I got an email this morning from someone as full of moralizing as any old-fashioned schoolmarm:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -John Adams.While Mr. Spencer writes eloquently and persuasively as ever, his
arguments fly in the face of certain hard facts. In Yemen, Wahhabist
clerics have successfully picked up the al-Qae'da gauntlet and broken
the back of the jihadist movement by using the Koran to persuade
hundreds of captured hardcore al-Qaeda fighters exactly on the points
that Mr. Spencer voices his gravest doubts: Islam is a religion of
peace, bin Laden had abused the Koran, and tricked them into terrorism.
His evidence for this was at the bottom of his email: an old article called "Koranic duels ease terror," about which I commented here in February.
After a bit more moralizing, the emailer concludes:
What I don't understand is why Mr. Spencer ignores what appears to be a factual answer to his challenges, and a way out from a future Armageddon with one billion Moslems. It isn't like I haven't already sent the article to him already.
Well, obviously I didn't ignore it, but I write this now to call attention to a different point: the article "Koranic Duels Ease Terror" on which this gentleman places so much hope, is like many others in that it makes the assertion that jihadists are being converted to peace via the Qur'an without explaining how it is being done. No one has yet produced an explanation of how it can be done or is being done -- which stubborn fact casts doubt on the very assertion that it is being done at all.
As I said yesterday, if you know of someone or some group that is doing this, please send me the information. I know there are many groups claiming that Islam is peaceful, with varying degrees of sincerity. I don't know of any that are even seriously attempting to mount a refutation of the jihadist exegesis of the Qur'an and Sunnah. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
I'd stop Muslim immigration and eliminate the most radical elements of the ulema before jumping straight to Armageddon. But that's just me. I'm happy to hear pro-Armageddon arguments to see if I can be swayed.
Even Kuwaiti Muslims defending the concept of jihad admit the Koran and Sira preach violence.
The pesky minority of misunderstanders strikes again!
The consistency of the propaganda, outright lies, and half truths used by Muslims on a daily basis should be commended. They know how to stick to the playbook. Ask a Muslim in Kuwait a question and you get the same answer as if you'd asked a Muslim in Hamtramck, Michigan or London. "It's the minority of misunderstanders (who keep reading the darn books)."
Of course a good Muslim would favor interpretation by the Education Ministry of Kuwait over the actual Koran (just a book so 'holy' you can't touch it), sharia, Hadith, and Sira commonly found in libraries and on the Internet.
/I wish
There are always those who really, really want to believe that Islam is not the vile and perverted cult that it is. Indeed, for most people in the West it is inconceivable that about 700 to 800 million Mohammedans are illiterate and live below the poverty line, thanks to the dirty prophet and the Koranic conquest-ideology. And please do not forget that their Saudi 'brothers' have squandered 10 trillion dollars without helping their Muzzie friends even the tiniest bit, apart from building mosques and madrassahs for further indoctrination.
For King Tolerance I post this one again, just in case:
King: I am not Muslim. I am a do-gooder. I reject that all Muslims are bad and that Islam is an evil religion. Those people who distort and act upon radical beliefs are bad.
Terminator: Standard Muzzie lies, appeasement, obfuscation.
"You claim to understand, clearly, what ther Koran means, yet you probably wouldn't even know how to write salaam in Arabic." -
Same thing. Troll crap. (yawn...)
But then he comes out of the closet:
KT:
"My bottom line has been and continues to be that I wish not to slam the door on hunreds of millions of good people simply based on the interpretations and behaviors of a few barbaric individuals."
Termi says: I'll do my damnedest that the doors are slammed on hundreds of millions of Muzzies who think they have a birthright to migrate to the West to annihilate us!
And I guess I am not alone.
Golly, at least the preening moralism is a step up from death threats, isn't it?
What ever it is Im sure its as pointless as Islamic hadari
Yuo cant have islam with the Quran that invites a whole host of problems, which in the end are not muslims problems .
We seem to collective ignore that, although they periocially kill each other, they can agree that we all have to go.
As usual, why all the effort by Muslims to convince us?
There are only a few of us who believe Islam is conceived as a jihadist supremacist ideology. Why focus on us instead of the vast number of Muslims who hold that Islam is indeed a jihadist ideology?
Obviously, those were rhetorical questions.
We can also look at it this way. Muslims believed Muhammad, and everything that came out of his mouth. So it's natural that they would believe that they belong to a peaceful belief system, because that's what they're told.
Despite the fact that Islam was born in war, and has been spread through violence, they continue, only with words not actions, to try to persuade that they are not a hateful, violent cult.
When the day comes that Islam becomes a legitimate part of the fraternity of the world's great religions, the world will be a better place.
Until that day comes, Islam will be exposed.
Peaceful?
http://www.crossroad.to/glossary/islam-chron.htm
Lacking psychic abilities, the only valid assumption is that these moralizers and apologists actually do believe what they say.
There is no discourse with a believer.
Regardless of belief.
Belief is self certainity that one knows the truth.
Truth's are mutually exclusive. Hence hostile to other beliefs.
When confronted with reality, facts and logic, the believer has no choice but to fall back on rationalizations, illogic, distortion of facts, that he/she may defend and salvage their belief.
The need to defend, rationalize and proslytize a belief is self centered and self referential. It is an act of self defense.
The mere existence of an alternative "truth" (belief) invalidates one's own belief, for if ones' belief is The Truth, then it is true for all, and is natural and intuitively obvious.
Thus there can only exist the ignorant, those who haven't received the word or for whom the word was corrupted, or the hard headed, those who refuse to acknowledge "the Truth" (meaning your truth.
The believer is thus confronted with the impossible task of trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. By use of force and fraud (violence and persuasion) to convert everyone else to his belief, for the simple purpose and reason of saving him/her from having to confront the mirage upon which his/her own beliefs are founded.
It is a threat to one's belief, to have to face the reality, that one's belief is not The Truth; the mere existence of competing beliefs is evidence of that.
The believer is a supremacist, the believer is arrogant, the believer is presumptive; yet paradoxically the believer suffers an inferiority complex and doubts, otherwise he/she would not be defensive, moralizing, and rationalizing.
There can only be one truth,not many truths, and The Truth is absolute, and indisputable. An apple falls down from a tree, not up.That is an indisputable truth and no rational mind will dispute that truth, nor does it need to be defended and rationalized.
It all boils down to preservation of self, ego, identity. Even though inculcated from birth in a belief, maintenance of that belief, is a choice, as evidence and logic exists everywhere that one's belief is not the truth.
The investment in belief is intense and emotional, because one finds safety and security in membership in herds and packs of like thinking animals. Mammals need to feel the fur of like creatures.
To defend the belief, to rationalize, to justify is to defend oneself. To be critical and abandon belief is to make an admission of error, an admission that for awhile one was crazy, ignorant, a pawn of others and that takes an inner strength that few people have.
An ex Muslim like ibn Warraq or Ali Sina, exhibits uncommon strength of character and is hailed as a hero by non Muslims. even though they have not embraced Christianity or Judaism.
An ex Christian or Jew does not receive the same treatment from non Muslims. Even though they don't embrace Islam.
And one who is not a believer in any religion is
held as common enemy to all believers.
But I stray, back on topic there is no discourse, only unending rancor in interaction with believers or beween believers. Rancor in which apologia (rationalizations, accusations and obfuscation) are the medium of exchange.
I've read the Koran-
-and it made me more violent.
I wanted to destroy the book for its insults against women, all non-Muslims, dogs, pigs, apes, "raisin-headed Blacks", and lady poets.
Hmmmm.....
The Koran is a vehicle to peace IF one ignores all of the violent passages, the historical record of Muslims using the Koran as a pretext to commit violence, and the contemporary record of violence done in the name of the Koran for the purpose of "reversion," conquest of "Dar al Harb," creating anew the Caliphate, as well as the aspersion cast on non-believers and all the rest. If we cut out all the offensive passages, the Koran would be a slim volume indeed.
And Kemalist Turkey proves Spencer's point about the nonexistence of any coherent, influential, 'moderate', 'peaceful', Islamic ideology.
The existence of the secular state, the protection of society at large from Islamic Sharia and oppressive Islamic practices, are secured not by 'moderate Islamic ideology' or 'combating extremists by teaching the Qur'an', but by the exact opposite: restrictions, controls, surveillance, and the threat of force.
Spencer's challenge to Muslims is rhetorical.
I say this because I'm sure he knows that the jihadists would most likely not change their minds if some Muslim scholar sat down with them and tried to "refute" them using the Koran & Hadiths.
Imagine a moderately liberal easy-going mainstream Christian sitting down with David Koresh or Jim Jones: Koresh and Jones would not be impressed, but would only stubbornly resist any attempts at reason.
What Spencer's challenge really does is attempt to shine a light on the essentially Koranic and authentically Islamic nature of the jihadist's vision.
If enough moderate Muslims took up Spencer's challenge and sat down with the jihadists (perhaps it would be safer to conduct the dialogue via long-distance tele-conference!), the point is that it might slowly dawn on them that
1) the jihadists will not be persuaded to become moderate
2) the jihadists have a better grasp of Islam than the moderates do.
I'ver heard that we shouldn't let little kids play with matches, doesn't the same concept apply to the Koran?
Something to think about.
A little off topic but something to consider.
This is something my wife sent me earlier today that I forwarded on to other folks.
This is a great example of how our vast private sector can aid in the GWOT!
Ron
*****
Date: Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:47:20 AM PDT
Subject: Fwd: Afghan Women - How to Help!
FYI
My wife just sent me this great link.
What a fantastic way to counter the male dominated hegemonies of radical Islamofascism that are fueling the GWOT.
As I have said before the women of the world are the secret weapon to winning this war.
Ron
*****
From: Marilyn Wright
TO: Ron Wright
CC:
Date: Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:23:17 AM PDT
Subject: Afghan Women
Check this out.
http://www.bpeace.org/projprog_afghan.php
I found out about them through Lion Brand Yarns, the
yarn Martha was wearing. at
Link
Love,
Me
Don't sweat that '1.2 billion muslims' threat. We only have to defend ourselves from the small number currently on our shores. That number is small and tractable. It's just a question of will ...
By the way, we can handle the rest of the 1.2 billion also, if we need to. It's just a question of will ... and the right munitions.
Don't sweat that '1.2 billion muslims' threat. We only have to defend ourselves from the small number currently on our shores. That number is small and tractable. It's just a question of will ...
By the way, we can handle the rest of the 1.2 billion also, if we need to. It's just a question of will ... and the right munitions.
Don't sweat that '1.2 billion muslims' threat. We only have to defend ourselves from the small number currently on our shores. That number is small and tractable. It's just a question of will ...
By the way, we can handle the rest of the 1.2 billion also, if we need to. It's just a question of will ... and the right munitions.
" If [the word] ' Jihad ' is in the sense of protecting the religion, this is obvious. Every religion wages a Jihad war for the sake of its survival – why deny it"?...
Sorry, every religion does not do that. Most extinct religions became extinct due to lack of interest. There is nothing quite like being "found out", to kill off a religion. Islam has been "found out", and thats why they try so hard to rehide. The Catholic Church tried strong arm tactics in the mid ages, before the reformation. 500 years of forced conversion's,
torture chambers, intrigue, murder, robbery, you name it. Alexander the 6th, the infamous Rodrigo Borgia, and his charming sister, turned the Popes quarters, above the main alter, into a whorehouse. Finally getting a few "good", or at least "better" Popes elected, the heirarchy realised they had to get out of the crime and vice business and get back to God's word, and the reformation came about. At anyrate, the Church lost it's power due to polluted imploding.
Now Islam is doing the same thing. Islam is losing it's power because of two things, polluted imploding and being "found out".
The appearance of increasing power is decieving.
Heavy rain, lightning, thunder and hail, often come at the "end" of the storm.
Jihad is the last gasps of a dying islam.
When the Catholic realized it was dying, it had the reformation. It did not keep up it's membership by murder or threats of murder.
Only Islam does that as far as I can tell...
And one who is not a believer in any religion is
held as common enemy to all believers.
Posted by Giaour
I agree with everything you said except the above statement. If the word "believers" refers to muslims, you're right. But if it means all people who believe in God, you're very wrong.
I'm a "believer", albeit not a fundamentalist or evangelical, and I think religion is a personal matter. I dislike proselytizers of any religion; they insult my intelligence.
I will admit I find it perplexing that many people do not believe in God, but those people are not my "enemies." Just as I wish to be left alone to believe what I will, I think Atheists deserve the same right. A lack of faith in no way diminishes a person's worth or respectability in my eyes.
I have found that Atheists are inclined to excoriate believers with brutal contempt, and often imply that they are intellectually deficient. So should I surmise that all Atheists consider all believers to be their enemies?
susanp,
re: giaour, who said, "There is no discourse with a believer. Regardless of belief."
actually i found giaor's comments offensive in the extreme, because i am a christian, i am one of those "believers" he so harshly criticizes.
but of course, i can't take him too seriously because apparently he has yet to realize that all of his criticisms apply to himself and the beliefs he so strongly expressed in his post! ;o)