is charity and it is commendable. But if I reach into your pockets and take out to give to someone in need, this is stealing, and I could be locked up for it. This is exactly what government does, this is socialism. (Read Walter E. Williams in Liberty Versus the Tyranncy of Socialism). Most troubling is the Democrat's history of giving from the American taxpayer to give to illegals, starting with Carter. This to me is just buying votes at the expense of all of us. This SCHIP Health thing of Obama's will give health care to illegals, and it will give health care to 28 year olds who live at home in four family homes with incomes of $80000. What? And the out of control spending, the generational theft. And the GITMO thing I find appalling, proxy murder.
#312I am so turned off by this man and the Democrat party in general, and most of all the American people who voted for this. I will keep an open mind, and if I ever see anything I admire about this man and his party, I will explore, but right now I am troubled about our future, and in particular, our collective morality in view of the desire for handouts and the unwillingness to do the hard work to succeed. I understand most Obama supporters are young. What, they do not want to build careers? They want an entitled easy road? Handouts?? Tax the horribly rich, ok, but tax all of us to give to those who overspent and were not responsible? Punish those who make their mortgage payments in favor of those who were irresponsible?
The fatal flaw of the Democrat Party, in my view, is the hypocrisy of blaming everything on Bush and ignoring what Barney Franks, Franklin Raines, Jimmy Carter, Maxine Waters, Obama/Acorn, all this cancer, forcing banks to make loans they should not have made, this is rot, this is wrong, and to ignore it and blame it on Bush, this is a metastised cancer. You either put the spotlight on the rot, admit it, take corrective measures, and everyone can understand that, but ignore it and this is doom, it is the cancer of a nation, and it is the Democratic Party that is doing this. Nothing to admire here, nothing to read about if this is what these people are. And make no mistake, Obama is heavily involved in Acorn, the arm-twisting to make banks make these toxic loans, PUNISH BARNEY FRANKS AND THE OTHERS WHO DID THIS, ADMIT IT AND MOVE FORWARDS.
The AIG bonuses, trying to pretend they did not do it, trying to blame the ones getting it, trying to pretend that it was not Geitner, Dodd .... that put it in, not admitting it, stealing from the taxpayer, I would fill the jails with these Democrats, a la the French Revolution, heads should roll (maybe not litterally in 2009 as this is not 1789....) but make no mistake these hypocrits should pay.
#313And Islam, it just cannot be argued that Islam and say Catholics is the same as Methodist and Catholics, this is a non-compatible religion, it is dangerous, it should not be allowed here, it should be banned. From page 86 of America Alone by Mark Steyn: "One can't help but noticing that the most prominent 'Moderate Muslims' would seem to be more accurately designated as apostate or ex-Muslims......The pseudonymous apostate Ibn Warraq (too dangerous to publish under his real name, what does that tell you about Islam? What about Salmon Rushdie, what does this tell you about Islam??? You can publish anything you want to in the US and be perfectly safe, this should tell you all you need to know about Islam.) makes an important distinction: there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam. Millions of Muslims just want to get on with their lives, and there are - or were - remote corners of the world where, far from Mecca, Muslim practices reached accommodation with local customs. But all of the official schools of Islamic jurispridence commend sharia and violent jihad. so a 'Moderate Muslim' publicly means standing up to the leaders of your community, to men like Shaker Elsayed, leader of the Dar al Hijrah, one of America's largest mosques, who has told his coreligionists in blunt terms: 'THE CALL TO REFORM ISLAM IS AN ALIEN CALL.'
"And if you are a truely moderate Muslim, why should you be expected to take on the most powerful men in Islam, when the West's media and political class pander to them?"
#314Yes indeed, all you PC media types, and our Carters, Clintons, and now Obama, your weakness emboldens the evil elements of Islam, you just do not have courage and tenacity, you pander to evil and this nurtures evil.
Obama, just what is there to talk about with Iran? Do you not know what Hezbollah is and who funds them? Do you really think talk will do anything? You will just get lied to, this is Satan, it must be stood up to, there is no common ground, there is a fight to the death with Israel. What, you want to abandon Israel? Is that it, you do not understand the bloody fourteen centuries of Islamic Agression? Have you done the Required Reading President Obama, or do you think airy platitiudes and lofty rherotic will smooth over this Islamic thing? Is it you that needs to read some books, maybe instead of writing that book of yours you should have been reading about Islam????
Stand up to this evil, smash Iran, Peshwar, Wurizstan, jerk some butts in Saudia Arabia, tell them what they will do or else regarding Whabbism, don't beg for oil price reduction like Bush did, tell them what to do or else, and watch this evil retreat, If it does not, smash it, knock the snot out of this evil. It does no good to have a hammer and not use it. Teddy Roodevelt: "Talk softly but carry a big stick." Evil understands the big stick, if they do not at first, then knock the snot out of them until they do.
They march across from the White House, just get a load of what I would do to them, It would not happen a second time. This is the way that evil has to be dealt with, not prissy liberalism.
"Islamics understand that their most powerful secret weapon is the Liberal Mindset, while at the same time despising it." ~~~~The Sword of the Prophet, Serge Trifkovic
#315Der Alleswisser...I can't think of any president who didn't have his detractors. Lincoln, with so many monuments built to his memory, is still despised by many (especially where I live). Your comments about Obama reveal how truly little you understand the man, and considering the one sided sources of information that you cite, it is no wonder your opinions are so skewed.
Here's a quote from "the Audacity of Hope".."the conservative revolution that Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight - that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing the pie - contained a good deal of truth". After that he writes "while welfare certainly provided relief for many impovershed Americans, it did create some perverse incentives when it came to the work ethic and family stability". Does this sound like the words of someone who believes in free handouts? Yes..he's a democrat...and he believes having a safety net for people in trouble is an important part of a healthy society. It doesn't mean he wants lines of people waiting on government money.
It bewilders me that when a black leader finally steps up and calls for communities to take responsibility for their own destinies, conservatives cling to the notion that his message is no different from prior leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If they are of the same ilk, why on earth would Jesse get caught saying "Barack talks down to black people...I'd like to cut his #@& off". Do you not remember that incident?
Obama's sending more troops to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda..you might recall that they're the group who actually attacked us in 2001. You want to kick Muslims out of this country and, it would seem from the tone of your language, declare war on Iran(or all Islamic countries?). You consider the violence in the histories of Christian peoples inadmissable evidence...an aberration. Germany exterminates 6 million jews...but all you want to talk about is Smryna in 1922. Neither Smyrna or WWII is the issue today...Al Qaeda is. We can defeat Al Qaeda. We cannot, should not, and will not exterminate Islam.
You say you've met nice Muslims...but you never address your concerns with them about their religion. That would be rude you say. Then you say here that they're religion is non-compatible, and thus I have to assume you want them out of the country. If they are truly the threat you say they are...then you are a coward for pretending to be their friend and not having the courage to say such things to their face.
#316
#317An unfortunate thing about not being able to talk with Islamics about their religion. This is something we in America have lost. One cannot talk about politics or religion, and there are those who say you cannot even tell jokes any more, because our national pastime is no longer baseball, it is being offended. Victimology. All you have to do is utter the Magic Incantation "I am offended," and out of the bottle comes the 900 pound gorilla. And what can a 900 pound gorilla do? Anything he wants to.
America's most formidable problem, one that CAIR, MAB, ...understand well, lawyers have ruined America, casting aside real values, cultivating offended people. And Muslims with petrodollars and corrupt un-American lawyers present our most dire peril. Gitmo.
#318Der Alleswisser...how is health care to illegals the legacy of Democrats? I agree that illegal immigrants have been using and abusing our system and getting free health care...but it seems to me Republicans have had ample opportunity to do something about it and they didn't . I, for one, also think it's time we reviewed our policy of giving American citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who happen to be born on our soil.
Whatever nets were cast that captured the GITMO detainees, I think it's fair to assume some of those men are hard core, some are fighters but uncommitted to radical Islam, and some were flat out innocent. It's been long enough to figure out who is what. Put them on trial and let's start acting like we actually believe in the morals and principles we preach to others.
For every Democrat lawyer representing a "victim", there's 10 Republican lawyers getting paid big bucks by the corporations that they're defending. While there are frivolous lawsuits out there, there are also some very wealthy CEO's out there who raked in millions selling products that harmed a lot of innocent people (asbestos claims for example). You keep wanting to dump all Democrats into one bucket...but that bucket ain't holding water. There are Republican and Democratic lawyers...both good and bad on each side. Didn't you hear? Stereotyping is out of style!
For all your issues with Obama, you might want to look beyond his critics so that you can reach your own unbiased conclusion. Do you fact check this stuff, or are you just repeating what someone else said? Before the election, I was bombarded with e-mails making one accusation or another against Obama, but whenever I visited factcheck.org or snopes the lies didn't hold up. I never once received an e-mail with wild accusations against McCain. Personally, I think these e-mails hurt McCain more than Obama (I'm not the only one who knows about Snopes).
Last, but not least, I can't believe you wrote this...."Eradicate Islam, no, but yes, reform the religion, with whatever force is necessary". Vik Rubenfeld, are you reading this? Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees how hypocritical this statement is. I thought "by whatever force necessary" was the ideology of our enemy.
#319@Jamie #299:
As to what Vik Rubenfeld believes, it's difficult to tell. In post #288 he offers us a quote from a Saudi columnist that includes this quote..."For them,] one hadith or one Koranic verse read and interpreted in an extremist manner becomes an expression of the essence of the religion, whereas the [true] essence of the religion is love, mercy towards one another, humility, and high moral standards.” In post #274 we have "Your wish to construct a view of the Koran under which violent jihad can be rejected, is excellent. There are people today who are seeking to achieve this. Daniel Pipes has identified a line of thought, originated by a Muslim, which enables Muslims to do just that." But in countless other post we get "the Koran calls on Muslims to kill and subjugate non-Muslims", and now "many are saying that Islam is peaceful, even though they know it is not; they are fooling you."
While we do not have a document from the Saudi journalist explaining how he interprets Islam, it may well be in accordance with Taha. If you will loook more closely at #274, you will see:
Taha built his interpretation on the conventional division of the Koran into two. The initial verses came down when Muhammad was a powerless prophet living in Mecca, and tend to be cosmological. Later verses came down when Muhammad was the ruler of Medina, and include many specific rulings. These commands eventually served as the basis for the Shari'a, or Islamic law.
Taha argued that specific Koranic rulings applied only to Medina, not to other times and places. He hoped modern-day Muslims would set these aside and live by the general principles delivered at Mecca. Were Taha's ideas accepted, most of the Shari'a would disappear, including outdated provisions concerning warfare, theft, and women. Muslims could then more readily modernize.
Taha found an approach that enabled him to discard, for present-day purposes, the violent verses of the Koran, which call on Muslims to kill and subjugate non-Muslims.
Are there violent Muslims? Yes....
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp
But make sure you read what Ashgar Bukhari, the Chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee has to say about it. He is on record as saying those Muslims should have been stopped by police. I also support David Winnick's suggestion that these protesters be prosecuted and deported.
Go Jamie. Now you're contributing something constructive. The approach you suggest is very hard-core. Freedom of speech issues become key here. We must seek an approach that can respect our traditions of free speech, and at the same time, prevent imams from inciting hatred and violence. I would suggest consideration of the following approach: that any imam who preaches violence and murder should be prosecuted and deported.
#320Vik Rubenfeld...I would support throwing out any immigrant that incites hatred and violence, regardless of race or religion. I believe there's more ways to reach a peaceful interpretation of Islam than just Taha's...but debating those points with me is kind of pointless since I'm not Muslim. Someone representative of leadership in a Muslim community would be an infinitely more constructive person to converse with than myself.
#321We cannot expect Islam to police itself, we need to reach out to and support the moderate elements. To let them know they can speak out and we will support them, not let them be killed as apostates. This is our country, do what we say or get out. This includes what Imams preach, and all aspects of what goes on in mosques. Do this or shutter them, and stop apologizing and stop being lied to by Islamics. Confront them with their history. Demand of Islam, they need it, we have no obligation to even let them come here. Do we want to become Spain and France, soon to be Islamic countries, the government of Spain, thanks to the train bombings and the brave Spaniard response, already is de facto Islamic. Our country, observe our wishes or get out.
It comes down to the people we elect and what we demand of them. Watch the following 7+ minute segment on Thomas Paine. Pay particular attention to the 300 billion dollars the Obama administration is giving to illegals, and in general the Democrats pandering to illegals. And Congress, corrupt and inept, and not just Democrats, but mostly so with the pandering and corruption. The problem is us, we show Islam weakness and this emboldens them. Obama talking about what the "American People and the Iranian People have in common???" Just what would that be? Nothing. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8kLaEuAoxg
#322Americans and Iranians have nothing in common? We're all human...that's one thing. From what I understand, Iranian citizens are quite fond of American culture. Anyways...you seem convinced we're on the wrong path, and I suppose there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. If the Democrats don't show results, Republicans will be back in 2010.
All things considered, I would have to consider this website hostile territory. That's ok though...to go where everyone agreed with me wouldn't be a challenge. That said, I'm often curious how many of you here leave your comfort zone and debate strangers on websites where your opinion is in the distinct minority. If you haven't, I recommend it. It can be frustrating spinning your wheels trying to get traction with the thought process of those with views counter to your own....but it certainly makes you think a little harder and lets you know how others see the world. Though I prefer not to look through Azbastard's or Joseph's eyes....very scary how they see the world.
Good night.
#323
#324Der Alleswisser...I don't believe twenty to thirty percent would be an accurate statistic of the percentage of muslims we would qualify as "demonically evil". How would one measure? Do you send out a survey asking Muslims, "how fanatical are you about your religion?". Of course, on the other side of that coin, I can't really prove you wrong either. Maybe it's half. My judgment is probably a reflection on my belief that all cultures have their fair share of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Unfortunately, as various moments in history has shown us, sometimes ugly wins. I might concede that "ugly" is winning in Islamic culture, but as I've said before, there's more factors at work than just religion. If we want to keep what few Muslim allies we have, we shouldn't trash the religion as being evil...we should be specific and focus our argument against groups like Al Qaeda that preach hate, violence, and intolerance. If there's one thing I can't tolerate...it's intolerance (any Southpark fans here?).
It doesn't take many fanatics to create bedlam. Remember the snipers driving around Washington, DC? Two guys, a car with a hole in the trunk, and a sniper rifle was all it took. I spent a couple of days up in that area during that time period, and I can assure you it was on my mind.
#325And of course you did notice that one of their names was Muhammod?
The percents are an aggregate. The very most optimistic is from Newt Gingrich, of 10%. See Newt's 2007 speech on the issue at http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/08/gingrich/index.html#cnnSTCVideo What he is saying is that our current form of government is not working, and I fear that he is correct. I mean, if it were my call, the missile and nuclear facilities would be long gone, and the liberals could cry all they want to, the Europeans could just go to H*** if they did not like it, Gone Baby Gone, no big committees to study it, just knock the snot out of them. Not much different for Iran. Pay attention to what he said about Israel's peace attempts for 30 years. It has actually been for their entire existance since the Islamic Plague first invaded their and others' lands.
Did you hear the press release about the Islamic who murdered an Israeli 13 year old with a pick axe yesterday, and the comment was "this came only x days after Netanyahu was sworn in." As if it was his fault, nothing said about the inherrent violence and non-compatibility, the brainwashing to make their children evil. There will be no peace here, it is as absurd as the search for the unicorn to seek peace between Israel and the Islamics. Doomed, survival of the fittest, and the demographics do not favor the Israelis or for that matter the entire planet. Islam, great at portraying itself as the victim, nevermind fourteen centuries of aggression. And if the rest of us are too stupid to see this then we deserve to perish. That is the way nature is, from small animals to humans, brutal, unforgiving.
After the tube bombings in London, a survey indicated that 26% supported the bombings and supported terrorism. Keep in mind this is what they admitted, and so the number could be much higher. In Serge Trifkovic's "sword of the prophet," he quoted an estimate of 35%. Regardless of whether it is 10% or 35%, that percent of 1.6 billion and rapidly climbing Islamics is a lot of evil, and now Iran and nuclear weapons, and the nuclear weapons the Russians do not know the whereabouts of. Be afraid.
#326But most damning for the Islamic world, Newt spoke of it, the silence of the islamic world when evil is committed in the name of Allah. Do not forget that the general reaction of the Islamic world to 9/11 was delight. And stupid British and French liberals, as well as our Dhimmicrats, blamed it on "American Arrogance." Here in America, Islamics could speak out about the beheadings and other evil in the name of Allah, but is the silence not deafening. But you did hear about the Muhammod Teddy Bear, and the reaction to the Pope's remarks, and the Qurans being flushed down toilets at GITMO, Abu Grahib (were those not terrorists, at least most of them??) Very selective outrage, is it not??? Does it have anything to do with right and wrong, or is it all about the Unbelievers vs the Believers?
Perhaps these are Satan's People, and this could be the final battle. Is America going to wake up, or just deal with it by jumping into the SUV and going to the mall, aplolgizing to the rest of the world like Obama is doing? Or are we going to show the backbone of our founders? What will we do with the American Moment? If it was my call, the Whabbists and the others would get the snot knocked out of them, no apologies, the liberals could cry their eyes out. CAIR and MAB and Farrahkan jailed. Champion right over wrong, something the Islamic world has never done, no, they see this evil all around them and silence. The Fatal Flaw of Islam.
#327The gone missiles mentioned above are those of North Korea, I see that I omitted that, do not understand why whe let these thing exist since we have the ability to take them out. Stop pandering to Pot Bellied Little Kim, just take them out. And if they do not like it, they can just deal with it.
#328The Persians think they have an ally in Hugo Chavez. Jesus has many beleivers in Latin America. The Iranians will have their feet burned. "But it shall come to pass in the latter days, that I will bring again the captivity of Elam, saith the Lord".
#329Not all Muslims are silent....
http://revjimsutter.blogspot.com/2006/10/muslims-speak-out-against-terrorism.html
I don't know what kind of criminals the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were. I do know that the pictures that came out of that place are not reflective of the true values of America. We do not set our standards by the lowest common denominator....that is what the terrorists we are fighting do.
Der Alleswisser...you are no less selective in your outrage than anyone else. You examine every detail of aggressive expansion in Islam's 1,400 year history while giving the parallel violence found in Christianity's 2,000 year history a free ride. History is not objective...do you think the story of American independence is told the same way in our mother country Great Britain? There are at least two sides to every story, if not more. I have no doubt there have been Muslim atrocities committed without provocation...but Christian followers are guilty of the same crimes. When you start seeing Muslims as Satan's people you stop seeing them as human beings, and then you start condoning acts of violence that are characteristic of our enemies.
When I studies history in school, I didn't have the luxury of answering true and false questions. We had to respond with essays, usually detailing the social, political, and economic reasons behind why this or that happened. You seem content with labeling Islam as the enemy, and I think that's a mistake. But we've covered that before, haven't we. Over and over and over again.
Christianity has done wonderful things in the lives of billions of people through history. But monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have their dark side too. For example...there's a story on the following website that looks at how the Incas were introduced to Christianity.
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/earth.htm
If you don't enjoy reading about History from opposing perspectives, then all you're really interested in is living in a fantasy world where good knights battle evil knights and Azbastard lives happily everafter.
#330No doubt a few at Abu Grahab wiere not bad folks just caught up in it, but I have no doubt that most were terrorists. Beheadders, irrational fanatic types, who had the tables been turned would have beheadded their prisoners. We somehow just ignore all that, the Eric Berg and Kenneth Bigely types, no threat to anyone, much better people than at least the mainstream at Abu Grahab. But we ignore that all of ours are beheadded and we are supposed to be goody goody and give them lawyers. Big double standard.
We talk about how we must behave better than them, and to some extent this is true, but do not let this carry over to weakness. All this sniveling give them Qurans and ethnic meals at GITMO when our guys are summarily beheadded just does not make sense. This business of the Democrats sending them lawyers, and us giving them the full rights of an American citizens, all the silly OJ Simpson lawyer shennagans about procedures and probable cause and all the other surrender monkey stuff only enriches lawyers, it is for the benefit of lawyers and to fleece American taxpayers and to protect the guilty. It is a canard about being "Nice" so as to enrich lawyers, it is the latest version of Clinton's tobacco payoff to crony Democrat lawyers.
You have heard Osama talk about how people will follow the Strong Horse, Well, all this Obama going all over Europe saying everything is America and Bush's fault, this is not the strong horse.
#331This business of Obama saying we are going to elimnate nuclear weapons, is he crazy, soes he really think the terrorists, Russia, North Korea, and all the other bad guys are going to say well the Americans are getting rid of theirs so let's get rid of ours??? The man is not realistic, he is a fool, he like the other Democrats does not realize the concept of evil. There is always evil, sometimes idealogy, sometimes greed, but the most pernicious evil is religious evil. Hitler and his types will always be there and the only way to deal wiith this is thru strength. Not weakness, this is trampled by evil, not respected. Evil panders to weakness and naivety and Obama is at great risk here.
Telling Europe they lead the world, they most certainly do not, they would not even be free if not for America. They who have lived under the American nuclear umbrella and gotten soft for the last 60 years. They who are useless as allies. And Obama tells them it is all our fault and America is arrogant? And it was Bush's fault? Pandering to Iran, ignoring Israel? well he will just have to deal with the Israelis igonring him, no influence over them in the future, they know a fool when they see one.
If we had fourteen centuries of the Methodists saying they flew an airplane into a building because of their Allah, the Baptists training their children to be suicide bombers who blow up resaurants because of their Allah, if we had the mormons coming out of Utah and taking over a region that did not used to be Mormon the size of Arabia, half of Africa, all the Mideast, now into the Balkans, what was Spain, and soon (five years, ten years??) most if not all of Europe, then maybe we could say it was just another religious thing. But it is only Islam that does this.
#332In islamic countries, conversion from Islam is punishable by death, it is "Apostasy." the American missionaries in Turkey and Smyrna in the years leading up to the Armenian genocide found this out, In Saudi Arabia there can be no church but Islamic, and if this was just in Saudi Arabia, you might dismiss it, but it is all of Islam. When you go to the Bible Belt of the Southeastern US, do you not see all sorts of churches? Do you see people stoned to death for having a relationship outside of marriage? This was all ok before when they were all just a bunch of crazy sorts who lived in the desert and if they had Honor Killings and female mutilation that was just an Islamic on Islamic thing. But you do realize that 9/11 changed all that, and that Muslims thought that 9/11 was such a wonderful thing? Now we can pretend that there was Isalmic outrage over 9/11 and all the beheaddings and all the suicide bombings but no one believes this, it is all just Islam Apologistics, al Taqiya, the Greatest Lie Ever Told: "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance." Sure, Black is White. This is evil, it is not permissible, it is not coexistant, it needs to be forcibly changed or destroyed. Do not pander to it, its religion fosters that and will use it against you.
There is a good (or at least quiescent, temporizing, pliant, malleable, waiting to see who wins out) seventy or so percent of Muslims, some of who just want to go about their lives and are not into the fanatism of islam at all. But then there are the fanatically evil ones, brainwashed since birth, no critical thinking skills at all, a culture of death, can produce nothing, only looting of unbelievers sustains them. They have been taught that it matters not that they accomplish absolutely nothing while on this earth in bodily form, is only that they be tottally subservient to Allah and his evil calling that matters. And so the dark eyed houris and streams of honey await the suicide bomber. This is tottaly stupid, a watermelon in a field on a hot summer afternoon has more critical thinking skills that these evil humanoids.
So within Isalm you have the Good vs. Evil battle going on, and only one side wins. Do we just watch, or do we become proactive? They are not all in the desert anymore, they are among us.
"Islamics realize their most powerful secret weapon is the Liberal Mindset, while at the same time despising it." ~~~~~Serge Trifkovic, Defeating Jihad
#333Der Alleswisser...I call BS. Show me the quote where Obama told Europeans that America is arrogant and everything is Bush's fault. Obama increases troop levels in Afghanistan and conservatives complain...God forbid we actually focus our attention on the nation from which 9/11 originated.
Political, social, economic...you totally ignore 2 of the 3 issues that must be addressed when analyzing history. Without the political and economic stability the West now enjoys, Christianity might easily be twisted to serve evil purposes just as Islam is now. America didn't start out with women's rights or civil rights...these didn't come until later and several churches fought tooth and nail against both.
The idea of Apostasy is barbaric. Just like the following....
1 Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "This is what the LORD has commanded to be done. 2 On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death.So anyway...if terrorist hit us with a nuclear bomb, who will we bomb back? They don't have a freakin' country! Nukes worked as a deterrant against the Soviet Union because the Soviet Union wanted to survive. Terrorist have proven several times over that survival is not their main objective. Even if the idea of a nuclear free world is unrealistic, reduction of the number of missiles isn't going to kill anyone.
We can be strong without lowering ourselves to the level of the enemy. What intelligence could possible be gained from taking the kind of abuse we saw in the pictures that came out of Abu Ghraib? That wasn't interrogation...it was sport. It served no purpose but to make us look like hypocrites.
Our historical and cultural ties to Europe are far too strong to give up on just because they don't say and do everything we want them to. I feel far more confident about the direction our relationship with our friends across the pond is taking than I did a year ago, though your pessimism is duly noted.
It might be very interesting to read all of this a year from now and evaluate how things have progressed.
#334Now come on, it is common knowledget that Obama has been apologizing to the whole world for what this nation has accomlished, to people who would have been under totalitarian rule for the last 60 years if it were not for America. Not to mention the US army in Germany, and the American nuclear umbrella. He has blamed everything on Bush, he has sent movies to Iran, he has said that America is not a christian nation, he has bowed to the King of Saudia Arabia (but the White House claims not so, "What you saw was not really what you saw.")
America has nothing to apoligize for except Obama and the Democrats who let terrorists go from GITMO, their weakness in the face of evil being the greatest threat to world peace we face. His fiat money creation for the bailouts are nothing more than stealing. It is simply counterfeiting, printing money for the government's use for which nothing is given in return. A private citizen would be arrested for this.
All this goody goody apologizing, a Quixotic approach which has little chance for success. We are not at war with Islam??? Well that may be so but it is at war with us. Turn our backs on the Israelis? Get tough with Netanyahu? I do not think he is a pushover. This approach may make the Middle East absolutely explode. He knows not of Turkey's history, or for that matter, the non-compatible aspect of Islam. He does not understand al Taqiya, the Dar al Sulh, the aspect of Islam negotiating only to temporize until it can prevail. This showering of love on Iran and the Isalmic world, it sounds so sweet, but these Democrats do not understand the unswerving absolute nature of Islam, they just do not, a triumph of hope over experience.
#335This business of "Who do you attack if America is hit with a nuclear bomb, they don't have a freaking country????" This is the whole point of terrorism, "Plausible denialbility." It is stupid to play that game, ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine? You announce RIGHT NOW that if we are hit, good bye Iran, Saudi Arabia, Warizustan, and MEAN IT. You do not just sit back and cry about it, you don't know so you do nothing will just empower evil. You destroy evil, that is all it understands, it will trample weakness. But of course that is exactly what Democrats will do and so we are in grave danger. It worked with the Soviet Union, and it will work now. Otherwise evil will prevail and darkness will fall, the barbarians that sacked Rome again.
And women did not have rights before here, yes that is the whole point. There is historical progression in Christianity and not so in Islam. Do we execute people for working on the Sabbath? How much progress in fourteen centuries have you seen in Islam? They cannot even make a radio, much less a car.
Europe did commit 5000 troops to Afghanistan, but note that they are limited in scope, not the hunter killer types that are needed, more logistical sorts. Time will tell. The Europeans seem tired and spent, effete. But here is an article that is germane from Dr. Walter E. Williams published in 2006, found on page 191 of Liberty vs. the Tyranny of Socialism," read carefully and understand what he is saying about this, and then reconsider what you said:
"WILL THE WEST DEFEND ITSELF?
"Does the United States have the power to eliminate terrorists and the states that support them? In terms of capacity, as opposed to will, the answer is a clear yes.
#336"Currently the US has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the US alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria, or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism -- without risking the life of a single soldier.
"Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, whch often apppears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we'll never use it. Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life and death struggle of WWII. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of hand wringing about the innocent lives lost , so - called collateral damage.
"Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears diring WWII when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives thru saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...........
"We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.........
#337"What Europeans say about what should be done about terrorists states should fall on deaf ears. Their history of weakness and cowardice during the 1930s goes a long way towards accounting for the 60 million lives lost during WWII. During the mid - 30s, when Hitler started violating the arms limitations of Versailles, France and Britian alone could have defeated him, but they pursued the appeasement route.
"Anyone who thinks the current Western appeasement efforts will get Iran to end its nuclear weapons program is dumber than dumb. Appeasement will strenghten Iran's hand, and it looks as if the West, including the United States, is willing to be complicit in the strenghtening."
So there you have it, and Dr. Williams comments were before Barack the Appeaser and Apologizer. Barack apparently believes that the Meek will inherit the Earth, but he does not understand Islam, and now he wants to disarm. Is the man stupid, is he Don Quixote, .... does this goody goody apologizing stuff have any redeeming qualities at all in the face of Islam? Osama said that if there were a strong horse and a weak horse that people would follow the strong horse. Barack and the Democrats are not at all a strong horse, Barack is going to get rolled.
#338Der Alleswisser...it's common knowledge that sometimes our nation has acted in an arrogant manner. Every nation in history that rose to be the most powerful has been guilty of this at one time or another. Being able to recognize mistakes is not weakness. At work, I grow from mistakes, I don't ignore them or claim they didn't happen. That's what leadership is about.
You can put whatever negative spin you want to on Obama, but right now the majority of people think he's doing a good job. I can believe that Obama said America is not a Christian nation. That would imply we are a theocracy, and we are not.
Yes, I've heard of the Monroe Doctrine. You seem ready for a 21st century version of Manifest Destiny, where the whole world is under our control. You write, "Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of hand wringing about the innocent lives lost , so - called collateral damage". Such coldness is not strength...it's ignorance. Certainly wanting to focus our efforts against Al Qaeda doesn't make Obama "goody goody".
Why on earth should we attack Saudi Arabia? Yes, the 9/11 terrorist were mostly Saudis...does that mean we wage war on the millions of other people who have nothing do to with them? If our policy is to blow up the nations that terrorist come from, we might as well start with ourselves (for example, OKC 1995).
Historical progression...women's rights and civil rights didn't gain traction in predominantly Christian nations until the twentieth century...that's after 2,000 years of history. By that schedule, Islam has another 600 years to go. Considering that three Islamic nations have already had women presidents, and the USA has had none, I don't think it will take them that long to come around. That is, unless you decide to bomb them all back to the Stone Age.
We did not destroy the Soviet Union...we held them to a stalemate and time did the work for us. Since the Democrats and Republicans exchanged control at various times during the Cold War, I think we can say America prevailed, and not a particular internal political ideology.
If Obama allows the Iranians to take control of Sudetanland, I'll start worrying about "appeasement". Otherwise, if you don't talk to your enemies, who will you talk to? (I could be mistaken, but I think an Israeli general or politician may have said that at one time in regard to the Palestinians).
You didn't respond to the verse from Exodus that I referred to...no comment? if you didn't like it, I have several others I'd love to share with you.
#339Der Alleswisser....I feel you're working from a revenge mentality. That's the kind of thought process that creates moments in history like the Treaty of Versailles. When the Allies stuck all the blame for WWI on Germany, all it did was create an environment ripe for someone like Hitler to thrive in. The way WWI was ended created WWII.
Yes...we were attacked by Muslim terrorists. Yes, the Koran can be easily interpreted in a violent way. But so can the Bible. There are plenty of stories of blood and violence there (such as the verse I previously shared about putting to death someone who works on the Sabbath). And no, Muslim nations didn't invent the light bulb, or the automobile, or the airplane, and they didn't put a man on a moon...but Brazil, Greece, Finland, and countless other Christian nations didn't either. The pieces of the puzzle came together at the right place at the right time here in America for individuals with the skill and know how to create "progress". Galileo was threatened with excommunication for saying the sun was the center of the solar system...that's the kind of contribution religion has made to science. And I'm not knocking God or religion...I'm just saying if you're going to hold Islam to certain standards, you need to do the same to every other religion out there.
When you speak of war against many for the actions of a few, it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm too much of a "goody goody" person...I think about the effects on the lives of individual people when bullets and missiles start flying around. But you have to realize, you can't just kill all your enemies and let God sort the good from the bad. Collateral damage creates future terrorists, that's why we need to keep our efforts focused against the people responsible, and not entire nations or the religion of Islam. It's not like I'm a pacifist. I think it's right for us to fighting against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Right now the biggest threat in my view is the growing influence Al Qaeda is having in Pakistan...a nuclear nation. The government there is walking a tight rope, and we need them on our side. Calling for the downfall of Islam or war against Saudi Arabia isn't furthering our cause.
That's why I think your cold heartedness is ignorant. You just want revenge, and then you think when everyone is afraid of us the threat will be gone. Make everyone afraid of us, and the threat has only begun. Again, I'm not a pacifist. Obama isn't a pacifist. We just need to use our military might the right way....not with reckless abandon.
One of the greatest "fighters" ever was Bruce Lee. I think I'd rather have our military fight like Bruce Lee than 7' 400 lb. professional wrestler. Fighting with veracity and skill, not just bulk and talk.
#340The comment about Christianity having a historical progression and Islam not having one was in reference to the verse in Exodus about not working on the Sabbath. We would never punish someone for working on the sabbath today, much less give them death as the Bible said.
Islam having three female presidents? I know about Benezir Bhutto, but the terrorists murdered her. I am not sure about the other two?? And I am not sure it can be assumed that Islam will follow a similar progression to Christianity, it is an abherrent entity, and not sure there is anything there that would suggest "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" is where they are headed. What is there for Islamics is that to practice anything but Islam is punishable by death. Not much hope there.
I do not condone killing masses indiscriminantly, but on the other hand I do not condone the silence of the Muslim world in the presence of this evil. They know it is there, it is among them, and collectively the Muslim world tacitly approves of the evil aspects of Islam. Like in Saudi Arabia, where Whabbilism, the most evil of all Islamic sects, thrives. I feel it is a lot of lip service that that regime does, it does not mitigate this evil, it exports it by funding mosques abroad, and it is for that reason that I think it best to let them know that if there is a nuclear attack then there will be consequences. Likewise and foremost for Iran. It does not make sense to allow them to pursue nuclear weapons and then if (some say when, and this from high levels of the CIA and NSA) we are attacked with a nuclear weapon, it needs to be known beforehand that the consequences will be disasterous for those who foster the evil elements of Islam. This would of necessity include "collateral damage," but if done firmly, it can prevent it as it did before with the Soviet Union. I cannot buy this "well, we can't do anything because we don't know for sure who did it." That is the whole point of terrorism. If it happens, then the response must be overwhelming and Islam needs to be sternly warned beforehand with no equivocation.
#341The reason Islam is so dangerous now is because it has been emboldened by weak people like Jimmy Carter who gave us the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Bill Clinton, who treated the first WTC attack as a criminal act rather than the act of war that it was. Remember that strong horse? They see us as pushovers because of Carter and Clinton, and the world is now a much dangerous place because Obama seems a appeaser and a pushover. Obama is following in Carter and Clinton's footsteps here. We have nothing to apologise to Islam for, they need to apologize to the rest of the world. He is portraying weakness to our enemies and this is very dangerous.
Bill Clinton gave us 9/11, and Obama's Democrats are of a September 10th mindset. But the next one could very well be nuclear, and the stakes are just too high. I know I mentioned it before, but you really need to read Willful Blindness, a Memoir of the Jihad, by the lead prosecutor of the Blind Sheik and the other terrorists of the 1993 WTC attack. Then you will understand what Clinton did and that he and his lawyer approach brought us 9/11. And Obama now is copying him. He tells Islam of the "Contributions of Islam to our country????" What is he talking about, is he crazy, they have contributed nothing at all, nothing good. Only that some have come here and left the evil behind and become civilized, but as far as molding or contributing anything??? It is a huge lie to say that Islam has done anything useful for us or anyone else. Just invasions and slaughter in the name of Allah.
The fundamental problem with the Democrats is that they do not understand evil, do not understand that we are in a death grapple with Islam, and do not understand what is to come between Israel and Islam, and then Europe and Islam. Osama thinks just being nice is enough, he does not understand how intransigent Islam is. The only thing I approve of is maybe the approach in Afghanistan, but will he capitulate, be sweet-talked?
#342It is not about being nice, this is a struggle between two non-compatible entities. And thinking Islam will come out of the darkness I would like to think is realistic, but the more you read about this religion the more aware you become that it is very unlikely.
Not really revenge, although I do think Iran is due for what they did in 1979 and I think they are owed for what they have done in Iraq (IEDs, ...). I think we have to confront Islam with what it is and demand accountability. Yes, foster the good Muslims, encourage them to speak out, but will they?Not apologizing to it, like Obama is doing. And his administration is utterly ridiculous for lying about the bowing thing. why lie about something like this, just admit it and move on, lying about obvious stuff just makes them look stupid to Americans and the rest of the world.
#343Der Alleswisser...It's a dangerous world. Maybe you're right about everything. But I don't think so...and I've explained already as best I can why I feel that way. Let's check what we've written a year from now, and we'll see how it compares to where we stand then. For now, the elections are over, and the nation is on a new course, regardless of how anyone here feels about it. If you're frustrated with that direction, I can certainly empathize. I felt that same frustration until Jan. 2009.
Happy Easter.
#344Very good. I would rather that you be right. Obama has hit a home run with the pirate thing, and maybe this can provide proper steerage for him. Did GW Bush cause all the problems as a lot of Democrats think? That would be wonderful if it were only so, and if just talking with them was the answer. But yes, now the thing seems to just wait and see, really out of yours and my hands. And that question as to what happens if America is attacked with a nuclear weapon and what is the next step, I don't really want any president to be faced with that. Let us just see what the next year brings, and Happy Easter to you as well.
#345Jamie..I'm still waiting for an answer
#346Azbastard....What, do you miss me? I wrapped up my arguments here over a month ago, as you'll find the record written above indicates. What was the question? Actually, to be honest, I don't even care. Unless you've found the recipe for whirled peas or the cure for the common cold, I would prefer to wish you luck in your endeavor to inspire as much hate for Mohammed and love for Jesus as you can, and hopefully you'll share the same best wishes for me as I careen down the highway to Hell.
#347in the end it will always be about love. nothing more, nothing less. all religions will respect each other because of such powerful word.
#348Assimilated or not, Islam or Christianity or Shinto or Buddhism or Tribal Religions or Militant Atheism any other religion you care to name: I am in no doubt whatsoever that the world would be a better place without religion. Religions are not inherently bigoted but most of them fit the bigot's frame of mind very nicely indeed and bigotry is at the root of all the "isms" (sexism ageism gayism fundamentalist neuroticism etc.) As irony would have it, I happen to believe in God but apart from that, I profess a profound areligious theism (hey another -ism there!). We pay for our insane spirituality with blood. Yes Christianity is fundamentally peaceful yet think about the conquistadores, the early irish troubles, the crusades. I would welcome any move to rid society of the cancer that is religion. It is easy to find spirituality in music, in art in science in philosophy in the warmth of a family. We don't need this insanity.
#349.... just to add, many peaceful Muslims may believe that Islam can be followed peacefully and respecting non Muslim neighbours and for a minority of Muslims, I am sure that they are correct but the simple fact is that another significant and large minority of Muslims follow their religion fundamentalistically, violently and with hate. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan: the evidence is utterly incontrovertible. That fact alone surely makes Islam the most pernicious religion in existence. I think that every civilised country in the European Tradition (Europe, North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand) should abolish Islam in any form on their soil, should make it illegal to practice it and should give all Muslim citizens a choice to either renounce Islam or to leave their contry for good and take their poison with them.
#350
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
#351Yes, Islam as such should be abolished. When we speak of "Fundamental Islamists," we really mean "Fundamentally Evil Islam." The religion is fundamentally evil, it enslaves millions, and most Muslims are decent people who do not subscribe to this evil. It is as if we opened up all the prisons and put the criminals in control, the most evil people dominate Muslim countries, and all these nations need to know is the Quran, no science, nothing but religion. Therefore the backwardness, despair.
Oh, it would be fine to also renounce such quotes in the Bible about smashing babies' heads and killing anyone who works on the Sabbath, but it is painfully obvious, even though Liberals may not admit it, that it has been many lifetimes since state - sponsored murder was committed in the name of Christianity.
The Prime Minister of Australia had it right when he told them "If you want Sharia law, then go to a country that has it." But Europe, and hopefully this Obama lunacy will end and America will not follow them in their "When in Rome tell the Romans what to do, we Islamics are so offended by cartoons, Muhammod Teddy Bears, whatever" Socialist Liberal mindset. Well just go back where you came from, and do you want some cheese with that whine? Get your evil religion out of my country, take the liberals with you. Liberalism is a mental illness, it is suicide, it is decay cloaked with happy spin wording by the smooth but substantless and radical Obama and his Democrat parasites. Victims, entitled, America-haters, trickle up poverty types. "Who is John Galt?"
Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote of this recently in his article titled "Suicide of the West," which you can see here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmMxMDZmZjdhNGQxOGRmYTFjOWRjMzhiYTAzMzVmZmE=#more
#352DUDE, WHERE AM I. . . . .
#353Sad load of bastards religiouse people their main gratification in life is self inflicted sevitude of non existant beeings and want to punish anyone who dont agree what a load of ####### cretins But they cant stop a bullet in the brain even with the help of god
#354Birds of Same feather fly together
You are bunch of Ignorant people have no knowledge of Islam how can you talk about Islam and Quran and Sharia Law.
Improve yur knowledge and get some life
#355Karwan, do you agree that when a Muslim blows up a bus, train, plane, or other public place in the name of Islam, he is not rewarded for it by being sent to paradise?
#356I dont like killing people in the name of religion or justify the religion. According to Quran killing any person without a just cause is big sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good as saving the whole humanity. (Surah Maidah 5:32).
Those people who commit this crime will not be awarded paradise but will be punished in hell. God doesnt want all people to be one by force he has left people on their choice and will. If God had will to do so he could have done in a minute. As God Stated in the Quran
"To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ" ( Surah AL Maidah 5: 48)
#357Karwan replied:
According to Quran killing any person without a just cause is big sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good as saving the whole humanity. (Surah Maidah 5:32).
I notice you didn't directly answer the question. This is significant because the Koran makes it very clear that in Islam it is considered just cause to kill a non-Muslim who does not agree to convert to Islam or to submit to second-class citizen status.
I request a yes or no answer. Do you agree that when a Muslim blows up a bus, train, plane, or other public place in the name of Islam, he is not rewarded for it by being sent to paradise?
#358Karwan, your Qur'an verse is cherry - picked and a fine example of al taqiyya.
From p42 of Serge Trifkovic's Defeating Jihad:
"The model was provided by Muhammad, who accepted a truce wth Mecca when he was in an inferior position but broke it as soon as his recuperated strength allowed. Then he offered his pagan compatriots the choice of conversion or death. The final objective all along is Dar al Islam, where Muslims dominate and infidels are converted or massacred:
'But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful (9:5).'
#359" This 'the Verse of the Sword' allows only one way out for pagans to be spared from being slain: to become Muslims. Islamic scholars agree that this single verse abrogates 124 earlier verses – the ones that are quoted most regularly by Islam’s apologists to prove its tolerance and benevolence as a ‘religion of peace’”.
Either Islam is reformed, or conflict continues. Europe, which has historically pursued appeasement at any cost for peace, is in trouble, probably fatal. Islam is totalitarian, not multi-cultural but uni-cultural. It is not compatible with western democracy or any other religion. Only the ignorant and gullible, those who think Islam is what they hope that it is, or is what they think it should be, fall for this canard of "killing one is like killing all of mankind."
Yes, get informed, read the above quoted book. Then read The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, by Bat ye'or. Lot's of propaganda and revisionist history out there, read books and see through all the lies. When Muslims talk of Islam being a religion of peace, they are practicing a very clever mendacity. The dar al Islam mentioned above does mean land of peace, but that peace comes only when everyone is in that land is converted, a dhimmi, or killed. Very clever lying indeed. Satanic.
Page 2 of 2 pages of comments for this article.
I should clarify "which had a negative link to Islamist groups..." as "was hostile to groups such as...", I suppose it could be interpreted differently.