Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin, like Western politicians who pontificate about Islam, is not a Muslim. How does he know their interpretation of the Qur'an is wrong? Where can the correct interpretation be found? It is staggering how many people of influence repeat the mantras about Islam is peace and militant Islam is a hijacking of a great peaceful religion without ever bringing forward a tradition of Islam that abjures violence altogether, or an explanation of the Qur'an that refutes (not ignores, but refutes) the radical exegesis.
Some analysts have criticized my allies in this struggle and me because, they say, we are are bent on discrediting Islam itself, and that we have set the standard for Islamic moderation so high that no Muslim can meet it without apostasizing. They say we should encourage Muslim moderates who articulate a peaceful Islam even when their version of Islam takes little or none of the radical exegesis into account, and is utterly inadequate to refute it.
But this article shows the shoddy thinking that is involved in such criticism. Thaksin is blandly asserting, as so many others have also in the US and elsewhere, that Islamic terrorists are misinterpreting and misusing Islam. But the "correct" version has yet to assert itself. When moderates who, for whatever reason, do not respond properly to radical teachings are lionized and encouraged, the assertion of any true or effective moderate Islam is postponed yet again. Such moderates make their Western audiences feel reassured, but since they make no headway against the radicals it's a hollow reassurance.
We need moderate Muslims to wage rhetorical war against the radical version of Islam. But this needs to be done by people who are completely honest about the teachings of Islam on jihad and the treatment of non-Muslims, as well as honest about the sources of those teachings and the need for massive reform. Anything less, and we're just whistling in the dark with Prime Minister Thaksin.
From AP, with thanks to Ali Dashti:
BANGKOK - Islamic teachers in southern Thailand are 'brainwashing' students and there will be no quick end to the Muslim insurgency there, Thailand's Prime Minister said yesterday, while police reported four more slayings in the region's latest bloodshed.Several Muslim teachers have been arrested recently because of suspicions that they may be encouraging students to take part in the rebellion and many militants killed in fighting have been teenagers studying at religious schools.
'The problem is difficult to resolve because the religious teachers have been brainwashing people with the wrong interpretation of the Quran,' Mr Thaksin Shinawatra told journalists in Bangkok.
'It will take time to resolve the problem.'
More than 330 people have been killed in fighting this year in the three Muslim-dominated southern provinces of predominantly Buddhist Thailand.
This is one of those nonsense stories you will publish when you run out of lies.
A filthy infidel is commenting about something that is not his bussiness at all and you mis-use it like always to adovcate your deceptions of making divisions between Brother Muslims and engage them in war with each other so you can suck the world's oil more and how shamelessly you refuse to admit that you are the cause of all civil wars in Muslim countries but now again you foolishly showed what your real intensions are.
There must be no doubt in your ignorant that there is ONE Islam, with ONE Holy Koran which tells us to strike the infidels whenever we can and that shall be it.
Allahu Akbar
My dear Mahmoud:
"There must be no doubt in your ignorant that there is ONE Islam, with ONE Holy Koran which tells us to strike the infidels whenever we can and that shall be it."
My point exactly. So what would you say to a Muslim who argued that Islam is peaceful and that the Qur'an advocates nonviolence?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
None of his business? The leader of a country had every right to rid his poeple of the pestilence you represent. You are losing the struggle, oh mighty "warrior" who allows women and children to take rounds so that you might pretend to fight. You are indeed the great pretenders and slavemasters. Freedom will always win out which is why you are doomed.
And, btw, we are now down to less than 10% of US oil coming from the ME. Soon, we will allow the Chinese to finish he job we have started.
Mahmoud:
So for you there is no ahl al-dhimmi for those who are Ahl al-Kitab?
Are you then saying that this is what Clerics,Imams, Etc. are teaching to the umma in defiance of the Prophet Mohammed ?
I suspect as usual that there shall not be any answer that will come forward from you and the other distorters of the Quran.
The word hyprocrisy seems to escape the radicals who are trying to hijack Islam and reach out to adhere to that which expresses militancy in the Hadith or Suras. Once again you have ignored the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.
By the way he did love and treat his 10th wife with respect who was a Jew.
Reality is that which exists. Logic is the correct identification of reality.
Robert says: ". . .we are are bent on discrediting Islam itself. . ."
Robert is logical.
Actually, all we need to do is let people see the truth about Islam.
It's pretty much self-discrediting.
Muslims don't seem to need much encouragement from us to kill their 'Brothers', as Sunni and Shia have been at each others throats for centuries. Though it's amusing to see someone try and pin the blame for this awkward fact on us Evil Infidels.
Robert, these words were needed.
The furious comment of one Believer above confirms Ibn Warraq's remark that "there are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." And the expansive definition of what constitutes a "moderate" needs to be whittled down. It is not enough not to support Bin Laden, nor to support terrorism. It is not enough to refuse to support a Jihad intended to subjugate other, non-Muslim lands and peoples. It also requires a refusal to lie, or distort, or engage in painful and increasingly absurd apologetics about what is contained in the Qur'an, the hadith, and the sira (life of Muhammad).
Did Muhammad or did he not marry Aisha when she was 6, and consummate the marriage at 9? Apparently an eminent Shi'a theologian, the Ayatollah Khomeini, had no difficulty understanding that he did, for virtually his first act as the despot of Iran was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine? So whose Islam are we to believe -- that of the Ayatollah, or that of those who would have us believe either that the age was wrong, or that Muslims do not really follow the example of Muhammad, when in fact he is the model of perfection for all Muslims, or at least is supposed to be?
Another example: the attack, on massacre, on the peaceful Jewish farmers at the oasis of Khaybar, 100 miles from Medina. They had done nothing to Muhammad or his followers. They were completely inoffensive. They had not even sought, as they might have, vengeance for one of their own who had been killed. And even if one might make the case that some of those who resisted Muhammad in Mecca were, in a sense, "enemies of Islam," the Jews of Khaybar had not resisted, not opposed, not done anything. The massacre of those Jews represented, as Margoliouth says in his biography of Muhammad, a world-shaking change in Islam: now it was licit to attack all non-Muslims, merely because of the fact that they were non-Muslims. And is Khaybar a trivial matter, or does it resonate among Muslims? In other words, what is the meaning of Khaybar to hundreds of millions of Believers?
We have evidence that it means this: non-Muslims, you will be fought and subjugated, not for what you have done, but because you are non-Muslims, hence automatically an obstacle to the expansion of Islam and the power of the Believers. It is worth reminding oneself that Amrozi, one of the Indonesian terrorists, said at his hearing, or upon leaving the courtroom (I cannot remember precisely) that "Jews, remember Khaybar." In 2004, a man in Indonesia is telling the world, and he means every word: "Jews, remember Khaybar." Is he part of a small group? Does his understanding of Muhammad's life represent some strange misinterpretation, or does it represent what 1350 years of commmentary, and above all of Muslim attitudes, atmospherics, and action, show to be very much the guiding force?
Those who think that anything other than an admission, by "moderate" Muslims, of the truth about Islam, will help rescue Infidels -- who, after all, are the people we should be concerned about first, not with the fate of Muslims, "moderate" or otherwise -- because they cannot quite see how to deal with the matter otherwise, and they wish to "encourage" moderation (but if it is a "moderation" based either on ignorance of the doctrines of Islam, or deliberate and embarrassed obfuscation and denial, what is its ultimate worth) by going with what is available, instead of paying more attention to the testimony or, better, the temoignage, of such ex-Muslims as Ibn Warraq, should ask if Infidel audiences, in being mislead at a higher level, with some things admitted and other things still denied, are truly better off?
Some noted historians insist that they must, at all costs, retain their "effectiveness" which is one reason they are lukewarm in endorsing the work of others whom they regard as simply too forthright, or in a favorite epithet, too "polemical." And thus the epithet is affixed behind someone's back, and that someone does not realize how easy it is to be blacklisted, in an academic McCarthyism that prevents others, students and teachers, from actually considering the full extent of, for example, the institution of dhimmitude, and how in practice it has been applied in time and space. A great deal of work by others, at the moment forgotten -- Arthur Jeffery, Richard Gottheil, and Joseph Schacht for example are now non-persons at Columbia, which has gone from being one of the centers of the study of Islam to a place where, in effect, Islam cannot be truthfully studied at all -- needs to looked at, revived, republished. After all, the study of Islam does not date. Someone who in 1920 or 1930, did scholarly work on the Jihad, or on the jizya, or the kharaj, or on all sorts of other disabilities which were imposed on dhimmis (riding a donkey seems to be not much of a disability, unless you are trying to get from one village to the next 20 miles away). This will all come out, and it will be, or should be, a great and permanent embarrassment to many, not least to those whose idea of Middle Eastern studies is "the construction of the Palestinian identity" and/or "the Other in Western Orientalism." The time when people could still get away with this tendentious, pretentious, and worthless propaganda is, one hopes, coming to an end. Unfortunately, too many people are locked into tenure; that is why tenure needs to go, and a housecleaning of dangerous propagators of nonsense and lies be exposed and even removed where their behavior is too egregious. Nazis found it difficult to keep their posts in the 1930s, quite correctly. Those who systematically pretend that the doctrines of Islam are not the main motivation for almost everything in the Middle East, or that every local grievance against corruption, for example, is of course reframed into Islamic terms (so "corruption" is not simply "corruption" but it is "un-Islamic" and the al-Saud family become "Infidels" rather than merely corrupt rulers).
Again, a necessary appeal by Robert that there should not be a compromise with the truth, whether out a secret despair that this is the best that can be hoped for (these quasi-truths, uttered by quasi-moderates), in other words out of expediency rather than ignorance, or perhaps out of personal relations with a Muslim whom one believes is not sinister, but perhaps misinformed himself, or confused, or clinging out of filial piety to what he hopes Islam is, rather than what he knows hundreds of millions of others take it to be.
One's chief concern at this point, given the vast ignorance in the Infidel world, should be to truthfully enlighten those Infidels. Not all of those who would wish to participate in the enlightening process may possess the "authenticity" that "moderate" Muslims can provide. Some of them may merely be people with a taste for study and for lucubration. So what? If they know what they are talking about, whether it took them forty years, or three, and whether they possess the credentials of this credential-maddened age (as well believe that members of the M.L.A. have a monopoly on discussing literature -- if so, then literature is dead) or do not, is irrelevant. Do they know something? Have they read, have they studied? Does what they say make sense? Do they adduce evidence from the texts and from history? Are they trying to get at the truth, or simply to make everyone feel better? And if they are trying to tell the truth, and have no filial piety or academic connections or long-term career ambitions to inhibit them, they should just possibly be heeded, more than those who are so inhibited.
Hugh,
You hit the nail on the head. Your writing is brilliant as always.
Hugh,
Again you have shown the way. However, we can put the evidence in front of their noses, but will they be willing to get past the impediment of political correctness or, even, past the egomania which is often found in those with advanced degrees that spend the rest of their lives defending their thesis?
Our government, particularly the State Department is full of those people. And if we examine the faculties of universities, perhaps we will find a good many of those that are of same ilk. Both government and universitiy faculties could use a good dose of a "well rounded education," rather than the overblown nitpicking PH.D. programs that pass for education today.
As for Thailand's prime minister's comments. He has every right to comment on events his his country that he deems to be dangerous and bad. I find the comment of Mahmoud to be hypocritical for constantly commenting on matters that have nothing to do with he/she/it. But, as we still have freedom of speech, we all can and should offer our opinions, understanding that if Mahmoud's ideology takes hold, we wont have that luxury.
A filthy infidel is commenting about something that is not his bussiness at all and you mis-use it like always to adovcate your deceptions of making divisions between Brother Muslims and engage them in war with each other
Posted by: Mahmoud at August 21, 2004 11:05 AM
Guess you have not read the qu-ran How do you explain this ?
Ishaq:243 “I heard the Apostle say: ‘Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!’ He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks…. Allah sent down concerning him: ‘To those who annoy the Prophet there is a painful doom.” [9:61] “Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, ‘If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey’s.’”
This explains why they are killing Black Mulsums in the Sudan they only are useing them as slaves and now have no need for them and are now in the way?
Bukhari:V4B52N137 “The Prophet said, ‘Let the negro slave of Dinar perish. And if he is pierced with a thorn, let him not find anyone to take it out for him.... If he [the black slave] asks for anything it shall not be granted, and if he needs intercession [to get into paradise], his intercession will be denied.’”
Yes they feel the same about all who are not arabs?
And please explain how the Iraqis are being killed by the Iran's Terrorist they have sent to kill mulsums in Iraq?
Explaian how come the mulsums are killing mulsums in the Sudan?
Well they have picked a fight with people who will not stand still we fight back!!!!
Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen
PS
I was wondering where you had been hidding are you afraid of a cute little girl [ME] Why don't you write me any more I know you got in trouble but aren't you a man or just another FOLLOWER OF YELLOW MEN???
Mahmoud:
"There must be no doubt in your ignorant that there is ONE Islam, with ONE Holy Koran which tells us to strike the infidels whenever we can and that shall be it."
That dear friend Mohamoud, is precisely why we are here. About the "striking business" -- do give it your best shot and I will try to do the same.
Until we meet one day, a toast to your good health. In the mean time, I promise not to lose my head over the matter.
To mahmoud
You said: There must be no doubt in your ignorant that there is ONE Islam, with ONE Holy Koran which tells us to strike the infidels whenever we can and that shall be it.
I agree! Let the muslims declare war on us Infidels and let us Infidels teach you a lesson like you have never seen before.
We are not afraid to fight you. It is your cowardly brothers who hide inside holy mosques that are the problem. And then there are those "brave" muslims who have already been captured who cry like little girls every time they see the word "pork chop" written on a piece of paper. How they disgrace you and shame you.
Please, I beg of you, gather your brave muslims warriors and let our warriors confront them on a battle ground like real men so we can wipe every one of them off the face of earth.
No more cowardly suicide bombings against unarmed women and children. Step up like a man and let us introduce you to the allah you have been worshiping, his place of hell awaits you all....
I found this this article to be a very informative, and helpful to those who wish to
(try) and understand how the muslim mindset interprets Jihad.
And It makes for some very enlightening points. The article is in Front page magazine and is entitled "THE CENTRALITY OF JIHAD IN ISLAM" By Lawrence Auster August 20,2004. http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Mahmoud:
Give up your allegiance to a religion that is fatally flawed. A hundred years ago, it would'nt have mattered what a Muslim thought or did. But in a globalised world, the civilised world cannot tolerate for too long an ideology like Islam that is against modernity.
Islam and Muslims are in the way of a juggernaut, the Shiniest and Newest religion of them all - the Religion of Freedom. My advice to you Mahmoud and your fellow believers - get out of the way. There is no way you can win this Jihad/war that you have unleashed. So far, this new religion and its followers, have not wished to really hurt you, and hope you will see the error of Islam. But believe you me, the Religion of Freedom has no moral constraints and it will do anything. The only thing that matters to it, is its own survival.
Leave Islam before it is too late.
The following excerpt clearly delineates the twisted ideology of Jihad and properly identifies why the so called "moderate" Muslims refuse to face the truth about Islam.
The Centrality of Jihad in Islam
By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 20, 2004
"All thoughts of pacifying Islam by assimilating it into the global democratic system must fall down before a simple, terrible fact: Jihad—holy war against all non-Muslims—does not represent a mere excess or defect of Islam, but its timeless core. According to Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi (quoted recently at FrontPage Magazine), "Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world.... If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them." World peace, according to Islamic teaching, "is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam."
"Moreover, continues Tibi, when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of "opening" the world to Islam. "[T]hose who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."
"In other words, simply by the act of existing, the entire non-Islamic world is equated with war. That is why Muslims call it the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War. Yet when Muslims wage jihad, they are doing it to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So whatever Muslims do, is by definition peace, and whatever infidels do, is by definition war. This explains, by the way, why "moderate" Muslims almost never admit that Muslim terrorists are terrorists. It is because jihad itself is not war, but a way of pursuing peace. By such manipulations of language and such massive double standards, Islam reveals itself as a closed system that precludes any critical thought about itself, as well as any fair and honest dealings with non-Muslims."
This current situation in southern Thailand is a perfect example of what can be expected when the cancerous ideology of Islam spreads and metastasizes itself to yet another corner of the earth.
Wherever the scourge of Islam plants itself, it sows seeds of hate, death and destruction.
This once peaceful and tranquil country will now be wrought by bloodshed and violence, as the death cult of Islam marches on.
All Friday sermons must be translated in English or in the native language of the country. Secondly, one Surah a day must be recited with its translation. Imagine an Imam (Muslim priest) singing over a loudspeaker at five o’clock in the morning,
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day……(9.029)
And fight them on until….. there prevail…faith in Allah;(2.193)
Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you (9.123)
Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah (3.028)
I have no doubt in my mind that this process will work like a boomerang and help illustrating real Islam! http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SherKhan40810.htm
Some kind person ought to send Prime Minister Thaksin a book on the History of Buddhism which he would probably read - he obviously has never read the Qur'an. Then the Prime Minister can discover who wiped out Buddhism all over the planet. Yes, your 'peaceful and tolerant ' religion of ISLAM.
Mackie and Son of Infidel,
Auster's piece is just warmed-over Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer. It is completely derivative. Spencer has been saying all this for years, and Auster adds nothing new.
I recommend Spencer's books Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers to anyone who wants to know what is going on in the world today.
Miss Money Penny:
Austers Piece does give a quick synopsis to the muslim mindset in regards to the "Lesser Jihad"
And an absolute "ditto" on reading Robert Spencers books .
Posted by: Mahmoud at August 21, 2004 11:05 AM
What no answer? So you are afraid of a Girl how sad!!
Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen
PS
Hugh
Yes My Prayer is for all who fight with the gun or the pen with brain work any one who Fights to defeat this Evil that is set upon us All!!
To defeat it not postpone it for the grandchildren!
It is up to them [mulsum terrorist and supporters] how ugly it will be but defeated it will be!!!
God Bless the Countrys who have HERO'S!!!!
Pitty the countrys who need them?
Mahmoud:
Do yourself a favor, read Mr. Spencer's books, educate yourself on the history of Islam and how it spread by force, causing the diaspora of Zoroastrians from Iran, conversion by the sword in Asia and the western world.
And after you do that, and learn the truth about Islam, do yourself an even bigger favor and leave this mind control cult.