Here is a personal attack on me and on Jihad Watch from Amir, a Muslim in Britain. (Thanks to Harry.) I get attacked all the time, and ordinarily wouldn't bore you with the details, but this one is interesting. Look at why this guy is angry:
AoA. I hope there isn't a Muslim in the whole world who stumbles across "Jihad Watch" and falls for the crap Robert Spencer is pumping out. Him and his loyal band of anti-Islamics (who flood his article comments with Islamaphobic preaching) have dedicated time and effort to make an influential impression on people, mainly Muslims, to re-write the meaning of Jihaad and make people believe it. Mainly Muslims.Spencer hasn't necessarily studied Islam for the purpose of calling people away from it, he isn't a fanatical enough of a Christian to be doing that, he's instead studied Islam for the purpose of convincing Muslims to adopt incorrect Islamic concepts -- namely on the issue of jihaad. From the Muslim perspective it's not as bad as apostasy, but still pretty damn bad.
Leaving aside his characterization of my own religious faith, look at what he says about jihad. In his view, evidently, violent jihad — warfare against unbelievers — is the correct Islamic concept, and when I call upon Muslims to reject it I am asking them to veer close to apostasy.
Here is an example of the depths of deviousness his tactics and styles droop to. Muslims recognise that Islam is not a secular religion, that it is not just a bunch of worship rituals and is in fact a lot more than that -- Islam is a complete ideology. An ideology that must be implemented in a state. An Islamic state. Thanks to Islamic groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroon, to name a few, the majority Muslims are aware of the need and Islamic obligation of the Khilafah State. But, to cast doubt and fear in the hearts of some unaware Muslims, here we have Spencer slyly attacking the Muslims in Canada advocating the notion of re-establishing the Khilafah as something sinister because "That's the Islamic state that Osama bin Laden and other radical Muslims around the world have declared their intention to restore."
So Hizb-ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun, two groups that forthrightly call for restoration of the caliphate and full implementation of the Sharia (including the oppression of non-Muslims as dhimmis) have the right idea, eh? So Al-Muhajiroun, a group that has praised the 9/11 highjackers and Osama, has the correct Islam?
Note that he is not angry with me for talking about the Islamic roots of modern-day jihad violence, as are the pseudo-moderate American Muslim advocacy groups. Instead, he is angry with me for trying to stop this jihad.
This is the great challenge that anyone who calls himself a moderate Muslim faces: to convince people like Amir that their "correct" version of Islam is actually incorrect. This was what I emphasized at UNC Tuesday night. It will be interesting to see if anyone even attempts it in any significant way.
UPDATE: Here is a response from Amir. It speaks for itself, and only underscores the point I have made in three books now: that radical Islam has the intellectual ascendancy in the Muslim world, and that, as Ibn Warraq put it (as I quote him in Onward Muslim Soldiers): "For every text the liberal Muslims produce, the mullahs will use dozens of counter-examples [that are] exegetically, philosophically, historically far more legitimate." This guy is proving that Ibn Warraq and I are correct.
Now: among the UNC Muslim students to whom I spoke the other night was a young man who maintained just the opposite: that moderate Islam is accepted everywhere, and that Amir's kind of radicalism is just a lunatic fringe. I did not agree with him then, and my praise for the openness of some of the Muslim students did not constitute (contrary to the apparent understanding of many posters here) a pollyana-like endorsement of the idea that militant Islam is really nothing much to be concerned about, or could be reformed easily. In fact, I have been one of the few public spokesmen to dare to discuss the gravity and enormity of the problem that terrorism poses within Islam.
But when Muslims claim to denounce Amir's position and refute it on Islamic grounds, I am willing to listen. I would ask the UNC student to whom I referred above, if he reads this, to respond to Amir. I would also like to hear from those self-proclaimed moderate Muslims who have taken me to task over the years for finding a connection between Islam and violence to show Amir where he is wrong: Ibrahim Hooper, where are you? Hussam Ayloush? Asad Abou Khalil? Salam Al-Maryati? Hussein Ibish? Now is the time to put up — show us some of your moderate Islamic theology — or shut up.
Anyway, here is Amir:
Spencer: "Leaving aside his characterization of my own religious faith, look at what he says about jihad. In his view, evidently, violent jihad - warfare against unbelievers - is the correct Islamic concept, and when I call upon Muslims to reject it I am asking them to veer close to apostasy."Jihaad can be practised in a number of ways, by one's speech, by one's actions and even by one's intent. The correct way to practise Jihaad is to look at the reality and situation being faced and then reacting accordingly. I am in Britain; here speech is the correct Jihaad to be practised, unless the reality changes. My Muslim brothers and sisters who are in Palestine, where their land is being illegally occupied by the illegitimate state of Israel, Jihaad in the form of action is correct. The Jihad Watch project is all about looking at the case of any Muslim undertaking actions of this nature and then insulting them, ridiculing them and slandering them for the sole purpose of enforcing the concept that Muslims should be pacifist and phase out Jihad completely and remould Islam to something that the non-Muslims, like those at Jihad Watch, approve of.
I wouldn't know what Spencer's 20 years worth of studying Islam is worth, but if it was worth much he would understand that if a Muslim abandons a clear Islamic obligation for a man-made alternative option, it is sinful for the Muslim. Like I said it's not as bad as apostasy but it is still, nonetheless, very bad and must be avoided (it is a sin referred to as "like denouncing Islam", which highlights the severity of it). Studying Islam and caring about Islam are clearly two very different things, eh Mr Spencer?
Spencer:
"So Hizb-ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun, two groups that forthrightly call for restoration of the caliphate and full implementation of the Sharia (including the oppression of non-Muslims as dhimmis) have the right idea, eh? So Al-Muhajiroun, a group that has praised the 9/11 highjackers and Osama, has the correct Islam?""Correct Islam" is Islam as demonstrated by RasoolAllah (saw) and the Prophets companions. Any Islamic group that makes a sincere effort, clearly indicating its evidences, work and motivation to be genuinely and exclusively from Islam, is following Islam correctly. Al-Muhajiroon is more hard-line compared to Hizb ut-Tahrir, and although both these groups have the correct objectives, it is only their methodologies that need some attention paid to (for an individual to deduce which is stronger). The answer to that question is, however: the establishment of an Islamic State with Shar'ia rules in full implementation is an obligation for Muslims to actively work to re-establish by following the method shown to mankind by RasoolAllah (saw). This is clearly evident by numurous daleels.
Indeed it is, Amir, and I have caught hell hundreds of times from Muslims for pointing it out. Thanks for going to bat in my defense in this way, Sir!
Usama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers did nothing less than hand the US administration the right to invade Muslim Lands on a silver plate -- that was their biggest crime.Spencer:
"This is the great challenge that anyone who calls himself a moderate Muslim faces: to convince people like Amir that their "correct" version of Islam is actually incorrect. This was what I emphasized at UNC Tuesday night. It will be interesting to see if anyone even attempts it in any significant way."Once again the same rhetoric comes in to play by the propagandists. If there's any Muslim reading this who calls him or her self a "moderate Muslim" ask yourself what that really means? Are you trying to say you are proud of the fact that you pick and choose what to believe and practice from Islam? You are proud or pleased of the fact that you moderate what chunks of Islam you adopt and what chunks of Islam you decide to reject?! You think its right to say "God got this wrong, but the rest is okay"?! You don't realise doing this is putting your own intelligence above that of your Creator's?!... This is a sin referred to as "like denouncing Islam", which should highlight the severity of it.
I would ask the same questions. In other words, any moderates out there should show this guy where he is wrong — if you can. As I have said many times, and people still don't seem to understand the point, I have known innumerable moderate Muslims, but I have yet to see a convincing, comprehensive presentation of moderate Islam. Get the difference?
The same goes for the labels "fundamentalist", "radical", "extremist", etc. These are incorrect labels to put on yourself or other Muslims, simply because one is not even a Muslim unless one submits holistically to the deen of Islam and follows all that which is required of and leaves that which is required to be left. Using these labels are an insult... but that is exactly why the West insists on using them on Muslims, and encouraging us to use them.
I use "radical" to denote someone who acts on Amir's views, and "moderate" to refer to Muslims who, even just ostensibly, opposes them. But those moderates need to show how to refute Amir's theology, or there will be more and more radicals recruited in mosques every day. To date, they have not done so.
Nice one RS.
I am totally in favor of Jihad Watch, and every other site like it. I forward the mailings and get people thinking.
But I must once again respectfully disagree with RS on one thing: Amir is 'correct', because that is what Islam says. A 'moderate' Muslim in the West, after rejecting or disavowing: violent jihad (and, I guess leaving the personal 'struggle', but what is so hard about 'do unto others...'?), dhimmitude, women as chattel, death for apostasy, insulting and blaspheming other religions as a matter of dogma and death for blasphemy must, it seems to me, start asking, "What is left?" This rejection involves rejecting the Koran as the perfect word of Allah, and the words and actions of Muhammad as Allah-inspired. So why think, act or dress like an Arab?
The answer might end up being, "If I feel I need religion at all, then why get caught up in such a hateful projection of a tribal shame/honor culture that has yet to grow up? What is left says absolutely nothing new. Maybe morality is an intensly personal question and not just what Muhammad did. I should think about the place of man in the universe for myself instead of being given a set of ridiculous, supposedly God-ordained rules."
From AMIR (from that blog on the other side of the galaxy)do we need non-muslims trying to teach us islam?
AoA. I hope there isn't a Muslim in the whole world who stumbles across "Jihad Watch" and falls for the crap Robert Spencer is pumping out. Him and his loyal band of anti-Islamics (who flood his article comments with Islamaphobic preaching)
They vilify Islam and become the "message-boys" for their governments, who really are warring against Islam.
WS - AMiR
// posted by Amir @ 12:05 PM
To Amir: Your feeble attempts to smear the director of this site and its following clearly show your skewed view of right and wrong.
I'm sure you'll check in at Jihad Watch today to see how much attention you've gotten, so here you are:
You're a hater, and a disgrace to moderate Islam. You're a perfect example why I wish we could have some of these altercations in person, instead of in type. By what you wrote, you're obviously a supporter of violent jihad. I'm a supporter of violent jihad elimination.
Your question " do we need non-muslims trying to teach us Islam?'
My answer: Until you practice Islam in a peaceful fashion, instead of trying to bomb your way to success (which by the way isn't working), and realize that the world should live in peace, not pieces, then yes, you should be taught your religion, because it's apparent that you're blind to many issues, which will eventually be your end.
Budd, Budd, Budd.
"But I must once again respectfully disagree with RS on one thing: Amir is 'correct', because that is what Islam says."
Budd, you're absolutely right about Qur'an etc. I've said so many times. But since there is no central authority in Islam, there is no monolithic understanding within it. And that means that the secular types, such as islamlib.com, may have a chance. But commenters here, including you, seem to persist in thinking that I have illusions about their prospects, and in fact I have none.
Amir blithely blogs:
"...he's (ie., RS) instead studied Islam for the purpose of convincing Muslims to adopt incorrect Islamic concepts -- namely on the issue of jihaad. From the Muslim perspective it's not as bad as apostasy, but still pretty damn bad."
This got me up and over to the bookcase, where I hauled down my well-worn Umdat al-Salik (the Shari'ah). And, the verdict is.... Amir doesn't even understand his own religion:
Ua-S, o8.7(7) states: "Among the things that entail apostacy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are...to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which, by scholarly concensus, belongs to it...".
Last I checked, surah 9:29 was Allah's direction to engage in jihad. Deny jihad- and thereby deny a verse of the Koran.
Folks, what Robert is encouraging in trying to stop this jihad is EXACTLY apostacy. No more, no less.
Do you ever wonder what happens to the bottom ten percent of your madrasseh class ;)
Islam is nothing but a set of criminal acts sanctified by sub-humans without any capacity to think. Let them stay in their insanity and pick on each other.
Amir says: If some Muslims can be made to believe that some Islamic concepts or ideas are "outdated" or "no longer practical in the modern world" then the Muslims' reaction will be naturally to find an alternative
To Amir: Muslims do need to stop listening to overbearing racist, intolerant bigots such as yourself, and realize that some Islamic concepts are not acceptable in today's society. You have no clue how profoundly ignorant you look with your writings.
Just like the Judge told the Imam in Spain regarding the publishing of his book, which made several references to wife beating: Society has changed over the last 1400 years. Maybe you radicals should consider changing with it.
It appears to me that you cherish the thought of talking to "unaware Muslims" as you put it, for they may be moldable to the ridiculous beliefs of bin Laden and those like him. I hope one day the moderate Muslim community finally has enough of trolls like you giving the religion a bad name, and takes all of you world haters to the "wood shed".
So Amir; I invite you to stop being so century impaired, and join the real world.
Check out his disclaimer, all ye who "stupidly" (see below) believe in free speech.
"Disclaimer:
"I am a Muslim born and currently living in the UK. I have no connections, ties or relationships with any Islamic organisations or groups. I understand the West has its own perception of what “terrorism” is and I also understand that my perception of “terrorism” is different. But the West believes in freedom of speech, stupidly, and since I happen to be in the West I suppose any authorities who have come across this web publication need to know that, for the content, I am solely responsible, and you can consider this the work of a person expressing his right to free speech! If you have any questions, worries, complaints or whatever just email me: amir.y@mail.com "
Surah 9:29 is part of the chronologically last "revelation", that is, there is no possibility of it being "abrogated". So Amir is quite correct and misinterpreting jihad as peaceful struggle is wrong. Agreeing with Amir, I don't think it has been characterized as apostacy. Rather, IIRC, in both Qu'ran and ahadith, it is called "hypocracy". But that is a minor quibble.
More significant to me are these questions for Amir: "How then do you view the incessant claims of CAIR and many like-minded others that express exactly the same 'incorrect meaning of jihad' as you ascribe to RS? Are they apostates or, at least, hypocrits? Or do we see in CAIR and like-minded others merely more examples of obligatory lies?"
The authorities should be watching Amir's site and take note!
For many years I too thought like RS, that Islam should and could be reformed. I no longer believe that is possible. I agree with Ali Sina that Islam must be eliminated. By that I mean that my hope is that as the masses get educated they will reject violent, misanthropic Islam. Once those passages are rejected there would be little left. The base is after all part of the Jewish tradition.
But, of course that depends on whether they get and use WMD. . . Not that any of us will ever live that long to see a movement away from jihad.
Eternal vigilance!
Clark is testifying as I write this. Clearly, we have not been vigilant enough. But, thanks to Muslims like Amir et al. we are changing that.
Lili
"I agree with Ali Sina that Islam must be eliminated."
I have nothing but respect for Ali Sina, but look: quite aside from the moral implications of such a suggestion, it isn't even possible.
To the poster labeled Mrs. S/ Is there really a need to privately e-mail? if it's ok with you, why don't we all express our concerns about AMIR and what was written openly?
This way all is out in the air.
The very reasons that Muslims murder, bomb, beat, mutilate and many OTHER horrible crimes of humanity is because of the simple fact that they are JUST PLAIN IGNORANT and EVIL. (In all the perceptions of THE DEVIL we all grew up with from movies and tales - even our imagination could not have matched what the Muslims have done on this planet in such a short time. In fact, Stephen King could never have dreamed up a more Satanic enemy!) They have shown that they are more evil then the devil was ever made out to be.
One can be educated in schools and be perpetual students, however it doesn't make them intelligent. We see this over and over throughout "educated" Muslims of the world on a daily basis. The Muslim populations are ignorant, savage and primative in all respects and all dealings of life and therefore behave in this manner - which the world is finally waking up to.
I give the Muslim terrorists and their supporters a few more years max of these types of crimes until we then crush them with a war to wipe the hateful Muslim terrorists off the face of the earth.
I look forward to that necessary war. They have shown us there is no other way. The sooner they are stopped - the better! There is no more PC for me. We are fighting for our lives.
Too many Jews on this site for me to even troll.
/Jihaad
Amir sounds semi-literate, spouting the usual drivel.
These jihadists in the UK simply have not got the measure of the Brits. They think they can frighten us, can beat us ? They fancy their chances better than Hitler ?
As Churchill said - of the AngloSaxon nations as a whole, not just the Brits :
We have not travelled all this way across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy"
The Brits despise Amir and his ilk. mir preaches a cowardly creed - suicide bombers. In a straight fight, he and his fellow Muslim extremists would be wiped out. They can't fight, and they can't debate with any sense of logic. They are mentally screwed, obsessive, warped - and FAILURES.
To AG in Houston:
Whoa!! "I'm" not Jewish- just another mindless, unthinking, self-loathing, run-of-the-mill "Gentile for Israel".
DD:
Your post is unclear: "So Amir is quite correct and misinterpreting jihad as peaceful struggle is wrong". Pls. expand- perhaps the lack of morning coffee has me misunderstanding? Robert, can you help? The Ua-S and the Qur'anic cite appear straightforward enough to me.
Oh Jeez, Amir. No matter what you say afterwards you look pretty foolish. You are also doing Allah and your religion grave disservice. May He judge you with mercy.
Too many Jews on this site for me to even troll.
/Jihaad
Posted by AG in Houston at March 25, 2004 11:57 AM
To AG in Houston: Troll would be a good word to describe you it seems. Apparent racist that you are. I'm not Jewish, but I have no problem with Jews, like you obviously do.
You're a punk, instead of Muslim women wrongfully being slapped around by their husbands, it looks like you're the one in need of a good, solid palm print upside your melon. Jihad is losing, and losing big. Get used to it. We aren't intimidated, not in the least, you little racist Jew hater.
(uh, DC Watson, I *think* AG in Houston was "channeling" Amir in reference to Amir saying on his blog that he would not be posting in the comments here)
Sadly, if Amir's view of Islam predominates, there is no other response but war or submission. I'm beginning to wonder if we will ever even have the opportunity to stand up and fight.
DC-
Oh, it is not my idea to privately email. that was the punk Amir's idea. I just appreciate the irony of his telling us free speech is stupid. I don't have the quote at hand but I am sure a high ranking Nazi, perhaps Goebbels, said the exact same thing.
Easy big fellas.
Just having some fun using the /jihaad/ mentality, tag.
Observe:
Do I make you Randy, baby?
/Austin Danger Powers
Sorry for the confusion.
In my view, all this talk about what is "moderate" or "radical" Islam is a waste of time.
Instead, we should watch what they do, and then act accordingly. If they practice their religion in peace, without attempting to spread it by force, then leave them alone. But if they attempt to spread it by force, then meet their force with however much retaliatory force is required to permanently stop them.
Those who choose force to spread their religion are not human beings, but rabid animals, and must be treated as such.
This is what had to be done to stop Christianity when it was the rabid animal of the world during the dark and middle ages. This is what needs to be done to stop radical Islam now.
Mark Peters
Shari'a may reign over Britain but "as long as people are still having promiscuous sex with many anonymous partners without protection while at the same time experimenting with mind-expanding drugs in a consequence-free environment, I'll be sound as a pound!"
/Austin
Mark Peters, I agree that it looks as if the spread of Islam can only be stopped by force. That is certainly how it looks to me today.
I can't go along with you and call our opponents animals. Maybe some people feel the need to use such language in order to give them the will to fight, but I don't agree with it. It would be more right for us to struggle for our way life without dehumanizing our enemies.
rosh,
The thing that most fundamentally distinguishes human beings from non-human animals is _reason_, yet that is precisely what those who adopt force have abandoned. Animals live by force, humans live by reason.
It isn't that I'm dehumanizing them, it is that _they_ have chosen to dehumanize themselves. Calling them animals isn't motivation but _identification_. Radical muslims are human in genetic terms only. By all other accounts, they are not. Being human is fundamentally a _choice_, and it is one that radical muslims refuse to make.
Christianity returned to the status of human when it abandoned force as a means of spreading itself. Radical Islam must do the same, whether willingly, or like Christianity, by retaliatory force.
Mark Peters
Sorry, guess I'm a little too high strung today....AG, my bad.....Mrs. S.....I thank you.....I'm gonna go take a nap.....you guys have fun this afternoon.....
D.C.
I don't know why the the West doesn't insist that, when these animals step out of their medieval countries, they don't move up to our standards of civilized thought and tolerance, instead of accommodating their demands that we dumb down our societies to meet their lower standards.
1: Look up taqiyyah
2: I say again: Never trust a Muslim.
Message to Amir - England was founded on the back of the genocide of the indigenous British (The english are Germans) - you have benefited from that occupation and exploitation as a settler -it is with in my right to take your life as an occupier. You have built your house over the bodies of thousands of dead indigenous British. If you do not wish to be included in any legitimate resistance, I call on you to do the honorable thing and leave this Island and go back to where yo come from. Its is not my fault you are here- I did not invite you or your parents, you came as a conqueror on the backs of the parasitic English. LEAVE!
When I read the ravings of Amir and Friday sermons around the world, I wonder if Islam, as a religion and as a political ideology, isn't finally reaching its expiration date?
I remember reading (was it in National Geographic?) that some archaeologists think the ancient Mayan civilization collapsed because of the bloodthirstiness of its ruling class, combined with the bloodthirstiness of its enabling religion. Basically, the kings would go to war against a neighboring kingdom, and whoever won would sacrifice (on top of the pyramids, with those creepy stone knives) the entire population of the losing kingdom. Eventually, after massacre upon massacre, the people gave up on the cities and melted into the jungles. They were smart enough to abandon the entire toxic system.
My point is this: I believe Islam is poisonous--not only to the individual, and not even only to the cultures that embrace sharia--but to the entire world's body politic. And eventually, after enough atrocities and massacres and 9/11's and 3/11's, there will be an end to it.
And just like the Nazis, just like European Communism, just like the blood gods of the ancient Maya, Islam as a force will have to fall--either from within or without. It's poisonous, and it cannot stand.
I'm afraid the "moderate" Islamists are like the absinthe drinkers of the 19th century--drinking enough of their poison to make themselves high. But the islamic True Believer must end up in disaster, personal and cultural, because he's chugging the stuff, and there's only so much poison a person--or a culture--can take.
Being a true believer is not the problem--you can be a true-believing Amish farmer, after all. The problem comes when the core texts themselves are toxic, and the closer to them you are, the more deeply you are poisoned by them.
Cornish Intifada -- LOL! Brilliant!
"Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient, that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him."
Enerst Renan (from the facing page of Ibn Warraq's Why I am not a Muslim)
"Religions, like political ideologies, are pushed along by money, power, and tiny vocal minorities. Within Islam, the money and the power are all pushing the wrong way. So are the most active minorities. The urgent need is to recognize this. Our problem is not prejudice about Islam, but folly in the face of its violence and cruelty. And in any case, the willingness of moderates to be what are objectively bad Muslims, because they reject key teachings of historical Islam, may be laudable in human terms but does nothing to modify Islam as a doctrine."
Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet, p. 300.
Nap time's over.....Amir has given all of us some publicity on his website...
http://jihaad.blogspot.com/
Amir is responding to this thread on his Web site: http://jihaad.blogspot.com/. He says:
more about the islamic state
AoA. I couldn't help but notice the ignorance being posted on Robert Spencer's comments section.
To the comment posters attacking me and what I have posted in my blog: I realise everybody posting comments have already formed their own views; views which are mandatory for you to believe in order to help you hate Muslims and Islam -- so I realise its unlikely that you have an open-mind. But if it's worth anything, you should definitely read this web page to enlighten yourself about the Islamic State (Khilafah) and the issue of it's re-establishment.
And a note: I won't be using my guestbook or Spencer's comments facility to post anything. If somebody uses my name you already know it wasn't me who posted it.
WS - AMiR
// posted by Amir @ 5:28 PM
I think it's really extraneous to start dredging up ancient history re: the original rise of Islam, the Crusades, Aristotle, etc. The fact is, up to say, the end of the 30-years War Christianity and Islam were more or less in the same position. Alternating periods of englightenment and fanaticism, combined with proselytising zeal which was often a cover for pillage and conquest, and other times based upon legitimate religious fervor (with even worse results in many cases). The Bible is full of passages which, taken literally, support a fanatic view of Christianity, just as the Koran is full of fanaticism when read literally.
The difference is that the Christian world has, over the past 300 years or so, stopped reading the Bible literally (despite the claims of some of today's fundamentalists to still do so, they don't advocate stoning of adultresses and the like). The Islamic world hasn't, and remains in its medieval cycle of enlightenment/fanaticism.
The question of course is what do we do about it. What do we do to bring the Islamic world kicking and screaming into modernity; how do we compress a 300-year process Christianity went through during a time when a fanatic Muslim group can use airplanes and bombs as weapons instead of swords and knives to bludgeon us back into the 16th century.
Is this guy begging for new crusades or what?
I really feel sorry for the moderate muslims who have to fight both Western prejudice and the confirmation/reinforcement of that prejudice by their so-called peers.
And, Hugh, I believe the best medicine against religious extremism is prosperity. How to accomplish that, however, is beyond me.
DC Watson
Nada Mucho.
"I believe the best medicine against religious extremism is prosperity."
A few UNC students insisted on this the other night. But what about the Ottoman Empire, which despite being the richest and most powerful society in the world still pressed jihads into Europe?
Amir is a prime example of misdirected minds.
His posts from his site after our comments were know to him included:
"My Muslim brothers and sisters who are in Palestine, where their land is being illegally occupied by the illegitimate state of Israel, Jihaad in the form of action is correct".
Action, as in killing innocent people, stooping to using children strapped with bombs.
and, "Usama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers did nothing less than hand the US administration the right to invade Muslim Lands on a silver plate -- that was their biggest crime".
No Amir, their crime was murdering 3000 innocent people. And yes, the ticket was punched for the U.S. to invade Muslim lands, not to harm innocent Muslims, but to dismantle the Al Qaida and Taliban cowards that hide within their villages and cities.
Your thought process baffles me.
Robert, I am speaking from a Western point of view of course. I read David S. Landes' The wealth and poverty of nations... in which he explains that people who actually have something to lose won't be prone to challenge the status quo. I am totally ignorant about the history of the Ottomans, so I cannot answer your question. I have no idea what their motives were for Jihad. Was it a case of cynically canvassing the muslim masses to expand their territory? Also, their position as a dominating force is somewhat different from the current position of muslim nations: way down the food chain. My theory about prosperity has to be viewed in that light.
Earl:
DD:
Your post is unclear: "So Amir is quite correct and misinterpreting jihad as peaceful struggle is wrong". Pls. expand- perhaps the lack of morning coffee has me misunderstanding? Robert, can you help? The Ua-S and the Qur'anic cite appear straightforward enough to me.
I think Amir is saying that jihad means spreading Isalm by means of the sword and that RS urging Muslims to reject this is wrong and is misleading Muslims. I'm trying to say that Amir is, IMHO, correctly interpreting both Qu'ran and ahadith.
OTOH, CAIR and others loudly proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and that jihad merely means internal spiritual struggle. So, I assume Amir would regard CAIR and others so proclaiming as near-apostates (or hypocrits). I asked the questions of Amir in order to confirm this assumption.
Am I making sense to you?
Dear Mr. Butt:
May I call you Monkey?
Pardon the self-promotion, but I recommend my own books on this question. Particularly "Onward Muslim Soldiers." http://jihadwatch.org/books/
Best
RS
Hugh,
Regarding it being "extraneous to start dredging up ancient history re: the original rise of Islam, the Crusades, Aristotle, etc." - it is precisely this history that explains why the Islamic world is the way it is. That also explains why it is that Christianity today isn't doing what Islam is, despite the fact that its texts can be read in the same fundamentalist way as the Koran.
Christianity learned that it cannot spread itself by force, and so gave it up. Islam has not learned that lesson.
The answer to the question of how we "bring the Islamic world kicking and screaming into modernity" is that we can't. Modernity has to be embraced willingly, and the radical Muslims are nowhere near that, and are not open to change towards it, specifically _because_ their fundamentalism rules out the one thing that makes that possible: reason. The West will be destroyed long before that changes, which is why we have to deal with them by force.
"Monkeybutt": The only defense against those who renounce reason in favor of force is retaliatory force. If you think that means I advocate a new "Crusades", then so be it. This is not a prejudice, however, since I advocate the same with respect to _anybody_ who renounces reason in favor of force. Dealing with innocents by force is wrong, whether it is done by secularists or religionists.
Mark Peters
KILLITWITHASTICK
Some quibbles with your Maya history (not your Islam points): most current evidence on the Maya collapse indicates it was caused by many factors, with incessant warfare between royal lineages definitely a factor (prolonged drought, environmental stresses being others). However, the sacrificial rites you describe are more Aztec than Maya. Yes, the Maya did engage in human sacrifice, but it was almost exclusively limited to royalty. The losers in the war would be sacrificed by beheading (not the heart ripping of the Mexican cultures) and not in the vast numbers that the Aztecs were (in)famous for. The victors then usually supplanted the losers royal dynasty with their own. Sacrifice in Chichen Itza was closer to the Mexican model, but that city flourished after the Classic Maya collapse.
/pedantic corrections
Xbalanke
BTW - there will be a quiz on this later
Regarding the best medicine against religious extremism as being prosperity: the radical Islamic world cares _nothing_ about prosperity (or anything else in this world, for that matter). In fact, the more prosperous those of us around them become, the more they will hate us and want to kill us.
It was not an accident that Bin Laden chose the WTC as a target - that was the world's clearest and best symbol of prosperity, of success living in this world rather dying for another. In other words, it was the clearest symbol of everything that radical Islam hates.
Mark Peters
RS, yes you can call me Monkey. And thanks for the links to the books. I'll see if I can get them here in Europe.
Mark Peters: When I mentioned the Crusades, I was talking about Amir's position. Basically, you and I are saying the same thing. If Amir advocates violence against us, we can only retaliate. Hence, begging for new Crusades.
DD:
Thx., your post clarifies that you are preaching to the choir (good Lord, a Christian reference ;) )
I entirely agree with your analysis; you are making perfect sense.
Monkey: Okay, I'm sorry - I misread what you wrote. I think we are on the same page too.
Mark Peters
In fact, the more prosperous those of us around them become, the more they will hate us and want to kill us.
Mark, the radicals probably don't give a damn about anything, but I am pretty sure the majority of the muslim population in Europe came here looking for a more prosperous future. It is those people we need to target, so that they won't fall into the trap of radicalism (as seems to be happening more and more). I know it is much more complicated than this, but that was the gist of my comment.
My reading of Islamic history is that Arabs create nothing but are parasites of those that do. This started with Muhammad the caravan marauder.
Jizya, as part of dhimmitude, plus the other taxes, are the method to suck the conquered dry, and then move on. Did not the conquering Muslims stop allowing conversions to Islam when they realized that their tax base would dwindle?
And thus Islamic land are where they are today, sitting on their hands, sucking their thumbs, prostrating to Allah, feeling humiliated because they KNOW that they are inferior, and hating all that are not self-loathing like themselves.
Remember also, that the Saudi hijackers were NOT poor.
Monkey wrote: "I am pretty sure the majority of the muslim population in Europe came here looking for a more prosperous future. It is those people we need to target, so that they won't fall into the trap of radicalism (as seems to be happening more and more). I know it is much more complicated than this, but that was the gist of my comment."
Okay, I figured you were talking about the radicals, not the moderates. I agree that prosperity will probably deter the moderate rank and file from turning to radicalism. As I think you agree, that doesn't help us with the current crop of radicals.
Budd - I agree with you about Arabs (certain ones anyway) being parasites. Terrorism is the problem it is today in very large part due to the fact that the oil fields in the Arab world were discovered and developed by the West, only to be nationalized by Arab governments. Oil money properly belonging to western corporations is today funding terrorism.
Mark Peters
I think it's funny that you can't comment on Amir's blog posts. What does that say about his confidence level.... That is way to funny!
Christianity was never meant to spread by force.Those people who advocated forced conversion were doing so enitirely against the preachings of Christ. There are no "readings " of the new testament which condone the spread of Christianity by force. Stoning was Judaic in nature and applied to Judaic Law.Jesus fulfulled the requirement of the law so Christians are not bound by it.The only stoning reference found in the new testament is the one with the aduterous woman.Jesus said you who are without sin cast the first stone.Most noticibly absent fromthis scene is The MALE involved in adultery.Judaic law requried the stoning of BOTH people involved in adultery.Additionaly under Roman law the sanhedrin, while powerful,did not have the authority to put people to death.Hence the surrender of Jesus to Roman authority.
I must say I found your site almost as comical as other religous hate groups such as those at www.jewishtribalreview.org which I think ur Jewish masters and christian background may have told U about before embarking ion this project.
Just like Jesus could not change the Jews when he was alive, U will never do! I just hope U find a new hobby or check into a drug rehabilitation center.
Wonders never cease: A guy with an E-mail address of 2pac shakur is now the "voice of reason"
U wanna be a rappa, yo?
Wow! Comments tonight almost rival lgf. It's heartening to see tso many participants.
Should Islam be reform? Yes. Can it be? Maybe. Will it be? Probably not. Islam won't be islam without all of the tenets that we in the West find so offensive. Amir has spoken the unvarnished truth.
Do Western Muslims want to live in peace? Maybe. How can we tell? By their actions, and perhaps, by their words. But for me, actions ALWAYS speak louder than words. The only action I have seen is violence, and the only words I hear are violent and demanding of their rights as Muslims.
In America there are no Catholic rights, Methodist rights, Jewish rights. Black rights, white rights, Hispanic rights, nor Muslim rights. There are only American rights. No group deserves special privileges in America. No group can demand and get special privileges in America. Some have tried and prevailed for a while, but their dominance has always been defeated. Islam can be no different. In oder to coexist in the West with all other groups, Islam must willing to change, but then, it won't be Islam. That's the conundrum.
It will take more than prosperity. Case in point:
Omar Ahmad (CAIR). Palestinian, grew up in Jordan. Came to U.S. for education and opportunity. And now he wants to turn where he is into where he came from.
Taqiyyah warning - a quote from Arab Business Magazine in a profile:
'The biggest issue (in the U.S. today) is civil rights. It’s really an American issue. You can’t call the U.S. a democracy if there is discrimination.'
—Omar Ahmad
CEO
Silicon Expert Technologies
jay
Prosperity doesn`t have much to do with the jihad mentality.
And if it has anything to do with it,it is exactly the opposite of what the liberal media and politicians are preaching...
The fact that radical islam has its roots in poverty,which is endemic in all muslim countries,is a clever lie....a lie that is supposed to impress us westerners and make us more generous in our "humanitarian help" to those countries...the money we donate will turn eventually against us,the donors,by way of islamic jihad. Living in poverty is not the cause of radical islam,but indeed its effect.
And prosperity ,(aside from the fact that it is not the goal of any islamist),will not eliminate jihad,but it will rather inflame it.
Prosperity gives islamists the leverage of financial support for their jihad.
It is well known that wealthy saudi businessmen and rich oil-sheiks are the most efficient jihadists,for they are able to pump money into their cause.OBL is the perfect example of what kind of role prosperity plays in muslim jihad.
Adela- You are correct. These oil rich, uh, individuals have indeed hired out their hit squads, jihad terrorists to create havoc so that they can attain what they see are their birthright, the apex of the world, the new Islamic Caesars. They sit atop a pile of sand covering much of the world's more valuable resources. What do they get for this accident of geography? They already have fabulous wealth. Money is only a useful tool to help human beings attain what they desire. They certainly don't get what they really want - unlimited power.
Power has always been the ultimate world goal. The big crime is that religion is being used as the tool of choice these greedy, crafty bastards. It's the only one that can work in their favor.
A most striking quotation from Amir's latest post to his blog:
"I will tell you flatly, there IS a clash of civilisations on-going. Islam, as it is to be correctly practised and established, can not co-exist with the Western way of life. Ideals held with such high esteem in the West directly contradict the Islamic way of thinking. Either Islamic values have to be compromised or Western concepts compromised; there is no compatibility. But this is at an ideological level (i.e. capitalism versus Islam). On an individual, personal level, it is a different story."
So we can all just get along on a personal level, but only if Islam is victorious in establishing the Khilafah? How comforting...
Cato, thanks. This just made my head spin.
So, if Amir just talks about his ideology and we just talk about ours everything is okay?
Problem is (quote): Islam, as it is to be correctly practised and established, can not co-exist with the Western way of life.
This guy must be experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance in his daily life since he is living in the West.
Concerning Islamic/Arab "poverty". This is one of the key reasons that Western leftists and Islam can cooperate effectively against freedom. It is at the heart of an ideological quid pro quo that is essential for both camps. Both camps understand that there is no possibility to defeat freedom militarily; indeed, those fighting tyrants in the name of freedom have never lost militarily since 1776. The only hope is a defeat along the lines of Viet Nam. It is no accident that Viet Nam is the main focus of the left in the upcoming US election campaign.
The Left is now into Marxism version 4.1 having passed through "1.0 falling profits lead to immizeration of workers", "2.0 falling profits lead to RELATIVE immizeration of workers", "3.0 colonialism delays capitalism's collapse", to "4.0 Third World immizeration" as source of revolutionary zeal But, this zeal is feckless due to the military disparity. Hence, finally, the Chomsky refinement "4.1 undermining of capitalism by Vietnamization of Third World militants".
Islam has stepped forward since the fall of USSR to provide an excellent source of Third World militants. Within Marxism 4.1, they MUST be springing from poverty, disease, early death, etc.
Islam, OTOH, gets exactly what it needs for its goal of world wide caliphate. This is a daggar pointed at the heart of freedom using first and foremost freedom as its cutting edge. By Orwellizing freedom into multiculturism, post-modernism and the like, free societies can be hollowed out. Once the hollowing out process proceeds far enough, relatively trivial blows will precipitate fearful collapse. Recent events in Spain reveal the tactics.
The irony is that the Left is so blindly racist and elitist that they think they are using Islam and are in charge. After all, they are ever so much smarter even than conservatives, let alone Muslim wogs. In fact, the Left has forgotten their Mao: "Power flows from the barrel of a gun." It's the Muslims who have the guns; the Left abhors such "macho" "militaristic" stuff.
Non tibi spiro:
There is no cognitive dissonance problem; Amir is a subversive just as are most Leftists. In fact, Amir is an unusually clear thinking and honest subversive. For one thing, he correctly states the real enemy of Islam, viz., Capitalism. Of course, Capitalism is possible only when underlying freedoms are present and fostered by government under a rule of law.
So the objective is the defeat of Capitalism but the strategy is to destroy the underlying structure of freedom as exemplified paradigmatically by USA as well as by Israel and the tactics are to coordinate with other enemies of Capitalism. These objectives, strategy and tactics have persisted unchanged for at least 150 years under various names and in various places through bloody conflicts and massive exterminations costing hundreds of millions killed, billions injured and trillions of dollars in damages.
Robert:
I understand what you are saying that there is no moderate Islam but there are moderate Muslims. This is a hopeful position but I find it very difficult to reconcile with my understanding of the issues. As I understand it, those who fail to wholeheartedly support violent jihad are, at best, hypocrits and perhaps even apostates. So, which are your moderate Muslims? No wonder they are not forthcoming.
Dean, no doubt many are hypocrites. And no doubt that radicals will call them apostates, and have a good case to make from Islamic texts. But many are also simply uninformed. They ignore or are simply unaware of the violent passages in the Qur'an and Hadith. In some places this is a deeply ingrained cultural pattern, as these texts have been ignored for centuries. That isn't enough to make non-Muslims breathe easy, because they are still there and can be activated by radical preachers. But it is simply a fact.
So tell me how do the Moslem fanatics intend to deal with the American jihad? Like Hamas? Slink away and say you didn't mean it?
The American jihadis will not be appeased so easily.
Amir the loon: "I will tell you flatly, there IS a clash of civilisations on-going. Islam, as it is to be correctly practised and established, can not co-exist with the Western way of life. Ideals held with such high esteem in the West directly contradict the Islamic way of thinking".
Well, again to Amir: I truly don't give a damn about your way of thinking. America isn't going to be told what to do by a band of kooks like you and the violent jihad you represent.
Xbalanke:
Thanks for your corrections. It's always deadly to an argument to base it upon misinformation, as I did about the Mayans.
Anyway, the point I attempted to make (ancient Mexican people group misidentifications notwithstanding) was simply, "God is not mocked: what a man sows, this shall he also reap." The closer a culture's mores are to "true" truth, as it were, the more functional it will be--much in the same way that the closer an airplane's design conforms to the laws of physics, the better it will fly.
And it goes back to Linus's problem with The Great Pumpkin: even if you are completely sincere in your beliefs, if what you believe doesn't match up to reality, it can't help you.
And so, to Amir. He's a true believer in something that is basically untrue. His dog don't hunt; his plane don't fly; his Moloch-style, blood-sacrifice religion can't really help him order a society functionally. In this case, the pragmatic hypocrisy of some of the "moderate" Islamic states--Jordan, for example--is what keeps them from completely going over the deep end. The only way to keep themselves afloat is to jettison some of the crazier texts that simply do not line up with reality--with true truth.
So, I guess I don't think a society can keep itself running indefinitely--whether they be Mayans or Incans or Americans or Palestinians-- if its core building blocks are off.