Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer on Adam Gadahn and jihad in today's lead story at Front Page magazine:
The new face of Islamic terrorism is quite a departure from the spacy half-smile of Osama bin Laden and the dead-eyed glare of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; ever since the latest FBI wanted poster came out, it’s a pudgy, long-haired American kid who appears to be locked in a desperate, losing struggle to grow a beard: Adam Yahiye Gadahn, an American convert to Islam.Just as they did in the cases of Gadahn’s fellow converts to Islamic radicalism (John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban,” British shoe bomber Richard Reid, and others), Western analysts have rushed to ascribe Gadahn’s involvement with al-Qaeda as a product of his disaffection and alienation, cannily capitalized upon by al-Qaeda operatives to make the boy feel important and give him a place in the world.
Gadahn obligingly supplied the talking heads with plenty of ammunition for this sort of thing in an account of his conversion, apparently self-penned, that is posted on the website of the USC Muslim Students Association. His father was a Muslim, although evidently not a particularly active one, and his mother a Christian. Neither, by his account at least, seems to have made much effort to raise him in either faith, and he says he had some friction with them. For reasons unexplained at one point he tells us that he moved in with his grandparents. “I had become obsessed with demonic Heavy Metal music,” he says, to the extent that he “eschewed personal cleanliness and let my room reach an unbelievable state of disarray."[1] Around that time he discovered Islam by cruising the Internet.
Unfortunately, Gadahn’s conversion story ends before he can tell us how he came to be involved with Islamic terrorists and undergoing training in al-Qaeda camps. But that is the fundamental question that must be answered, and all the talk of rootless, disaffected youth that has filled the airwaves over the last few days doesn’t even come close to answering it.
To be sure, since James Dean and probably earlier, alienated youth have abounded in the United States. Drugs, illegitimacy, and other byproducts of youthful disaffection are proof. But Gadahn is not a rowdy teen gleefully smashing his geeky teacher’s prized record collection in The Blackboard Jungle; he is a member of an organized, worldwide movement determined to commit acts of violence and institute Islamic law. Gadahn could have just as easily become a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Mormon. None of those choices would have landed him in a terrorist training camp and made him the new face of al-Qaeda. It’s obvious why Islamic terrorist groups would want to recruit someone like Adam Gadahn or Richard Reid. For one thing, a non-Arab can enter areas where security measures would prevent an Arab from going (although the PC Left is trying to change that).
Less discussed is the fact that men like Gadahn and Lindh can be recruited at all. The other day I was speaking with a Pakistani Muslim who told me that he knew “a little” Arabic, but didn’t speak or read it fluently. He wasn’t very involved in his religion, and had picked up what he knew of it not from a direct confrontation with its core texts and doctrines, but from cultural habit. But Western converts have no such luxury. They must approach the Qur’an and other Islamic texts without the culturally ingrained ways of understanding them that Muslims pick up in Islamic societies. Thus they come to Islam more or less in a pure, abstract form. The force of any given passage of Qur’an or Hadith, not blunted by culture or familiarity, can be presented by whoever is instructing the convert with any spin the teacher might favor.
Gadahn was apparently a member of Muzammil Siddiqi’s Islamic Society of Orange County — at least until he was expelled after a fight with someone there. Siddiqi, a high-profile self-proclaimed moderate Muslim spokesman, said of Gadahn: “He was becoming very extreme in his ideas and views. He must have disliked something.”[2]
And Siddiqi knows extreme. Kenneth Timmerman has noted that “during an anti-Israel rally outside the White House on Oct. 28, 2000, Siddiqi openly threatened the United States with violence if it continued its support of Israel. ‘America has to learn...if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come. Please, all Americans. Do you remember that?...If you continue doing injustice, and tolerate injustice, the wrath of God will come.’” Timmerman adds, “Siddiqi also has called for a wider application of Shari'a law in the United States, and in a 1995 speech praised suicide bombers. ‘Those who die on the part of justice are alive, and their place is with the Lord, and they receive the highest position, because this is the highest honor,’ he was quoted as saying by the Kansas City Star on Jan. 28, 1995.”[3]
This is Islamic moderation? Deliver us from the fundamentalists. One such purist, Abu Hamza al-Masri, the one-eyed, hook-handed radical imam who was just arrested in Britain on suspicion of aiding in terrorist acts and trying to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon, has always presented his teachings as the genuine article: pure Islam. According to a March 2004 report from the BBC, “Pure Islam has claimed the mantle of being the only real Islam as practised at the time of the Prophet Mohammed and his companions. It regards the Islam that came from the Indian subcontinent as corrupted and polluted by ‘cultural’ values such as music.” Such a presentation would be especially attractive to people like Gadahn and other Western converts, who are already cut loose from their cultural moorings and uninitiated as yet into Islamic culture.
“This has led,” the BBC report continues, “to a split within the British Muslim community, creating a belief amongst many young people that there is no compromise between Islam and life in the West.” Nor is this view solely the province of a tiny minority of extremists; on the contrary, it is winning the field: “However, moderate Muslims leaders have remained largely silent and have yet to provide a credible alternative.”[4]
Likewise, a young man like Gadahn who gains what he knows about Islam from the internet will find dozens of jihadist websites, many of which feature detailed explications of the Qur’an and Sunnah such that would warm the heart of Osama bin Laden — and precious few, if any, Muslim sites that refute the rigorist interpretation in favor of an Islam that is essentially peaceful. Moderate Muslims in general don’t refute; they just ignore. Not long ago a young Muslim woman told me that she didn’t think it was necessary to respond to radical Muslim exegesis of the Qur’an — it was so ridiculous, she said, that no one with half a brain could possibly take it seriously.
Maybe. But Adam Gadahn (and Johnny Taliban Lindh, and Richard Reid, and Jack Roche, and Jose Padilla, and all the rest) shows that such responses are no longer adequate, if they ever were. Gadahn and the rest were probably recruited by straightforward appeals to numerous passages in the Qur’an and Sunnah. In Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur’an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the “Verse of the Sword”: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful” (Sura 9:5). Establishing “regular worship” and paying the “poor-due” (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim.
Such verses are not taken “out of context” to justify armed jihad by radical imams such as those who may have taught Gadahn; on the contrary, that’s how they have been understood by Muslims from the beginning of Islam. Said the Muslim Prophet Muhammad: “Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah’s Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he 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).”[5]
One classic manual of Islamic sacred law, which in 1991 gained the approval of Cairo’s prestigious and influential Al-Azhar University as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,” is quite specific and detailed about the meaning of jihad. It defines the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self” and then devotes eleven pages to various aspects of the “lesser jihad” and its aftermath. It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” noting that the word itself “is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”[6]
This manual stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” The requirement that non-Muslims first be “invited” to enter Islam and then warred against until they either convert or pay the special tax on non-Muslims (jizya), is founded upon the Qur’an: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Sura 9:29).
This verse has been used in Islamic history and jurisprudence to establish three choices for non-Muslims that Muslims are facing in jihad: conversion to Islam, submission under Islamic rule (which involves a carefully delineated second-class citizen status centered around but by no means limited to the jizya tax ), or death. The goal of jihad is thus the incorporation of non-Muslims into Muslim society, either by conversion or submission.
This is the explanation that radical Muslim spokesmen around the world have given, repeatedly and consistently, for what they’re doing: they are not terrorists, they are mujahedin, warriors of jihad. In this they are doing nothing new, but merely carrying on an illustrious tradition: violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Calls for jihad went out in the seventh century against the Christians of Egypt and Syria and the other areas of what is now known as the Muslim world. Such calls sounded innumerable times against Europe until 1683.
After that, although jihads became less common (at least in Europe), at no point did Islamic theology reject the doctrine of jihad. It remained part of Islamic thought and practice, to be revived again where possible and necessary. Yet the simple fact that violent jihad remained and remains today a vital component of Islamic theology is today smothered under a fog of political correctness. This plays into the hands of Islamic radicals by making it unnecessary for self-proclaimed moderates to renounce these doctrines, or even to acknowledge their existence. But unless or until a large number of Muslims around the world do so, the call to violent jihad will continue to inspire young people like Adam Gadahn. After all, they want to please their new friends in their new home and do what they have become convinced is the will of Allah.
Thus, whenever someone proclaims that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists (instead of a religion that contains a violent doctrine that sets it at odds with the rest of world and cries out for reform), they are helping to make sure that more and more disaffected youth like Adam Gadahn will end up in radical Muslim training camps — and will eventually carry their struggle back to their infidel homeland.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and the author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery Publishing), and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter Books).
ENDNOTES:
[1] Yahiye Adam Gadahn, “Becoming Muslim.”
[2] “American Sought Had ‘97 Arrest, ‘Extreme’ Ideas,” FOXNews, May 27, 2004.[3] Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Pipes Objects to Fox in the Henhouse,” Insight Magazine, March 19, 2004.
[4] Navid Akhtar, “Fears as young Muslims ‘opt out,’” BBCNews, March 7, 2004.
[5] Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, translated by Muhammad M. Khan, Darussalam, 1997, vol. 1, book 2, no. 36. The explanatory parenthetical phrases are added by the translators to bring out the sense of the original.
[6] Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller (‘Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amana Publications, 1999. Section o9.0.
Robert Spencer wrote: "In Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur’an." Yup! and here they are:
154 Jihad Verses in the Koran
www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm
Excellent work. Referencing this, and the truck bomb entry immediately above, Islamism will only be defeated when its hateful theological foundation is forever discredited. We can not seal off every port, guarantee 100% airport security, search every truck and taxi. Although we must work for the best possible security, it is as important that we expose counter the hatred point-for-point wherever it manifests itself.
We need to get muslims to replace all the violent passages in the quran with something like "The Sneetches", by Dr. Seuss. The simplicity and rhyme should make it appealing.
This seems like a good place for this.
For all of you who come here thinking that this is a site for hate-filled christian fundamentalists (which it absolutely is Not), please see the following:
http://techcentralstation.com/060104B.html
Just about every type of person mentioned there, posts here. Don't let the likes of Mahmoud, Dina, Arxos fool you.
Actually, Kirk, "The Star-Bellied Sneeches" is all about divisive violence based on exterior factors, which places it closer to the Quran than you'd think. ;)
Except that "Sneeches" has a moral, and a happy ending. Loosely speaking, the Quran ends with the Day of Judgement, and all us Kafirs in Hell drinking boiling libations.
So, if you want to speak from a sane perspective, "The Star-Bellied Sneeches" beats al-Quran any day.
Yeah, its the happy ending part I like, plus, those with stars on thars are not commanded by Dr. Seuss to kill or convert those who do not...and then we could insert "Green Eggs and Ham" to help them with the pork issue...actually, I think we should all adopt the Holy Books of Seuss as a new worldwide religion.
And here is one for those who will argue that Iraq had no ties to Al-Queda:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13589
Quite possibly the Only positive thing Clinton did towards terrorism- and the _Newspeople_ who now claim there is no connection, are the very ones who reported the connection!
Gary;
Thanks for the interesting link to Tech central.
Heres some of their article;
"Today, it is common to hear Westerners, who have read a few polemical articles and imagine themselves great experts on Islam, calling for "an Islamic Reformation," and an "Islamic Luther." Other such are horrified to hear the argument, which is quite widespread among informed non-Muslim scholars as well as Muslims, that Islam already has a movement comparable to the Reformation, and had its Luther, or better, its John Calvin, in the form of Wahhabism and its founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. That is, the Islamic Reformation exists in the ultraextremist cult that is the state sect in Saudi Arabia and the inspirer of al-Qaida. Wahhabis themselves are quite pleased by the comparison. Is this really so difficult to understand?"
I highlighted that particular statement as it has been a 'gripe' of mine for a while.
Pre-Luther the Church (for the most part) had left the straight way and the teachings of Jesus, hence a reformation was needed to bring Her back to the sound teachings of the Bible, and thank God, God sent one.
A lot (not all) of the man-made traditions that had taken hold were ousted, and replaced by sound Biblical doctrine.
This was indeed "reformation".
And so it bewilders me when I hear people saying "Islam needs a reformation" -wouldn't that mean an end to all the Muslim moderates and all Muslims being made to embrace the 'true' meanings of the Qur'an? Sura 9:5, 8:39, 9:29 etc etc?
Like the article states; "Islam has a reformation - Wahhabism"
I'd be interested in any other views on this topic.
Regards,
kc
Gary,
I am not trying to fool anyone and don't lump me in with anyone else thank you very much...I make my own arguments, which are not of a fundamentalist nature unlike your remarks and several others. I wish to stay clear of religion and not insult belief systems or anybody's culture...I don't know to what sect or denomination you respectively adhere to but your collective (UNIFORM) voice is one of unashamed hatemongering....sorry I can't call it anything else. I do not believe in 'you are either with us or against us' or any ohter slogan designed to instigate popular support for an 'unjust' cause. I think it is DEMAGOGY in its worst form or if you like (to stir up a few ghosts)...FASCISM. Remember in Germany too, it was tempting to hate jews...
KC~ you are quite welcome. I read about 25-40 articles every morning on various sites, and I imagine at least a few of those posting here do also. I figure there May be interesting things being said in other sites that are being missed and will try to keep listing them when I can.
I am also curious to hear other's takes on these articles.
KC:
That's a salient point you make about Wahhabism as the Islamic reformation. There's a central axiom of the computer world, which nonetheless applies to all systems, particularly systems of decision-making:
"Garbage in, garbage out"
Thus, when one takes the violent, morally bankrupt teachings of the Quran and reforms the religion based upon them, one gets violence and moral bankruptcy.
(I'm aware of the dreadfully few exhortations to do good in the Quran, which is why I use the term "bankruptcy." Think of it as a ledger, with good stuff as credits, and evil stuff as debits. Hence, in the Quran, debits far outweigh credits, leading to the aforementioned dearth of goodness.)
Every day, you people come here and spew more hatred and lies about Islam. As you thus occupy yourselves, events are occurring elsewhere:
Every day, more Muslims pour across your borders.
Every day, more people revert to Islam.
Every day, more Muslim babies are born.
Every day, more mosques are built and more churches, synagogues, and pagan temples fall into disrepair or are converted into public latrines.
The long struggle approaches its end. As Allah (swt) has promised, the triumph of Islam is inevitable.
Accept the inevitable and live in peace. Stop warring against Almighty Allah (swt). Stop oppressing Muslims. Cease blaspheming Allah (swt) and his Prophet (pbuh). Join the rest of the world and embrace Islam, replace your unjust and corrupt man-made laws by Allah's (swt) divine Sharia.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar
Arxos has now fallen victim to ____'s Law (name escapes me for the moment), whereby the first person in a debate to reference the other as a fascist, loses.
So, this pseudo-intellectual troll may now be safely ignored; his/her views are utterly discredited and are unworthy of response through having referred to us as "FASCISTS".
And for the record, Arxos, if you EVER refer to me publicly in the province of Ontario, Canada as a Jew-hater, I will hit you with a civil lawsuit for either slander or liable so hard, you will haemorrhage financially for the rest of your pathetic life. Govern yourself accordingly.
Now, FOAD.
Stephen Swartz at techcentral station is deluded to believe that Islam is good for America and that Islam can be reformed. If and when it might be reformed, Islam will not be Islam because the Prophet narrowly laid down his principles which still include violence and deception. He is one of those individuals that is seducing our young and drawing them in to this implacable and murderous ideology.
One could understand how youth idealism could lead him to embrace Islam, but in his maturity he should now know better, or does he ignore the 1400 years of violent invasions and conversions in Islamic history and the violence that is contemnporarily used as we speak against non-Muslims overseas. Shame on him.
Reza:
Where, exactly, are the lies in either the comments sections or any of Robert's posts?
Everybody else:
I know Reza won't have an answer (his/her standard cut-n-paste job doesn't count), but I had to ask.
Earl:
It's called Godwin's Law. I used it to discredit Hood Jihadi some time ago.
Chris:
Just yesterday, I refuted some of a poster's lies near the end of the comments thread to the "New Osamas" article. I have done the same on many other occasions, as have other Muslims who post here. I have neither the time nor the interest to refute every lie - the burden of telling the truth should by rights lie on those vicious and cowardly hate mongers who post here.
Allahu akbar
Thx., Ananda. Sending Hood-boy packing was one of life's simpler pleasures ;)
Reza:
You say "[t]he long struggle approaches its end. As Allah (swt) has promised, the triumph of Islam is inevitable."
Did Allah tell you this personally?
If Allah did not tell you this personally, how do you know it?
If another man told you (directly, or through his writings) that Allah told him this, how do you know that this man, being not a god, but a fallable man, like all men, since only Allah can be infallible, told the truth?
How can you know this man did not just dream this, or make it up for his own purposes, or, perhaps, have been deceived by Satan?
So, Reza, are you so great a prophet that Allah speaks directly to you?
If not, then you cannot know this to be true because you must trust other men in what they say to believe this, and even the best men sometimes lie or may be deceived by Satan or led astray by their own weakness and failings.
So, Reza, can you think for yourself? Unless Allah speaks directly to you, you have no choice, you must think for yourself because you can never absolutely trust any other man. Only God is infallible.
So how can you possibly know the "triumph of Islam is inevitable?"
MY grandchildren will be muslims? Don't think so and I sure hope your grandchildren get saved out of that medievil enslavement.
ABUSIVE ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS PRACTICES IN THE WORLD TODAY Check out the link. It's only a smathering of what islam is really like. You beat and burn women, rape children, have historically mutilated captives and you claim you're peaceful? What a crock.
FWIW, Reza, may you be wrapped in bacon and thrown in the ground.
Reza: (Continued)
You cannot know that Allah promised that the "triumph of Islam is inevitable," or know, with certainty, that any of the tenets of Islam are true. You may believe it, but only because you "choose" to believe it, not because you can "know" it to be true.
So, Reza, does Allah speak directly to you?
If not, then you "choose" to believe that killing infidels in Allah's name is good. But that is your CHOICE, not your obligation, because you cannot know, with certainty, that it is true.
So, Reza, does Allah speak directly to YOU!
If not, perhaps you should choose what you wish to believe more wisely.
hey is anyone ready to take this AMERICAN TRAITOR and beat the living ---- out of his worthless muslim ass then get really nice and blow his fing brains out so he can give allah or mohammed a rim job in hell.i am
Reza:
Your pathetic attempts at "psy ops" are actually having just the opposite of their intended effect - they are, in fact, educating new visitors to this site as to the Islamic Threat (several newbies have mentioned that they have been educated thusly) as well as serving to strengthen our resolve and energize our opposition to your cult.
Thank you for your invaluable contribution to our Anti-Islamist Cause.
Reza:
No. What you have done is address two relatively minor points:
"You [Jim B, in a previous comment] make the absurd claim that a Muslim emperor killed some 3.650,000 Hindus in India in the space of one year. The Nazi Germans, at the time the most efficient practioners of Western technology and organization, required several years to suposedly [sic] exterminate an equal number [sic] of Jews, even though they had "industrial" facilities at their disposal (death camps, Einzatsgrupen, etc.). Your claim is absurd on its face."
So because the Nazis didn't (as opposed to couldn't) kill Jews at the rate of 10k/day, the Muslims couldn't have killed that many Hindus? Your claim is the more absurd one, especially since Jim B has a citation supporting his contention and all you do in response is wave dismissively and say 'bah.'
"As for Kashmir, Jumma and Kashmir are populated primarily by Muslims. The Hindu ruler of Kashmir turned the province over to India at the time of partition (1947). India agreed at the time to a plebesite, which was, of course, never held. Kashimr should by right be an Islamic state, probably as a part of Pakistan."
I'll concede the point, but consider this: the Hindus cut a deal with the Muslims, then broke it when it was to their advantage to do so. Kinda sucks when you're the ones getting Hudaybiya'd, dunnit?
You leave unanswered, as always, the major argument that Robert Spencer and most commenters here are making: Islamic Supremacists seek to convert, subjugate, or kill everybody on Earth.
CGW-
One of those would be me...I was raised in a family of liberal thinkers. I have long felt all people should be free to do as they please, as long as it does not adversely impact me.
Honestly, I have been looking for some hope for Islam, for something redeeming in it. I can't find it. When I first stumbled onto this, by googling a verse someone quoted from the Quran, I couldn't believe it. One thing leads to another, and the more I research, the worse it gets.
I have been telling just about everyone who will listen what I have learned about Islam. I am becoming convinced that the threat to our freedom, and the danger to our well-being, that is posed by Islam, may be greater than any we have faced in our nation's history.
delivering democracy...hahaahahahahahahaha delivering bombs more like
earl,
I don't care about your whatsshisname debate rule...and if you want to hide behind your lawsuit you are welcome to do so....but by all other accounts there are people in here proposing the reform of islam...brandishing islam as a violent, mindless cult, preaching war against it and bestowing subhuman status indiscriminantly upon all of its adherents...much like any other FASCISTS have done in the past.
Earl,
I think such behaviour should not be tolerated or condoned for that matter...much less promoted as ideology as if we are at war against a race.
Hugh,
You conveniently forgot to mention in a previous discussion of muslim attrocities that Constantinople was sacked, plundered, burned etc first by the Christian crusader hoards in 1204 and not just evil muslims. Its relics distributed to all participating kings and princes of Europe. It seems the crusaders kinda missed a turn on their way to the holy lands (after all who can tell the difference between christian and muslim booty-no distictions made here) , a fact, which makes the legitimacy of their operation seem a little unsound, wouldn't you say? So I put it to you: did the crusaders embarking on these ventures, wish solely to liberate the holy lands-to restore them to christ's worship? Or rather, is US involvement in iraq (not to mention all other interventions over the last 50yrs) directed against terrorism or (I can hardly bear writing this without laughter)...at installing democracy? Lets face it, it is a power-wealth game, it always has...and the US is an imperialist power.
HUGH were are you HUGH, why are you not barraging me with your lists of irrelevant historical facts or apofthegms from the koran. A blubbering xenophobe HUGH that is what your are, a dogmatical ideologue spreading poisonous PROPAGANDA....as if islam is the cult of EVIL out of a hollywood flick, as if all muslims should be reformed....REFORMED just like the REDSKIN SAVAGES of North America....shame on you!!!
Delivering democracy ahaahahahaah delivering bombs more like....
DON'T BE DUPED PEOPLE
yeah hugh, don't confuse the issues with your "irrelevant historical facts!"
You Islamists crack me up...
First, Mr. Spencer--excellent and educational article. Thank you very much for writing it, and I am very glad to see it published for others to come to some understanding of the written tenets of the Quran, the preachments of extreme Islam, and the very possibly moderate Islamic practice and/or thinking.
It would be pragmatic for Americans to maintain an open mind about the major role of religious beliefs and practices that do function as motive power (emotional urge springing forth into subsequent action) behind Jihad terrorists. Political correctness when it comes to analyzing the thrust of Jihad terrorism growing from cancer cells now implanted in many free nations worldwide, only "enables the terrorists" and does nothing for getting to the heart of what it will take to defeat terrorist activity. There is a difference in pragmatic thinking, and kindness for the beliefs and practices of others.
I have done some studying on this topic for several months now, and have come to a personal conclusion that we must, too, be very careful of the appearances of "moderate" Islam--but it is sensitive, because I believe that it is very possible that Muslims living for any length of time in free nations unlike Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc., may well tend to be or to become more moderate in their thinking. However, people have made an excellent case, too, for moderate Islamists serving as protective shields for the active Jihad terrorists, whether family or members of the Islam communities. Indeed many who are considered "moderate" may well bend to Jihad terrorists, for fear of their lives, and this is evidenced in world news already, although we may not yet see it in America.
It will be difficult to cull out the Jihadists amongst true moderates, without crossing the line of religious discrimination, but it does appear at this time, it is necessary to at least keep the factor in mind of this possibility. If, as some write, the Jihadists are attempting to dominate and take over the cultural, political, and economic lives of the West, a good start was made some time ago with the process of international migration and immigration.
How many free nations today include Islam communities that have lived quietly along side free thinkers with humanitarian freedoms? More importantly, how many can we only hope have assimilated the principles of freedom into their hearts and minds as opposed to being rooted in a submissive culture ruled by totalitarian thinking? I pray the majority of Islams are true freedom believers in their hearts, who have realized high spiritual ideals that became the foundation of our political system protecting personal freedoms while living in America.
Let us be optimistic about this, and, too, at the same time let us be vigilant in remembering, too, the price of universal freedom for "freedom lovers" around the globe.
We must be able to talk with our family and friends, and as we do this individually, we will do it universally throughout America. Let us break naivety in America about this Jihad; and let us realize, too, whether Islam may indeed undergo an internal Reformation from out of the new roots of Islamist migration to free nations around the globe--more power to many who undergo a new realization about the higher, universal ideals underscoring the principles of freedom, and the true spirituality behind the dogma of every religion throughout the spiritual evolution of humanity.
The Christian Reformation was but the Atrium to the greater Temple of the universal spritual ideals that are the foundation of democracy, ideals that transcend all religious dogma; an Islam Reformation as suggested, may, too, be a part of the big picture, aside from the narrow dogmatic Jihad. The Jihad is politically motivated by a few intelligent and educated leaders poisoning the minds of idealistic youth and new believers; the youth and new believers have been suckered in becomeing but the pawns of this 21st Century attempt at world domination.
However, I believe that this period of time is, too, a continuation of the course of human events historically that have sprung from the current evolutionary consciousness of humanity. We all are indeed in this together! So we all need to come to an understanding of what it is that we must defeat.
Jihad Watch and important articles such as yours, Mr. Spencer, will take us far. May it be republished in other publication vehicles, as well!
Arxos- I am a US Citizen. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. I have no problems with criticisms of either, when its fair.
Please tell me where the Imperial US has established colonies over the last 50 years.
I do know there are 93,000 of my fellow Americans buried in other countries, where they died fighting for freedom...and democracy.
If you live in the US, and feel as you do, leave. I am sure you will be free to rail all you want about the US, Christianity, and any other topic. Including Islam. May I suggest Iran, or Saudi Arabia? A good rant on the Prophet would be well received there, I am sure.
In fact, if you promise to go and read a vicious diatribe on Islam and Muslim atrocities in Tehran, I will pay your airfare.
Reza & Arxos
First of all Reza, I would please ask you to answer some of my previous posts as to your beliefs. Do you refute Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as do most moderate Islamic clerics or do you support his view of Islam? Reza you must understand that while some people who post here may have hate in their heart. You must also look at yourself. You praise Bin Laden and you claim others have hate in their heart. You say all of our grandchildren will be Islamic whether they like it or not, and you say you have no hate. I know Islam holds Jesus as a major prophet so when he said, "You Shall know the Tree by it's fruit." What kind of tree do you think Bin Laden is? I say it is a disease ridden, rotten tree ready to spread harm and evil to all around, even as it dies.
Arxos
Why do you attack Hugh just because he knows his history. It is you that needs to brush up on history and not accept as fact the anti-Chritian view of the Crusades. They were violent and many Chritians committed crimes. However, why were the Crusades started? Who invaded who starting in the 7th century? Since you are on the internet, it might do you well to further research the topic.
Many ask what the difference between a liberal and conservative Democrat (like myself) views on the War on Terror are? The difference couldn't be more clear in the person of Adam Gadahn. The liberal feels a child must explore all boundaries even if they might not be understood by adults. I am sure Adam's parents thought of this while listening to Crosby, stills, Nash and Young sing "Teach Your Children," on the family goat farm.
While they were listening to groups like the Grateful Dead and CSN&Y, Adam was jamming out to Ozzy, Metallica and Led Zeppelin. Nothing wrong with that, I have and still occassionally listen to all of the groups. The problem is when Adam wanders into the local Mosque, ditches his metal and takes on the local members for not being jihadist enough. At that point, had I taken such a foolish detour in life, the wrath of my parents would have been felt by me physically and mentally. Not Adam though, it's just another life choice affirmed by Adam's parents as he moves down life's highway (or route 66 in Adam's parents case.) Now the parents are surprised they haevn't heard from old Adam in a few years. Khalid Sheik Mohammad has but not his parents. That's the differnce between liberal and conservative upbringing.
I’m going to comment in regards to Hugh about irrelevant historical facts.
Christians do not dismiss atrocities committed in our past. We accept them, regret them and move to not repeat them again. Any group Christian or otherwise that does not do this is bound to repeat them with the same results. I would like you to please recall for me the last time Christians as a Godly body and collective group conducted a violent campaign in the name of God against a group of people? Then I would like you to recall the last time Islam did.
Knowing Hugh and following his writings for awhile now. I do not believe he was intentionally being misleading. I believe he was simply pointing out that Islam is very quick to point fingers at the west and America specifically, all the while disregarding Islam’s own cruel and abusive treatment of others.
Reza.....
Reza you must understand that while some people who post here may have hate in their heart. You must also look at yourself. You praise Bin Laden and you claim others have hate in their heart.
Yes Reza, there is hate in our hearts. There is especially hate in my heart. Hate for Islam and hate for the loss of life that your brethren so indiscriminately took on Sept. 11.all in the name of your Islam. I lost friends there. They were good people doing nothing more than earning a living for their families. And your brothers forced a horrible death on them. Many in this country have forgotten, especially the libs. Part of your strategy is the complacency of this country. Well I have news for you a__hole. Not everyone has forgotten. In fact, the people who are chasing you down had made it their battle cry. Your leaders were wrong. You wanted a Jihad my friend, well you have your Jihad now. We've chased you out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Soon we will hunt you down in Syria, Lebanon, the Philippines…anywhere and everywhere. We won't stop until all of you are just a memory. So just sit there at your PC and keep posting your inane remarks. And we'll see who has the last laugh. You and all your smug friends are being watched. When the time is right, you will answer for your foolishness.
Islam is quick to point fingers at anyone but themselves, period. This is a century old fact of life. Muslims can't change the fact that they suffer from the "Blameless Bob" syndrome.
Raisin, you said this: Accept the inevitable and live in peace. Stop warring against Almighty Allah (swt). Stop oppressing Muslims. Cease blaspheming Allah (swt) and his Prophet (pbuh). Join the rest of the world and embrace Islam, replace your unjust and corrupt man-made laws by Allah's (swt) divine Sharia.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar
Posted by Reza at June 1, 2004 09:53 AM
Raisin: Americans just knocked out two terror regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were tortured, raped and murdered, along with their money being stolen. Unfortunately for you, this was done by Muslim dictatorships, not Americans.
You don't care about Muslims, you care about chaos. Your comments of oppression are as ridiculous as everything else that comes off of those fingertips of yours. Muslims kill more Muslims than anyone.
Your blatant ignorance of this fact is a testament to your own defiance of realizing that you're swimming upstream as you continue with your rhetoric. You and Mahmoud (Twinkie) are fish in a barrel and you're too blind to see it.
Raisin, your defend machete wielders, who are bringing knives to gunfights. Your agenda isn't the best interest of Muslims, or you wouldn't spew the trash that you spew. Forget sharia law, it's never going to happen. Grow up, wake up, and wise up, Dodo.
Yeah, I'd bet a buck or two this website is watched by all sorts of interested parties..
LISTEN I AM NOT MUSLIM AND NEVER WILL BE NOT I OR MY DESCENDANTS. Stop lumping everyone together. Don't be ignorant.
Follow your own advice, Dorxos.
Opviews-
Keep up your good posts. Your thoughts hit right to the core.
Arxos - Hugh will outclass you every time, and, the facts that he lays out are genuine. Your attack against him is a typical kitman strategy- attack to silence the critics. You know, get a group of hecklers at a lecture or speech, and rudely heckle them so that the presentation can not be given. This is your strategy, boorish and obnoxious.
'Stop lumping everyone together.'
Do you hear yourself, arxos? You do EXACTLY that to us with every post you make. If you don't want the label yourself, then IDENTIFY yourself.
Me? Catholic American immigrating to Canada. If your muslim friends don't muck it up.
I suspect you won't even give That much info.
Reza bears all the hallmarks of the Adam Gadahn-Richard Reid-Jose Padilla-John Walker Lindh school, so he is perhaps particularly exercised by Mr. Spencer's cool, complete, and admirable summary of the phenomenon which he represents. No one likes to think of himself as psychically marginal, of having adopted a Total Explanation of the Universe (along with a mystical belief in its Final Triumph over the Unbelievers). The more such a "Reverter" is rebutted or taunted, sometimes quite amusingly I confess, the more he will waste time and space here (Arxos is to the manner born, however, as his English and his unsuppressible hysteria make clear). One of the valuable points made in Robert Spencer's article is that the convert, or "revert," possessing a vulnerable intellect and wandering through the universe in search of solace, that is a deficient mental makeup, is likely to take his Islam plain, straight up instead of, as some Muslims, born into the faith through no fault of their own, somehow may manage, to imbibe it on the rocks, or mixed with a little of the local civilizational brew which may dilute it so that in some places (gamelan-gonging, Hindu-templed Bali; the Muslims left high and dry in the Balkans when the high tide of Ottoman conquest receded; West Africa, with its syncretistic marabouts and easygoing ways), which always has a less toxic effect. But those local influences that, especially where a powerful non-Muslim presence can affect the Muslims, can dilute the effect of Islam on the brain, may, as time goes by, be less effective, and in the end cold comfort. For now that the Internet, and Arab satellite stations, and videocassettes (specializing in decapitations) and audiocassettes (that proved so effective for the Ayatollah Khomeini from his French exile in Neauphle-le-chateau), are everywhere, these may well overcome that effect of dilution that we associate, do we not, with a smiling Uighur from Urumchi, or an Indonesian Muslim, once all gamelan and rijstaffel, now getting his poison off some Islamic website.
In any case, Infidels cannot distinguish the real "moderate" from those who take their Islam plain. And given that so many Muslims tell us that what they have in their cup is really just weak tea, when it is really vodka or single-malt whiskey (please bear with me, those who find my choice of metaphor inappropriate for the teetotalers of Islam), and we can't sample the cup they keep raising to their lips, we are going to have to assume the worst. For our own safety. And there is every reason to believe that, given those audiocassettes and those videocassettes, and that Internet access, and that Der-Sturmer satellite channel posing as an Arab-language CNN (and has 180,000 paid subscribers in the U.S., not all of them working for the CIA and FBI), the number of those born into Islam, especially those born in Western Europe, will be akin to the mush-minded "reverters" of the Gadahn-Walker LIndh school of sad-eyed Seekers After the One True Truth.
It is no longer the dilutional effect of Muslim "civilisation" (which is to say, most often, of the "civilisation" that happens to be cheek-by-jowl with non-Muslims, such as Singaporean Chinese, Balinese Hindus, Lebanese Christians) that we can count on. No, this is where Ibn Warraq and his fellows come in. Unless the admixture is the clear cold water of Western rationalism, from some unpolluted Helicon of the Mind, the toxicity of Islam straight up, I'm afraid, is just too much for us, the Infidels, to bear.
And on another note: one wonders about that Orange County mosque, and Mr. Siddiqui, the kindly-looking greybeard sitting at his desk, looking at all those modern electronic gewgaws, a bookish man, a quiet man who, just like the Ayatollah Khomeini, wouldn't hurt a fly (a famous story tells of Khomeini shooing a fly out the window so as not to have to swat it, for Khomeini loved all of God's creatures -- except for Infidels, who deserved death). The trouble with Siddiqui, like that with Khomeini, is all the other things he would hurt, with religiously-sanctioned delight. That is to say me, and you, and all other Infidels. That's the problem that just won't go away. It can't. It has to be understood. It has to be discussed. It cannot remain undiscussable.
Lazy journalists offering us their own platituedes and shallow plongitudes, sentimental politicians who cannot bring themselves to study Islam, and won't even assign a few members of their staff to do so, the interfaith-racket Christian and Jewish clergymen too terrifie dof what they might find out if they actually went and read Qur'an, hadith, commentators, and so on, and prefer to tell us of the sins of those "Christian fundamentalists" like Pat Robertson and of course those "Jewish fundamentalists" among the "settlers" in Gaza and the West Bank, who are causing a problem that could be solved, as it says in one column inthe newspaper today, the whole problem with Islam, because "the one thing everyone agrees on is that a continuous MIddle East conflict, with the United States as Israel's only ally, is at the core of Muslim anger worldwide..." Right. Give up Gaza now, and that little problem in the southern Sudan should clear itself right up. Give up Judea, and that should stop the Muslims from beating Christians to death in Pakistan, and slitting the throats of Hindus in Kashmir and Bangladesh. Give up Samaria, and that should make the Buddhists in Thailand safe once again, and also stop those Muslims from killing Christian peasants in the Moluccas, or in the southern Philippines. Give up the Old City of Jerusalem, so that it can have its true and rightful name Al-Quds, and that will be more than enough to satisfy the Uighurs, and the Chechens. Give up Israel altogether, and the world's Muslims will be so content, so delighted with things, that they will promise, all of them, not only to stop having enormous families in Western Europe, but simply to pack up and go home. But -- well, there's a little problem, which we forgot to tell you about. Allah won't let us. You see, the world belongs to Allah, and to Islam, and we just can't disobey the rules. So we have to stay, and we have to take over. It's not really something we can change. Thanks for giving us Israel. Sorry we can't oblige!
It was Robert Benchley who once said that "there are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't." Well, Muslims are the kind of people who always believe the world is divided into two kinds of people: Believers and Infidels. Infidels, by and large, and especially nowadays, do not think in those terms. But out of self-defense, it is necessary that they begin to do so. There are now two kinds of people inthe world: Infidels, and Muslims. The monotheistic Christian or Jew has nothing to fear from polytheistic Hindus, everything to fear from his fellow monotheist,m the Muslim. (As for that treacly stuff about the "three great abrahamic faiths," puh-leeze!) And the Infidel has to prepare for a combat, simply to save himiself, that will require all sorts of cunning and all kinds of weaponry, including that which will help to undermine certainty of belief in that belief-system known as Islam.
Here are the two combatants in the ring just now. The Infidel (in this corner, in the white trunks), and the Muslim (in that corner, in the black trunks and the black ski-mask). The first round is not yet over, but some heavy punches have been exchanged.
In that vein,, but not in a manichean mode, let me offer one further division. For the world of Infidels is itself deeply split. It is divided between those Infidels who understand, or at least sense, that The Reliance of the Traveller is not the same thing as a AAA TripTik, and those who think it is. The indispensable task of this and similar websites is to increase the size of the former class (consisting of those who know there is a difference, and what a difference it is), and to decrease the size of the latter. A pedagogic task, requiring lucid exposition, presented with passion, and sometimes entertainingly. Posting by posting, day by day, week by week. Making the case, explaining the real situation, sounding the alarm. Through every village and town. Like Paul Revere and William Dawes. And the members of that first class -- which is to say, a great many of those who visit this website, in our various ways, are engaged in it. But with much more at stake.
LISTEN I AM NOT MUSLIM AND NEVER WILL BE NOT I OR MY DESCENDANTS. Stop lumping everyone together. Don't be ignorant.
Posted by arxos at June 1, 2004 01:37 PM
Funny, you seem to lump the West in the same fashion. Perhaps you should take some of your own advice.... ignorance I think you called it?
WILD CHEERING !!!!! BRAVO, HUGH!!! (Standing ovation) You have clearly stated the problem and the solution.
I hate to rub your nose in it boys, but Hugh has outclassed you AGAIN!
Let me add my two cents to Hugh's hundred dollar post: Get out there and chat up your friends, neighbors, colleagues, church members, bowling league, etc. Get them to understand the problem and encourage them to spread the word, to write letters, columns, and to prepare for the fight of their lives. This is the tipping point. We will continue to be a free people or we will go the way of Eurabia.
I, for one, won't let that happen. Will You?
Westword: Thanks. We'll see if Reza has any rational response ... or any response at all.
Hugh: Kudos, once again! good work!
And I agree with epg -- "Get out there and chat up your friends, neighbors, colleagues, church members, bowling league, etc. Get them to understand the problem and encourage them to spread the word, to write letters, columns, and to prepare for the fight of their lives. This is the tipping point. We will continue to be a free people or we will go the way of Eurabia."
Perhaps those of us who agree with epg on the need to "get the message out" better, should be working here to essentially develop a sort of "talking points" list that is concise, credible, and to-the-point enough on various specifics that the points would be suitable for letters to editors, to college papers and professors, church bulletins, what have you, to effectively push the message forward and increase exposure.
Any chance of that?
Opviews - I think this is an excellent idea. I thought of collecting references to the Quran and other resources I have seen posted here and sending them to the local paper to post in the write-in editorial section, kind of with the Fox news approach...here's a report, you decide...especially since I have noted more than a few statements from the local Islamic Council, regarding the prisoner abuse, Israeli war crimes and assasinations, etc...we need to put things in the proper perspective.
Hugh,
I wish I wrote the way you do!!
I have to tell you, I copy each of your posts and as I stated on an earlier thread, I make copies of postings from people such as Arxos, Reza, Mahmoud.
I send them to the local newspapers, the news stations, my congressmen, all the local churches and to all my friends, some as far away as Germany and in the Philippines.
The postings from our little Islamic group have opened up alot of eyes to the problem, but your postings have had the most impact.
Why? you ask. Because, even in our society we have a group of apologists that blindly believe that somehow, all of this was our fault.
That down through the course of history, we deserve this, and through your postings, with nothing but accurate data and history, combined with logic, I have seen friends of mine slowly start to see the truth of the situation we now find ourselves in.
I lived in the Bay area for 15 years and have always had pretty liberal ideas, but that all changed on 9/11, especially once the blame game started, and it was our fault.
Most of my friends there still spewed the same old rehtoric, but, you have changed that.
THANK YOU!
I argee with Opviews. The word must get out. Currently the media does not cover these points. Luckily there are websites like this that are a beginning. I have a fear that things will get much much worse, before they get better. I fear for the lives of regular Americans.
People are so worried about being labeled a racist when being critical on a religon. Because of this threat I have started to attend to church again, to help me get a sense of moral clearity. I have also started reading more, much more on US History. I'm really proud to be an American, this country will defeat this threat.
There are so many negatives regarding radical Islamists' ability to recruit Americans to their cause. The only possible positive side effect that I can find regarding Al Qaeda recruiting of Americans and Europeans is that it might make infiltrating these terror cells easier.
"LISTEN I AM NOT MUSLIM AND NEVER WILL BE NOT I OR MY DESCENDANTS. Stop lumping everyone together. Don't be ignorant."
Arxos, your grandchildren will be Muslim. Raisin and his compadres have pronounced their edict. You can choose that to be the truth or come over to our side and work for retaining the freedom to choose your religion. The Muslims give you no other option. Want to imagine there are more options yet to be revealed? As you so eloquently said Don't be ignorant.
To get back to the original thread, does any one think it is possible that these people join/ espouse militant islam because it is anathema to the American way of life? In the same way that Malcom X espoused a tenent that was anti-white and seperatist. Perhaps, it is precisely, a hatred of the sometimes emptiness middle class American life that attracts then to a nihilistic philosophy? Just a thought, any takers?
Big R
A week or so ago Big R, I posted a lyric from a Bob Dylan album, Slow Train Coming, that addressed this. To many intellectuals, American middle class life may seem boring, but in there attempt to attack the mainstream they are attracted to what is truly evil, that is the fanitical whether it be cults like the Branch Dividians, Hale Bop Group etc. They embrace unconventional religion such as radical Islam.
Evil or the Devil, however you wish to explain it tempts people that life on the other side of the fence is so much better. That's what Bob Dylan was trying to say in what I believe was one of his greatest albums. The fact that so many of the "intelligencia" hated the album proves this point, at least to me. Bob embraced religion, attacked the hypocricy of many of his 1960's friends. The album is a must for anyone that wants to challenge the whole "I am ok you are ok crowd."
What is wrong with the average American that embraces his or her conventional religion or lifestyle, shows up to work on time and doesn't whine or complain about the world. For some odd reason we embrace shows like "Sex and the City," where you basically got a bunch of "chicks" that will do it with anyone that seems powerful or maybe a bit different. These same women would be the first to attack men that did the same thing but because the shoe's on the other foot we are suppose to think they are cool, sticking it to the plain, boring, church-going middle class. Al Qaeda loves shows like this. It's great for recruitment.
I don't mean to get off topic, but I don't buy the fact that the Adam Gadahn's of the world got bored with middle America. Their parents never taught them to embrace what blessings they do have. They taught them to always question authority. I can remember sitting in a Political Science seminar class some 10 years ago when a female and male student said boldly, they loved what Adam and Eve did in the Garden, sticking it to God. They would have done the same thing. They said they were beholden to no one. That among other things taught me all that I needed to know about the Adam Gadahn's of the world. One minute they are Deadhead, then a metalhead, and then when all of that seems boring they become a jihadist or some such other deviant.
Hugh:
"...that The Reliance of the Traveller is not the same thing as a AAA TripTik"
Very droll! Another excellent monograph.
New to these posts, glad to see what Pope Paul VI would have called a "lively debate"...Thomas Jefferson would be thrilled, John Adams would be posting."On the New Face of Al Qaeda" I'm a little dissappointed in political commentators, government functionaries, and members of the Justice Department for apparently not doing their homework, or at least skipping class the day the polysci professor covered the writings of Leon Trotsky. Trotsky, before his assassination in Mexico City (hatcheted to death on orders of Stalin, supposedly)had "written the book" on Marxist revolution, or what we would call today, "terrorism". He claimed that every successful movement was protected by a "thin veil of sympathizers".This meant that it was folly to suppose that anyone who looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck would make it through duck hunting season. However, the world was full of dissaffected, disenfranchised, or alienated citizens (or citizens who thought they were)who could be recruited to front for revolutionaries (or terrorists). In fact, the history of subversion in North America is one of closet homosexuals, abandoned or abused housewives, dissappointed office seekers, unfulfilled academics, and disturbed children of privilege with too much money and time on their hands. The romantic popular notion of the revolutionary rising up from poverty and oppression with a single-minded, consuming rage against the hated established order is more the ficticious exception rather than the rule.To imagine otherwise is to play into part of what Lee Harris called radical Islam's "Fantasy Ideology" - best illustrated by that worn-out "Al-Qaeda training video" CNN keeps showing that looks more like a Barnum and Bailey training video, what with the black clown costumes, backflips, and jumping through firey hoops. Consider that the most successful strikes against the Russian Czarist regime, especially assasinations, were lead by the aristocrats themselves. Osama Bin Laden is a dissafected rich kid, after all,probably acting out a rage against his late, American-loving older brother rather than any genuine religious zeal.And let's not forget the damage two oppressed, disenfranchised,neglected,abused seventeen-year olds visited upon their highschool classmates a few years ago when they weren't surfing the 'net from their personal website in the bedroom of their upscale suburban homes or throwing down $1,000 in cash at gun shows or tooling around in their BMWs. I would worry less about the security of the Homeland if I knew that 1,500 dissaffected,"red-neck" ex-GI's had been dragnetted in for questioning by the Justice Department after the Oklahoma City bombing, and that the various white supremacist groups that the State Department identified (in June of 2001)as traveling to the Middle East for face-to-face meetings with Islamic fundamentalists (supposedly to discuss joint activities against ZOG and the State of Israel) were being investigated at least as zealously as the Muslims and Muslim organizations in this country.
" Cease blaspheming Allah (swt) and his Prophet (pbuh)."
Posted by Reza at June 1, 2004 09:53 AM
Reza;
This charge of 'blasphemy'you cite against people who speak against Muhammed has always intrigued me.
I'm aware Pakistan have a law regarding it.
Heres the dictionarys definition of blasphemy;
\Blas"phe*my\, n. [L. blasphemia, Gr. ?: cf. OF. blasphemie.] 1. An indignity offered to God in words, writing, or signs; impiously irreverent words or signs addressed to, or used in reference to, God; speaking evil of God; also, the act of claiming the attributes or prerogatives of deity.
This does rather infer that you are commiting Islams greatest sin, "shirk" by saying that blasphemy is a crime that can be directed against Muhammed, you are infact saying that Muhammed is on the same level as God.
I await your explanation.
Regards,
kc
YahwehU Akbar.
My grandchildren will be missionaries in Arab lands winning thousands from the darkness of Islam for the Lord Jesus Christ.
Every day, you people come here and spew more hatred and lies about Islam.
**Really? Are you aware that with almost every post your camp makes...I see more and more the real face of Islam,(from your own fingers no less) and it ain't friendly.
As you thus occupy yourselves, events are occurring elsewhere:
**You -are- getting a life outside of the qur'an?
Every day, more Muslims pour across your borders.
**and we track them. Quietly. Trust me on this.
Every day, more people revert to Islam.
**I guess it would be 'revert'...it seems a regression of common sense to me.
Every day, more Muslim babies are born.
**You got lucky? You ol' dog, you!
Every day, more mosques are built and more churches, synagogues, and pagan temples fall into disrepair or are converted into public latrines.
**Actually, I think we reserve that honor for Saddam's palace. Funny, we have so many churches were I live, we even have storefronts converted into small churches...no guys wearing pj's and carrying carpets & whatnot in them either.
The long struggle approaches its end.
**Not yet. But I feel you may be correct, though not in the way you intend. I suppose there will always be someone sick & unbalanced enough to commit acts of barbarous terrorism on others, and even worse, even sicker, blacker hearts and minds to twist them into childkillers and murderers..but eventually, the world will tire of this spasm of violence,or grow fearful of your successes... unite, and bleed you, till even your own people cry out for an end to it.
As Allah (swt) has promised, the triumph of Islam is inevitable.
** IShmael really WAS a donkey of a man, with his hand against the world, and the hand of the world against him wasn't he? I fear your triumph will be when you are all exterminated, and your religion forbidden throughout the world, and you are all sitting 'round with the imps and firepits wondering when the virgins will show up...except YOU'RE the virgins in that place.
Accept the inevitable and live in peace.
**We keep trying, but you lot seem to take perverse delight in killing others and mucking it up.
Stop warring against Almighty Allah (swt).
** We don't war against historical figures here, just his demented followers.
Stop oppressing Muslims.
** Stop murdering every other religion in the world...you'd be shocked at what might happen.
Cease blaspheming Allah (swt) and his Prophet (pbuh).
** To my knowledge, you can only blaspheme against Gods.
Join the rest of the world and embrace Islam, replace your unjust and corrupt man-made laws by Allah's (swt) divine Sharia.
** No thanks. I prefer my laws JUST and FAIR, not a corrupt set favoring one religion or another. My food,music and art varied and stimulating, and my women unbowed, strong, uncovered and free.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
** I would do the lobotomy myself first, rather than leave it to some mullah.
Allahu akbar
Posted by Reza at June 1, 2004 09:53 AM
**Really, do you need that tissue!
The New Face of Al-Qaeda
If this is the best Al Qaeda has to offer, they are the ones in trouble, not us.
And that message was for abad too! :-|
Reza:
Still waiting for your response to the major argument that Robert Spencer and most commenters here are making: Islamic Supremacists seek to convert, subjugate, or kill everybody on Earth.
heh...
used to be that alienated geeks and nerds take their revenge on jocks and society by becoming rampaging gunman at the school caferteria
now they join the jihadist movement.
what is the world coming to?
The arxos school of thought is typical of the Bushitler mindset. Even though the jihadis openly (in the same thread) threaten to kill everyone who won't convert, arxos can only whine about tolerance. Islam has no tolerance, but the arxos of the world refuse to see, even when the jihadis post ahead of them their plain intentions.
During the Cold War, Hollywood put out a movie, "My Son John" with the subject of a young man with emotional problems who converted to Communism. Its worth a look if only to see some of Helen Hayes best work.
To comment on K.C.'s excellent question way up wonder. In the materialist view the Christian reformation was brought about by changeing economic relations, namely the emergence of capitalism in Europe. Lutherans, Calvanist and my personel favorites Methodist were a respose to new needs brought about by these changing economic relations.
The Catholic church was , and in my view still to this day, a dogmatic institution that trys to center the world aroung it's self. It was intolerant and persecutive. So the Christian Reformations was a breath of new ideals and honesty injected into the religious scene.
Wahhabism is a poor parrallel to the Christian Reformations. It is dogmatic and persecutive and intolerant to new ideals, much like the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages.
The only constructive " reformation " of Islam is it's abolition. Which will happen if Muslims keep trying to shut themselves off from the modern world and social progress.
Wesley
Susan B
"I make copies of postings from people such as Arxos, Reza, Mahmoud. I send them to the local newspapers, the news stations..."
Good tactic. They won't print or broadcast any of it, but it's comforting to know that the useless lying bastards will be deluged with Islamic spew anyway.
Infidel,
Where it has made a change is with the churches in my area and with my friends, who in turn have passed this along.
I mentioned I have friends in Germany and in the Philippines, in Germany its a police officer in Nuremberg and in the P.I. is a ship captain, but neither one of them get the type of info we have here.
They now come to this site for info.
Your right about the news services, but I plan to keep on pestering the hell out of them.
I absolutely will not be silent. I really believe if enough people flood the New York Times for instance, with the postings we have here and other sites, maybe some lights will start to come on inside their tiny little P.C. brains.
Do the posters (and posers) have any thoughts on the late Edward Said's theory of "Orientalism" and whether it's simply been mis-interpreted or co-opted to justify bad political behavior the way Darwin's theory was morphed into "Social Darwinism" to justify bad ethical behavior? Is it possible that just as the principle of self-fulfilling prophecy might support an economic minority's tendency to remain in the welfare state, it might also explain why the extremists seem to be playing some sort of "role" as in Lee Harris's notion of terrorism as a narcissistic opera, not a war. I can't help but see parallels between Sax Rohmner's fictional character Fu Manchu and Osama Bin Laden - right down to the inexhaustible personal fortune, the "cells" ready to strike anywhere in the world, and the mountain hideouts. Are these simply dangerous lunatics who have read too much of their own fiction and ours - the way an American lunatic might get ideas from too much TV or Video Games? Or has Said's "Let Easterners be Eastern" been twisted into "Let Arabs be Savages" to the point where the Arab or Persian or Pakistani or Malaysian lunatics have assimilated it along with cigarettes, Playboy, and online dating. Look at it this way: How many of us know native-born Americans, several generations removed from Europe, who dismiss their womanizing as a legacy of their Italian or Spanish "heritage" or attribute their intemperance to their Irish "heritage" or their predilection toward domestic violence as part of their Greek or Eastern European "makeup".
Any thoughts? Said's considerable lifetime achievement's not withstanding, I'm afraid it will take several decades for time to buff the inexplicable anti-semitism that tarnishes most of his work down to a quaint patina, as it has done for Lincoln's apparent segregationism and Franklin's seemingly anti-Italian sentiments. I for my part remain a Bernard Lewis (and Dr. Seuss)disciple.
"There are worse crimes than burning books, and one of them is not reading any." - Joseph Brodsky
Susan B
Good stuff, that's the way to win this war. The Islamic torture cult have been running their propaganda machine for years, they're up to full speed now, but we're only just getting started. It'll take a while for us to get the truth about what's in the Koran known to the public, but when we do, we'll be in a good position.
Phil B
See Hugh's demolition of Said on another thread. (I can't remember which one, but it was in the last three or four days.) Personally, I won't be bothering to read Said, as the carefully staged photos of him throwing stones at the IDF were so hilarious that I could never take him seriously. A 'poser' indeed.
Phil - cut and paste this.
http://www.geocities.com/orientalismorg/Kerr.htm
It's a review of Said's book by Malcolm Kerr, an American Arabist who grew up in Beirut and later got his PhD from Johns Hopkins. He eventually returned to Beirut as the president of the American University there. Assassinated in the 80s. Father of Steve Kerr, former guard for the Spurs.
Assumed from the Trotsky quotation that you'd want an academic source and not a JihadWatch hobbyist.
Why do arab names - reza, azziz, ahmed - all sound like sneezes?
I know. It must be because of Bushari vol.4, no.516.
"Satan stays in the upper part of the nose all night."
stupid religion
Ka-poret-
What about Arab Christians?
You ignorant piece of...
What about those arab "christians"? Have you PESONALLY investigated exactly what they believe about Jesus, the Jews, et al? Or are you just being ignorant and exclusive yourself?
I have no issue with you, Jeff. My issue(s) are with muslims. Keep the subject simple.
Wesley
For all our faults, we Catholics (and I think I can speak for the overwhelming majority) would prefer you not lump us in with radical Islam. In case you didn't hear, we have had many reform movements throught the centuries starting with the Council of Trent to deal with the abuses in our Church that brought on the Protestant Reformation all the way through Vatican II of the 1960's and the current process to deal with the clegy abuse scandel.
I happen to like some of the stuff I read about Wesley. He certainly seems more learned and undertstanding of other faiths than you. I think we (those of us against Jihad) need to stick together and learn what each other's faith is before we lump it in with radical Islam.
Infidel23,
I implied somewhat that Said's books should be seen (on the bookshelf)and not read, at least for the time being. Funny, how he seemed to blame everything on the Jews (or more to the point, Israel)but his family's problems began and ended with moving to Egypt, a schizophrenic democracy to say the least.
I still insist that we should look to his lifetime achievement and cut him some slack. Remember that the author of "Utopia", St. Thomas More, never missed a public execution...in fact, supposedly according to an eyewitness, the more barbaric, the better.
Thanks for your feedback!
First, a grand cheer goes out from me to Ibn Rushd: Post under TEST COMMENTS by: Ibn Rushd at June 1, 2004 08:19 PM
Jeff Commented:"How do you propose we take on radical Islam? I never see this addressed in this forum. And please dont say "nuke the bastards."
Posted by Jeff at June 2, 2004 04:39 AM
Hello, Jeff, and all who are reading Jihad Watch.
My thinking in response to your discussion query: There are three levels upon which to be constantly aware when we communicate as individuals, as suggested in outlined further under headings below: Intellectual-Emotional/Spritual-Political. The government administrations are doing their jobs as they can best see to do them. We must do ours as individual citizens. These are both personal roles for all citizens everywhere functioning where they are "on the ground"; and also, these are official roles--we are citizens as well as personal individuals. Our official government role is as a citizenry; part of this is as electorate, but there is more to being an active citizen.
For people such as we, we have a ground level battle, our "battle on the ground". Each individual who becomes active within his/her own circle of life, creates a powerful force of the mind, the heart, and the will to do either one thing or another. As is already happening, we can do more to use the internet web, use email distribution, speak on the telephone, send photocopies to those we know who are not yet on the internet, engage publications and television media with the kind of relevant information we have individually to share, and by example encourage others also to share. This is how I believe an individual American citizen functions best within our system of America's Democratic Republic. Public demonstrations are legal, however, I believe that across the spectrum of our society, it carries a negative "begging" kind of effect, instead of carrying a positive, reasonable discussion and/or debate on any issue of importance.
We can best approach the communication of ideas and further discussion, therefrom, in a tri-lateral way, I believe, or in other relevant ways that come to the mind of each individual at every level of endeavor in our daily lives, who enters into the battle of hearts and minds at home and abroad:
Intellectual Level: Educate the U.S. and World Public generally, about the history and nature of first, Islam, and second Arabia (many different national names throughout history), on all positive as well as negative points. Include the failures historically and spiritually of the use of religion by the past "Holy Church of the Roman Empire". This education will happen by tidbits on the internet such as Jihad Watch and other sites provide, because a whole gulp at a time is hard to digest. If one runs such a personal site, make certain for the first-comers what/why the site is available--i.e., "where do you stand in the War on Terror?"
Emotional/Spiritual Level: Remove purely humiliating, insulting, and character attacks upon those with whom one disagrees. Take a circumspect approach to all comments made, as this appeals to the native intelligence of the reader, who will make up his/her mind solely based upon the merits of the comments made. Without the negative approach that inflames the personal sense of self in others, the reader is able to cut passed the emotional level to the rational, and understand intellectually what is being said. Even if the reader disagrees with your comments, there is little the reader can openly admit to either accepting or rejecting--because circumspection indicates there was already a balanced argument given. Negative emotion closes doors, positive and well-founded statements (backed up by sound reasoning, not mere platitudes and longitudes, as one said well).
Political Level: Provide sound reasoning that is circumspect, also, as to why when push comes to shove, America and the *War on Terror Coalition* as a whole, is both prepared and willing to continue taking the fight to the enemy. Make clear why there is an enemy, rather than allowing any P.C. (politically correct) expression, by defining clearly the arguments themselves, whether making references to religions or races, or nationalities. Focus on the behaviors carrying consequences, in explaining why this war is necessary, and why America will stand vigilant and ready to act on the required consequences.
On all three levels of expression to others, include as many others as you find it reasonable and acceptable for you to "speak to", whether friends, family, politicians, statesmen (there is indeed a difference from politicians), local government authorities, church affiliates, college publications, etc., etc.
We are at the ground roots level in America of the War on Terror, of helping to educate in a serious way, the public in America and around the globe. But we must remember to be circumspect and non-inflammitory in order to get a successful transmission of information. Homeland Security included in its foundational purpose, how all Americans can become involved in the protection of America: do what we can while being alert, being vigilant, and also, I think that it means communicating at levels meaningful in our individual lives, whether phoning an FBI agent of suspicious activity, or letting others know why--and how we see things as we do. It is certainly something "we" as citizens can do--and are doing right here, and can do more across the spectrum of America, too. This is how individual citizens, our of many "one", at home can do their part, while others joined at the front of the battlefields do their part, while public officials do their part, and while America becomes more and more understanding of the eternal vigil that keeps the principles of freedom always in the forefront.
Carry on the role of the citizenry!
Thanks, Jeff, I'd forgotten the review, which served as my intro to Said. Thanks to you, I've bookmarked it for permanent reference.
Kerr's assasination,a staggering loss to both East and West, should have been part of the larger wake-up call...
Ka-poret-
I live in East Beirut. I sometimes go to a Maronite church. I spent a day recently with a strange but nice priest in a Damascus church.
What do they think about Jesus? They're Christians, for godsake. Most don't like Israel because of its brutal occupation of Lebanon. And some of those are probably unable to separate the actions of the Israeli state from the Jewish religion. This is unfortunate.
You're the one who's displaying ignorance. Nothing about the Middle East is simple - especially the substantial Arab Christian poplulation.
Jeff --
Israel's brutal occupation of Lebanon? HELLO...what about Syria? Been there how many decades?
Not everyone who call him or herself Christian is one, Jeff. Surely you must realize that. Arafat has called himself a nominal Christian in certain speeches he's given. His latest wife, Hanah, is a Palestinian Christian who advocates the genocide of Jews. Most Coptics have a completely different view of Christianity as compared to Western teachings, so do Maronites, etc. Am I excusing Jews for their arrogance? By no means. In fact, I do not think that 90% of today's Jews, regardless of where they live, have the slightest idea of who the God of the bible is. The only ones who do know the God of the OT is the karaites. Oh boy, can't wait to see the attack on that statement.
I am not interested in fighting with you, Jeff. I was not intending to insult all Arabs. My comment was specifically intended to the muslims.
What "brutal occupation of Lebanon" is meant here? Last I looked, the Israelis had foolishly left, and hardly did enough to protect their allies in the SLA. The only "brutal occupation" that there ever was in Lebanon was that which was, and is, and will be unless the American government does something -- that of the Alawite-officered troops of Syria.
There are Christians who have accepted, and internalized, the Muslim view of things. Certainly, if they did think otherwise, they would hardly advertise it when living in Muslim-dominated Lebanon. But I assure "Jeff" that there are many Maronites who do not look with disfavor on Israel at all. The vast out-migraton of Lebanese Christians beginning more than a century ago was, in fact, the result of a desire to leave a world where, as potential dhimmis, one was always insecure.
See, online, what Habib Malik, Walid Phares, the World Lebanese League all have to say about Islam, and about Israel. Most Maronites, keenly aware of the permanent threat of Islam, understand perfectly well that Israel is a natural ally, and perhaps, ever since the French abandoned their historic role of protecting Christians in Lebanon and Syria, their only sure guarantee. That does not mean that they openly express that, especially to a foreigner (who might be a Syrian agent), or indeed anywhere in public, given the Syrian presence. But once Syria is out of Lebanon, the expression of quite other views will no longer be limited to the very brave. There is no downside to criticizing Israel, either in Damascus or Beirut (and especially to those of whom one is unsure), but criticism of Syria, or of Islam, or failure to criticize Israel -- well, that is another story.
A book that might be consulted, about the various strategies that different groups of dhimmis have devised over the centuries for dealing with their Muslim masters, is "Islam and Dhimmitude," by Bat Ye'or. Another is "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam." Still a third is the important, still untranslated study by Antoine Fattal, a Maronite, "Le status legal des non-musulmans en pays d'Islam." Bat Ye'or notes that despite the similiarity of the regime to which they were all subjected by their Muslim overlords, neither Christians and Jews, nor even the various Christian communities among themselves, could find ways to present a common front. Instead, they sought to curry favor and therefore, survival, from their Muslim overlords, and often were indifferent to, or even felt some relief from, Muslim persecutions directed at other dhimmis. The Greek Orthodox, noticeably chillier in Lebanon toward Israel than the Maronites, have also not always demonstrated solidarity with the Maronites (think of the Damur massacre, a much greater atrocity than what the Christians did, and probably in direct revenge for Damur, to the Muslim Arabs (by no means all of those killed were "Palestinian" Arabs)in Shatila and Sabra.
When the Armenians were killed, and it was not only by Turks but by Kurds and Arabs as well, no other Christian sect came to their aid or protested. Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Copts, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Armenians, as well as Jews, were each more or less on their own, and each distinct group exhibited a sauve-qui-peut attitude.
So great, so unrelenting, so endless, has been the pressure of Islam, that Christians in the Middle East, including non-Arab Christians, sometimes adopt, and internalize, Muslim attitudes. It is a pscychic mechanism for survival. Some of the same people, once safely out of the MIddle East, shed those attitudes (and some, of course, do not).
The varieties of survival techniques vary. Ba'athism, so wrongly seen as deeply distant from Islam, was originally the brainchild of a Syrian Christian, Michel Aflaq. What better way to find a place, in the Muslim Arab sun, for Christians (now that the Ottoman Empire had collapsed), than an ideology that would be akin to, and overlap in its attitudes, with Islam, but not be expressly limited to Muslims. That was Ba'athism, which while not nearly as secular as Ataturkism, at least made room for Christians in an Arab version of fascism, with bits of Communist and Nazi ideology thrown in.
Similarly, many of the Christian Arabs under the PLO's sway -- Naim Ateek, Hanan Ashrawi, the gunrunning Hilarion Cappucci (Kapudji, lest one think him Italian) -- have accepted, and promoted, the Muslim agenda of pushing back, and then eliminating Israel. They are not really thinking about the future of Christianity in that area (for if Israel goes, so does the only guarantee of a significant, and non-dhimmi, Christian presence in the area). Plus arabe que les arabes, each has internalized, and reflects, attitudes which are Muslim in their world-view, and in the agenda they aid so assidulously, and sometimes not without cunning effect. Their main service is to provide a facade that will disugise the classic Jihad against Israel, and its ultimate aim (the elimination of an Infidel sovereign state in the midst of dar al-Islam) as nothing more than a clash of "two nationalisms," a This wins them acceptance, of a sort, and for a "battle of two tiny peoples, each struggling for its homeland"..blah blah blah.
I would recommend, for those who wish to see a clear and piercing and reasoned call for Middle Eastern Christians to see that their fate was akin to that of the Jews, and that they had a stake in supporting Zionism, that "Islam and Dhimmitude" be consulted. In that book, there is a lengthy discussion of the relations of the various dhimmi commmunities, and of how they were set one against the other. There is also, as Appendix 3 to that book, and in a different form, as an appendix in "The Dhimmi," the remarkable appeal made by a group of Christian clergymen and church officials in the MIddle East, to the United Nations. As Bat Ye'or notes, during the 1940s a Christian movement in Lebanon looked forward to a Christian state, in alliance with a Jewish state to its south. (see pp. 177-178). This appeal by Christians for "A Homeland for Christians of the Near East" was written by Mubarak (not to be confused with the appeaser, Abbe Yoakim Moubarac)." Along with Bat Ye'or's indispensable works, more can be found in Walid Phares' "Lebanese Christian Nationalism," and in the eloquent writings of Habib Malik, son of Lebanon's greatest modern political figure, Charles Malik.
The young people that I meet have a strong feeling of hate for muslims.It doesn't matter that their teachers are telling them to embrace islam because 9/11 had the biggest effect on this group.I'm pretty sure that the younger generations will end up exterminating islam if it's not done before they take power.
Hugh, enjoyed your astute discussion about the Middle East and religious issues. I have comments on two items in your statement.
1) Hugh's Comments:
The land known today as Israel originally was carved out and given to the Jewish people in that region, when Great Britain determined that they should have a land they could call their own homeland. Somewhere in the distant past, Israel became "no more". In so doing, G.B. designated the boundaries for Israel, and for the Palistineans.
Clearly, Israel in the latter 20th Century violated the lands set aside for the Palestinians, by settlements that were built there by intruding citizens of Israel. Then in more recent years, Israel runs patrols in Palestinian lands, to enforce this encroachment upon territory not belonging to Israel according to the modern establishment by Great Britain. The result has been a bloody, neverending story--indeed a brutal occupation, that remains the most outstanding criticism of Israel around the world today. While many Americans understand and sympathize both sides of the issue, this one point about sovereign rights is not lost. Also, it is not America's place to intervene overtly, and can only advise or mentor on certain points, I think, particularly since both sides have violated diplomatic agreements. Where Al Queda may be involved, however, we may see other action having nothing to do with legal land boundaries.
2) Hugh's Comments:
If it is an agenda of the Palestinians to not only push Israel back into it's own boundary lines, but to push them out altogether as "infidels", then this is an issue where Palestinians are as wrong as Israel. "Can't we all live and let live?" Also, if this is a true agenda, then we may also see some future American action respecting the sovereignty of Israel, albeit handed to them by Great Britain--it's established for many decades now, and we need to begin somewhere in arriving at a resolution for all concerned.
Some people think that the "Israelites" as defined in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, means symbolically, and perhaps in reality (reincarnation/resurrection), all humans living under universal spiritual laws applying to all, regardless of sectarian beliefs and practices. Just another line of thought that is out there.
REPOSTING: Character used to set off my response was not accepted by the program, so have added quotes here to clarify. My apologies.... RE: Posted by Cathari at June 2, 2004 07:06 PM
__________
Hugh, enjoyed your astute discussion about the Middle East and religious issues. I have comments on two items in your statement.
1) Hugh's Comments:
"The land known today as Israel originally was carved out and given to the Jewish people in that region, when Great Britain determined that they should have a land they could call their own homeland. Somewhere in the distant past, Israel became "no more". In so doing, G.B. designated the boundaries for Israel, and for the Palistineans."
Cathari:
Clearly, Israel in the latter 20th Century violated the lands set aside for the Palestinians, by settlements that were built there by intruding citizens of Israel. Then in more recent years, Israel runs patrols in Palestinian lands, to enforce this encroachment upon territory not belonging to Israel according to the modern establishment by Great Britain. The result has been a bloody, neverending story--indeed a brutal occupation, that remains the most outstanding criticism of Israel around the world today. While many Americans understand and sympathize both sides of the issue, this one point about sovereign rights is not lost. Also, it is not America's place to intervene overtly, and can only advise or mentor on certain points, I think, particularly since both sides have violated diplomatic agreements. Where Al Queda may be involved, however, we may see other action having nothing to do with legal land boundaries.
2) Hugh's Comments:
"If it is an agenda of the Palestinians to not only push Israel back into it's own boundary lines, but to push them out altogether as "infidels", then this is an issue where Palestinians are as wrong as Israel. "Can't we all live and let live?" Also, if this is a true agenda, then we may also see some future American action respecting the sovereignty of Israel, albeit handed to them by Great Britain--it's established for many decades now, and we need to begin somewhere in arriving at a resolution for all concerned."
Cathari:
Some people think that the "Israelites" as defined in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, means symbolically, and perhaps in reality (reincarnation/resurrection), all humans living under universal spiritual laws applying to all, regardless of sectarian beliefs and practices. Just another line of thought that is out there.
Gary, Hugh and Cathari-
The quality of posts on this thread is excellent. People are thinking and reading and not just selectivly throwing out information that fits their ideologies. JihadWatch is an excellent resource, and more threads should go like this.
Thank you, Jeff, for your kind comments. I apologize to Hugh for the mess-up with my last posting--and "reposting". Duh??? I do think Jihad Watch is excellent from top to bottom, and I do not post much on the internet. This, I do feel is worthwhile.
Even when we may disagree with what other say, we benefit in having our own views challenged, enlarged upon, and clarified.
Regards,
Cathari
As a self-conscious conservator of the Christian Reformation and student of political ideas, I would note several things about a possible "Islamic Reformation".
The fundamental (word intentionally chosen) issue is what the foundational text(s) offer.
The Reformation was not the exaltation of the individual conscience over all things, no matter what 20th century liberal theologians may have said. The Reformation exalted the Bible over church tradition, subjecting tradition (and individual conscience) to Scriptural criticism. As Luther said, "My conscience is captive to the Word of God"--not "The Word of God must bow to my conscience."
Part of this, at least in the Reformed wing of Protestantism (the stream that followed Zwingli, Calvin, and British Puritanism) was to note that the Bible has a very ambiguous view of governmental power--including (a) admonitions to obedience (b) reminders that the Word of God trumps the word of earthly authority, (c) that the unchecked power of the king could and would do a lot of damage to the people (I Samuel 8), (d) governments were established by covenants, and (e) the teaching of Deuteronomy 17 that the king in Israel would be subject to Torah. This is a large part of what launched the whole idea of limited government in early modern Europe--a tradition on which Americans built.
A great deal of Christian mistrust for unchecked government (it appears in Catholic writers such as Suarez, Covarruvias, Soto, and Mariana as well as in such Protestants as Calvin, Beza, Rutherford, Althusius, Ponet, Goodman, and Buchanan) stems from the doctrine of original sin, which holds that since the fall of Adam, all humans are born with a bent towards evil; hence Samuel Rutherford (1644) declared "Ominpotency in one that can sin is an accursed power." Note that many Reformed churches also instituted systems of church polity in which the congregation actually voted on its pastor and elders.
As far as Islam goes, it seems that the Qu'ran does not present the long historical overview offered in the Old and New Testaments (39 OT and 27 NT books in one Scripture may be why Muslims mistakenly believe there are conflicting "Bibles"); nor does Islam have a mistrust of human nature that would seek to institutionalize checks on power. Hence, I reserve judgment on what a new Islamic "Reformation" that goes beyond Wahabbism would accomplish.
I greatly appreciate Hugh's historical depth.
Also, there's much to be said that it's the spoiled rich kids who make and join revolutions. They're also the especially destructive revolutionaries. Mao Zedong came from a family of prosperous landowners; and Pol Pot's family was wealthy enough to send him to France to study (it was there, not in China or Russia, that he learned his Marxism).
Kepha:
"This is a large part of what launched the whole idea of limited government in early modern Europe--a tradition on which Americans built."
"Early modern Europe"--in what time-frame? The American Democratic Republic was formed and established in the late 18th Century. Principles about this was discussed, debated, and written about in circulars in the American Colonies long before the Declaration of Independence in 1776. These principles arose out of the experience of and observations about the still occuring persecution in European countries, that led serious religious believers both to separate from certain protestant religions and to cross the ocean to the New World as it was known then. "Limited government" is a broad term, because there was no secular democracy prior to 1776 and the subsequent establishment of the American system of government. However, to be clear, the establishment of a "secular government" with separation of church and state, while it was also because of the errors of the past in Europe at the time the limited one's religious practice and expression, those who talked up the revolution and formed the government in America were Deists above all; that is, they believed in a Supreme Deity, where human freedoms must prevail, with individuals functioning in accordance with their conscience, or that which they knew best to think and do.
Kepha:
"....nor does Islam have a mistrust of human nature that would seek to institutionalize checks on power. Hence, I reserve judgment on what a new Islamic "Reformation" that goes beyond Wahabbism would accomplish."
I agree with you Kepha, in that a "Reformation" based upon the writings of Islam is unlikely. I think that the only reformation would most likely come from within individual Islamists, who have experienced something greater within themselves than that which they see "leaders of extremism" espousing and doing, and greater than all the writings of the religion. "The Kingdom of God is within." That is the power of transcendence, from which many protestant religions arose, when the Christian Reformation also failed. The "Reformation" was about changing things within the established Christian Church of the time, the Medieval form of the Roman Church. (btw, I grew up a devout Roman Catholic. I continue to respect tenets I know to be truly universal in application to all humans, however, no longer practice the faith due to other manmade ideas of the religion.)
Phil:
"there is a historical account as early as the tenth century where a landowner was tried by a jury of his peers - for the murder of a slave."
Hey, Phil--thanks for your comments. I appreciate the exchange. I am older than you are! Not flashing any pedigree, but in text communication it does help some people to understand some dimension of experience, and that is why some are willing to say anything at all about their background.
As you would find in the Federalist Papers, etc., of course, my basis concerning the separation of church and state goes way back to the Roman Empire that had impact even in the 17th Century, because of church authorities carrying legal authority--still. My use of the term "secular" was simply to define the American Democratic Republic for what it was intended to be, with a separation of church and state, in order to avoid, prevent, disallow for all to know as legal authority any rule by virtue of anyone's personal religious beliefs. I.e., the Pope had no say, just as the preachers had no say when it came to elections and policy making; the only say was an individual holding office, functioning from that which he thought himself, which could include personal religious beliefs, but carrying no further weight than conscience in his secular endeavors.
Note: I am certainly NOT in favor of any idea in America today of removing any vestiges of religious symbols as the ACLU is doing!! This is wrong, but not part of this discussion. Just a point of background dimension.
People wanted religious freedom in the New World. The Deists were not secularists; they were spiritual thinking and feeling men (and women, though without the vote). No--not at all like saying one is agnostic or free thinker. A Deist is someone who may or may not ascribe to a particular religious denomination or system of beliefs and practices. However, above all, the Supreme Deity, with supreme intelligence pervading the universe, is recognized as a fact of life, just as the Sun revolves around the Earth. This is what the Deists believed. If you re-read the language used even the Declaration of Independence, you will get an added understanding. Being spiritual is not necessarily a matter of religion, and the nature of spirituality reigns higher on the scale of morals and integrity as a human being, than manmade dogma of any religion.
So, it seems to me that we are simply discussing unrelated points mostly, neither wrong within the framework of our personal views.
I have become concerned today that perhaps the "comment" function of Jihad Watch has become too much of a chat room for the available bandwidth, and if so, Mr. Spencer if you see this, please let us know what is preferred! Thank you. If I do not hear from you in another day or so on this, I will write through the email section. Your site is excellent!
Kepha:
"This is a large part of what launched the whole idea of limited government in early modern Europe--a tradition on which Americans built."
Cathari:
"Early modern Europe"--in what time-frame? The American Democratic Republic was formed and established in the late 18th Century."
The Magna Carta: A contract concerning religious group who traveled to the New World.
A Trial by Jury: A concept for judging the guilt or innocence of a crime.
From the time when Plato wrote *Republic* to the time when Sir Francis Bacon wrote "The New Atlantis", when was there ever a Democratic Republic, until after 1776 in America? Even the democracy of Greece was not a Republic, where there were divisions of responsibility with certain checks and balances, the branches having the ability to "check and balance" each other in prescribed processes.
Limited government: The kind of people who established the American Democratic Republic, however, would be the kind of people who might have promoted such an idea earlier in Europe, where it was not yet possible to take root even by the 17th and 18th Centuries. The term "limited government" is broad, but perhaps having a fair jury trial was one step in the right direction.
Just further thoughts, as generally speaking, and perhaps even specifically, the monarchies even by the 18th Century, would not be considered "limited governments", in the sense that I was referencing myself, at least. Guess I'll have to leave it there! It is important to understand the relevance in today's world, I believe.
Cathari and others: I was writing about the 16th and 17th centuries and the movement historians once called "monarchomach"--"strikers of monarchs"--because it challenged the then-novel idea of royal absolutism. The ones I am most familiar with are the Calvinists, whom I think I listed--although I gave a nod to the Roman Catholics as well.
As for Plato, while I wholeheartedly recognize he taught moral limits to government, his faith in a class of guardians and plan for their education outlined in _The Republic_ is just as much part of the history of 20th century totalitarianism as it is of American constitutionalism.
As for deists, they believed in a "God", but denied his providential rule. In this, they occupied a middle ground between the Arminians and Unitarians on the one hand, and modern agnosticism on the other.
Don't bet on universal human values. There'll always be totalitarians, tribalists, Islamofascists, etc. to shock you.
Hello, Kepha,
Thanks for your additions about limited government. Have never heard of abstractions, monarchomach or strikers of monarchs. It doesn't sound like the history I've studied.
I disagree absolutely with the connection between Plato's utopian *Republic* and totalitarianism. The utopia is unattainable in the human condition, however, the principles are sound. "A government of philosophers", is a government formed by philosophers, which is the history of the foundation of the American Democratic Republic. The definition alone of "totalitarian" does not apply either in reality or an abstraction.
There is indeed no providential rule of God in human affairs; humans create human conditions. God's laws, however, are involved in the process, however, where consequences are impersonal but effectual, given the actions and intent of the causes. The law of gravity would be an example of a universal law; add to it the motive of someone dropping something upon another that murders or kills, involves additional universal laws. Universal laws are not manmade, but can be perceived in action, of one pays attention.
Agnosticism does not apply to the Deists! One is either a Deist or is not (even subscribing to a fundamentalist religion or not subscribing to a religion at all). An agnostic would not be a Deist, because he would not know if there is a Supreme Deity. However, an agnostic may be thinking of the Deity as anthropomorphic, and thus, cannot believe in such a God. If an agnostic believes in a supreme intelligence pervading the universe, such as in pantheism, then he is not truly an agnostic, but doesn't know it; in fact, though, he believes in a Supreme Diety pervading the universe built upon laws applying equally within equal conditions.
Also, the Deists didn't fill any "middle ground". They simply believed in a Supreme Deity pervading the universe, etc., etc.
This is how I think on these points.
Dear Kepha,
I am required to respond here to your very kind off-list email, because try as I did repeatedly, my Outlook Express would shut down whenever I attempted to send my reply. Some things are edited from this, therefore, but this is the primary response, with my expressed interest in the bibiography concerning terms you used that I had never heard. Thank you!
I must tell you that my only point of reference to your views is in terms that you use. You strike me as someone who takes a position about America that many foreigners have used throughout its history: imperialism, capitalism, and now the big one on the globe today--totalitarianism. Something seems backwards here. Webster's New World Dictionary: totalitarian--designating, of, or characteristic of a government or state in which one political party or group maintains complete control and illegalizes all others. totalitarianism--totalitarian government, doctrines, etc.
If it isn't your intention to confuse people's ideas about your meaning, would you please help us all to understand why you apply the term "totalitarianism" to America, as well as to Plato's Republic. It is entirely off-target and one wonders why this is.
Would you be so kind as to also define "royal absolutism"? To be generous in understanding why a Reformist promoted royal absolutism and was forced to flee for his life, I can only put myself into the situation with my imagination, and think that he was opposing the authority of the Pope in the Middle Ages (Dark Ages) with the Inquisition, and the next step away from there was to get to divine providence, which finally was claimed by King Henry VIII in order to pull away from the grasp of Rome in England, and other monarchs soon followed suit. However, even "royal absolutism" becomes tyranny under a monarchy, especially when there is no representation of the people in policy making. This is more "totalitarian" in a major sense than is America ever. But, too, at that point in history, it was an idea for a step in the right direction.
Yes, thank you, Kepha, I would be very interested in seeing the bibliography you used in your dissertation.
Cathari