The idea that Jews (as well as Christians) are renegades who have rejected the Prophet Muhammad and distorted their Scriptures is a foundation of the dhimma: these people can't be given equal rights in Islamic society because they have already proved themselves untrustworthy. "Saudi Iqra TV: 'Stories from Before the Verses Came Down' How the Jews Distorted the Torah and Rejected, Cursed, and Hated Muhammad," from MEMRI, with thanks to Romy:
Saudi Iqra TV aired a Jordanian-produced series titled "Stories from Before the Verses Came Down" during February 2005. The series was a dramatization of numerous teachings about the Prophet Muhammad in Al-Madina, including some accounts about the Jews of that time.The dramatic scenes presented in the series included: the Muslim tradition of the Jews' distortion of their own Torah so as to make it seem that Muhammad could not be the true Prophet; Jews voicing their hatred for Muhammad while vowing to destroy Islam and to kill all Jews who follow it; Jews using black magic to curse Muhammad; and a scene in which Jewish leaders explain how following Muhammad would drastically reduce their tax revenues from the common folk.
TO VIEW SEGMENTS FROM THIS SERIES VISIT http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=128:
Part I: The Jews Distort the Torah, Acknowledge "We Live Off Their [Prophets'] Blood"
Scene: The Jewish leaders – bewigged, bearded, in long brown robes with oversized gold Stars of David dangling from chains around their necks – discuss how to ensure that Muhammad will not be recognized by the Jews as a prophet, drawing Ibn Salul, considered in Islam to be a leader of "the hypocrites," into their scheming. (To view this clip, visit http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=685 ) The following are excerpts:
Ka'b [Jewish leader]: Huyay, and you too Shas, do as much as you can to [alter] the Torah. Change the characteristics of the awaited Prophet, and make him as different as possible from Arab traits.
Shas [Jewish leader]: Maybe we should say… We'll say that he… What shall we say, Huyay?
Huyay [Jewish leader]: We will say that he has blue eyes.
Shas: Yes, that's it. [Also, say that he is] a tall man.
Ibn Salul: By God! You Jews altered the Torah in a matter of seconds.
Shas: Ibn Salul, if you want to keep your throne, take it easy. Cooperate with us, and don't bother your mind with such things.
This is, of course, absurd. Someone may have been able to alter one copy of the Torah (which is not to say that anyone did), but one copy only. It would have been utterly impossible for Jews to traverse the world and find and change every copy of the Torah. The whole thing is a sick fantasy to begin with. And then some people have the temerity or pollyannaish ignorance, when I report such things, to say that it is I who am smearing a religious group. Let's make a deal: when Muslims stop saying things like this, I'll stop telling people that they're saying them.
This could easily have been used as the failing play in "The Producers".
Springtime for Mohammed in Arabia.
Catchy!
The whole thing is creepy in its insidiousness and hatred, but hilarious too in its stupidity. It really does reveal diseased minds.
Watching the last clip is conclusive evidence of the basic mental derangement of the Islamic conception of the Jews and the deep mental disease of anti-Semitism and twisted hatred that seems to be hard wired into Islamic minds. I have never encountered such a twisted and deep rooted hatred in my life. It is on a par with the Nazis and the old Christian blood libels.
These clips should be watched by everyone.
"Scene: The Jewish leaders – bewigged, bearded, in long brown robes with oversized gold Stars of David dangling from chains around their necks – "
Sounds like a Nazi propaganda poster, a Goebbels special.
Shy Guy
How are the ladies in chadours going to do the syncronised high kicks? On skates?
1) The man called Ka'b might be Ka'b Ashraf whom Muhammad had murdered merely for criticising him.
2) Kinana might be the Kinana whom Muhammad had tortured to get him to reveal where he'd hidden some money.
3) The Jews in the play alter Scripture about the physical description of the predicted prophet ie his having blue eyes, but in Scripture no prophet is predicted by either his bodily or facial features.
4) One of them says 'You have changed the Torah in a matter of seconds'. No one got their tipex out so it seems that many in the Islamic world are ignorant of the fact that the Torah and the New Testament had both been written down. Maybe this is why it's easy for them to swallow the assertion that such an alteration took place.
I was thinking of 9 year old bellydancers. See? Problem solved!
Sinatra?
I watched the clips, it was like something produced by Nazi Germany..., it was truly offensive.
Zico rendered: "Watching the last clip is conclusive evidence of the basic mental derangement of the Islamic conception of the Jews and the deep mental disease of anti-Semitism and twisted hatred that seems to be hard wired into Islamic minds."
King replies: Hard wired, eh? How come I know many Muslims who think that the interpretation purveyed on the soap opera is not only radical but "Not consistent with the kind of Islam they grew up on?" Sort of blows your hard-wired theory out of the waters, eh? besides - if you are going to substantiate your hatred for Islam based on a soap opera, you should base your thinking about Western culture on the same - We all obviously screw each other's wives and girlfriends and backstab each other since our soap operas portray that.
Zico commented: "I have never encountered such a twisted and deep rooted hatred in my life. It is on a par with the Nazis and the old Christian blood libels."
King replies: That's how I feel when I read your shit, too! LOL
Shy Guy-
Sinatra wasn't tall. (Although he did dye his toupe henna once or twice.)
This reminds me of the anti-Salman Rushdie film -I think from our great ally Pakistan in the early 1990's- entitled: "International Terrorist" (or something like that) in which Salman came off like an apostate James Bond.
As I've been saying, for over a decade and a half to more 'multiculturally tolerant' friends (until 9/11): the followers of Mohammad shouldn't have been given any Western technology beyond the spoked wheel.
Why we allow the (always potential) jihadists to buy our decadent kafir inventions (computers, satellite airtime, t.v.'s, jet airplanes, high tech weaponry) to use against us has always struck me as the same folly as supplying Hitler and Stalin in the 1930's with technological tools that they could never have come up with on their own.
We should have added some intergral pork product to every hardrive, shoulder-fired rocket launcher, jet fighter, etc. to make them haram to the Imperialists of Islam.
All the money made for short-sighted, short-term gain -after WW II and up to the present moment- now comes back to threaten our cities and our Civilization.
(Maybe the Saudi 'prince' who visited hand-holding-cuddle-meister Bush in Crawford, TX brought a DVD of this stellar production for a private screening over halal popcorn last month?)
What's on Saudi TV? Just more lies and hate speech, that's all.
Check out these clips and shake your head in wonder over the ignorance of these folks. And then they have the gaul to point their shitty fingers at us!
The hate and lies about Jews seems to know no bounds. Then again, if hate is all you teach, then hate is all you get.
Actually, inciting hatred against the Jews and the United States does divert their tiny minds off of their 30% unemployment rate and off of the repressive Saudi government.
The house of Saud has around 1000 incredibly rich princes and sheiks, while the rest of the population lives in squalor and abject poverty.
Can anyone blame Israel for being defensive and well armed?
a10billr offered up: "Then again, if hate is all you teach, then hate is all you get."
King teaches: Then why are you on this website, then? Are you spread ing around your love and acceptance?
a10billr deduced: "Actually, inciting hatred against the Jews and the United States does divert their tiny minds off of their 30% unemployment rate and off of the repressive Saudi government.
The house of Saud has around 1000 incredibly rich princes and sheiks, while the rest of the population lives in squalor and abject poverty."
King rejoices: BINGO!!! You are finally getting it. You hit the nail on the head with your first statement and drove it home with your second. Indeed, he issue here is one of political corruption coddling radical extremism which is precisely how this monster grew out of control. Hating Islam as a whole is the completely wrong avenue to take, as the first quote I took from you above rightly points out.
King Tut-Tut-
When are you and your "Muslim friends" going to protest this grotesque and radical distortion of Islam outside the Saudi embassy?
(You call this anti-semitic silliness a "soap opera"? I don't recall "Days of Our Lives" showing a dream sequence with early followers of Mohammad plotting together to distort the Old and New Testament texts in order to uphold the fraudulent claims of the desert pedophile and dupe his naive neighbors in order to foist an illegitimate 'religion' upon them and spread the cult in order to take over the world. And, personally, I'd rather screw your girlfriend than throw acid in her face, or cut her head off... call me an old-fashioned romantic.)
And why do you guys aways take screen names that are the oppostie of what you demonstrate by your words?
Your about as much a "King" as Don King, and have as much "Tolerance" as a scorpion with hemmorhoids.
King replies: Oh no, you infidel dog, you have seen through my taqqiya mask!
Big Sleep sayeth: Yup.
We have talking wheels???!!! :O
BigDreamer wrote: "When are you and your "Muslim friends" going to protest this grotesque and radical distortion of Islam outside the Saudi embassy?"
King resonds: Ben there, done that. I work in other mysterious ways, like taking issue with you and the likes of you.
BigDreamer queried: "And why do you guys aways take screen names that are the oppostie of what you demonstrate by your words?"
King responds: Opposite? I preach tolerance and underastanding of a larger picture that you seem to be "sleeping" through as your clever screen name implies. Examples of me being opposite, please.
BigSnorer bellowed: "Your about as much a "King" as Don King, and have as much "Tolerance" as a scorpion with hemmorhoids."
King prevails: Coming from someone who lurks about on a website dedicated to the erradication of Islam, batting around Arabic words as if he were a practicing Muslim himself, I'll take this comment as comically as you intended it with your stupid hemmorhoid remark.
I know that the Dead Sea scrolls, and slightly more recent (early mediaeval) scrolls found preserved in the Cairo Geniza show that the text of the Old Testament currently used has survived from ancient times very, accurately and consistently.
Zico
I cannot download the clips but as I said the stills reminded me of the Goebbels propaganda posters.
'king micturates: That's how I feel when I read your shit, too! LOL
If King Tutt (as in what's this old tutt the cats's dragged in now?)is so rattled you must have made good points.
From his scatalogic references this afternoon I would hazard a guess that 'king is suffering with his own haemorrhoids this fine afternoon.
You need http://www.hemorrhoids-help.com
So I suspect this is what Dhimmi wathcers do - reduce themselves to hemmorhoid talk and insults when someone doesn't quite see it their way. It is completely your way, you are 100% correctafterall!
Granny ckreaks: "If King Tutt is so rattled you must have made good points. "
King responds: Sure, good points to you and your xenophobic beliefs, rubbish to me and my "multi-culti" perspective.
You haven't addressed the lies about the Jews and Christians K.T. You only defend your buddies the mass-murdering muslims. Oh and you didn't address the threats made against RS and all of us. You just defend muslims.
Over the course of this thread 'king is rapidly losing his ability to spell, and is failing to check his spacing and grammar. He may be constipated of course. http://www.constipationadvice.co.uk
KingT:
Tolerance doesn't require the tolerant to be tolerant of the intolerant. Please go read Paul Berman's Terrorism and Liberalism and give the rest of us a break.
Granny Weatherwax, LOL
King Tolerance only tolerates those who are not worthy of tolerance, while having venomous hatred for Christians.
Carolyn2: "You haven't addressed the lies about the Jews and Christians K.T. You only defend your buddies the mass-murdering muslims."
King replies: Once again, this is a fuction of radicalism, of which I do not accept as the norm for all of Islam. As for "defending my buddies" I am proud to say that I do champion the cause of decent, law-abiding people who happen to belong to different cultures and values and still call me a friend. If that's the jab you like to take have at it!
Granny coughed up: "Over the course of this thread 'king is rapidly losing his ability to spell, and is failing to check his spacing and grammar. He may be constipated of course."
King decodes: This is code speak for "I capitualte since I feel ill-equipped to argue rationally and in a mature fashion." So much for you and your opinions, Granny. Now go play with your hemmorhoids, you may find some knowledge up there! LOL
Waterdragon offered: "Tolerance doesn't require the tolerant to be tolerant of the intolerant."
King responds: Of course not. My message has never been that, my message has been one of gaining a wider scope of understanding about the other 900,000,000 Muslims who behave in a respectful, peaceful manner and practice their faith, as they choose, without incident. You need to tolerate their choices and while you may not accept their religon, they have the right to practice it and stay to themselves. Moreover, those folks wish away radicalism just as we all do (me included). I simply will not stand for broad statements that include all Muslims as evil, or whatever else you want to brand them as. Your problem is with radicalsim gone amok as it has become intertwined with horrible regimes that allow this nonesense to continue.
Ooh you cheeky boy, 'king, I bet you say that to all the girls....
Carolyn2 deduced: "King Tolerance only tolerates those who are not worthy of tolerance, while having venomous hatred for Christians."
King responds (for some reason): A master spin doctor, eh Carolyn? Venomnous hatred for Christians? Naw, I just have a venomnous hatred for all bigots, be they Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sihks, Buddhists, Ba'Hai, Jain, Wiccan, Satanic, Voodoo, Santorian, etc.
Clearer for you, spin doctor?
King T~ could we get your opinions down here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006455.php
Please and thanks.
Feed not the troll, for it will follow you around and seek to vex ye!
Those videos are trash. It is hard to believe anyone could view them without feeling disgust at the makers for insulting your intelligence. This is some of the worst adolescent hate-mongering propaganda I have ever seen. Reprehensible comes to mind.
f.g.
Amazing. The lie is repeated because now everyone has access to the internet and libraries where they could learn that this concept is a fantasy used to justify the acts Mohammed. Was he demented? Perhaps so, but today he would labeled: "Crazy as a fox." He created a way to do the unthinkable: organize the fragmented and contentious tribes of Arabia and set out on a quest to conquer the world using the pen and the sword.
What I find interesting is that such shows are broadcast by State-sponsored television stations. Sanctioned by government.
Can king tolerance point to the same in the US? FreeMasons advocating genocide on CNN? Knights of Columbus on Public Access? Anything?
Please remember, the qualifications include Backed by the US government. As these hate films are backed by the government in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia...
The analogy with Nazi propaganda is well founded. Where are the major Western media and other liberal scholars, pundits, politicians with their 'convictions'? You know, those happy platitudes they boast about at Holocaust memorials, like 'never again'.
The BBC, for instance, would never dare report on a series like this, unless of course it somehow made it into the mainstream news and they were forced to say something.
Never again, indeed.
I used to know a black African who worked in the construction industry in London and once was involved in a long-term contract in a Gulf state. While there, he attended a course of lectures on Islam by a leading local scholar, in English, for the benefit of migrant workers like him. As a result he later asked me whether it was possible that the Vatican had hidden, mistranscribed or falsified the Christian scriptures, or whether it had secret hoards of documents hidden away from the rest of the world.
It so happens that I am a culture historian with a particular interest in ancient documents, and I was able to explain to him about textual criticism, papyrology, and the general functioning of the research community. But let me tell you, that piece of Saudi nonsense is nothing strange. It is the kind of version of Christian and Jewish history that is regularly taught as fact in Muslim countries.
It reads like a production for an audience with child-level mentality, very unlike material written for discerning adults, such as any of the National Geographic or Discovery Channel productions.
I am given to understand that our highly respected Jewish citizens are descended from 'apes and pigs'. Those original 'apes and pigs' must have been a hugely talented lot, for their progeny certainly are!
Prancing Popinjay
I am glad you squeal so terribly, it shows I cut you to the bone. Good.
Only a morally neutered and depraved relativist of the most idiotic kind could equate what amounts to a recitation of the blood libel (hook nosed Jews spitting on 'The Prophet' and all that those clips contain) with the inanities of a cheap western soap-opera.
In other words, only a morally depraved prancing popinjay like yourself.
Gary commented: "What I find interesting is that such shows are broadcast by State-sponsored television stations. Sanctioned by government.
Can king tolerance point to the same in the US?"
King replies: No, we do not have such state supported television, we're almost entirely privatized or not-for-profit TV (PBS for example) so I cannot think of any state supported stations of any kind in the US. Your point?
You readily admit that such propaganda is STATE SPONSORED which means the state supports this shit. Therein lies your issue, you constantly get in yourown way of grasping this crucial concept! In states where Islam and politics have an almost pure mixture, things like this are bound to happen. This would happen in ANY STATE where ANY religion and politics mixed as completely as we see in many Isamic ruled nations. Politics is religion and vice versa - this is a radical way to operate and radicalism breeds extremism in religion and government. Christianity went through it and while much of the dracionian behaviors are long in the past, relics of it still exist in Western culture and beleifs. In countries where Islam is widely practiced but the government is secular there is far, far, far less of this propaganda and moderates prevail. Turkey is an example.
So, once again, I lay out my view quite simply: Blame not the entire religion, but blame the many issues that have led us to see the rise of a very radical, extreme interpretation of a religion and let us grow to understand how that came about and how we can all work to fix it. Hating and slithering about on "Dhimmitwatch" to satisfy your need for hate just won't cut it, folks. Sorry to burst your bubbles.
Zico - can you retype that in English? I only see made up explitives that are getting quite old and tiresome. If you have a point, make it in plain English. Oh, ait - you hate Islam. That's your entire point! LOL.
Prancing Popinjay
Actually, you uttererd the expletives, not me, and if you are unable to answer my question or address my observation, in this case:
Only a morally neutered and depraved relativist of the most idiotic kind could equate what amounts to a recitation of the blood libel (hook nosed Jews spitting on 'The Prophet' and all that those clips contain) with the inanities of a cheap western soap-opera.
Then just slink away without the garish and sappy use of abbreviations like
LoL
And half-witted half-assed attempts at levity at being cool and funny with the exclamation marks! LoL etc etc etc
Now, if you are too stupid to understand what I have written, thats a different matter, but I doubt its that, you are just too gutless to reply LoL!
etc etc...
;-)
I believe someone else on this site said it this way... I did not go looking for hate, but it found me. All the death and destruction islam has wrought on the world has certainly convinced me of their true intent. Have you read the Jihadwatch post about the jihadi that said "he could smile at someone one minute, and cut their throat the next."? Until you understand that this "radicalism" is rooted in their basic beliefs you will never get it.
King tolerance~ When the government and the religion are the same (which in every single case just happens to be islam), just how does one Not blame the entire religion? The leadership are also the teachers.
KT, you must be on the crack we were discussing earlier. Man.
KT blathers: such propaganda is STATE SPONSORED which means the state supports this...In states where Islam and politics have an almost pure mixture, things like this are bound to happen. This would happen in ANY STATE where ANY religion and politics mixed as completely as we see in many Isamic ruled nations.
Hmmm. Back in good old Christian America - you know, the America of the 50s and 60s n' such - were there calls that "Jews Distorted the New Testament and Rejected, Cursed, and Hated Jesus"? 'Cause I've never heard of those. Odd, that.
I wish you'd at least try to pretend that you understood Gary's point though: where, on state-run television, do we find the same. The US has no state-run TV: but Canada does. Britain does. And they have had, for some time, including alllllll the way back in the "Christian era". Yet: no death calls. No fatwas. You seem to be big on "tolerance": yet you don't condemn the above original source. You seem happier taking it out on those disgusted by the original source.
The underlying connection between the points above and these broadcasts is a simple five-letter word: islam. You view, by contrast, is indeed simple - or simplistic, rather. Economic advantage has nothing at all do to with a philosophy where the sayings of Mohammed must be literally interpreted, and where this same 'prophet' murdered, raped and looted his way across the Middle East.
Oh, yes, Turkey's a grrrrreat! example of nationalism and how that dampens the fires of islamic hate...except that the number one book currently being read in Turkey is "Mein Kampf". Well...maybe the Turks just want to find out what Hitler meant when he opined that "no one [would] remember the Armenians".
I personally have no need for hate; I find it distracting. On the other hand, I have plenty of need for concern; I find it preventative. I wonder if KT is the same. Perhaps that, too, is expecting too much.
Geoff
I should qualify my statement above, I do not hate muslims. I hate islam. Thomas and Naseem are thoughtful, non-threating people that we can have a conversation with. We don't agree about islam but we can respect one another.
Carolyn2 reasons: "I did not go looking for hate, but it found me."
King Replies: And you seem to have embraced the hate with a warm, wet kiss!
Gary queries: "King tolerance~ When the government and the religion are the same (which in every single case just happens to be islam), just how does one Not blame the entire religion? The leadership are also the teachers."
King responds: I realize you simply cannot let go of the Islam but you also need to wrap your head around the other factors that allow radicalism to breed. One of the biggest things is political corruption and the tools to be corrupt. As you have rightly pointed out, many (but not all) of the current examples of religion and government being one in the same occurs in Islamic nations. I've already posted, several times, as to why I think corruption and radicalism go hand in hand and why one needs the other to survive. If things are to change in the radical Islamic world efforts needs to be directed at derailing the radical cogwheels. Denouncing and hating all of Islam simply missed the point.
Geoff harped: "I personally have no need for hate; I find it distracting."
King replies: News alert, Geoff - you frequent a website devoted to the erradication of Islam. Sounds like you've been too distracted to notice.
Geoff reasons out: "On the other hand, I have plenty of need for concern; I find it preventative. I wonder if KT is the same."
King replies: You find concern preventative? You have every right to be concerned and informed, but you have no right to embrace a bigoted stance and denounce 100% of Muslims based on the interpretations and behaviors of a clear, yet obvious few.
Last and least: Zico - that's the third or fourth reply I've read a reply from you, directed to me, in which you say absolutely nothing. A more "poppinjay" or verbose blogger I have yet to meet. You are henceforth "Zilcho". How's that for colorful levity? LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!
I watched those videos again. And well, they are quite funny come to think of it. I mean, they Torah me up.
f.g.
f.g., I've hadith with you!
I think I should go complain to the deen.
"As I've been saying, for over a decade and a half to more 'multiculturally tolerant' friends (until 9/11): the followers of Mohammad shouldn't have been given any Western technology beyond the spoked wheel.
Why we allow the (always potential) jihadists to buy our decadent kafir inventions (computers, satellite airtime, t.v.'s, jet airplanes, high tech weaponry) to use against us has always struck me as the same folly as supplying Hitler and Stalin in the 1930's with technological tools that they could never have come up with on their own."
BigSleep, Yes!
But you know the saying, "A capitalist is one who will sell you the rope that you use to hang him."
now we all know
another reason why
the american colonists
didn't want kings.
KingTolerance wrote:
No, see Robert's post "What Commments Are For" http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006235.php :
Jihad and DhimmiWatch are dedicated to fighting the ideology of jihad in an intellectually honest manner, which is not to falsely argue that jihad really means "a personal moral struggle", or that violent, military jihad is the product of a minority of "radicals" or simply the machinations of cynical, corrupt Muslim governments (as you seem to think). Rather jihad ideology is at the core of the Muslim experience, as over a millenium of history and Muslim thought overwhelmingly prove. Robert's point is that to have peace, mutual respect, and all those good pluralistic things you claim to care about, etc., Muslims must honestly and forthrightly abjure their history of imperialism, violence, and domination. In short they must make a conscious and explicit break with their past, not dishonestly say these things were never there or important to them, because otherwise the tradionalists (whom you falsely call "radicals") will defeat them in every argument, using the mountain of history, law, and philosophy that is on their side to win every debating point.
You have staked out your claims, so I will respond to these without name calling or exaggeration, and if you insist on continuing to make them on this site please bring evidence because I can assure you I have mountains of it when it comes to the points I am about to make. You claim:
So you basically say (here and in other posts) that it's cynical, corrupt governments and elites that are responsible for "radical" Islam, which they use to distract the common people from their poverty and misery. You argue that it's a top-down phenomenon when in fact all the evidence indicates it's a bottom-up problem. Islam is at it's core a supremacist ideology, and there is no gain saying this. Its whole eschatology is about Muslim domination, humiliation of the Other, the divine right of "God's best people" to rule over others and treat them as less than human. This is not just some interpretation of Islam, this IS Islam. This is not "radical" Islam (unless you mean radically opposed to all norms of human decency), it is traditional and canonical Islam, and there is a ton of evidence you can read if have doubts about that.
Now, the other question is do governments push this traditional Islam upon Muslims who would normally behave much more decently, or do Muslims demand it themselves? Again, the evidence, such as recent polls, indicates the latter- that Muslims crave domination and treating infidels no better than dirt and would welcome a government that would bring this order about again. The only question about this is how large of a majority feel this way.
I you remain unconvinced, think about an almost exactly analogous situation, the antebellum South. Why did so many poor Southerners who never owned a slave fight and die to preseve the "peculiar institution"? You can argue that they were manipulated by the rich plantation owners, but that is not really it as their own letters and words indicate to us. The reason is that they were committed to the slave and racial caste system, that they had a personal stake in continuing to treat blacks as sub-humans because they themselves got off on it. In short they needed someone to "look down on".
This is what Muslims must abjure if they wish to be tolerated by us in our own countries and live in peace and with normal human dignity. Such a state of affairs, which I can tell you are for, will not come about by denying the true history and true present of the Muslim world. The positive change you're looking for is for Muslims to enter the 21st Century, embrace the UN Declaration of Human Rights,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14578
and to actually practice the golden rule. We on this site think to best way to do this is not by letting them falsify the true nature of their civilization and religion, but by shaming them into making a break with is inhuman past.
"King replies: You find concern preventative? You have every right to be concerned and informed, but you have no right to embrace a bigoted stance and denounce 100% of Muslims based on the interpretations and behaviors of a clear, yet obvious few."
Welcome back KT. If the jihadist interpretation of Islam is so wrong that its followers are a "clear" few in number, perhaps you can show us all here the error of our ways. Where is the refutation of this few from the many? Can you direct us to a rebuttal to the arguments of the few, based on Islamic principles? I've yet to see an interpretation of Islam that rejects *on Islamic grounds* the injustice and violence of jihad and dhimmitude. Do you know of any that you could link us to?
There are several things I'd like to respond to but I must wait until a bit later. Please bear with me.
"KT"
Dear KT,
Geoff boldly stated: "I personally have no need for hate; I find it distracting."
King whimpered: News alert, Geoff - you frequent a website devoted to the erradication of Islam. Sounds like you've been too distracted to notice.
Eradication (again, one "r", not two)? No, it's devoted to illustrating unsettling examples of islamic behaviour, philosophy and belief founded in the Quran, a book you've never read, or in the hadiths, a collection of Mohammed's sayings with variable support or reliability, which you've never read. Sounds like you've been too blind to your own agenda to read the posts, and the news. No matter. You still have time.
Geoff clearly points out: "On the other hand, I have plenty of need for concern; I find it preventative. I wonder if KT is the same."
King meanders: You find concern preventative? You have every right to be concerned and informed, but you have no right to embrace a bigoted stance and denounce 100% of Muslims based on the interpretations and behaviors of a clear, yet obvious few.
Embrace a bigoted stance? Where, exactly, have I done so? Is it somehow "bigoted" to comment or post on the behaviour of islamicists world-wide as they relate to non-muslims they are oppressing or threatening (dhimmis, in case you haven't read that word either). Since such behaviour is coded into the Quran - again, a book I've read but that you haven't - and the hadiths - same facts - what exactly would you have me say about how this religion, in the places where it is dominant, treates non-muslims and women? Rather, it is bigoted of you to make the assumption that all religion must so behave in this day and age; you have rather no evidence whatsoever for this viewpoint. Have I denounced 100% of muslims? Of course not. (But off you go, and find it. Good luck!) But unfortunately for your argument, wherever it is, these "clear, obvious few" seem to know quite well what they do and why, and their interpretation of their religion is also quite 'rational' as given by the Quran. Or perhaps you could indicate otherwise? I sincerely look forward to watching you do so.
So in effect, I have a right to be concerned and informed, but not to look for root causes of such evil. Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. LOL
Or maybe you could comment on the high likelihood that 80% of all mosques are controlled by Wahhabis. Do you know what Wahhabis are?
So many questions.
Imam Geoff
Oh - better yet, could you perhaps strain yourself enough to comment on the original article? You know: the one about the Jews are responsible for distorting, cursing and hating Mohammad.
Maybe you could even say that that was wrong, or find other Arabic emissions that talk about how the Jews are fluffy, friendly bunnies that give candy to little muslim children.
Imam Geoff
You know, I was all set to be relatively nice and semi-respectful to KT.
Then I read some more of the transcript of 'Stories from Before the Verses Came Down'. Why, here it is!
*************************************************
Labid: Bring me a lock of Muhammad's hair, and make me a statue in the shape of Muhammad out of dough. Take this comb and get Muhammad to use it.
Huyay: Dough we have, since food is abundant in Jewish homes. But how can we get the hair, Kinana?
Kinana: This is where our hypocrites play a role – or our young Jewish boys. They will comb him with this comb and bring us his hair.
Huyay: You are right. Now I remember – we have a young Jewish boy who works for Muhammad. He is a smart boy.
Kinana: Let him bring us the hair.
Labid: Off you go. Finish your work.
Huyay: Get on with it, Ibn Al-A'sam. We've got what you asked for.
Kinana: Here is the comb with Muhammad's lock of hair. We kept it safe. This box contains the statue in the shape of Muhammad.
Labid: Well done. Well done, Jews. Now you've fallen into our hands, Muhammad. Now that you are in the hands of the Jews, we shall see whether there's a god protecting you.
Kinana: What are you going to do, holy man?
Labid: What will I do? You will see what I'll do. Muhammad will regret the day his mother gave birth to him.
Huyay: Can a Muslim fall into the hands of Jews and survive?!
Kinana: You don't have to teach us who we are, uncle.
Labid: This is what I have in store for him. These are eleven needles. This needle goes into his heart.
Huyay: Ouch! You hurt me in the heart!
Labid: This one goes in his right eye. This one goes into his left eye. This one goes into his liver. And this one goes into his leg. Kinana, bring me the comb and the lock of hair. We should thread each hair through a needle and then tie them in a knot with this string here. Now we have eleven knots.
Kinana: Could you explain what you did, so we can understand?
Labid: I've appointed a demon to protect each knot. I have gathered them from all corners of the earth.
Huyay: And how will this help, Labid?
Labid: If Muhammad is a sorcerer, he will know we cast a spell on him. He might be able to untie one or two knots, but no more.
Kinana: And if he unties them all?
Labid: It is impossible with sorcery. Impossible!
Kinana: Why?
Labid: Because I will bury it myself in an abandoned Jewish well called Be'er Dharwan.
Huyay: Well done, Labid Al-A'sam.
Labid: Where are you going, Jews?
Kinana: Anything else, Labid?
Labid: The most important thing – the dinars. The dinars for my work, Jews.
Huyay: We thought you were giving it as a present to the God of Moses.
Labid But I deserve it more than the God of Moses.
Huyay: By God! If I did not know the strength of your spells and powers, you wouldn't have seen a single dinar from me.
Kinana: Uncle, I think that the greatest demons are afraid of you, because they can learn from you.
Huyay: I want to see the results of your actions, Labid.
Labid: You will hear and see them, Huyay.
*************************************************
So I suppose my question to KT is: are you an utter idiot, to bring up imaginary bigotry when the real thing by other people is paraded in front of your eyes? How thick, precisely, does one have to be to miss that? Did you even read the source? Did you wonder WHY such hatreds keep popping up in muslim (state, if you will) TV? I mean, why not pick on the Mennonites? Did this never occur to you, mental mite?
Idiot.
Imam Geoff
Prancing Popinjay
Your last post was your best yet, you seem to have collapsed into hysteria, with spittle on the screen, piss in your pants, and snot running down your nose, and the incontinent use of 'LoL's', hey take it easy, make yourself a drink, go and calm down, take a cold shower, I seem to have a strange effect on you, sending you into epileptic fits of fury, all because you are a gutless chronic idiot who is spanked when confronted with questions and statements like this:
Only a morally neutered and depraved relativist of the most idiotic kind could equate what amounts to a recitation of the blood libel (hook nosed Jews spitting on 'The Prophet' and all that those clips contain) with the inanities of a cheap western soap-opera
Its a simple statement, that cuts close to the pompous bone, and sends you into paroxysms. Good.
I look forward to your next emotional collapse, its really hilarious. (LoL)
But feel free to address the issue in italics above, if you can stop yourself from shaking with rage and obfuscating shrill hysteria; I even debate with saps, I am a kind man.
;-)
I've never yet heard a Muslim apologist give a plausible explanation of how it is that Jews and Christians, without the benefit of their ancestors' cooperation, wrangle over the same 39 books of the Old Testament.
KT--
Moderns, with great indignation,
Hate Calvin's predestination.
For economics, we know,
Or our genes run the show
Of our lives, which we call "liberation"!
Kepha:
Kepha, have you ever read William St. Clair Tisdall's "The Sources of Islam"? He was a Christian missionary, but his account of the sources for the Koran is pretty illuminating and, as far as I know, not challeneged in its basics by serious scholars (even Islamophile W. Montgomery Watt acknowledges its truth when he basically says "um, let's move on" whenever the subject of the textual sources of the Koran comes up).
The Koran is basically a farrago of heretical Christianity, Judaism, and pagan folklore. But of course since Islam is an imperial religion an Orwellian rewrite of history is called for and it is the Jews and Christians who have it wrong.
If you're looking for an argument with your hypothetical Muslim apologist, ask why the scriptures Christians and Jews hold sacred go back in basically their same form 100's of years and why the (heretical) scriptures the Koran seems to quote appear only a 100 or so years before the advent of Islam.
The resemblance of these clips to the old Nazi propganda is uncanny.
As many have said here King of Tolerance is probably a muslim posing as a leftist, but the leftists I encountered at Conyer's blog had the same oh so superior attitude. The post at JW about RS being "unsophisticated" is evidence of their thought. If you don't think like them, you just aren't intelligent, if you don't think like them, you can't be a good person. The left are a bunch of blowhards that pat themselves on the back continuously telling everyone who will listen how tolerant they are...while hating Jews and Christians. (That is PC now, you know)
King Tut-Tut-
Your writing/thinking is mediocre.
Your portrayal of the point of Jihadwatch/Dhimmiwatch sounds like someone who has read it through the dung-colored lenses of ideological self-hypnosis.
Your understanding (tactical misunderstanding?) of the core of Koranic Islam is incomprehensibly jumbled from post to post.
Here's a useful link to clear up the confusion and improve you style:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/durant_koran.htm
(Click on the expository hyperlinks within it.)
"If a fool would persist in his folly he would become wise." -Wm. Blake.
Persist.
Diocletian--I think we were on the same wavelength. I think some of the sources you mentioned may be accessed through the site _Answering Islam_.
King Tolerance has no credibility because his theories are faulty at the base. In order to be a muslim, one must believe intently, and without wavering, the word of the arch criminal Mohammad.(read Quran, see Hadiths for proof)
This makes him and his fellows, "suckers", by definition. Mentally unable to seperate Quranic truth from lies, incapable of facing this reality, he tries to cover up Islams lackings with so much intellectual word salad and paultry uninteresting come-backs...But, Allah knows best, and he says "SPD"...Suckers Pay Double...No ammount of "IPV", Intellectual Projectile Vomiting, is going to change that...
I find the attention devoted to KingTolerance's identity a bit disturbing. The abounding theories about whether he is a leftist or a Muslim or a Muslim pretending to be a leftist are irrelevant, and smack of McCarthyism. Instead of trying to "out" KT as a Muslim or whatever, let's focus on the issues. KT has made some bold claims, and I'm interested to see some evidence.
The violent interpretation of Islam has been widely discussed here on this site. I would dearly like to see an interpretation of Islam that is compatible with the UHDR
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
. Equivalently I am asking for an interpretation of Islam that does not allow Muslims to wage jihad in order to impose Sharia law, since Sharia (like the Old Testament Jewish law) breaches several principles of modern democracy, and no legitimate authority can rest on the threat of terrorist violence. The separation of political and spiritual power is fundamental to progress, and in my opinion it is the major reason that Judaism and Christianity can no longer be used credibly to justify oppression and violence against unbelievers.
Zilcho muttered: "I even debate with saps, I am a kind man"
King responds: You call what you post debating? So far I can see who the "poppinjay" is. We're up to five posts that are nothing but colloquial insults directed at me. Now let me move on to make more points.
BigDreamer wretched: "Your understanding (tactical misunderstanding?) of the core of Koranic Islam is incomprehensibly jumbled from post to post."
King responds: I am not surprised you see my understand as jumbled - you are no better than the radical extremists you despise sicne you are accepting their interpretation and the be all, end all. You "tactically" ignore millions of moderates and their ability to live peacefully. You also "tactically" ignore the myriad of reasons that have and continue to breed powerful extremists who continue to corrupt their relgion and government. THOSE ARE THE FOLKS YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH.
Carolyn2 warbled: "As many have said here King of Tolerance is probably a muslim posing as a leftist, but the leftists I encountered at Conyer's blog had the same oh so superior attitude."
King replies: Are you still stuck on this, Carolyn? It's no wonder why you feel so inferior to my "Oh, so superior attitude" when you fail to simply evolve with the discussion. If this is the point you wish to dwell on, do carry on. You represent your camp so well!
Dun_Swami bellowed: "King Tolerance has no credibility because his theories are faulty at the base."
King responds: Gee, Swami, I was thinking the same about you!
Viking5: "I find the attention devoted to KingTolerance's identity a bit disturbing."
King: Thanks, Viking. FInally, someone who is willing to speak about this civily.
Viking5: "The separation of political and spiritual power is fundamental to progress, and in my opinion it is the major reason that Judaism and Christianity can no longer be used credibly to justify oppression and violence against unbelievers."
King: I agree with this 100%. This being said, I DO NOT agree with the wholesale blame of the religion of Islam itself. This is where I take issue with the entire premise of this website.
As I had said almost ad nauseum, there is a lot more than religion at work here and if the West is going to understand we must all quite trying to ignore the elephant in the living room and address the issues that are allowing radical extremism of any sorts to breed.
In the case of radical Islam, we see an almost inseparable mixture of church and state. This has been allowed to take hold over the years as corrupt and brutal governments have been in power, imposing their own brands of Islam and Islamic law. To the Westerner, this mixture is quite difficult to see and the combination becomes almost impossible to decipher, thus, increasing the chance that some people (even the educated) will simply give up and juat blame the whole of Islam.
In an Islamic state moderation is stifled, economies are polar, and the masses are kept in a sort of obtunded religious daze. This causes cultures to stagnate and regress, rapidly, leaving a larger rift between the modern and the "traditional." We ar ein 2005 and "they" are in the 1700's. If you think that Christianity wasn't subject to extremist applications in the 1700's you are a bigger fool than I thought.
How to fix?
First, abandon being an Islamophobe. You are not helping. Your pseudo knowledge of the Koran is useless since you are not taking into account some of what I wrote above. If you do not like Islam, then do not practice it.
Second, stop voting for assholes who continue to perpetuate and empower governments that allow extremism to flourish under their noses. Saudi Arabia is a prime example, yet they are an key U.S. ally. $2.45 a gallon pump price.
Third, recognize that Islam is practiced peacefully by hundreds of millions and your agreement or disagrement of their choice of religion is your freedom but that's about it. Hating them all for their religious beliefs makes you a bigot, and I hate bigots.
Fourth, wanting Islam "erradicated" is tantamount to what Hitler did in WWII. Face it.
Ys, I am aware of my spelling errors.
To those of you who dwell on the important, I am aware of my spelling errors. Never claimed to be a good speller!
"Pseudo-knowledge", eh? Well, if my knowledge is imperfect, yours is non-existent. I'll take the latter. And what postings of yours above have this magical nullifying effect on "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"?
KT libels: "Hating them all for their religious beliefs makes you a bigot, and I hate bigots."
But we don't, and I don't, 'hate them all for their religious beliefs', as much as you wish I did. I can see that that is kind of your real objective here. Rather, I strongly dislike a religion that condones such behaviour; murder of apostates (and dhimmis, and women), sexual oppression, hatred of other cultures (I note that they don't seem to make that distinction that KT finds so crucial: the "sin" rather than the "sinner"), and the inability to question theology. The latter in particular creates situations (which KT doesn't know about, apparently) where all the other crimes are committed and then excused as being "holy" acts. Does KT see the Catholic church excusing pedophilia? Nope. How about wife-beating? Nope. Religious violence of any kind? Nope.
(KT: Uh-oh...)
Here's the real way to get rid of the real elephant in the living room: realpolitik. Stop pretending that islam is a benign political force vis-a-vis Western society. Some wish to come here and escape their religiopolitical restraints. Good for them! But they, too, must be watched to assure that they are indeed who and what they say they are. As for those islamic exemplars of tolerance and love, of the dignity and fairness of islamic law (sharia) - islamic nations - they ought be treated as the nations of the old Pact were treated. Warily and with caution, and with force (potential or actualised) behind our words.
And yet, it seems KT has hit the nail on the head without realizing it.
Islam is in the 1700's. And yes, Christianity was subject to extreme elements in the 1700s also. Thus, Islam is extremist. Excellent work!
Now how does KT presume to tell 1.2 (or is it 1.9 this week?) billion people that their religion is wrong, and that they should be nicer? Maybe it's a question of the message. Maybe KT could sing them a showtune or something and magically illustrate the errors of their ways (in which they've been innoculated since childhood), and everything would be fixed about 3.5 minutes later as the power of song built bridges of understanding in a religion that claims to have the truth, the COMPLETE truth and the only truth such that not a single word can be changed (unless those filthy "Semites" changed it already, eh KT?). I'll start him off.
Abandon that old sharia!
Treat women with respect!
Don't slay religious min-or-i-ties
Cause you'll end up in heck!
Imam Geoff
Showtune Master
"Carolyn2 warbled: "
There I go "warbeling again. That just cracks me up! I am not going to argue with our troll today, it is a lovely sunny day. KT needs to open his blurry eyes and find the truth.
Popinjay
Dont be so dishonest and full of pompous hot air. You havent responded to a single point I have made, because you are incapable of doing so. I am aware that my posts cut you deeply and make you bleed, thats why you obfuscate and squirm. Points like this:
Only a morally neutered and depraved relativist of the most idiotic kind could equate what amounts to a recitation of the blood libel (hook nosed Jews spitting on 'The Prophet' and all that those clips contain) with the inanities of a cheap western soap-opera
Now I am going to read everyone elses responses to you. It is enjoyable to see an obfuscator and squirmer be skewered.
This is going to be a long one...
"King: I agree with this 100%. This being said, I DO NOT agree with the wholesale blame of the religion of Islam itself. This is where I take issue with the entire premise of this website."
I think I see your point. The interpretation of Christianity back in 1700 was at fault, and the Bible doesn't actually endorse violence. Therefore, you are saying, Islam is exactly the same, and if the Islamic world can manage to replicate the Enlightenment, a peaceful interpretation of Islam will emerge. The premise of this website, as you see it, is that Islam is fatally flawed and can never be peaceful.
I think your interpretation of this site is faulty. I read from this site that the "extremist" interpretation is sufficiently grounded in Qur'anic principles that it can command widespread (though not universal) support, because of this it needs to be faced openly, and a new and radical interpretation of Islam is needed in order for Islam to move forward and become peaceful. Robert Spencer makes at least a prima facie case that the Qur'an and Hadith, if taken literally, support violent jihad and dhimmitude. Sadly, the terrorists are making the same case across the world, and they are convincing people, even Americans, at an alarming rate. This suggests to me that the problem is not all in Robert's head, because too many Muslims with far more than a "pseudo knowledge" of the Qur'an are believing that their religion requires violent action against the infidel.
Of course, we could all be very wrong, and maybe someone has a peaceful interpretation of the Qur'an that can effectively counter the argument of the jihadists. If that is the case, I'll say once again, I wish they would make their voice heard.
"As I had said almost ad nauseum, there is a lot more than religion at work here and if the West is going to understand we must all quite trying to ignore the elephant in the living room and address the issues that are allowing radical extremism of any sorts to breed."
Religion is not the sole reason that we have a terror problem in the world, I agree with that, but I don't think that religion can be discounted when it features so heavily in the words and actions of the terrorists. Nor do I think that it's unreasonable to have a website such as this dedicated to exploring the religious aspects of terrorism.
"In the case of radical Islam, we see an almost inseparable mixture of church and state. This has been allowed to take hold over the years as corrupt and brutal governments have been in power, imposing their own brands of Islam and Islamic law. To the Westerner, this mixture is quite difficult to see and the combination becomes almost impossible to decipher, thus, increasing the chance that some people (even the educated) will simply give up and juat blame the whole of Islam."
There would be less confusion if those who claim to speak for the Muslim community in the west (eg CAIR) spent less time feeding their persecution complex and more time explaining to us exactly HOW the excesses of the terrorists and "Islamic" regimes are contrary to Islam. What worries me is that they never do that. Sure, CAIR condemns terrorism in general, and 9/11 in particular. Maybe they also condemn the whipping of homosexuals and the religious persecution of non-Muslims by "Islamic" states. But they have not produced the Islamic reasoning behind their condemnation. As Robert says, if Muslims condemn terror, it may make us feel better, but there will only be peace if Muslims can produce an account of Islam that reject violent jihad and dhimmitude on Islamic principles. The terrorists have their sales pitch that draws heavily on the Qur'an and Hadith. They claim to speak the will of Allah. To defeat them, Muslims must show on Islamic authority how the terrorists are wrong. Simple assertions will not cut it.
"We ar ein 2005 and "they" are in the 1700's. If you think that Christianity wasn't subject to extremist applications in the 1700's you are a bigger fool than I thought."
You know, for a guy who yearns for civility, you are perhaps a little quick to use words like "bigot" and "fool". I don't recall saying that Christianity was never used to justify ideas that would be considered extremist and repulsive today.
Your point is interesting, but I think you support me when you say this. If Islam needs to change as much as Christianity has in the last 300 years, then it's wrong to attribute the problems of today to a "tiny minority of extremists". In 1700 the Bible could be used to justify slavery, and not just in some wacko fringe group. A sea-change in Christianity occurred between then and now, and it occurred in large part because Christians argued successfully that the Biblical interpretation of violence and oppression was wrong, ie Christians did exactly what Muslims need to be doing right now. Only I don't see any Muslims doing this -- at least none that I can find. I'm more than happy to be corrected on this point if you can find an interpretation of Islam that rejects any mandate for Muslims to work for the imposition of sharia. Preferably I would like an interpretation that would be understandable to someone with my pseudo knowledge of the Qur'an, but at this point I'll take what I can get.
"First, abandon being an Islamophobe. You are not helping. Your pseudo knowledge of the Koran is useless since you are not taking into account some of what I wrote above. If you do not like Islam, then do not practice it."
Islamaphobe is one of those terms, like communist, Nazi, neocon, and liberal, that has real meaning, but is so often and so badly abused that I just tend to pass over it. I have tried to make a rational case for what I believe to be the problems in contemporary Islam.
"Second, stop voting for assholes who continue to perpetuate and empower governments that allow extremism to flourish under their noses. Saudi Arabia is a prime example, yet they are an key U.S. ally. $2.45 a gallon pump price."
I think that if we were really interested in Middle Eastern democracy, we could have done better things after 9/11 than invade Iraq. That's another topic, but I see what you're saying.
"Third, recognize that Islam is practiced peacefully by hundreds of millions and your agreement or disagrement of their choice of religion is your freedom but that's about it. Hating them all for their religious beliefs makes you a bigot, and I hate bigots."
I don't believe I ever said that I hated all Muslims, because I don't.
Millions of Christians commit adultery, but it would be silly to say that because of this, Christianity endorsed adultery. Millions of Catholics use contraception, but if someone asked me for the Catholic policy on contraception, I wouldn't say that Catholicism approves of contraception. Likewise I know that millions of Muslims are peaceful, but it's a stretch to say that because of this, Islam is peaceful. I really have no pre-disposition to believe that Islam is not peaceful. I am quite willing to listen to anyone who wishes to argue from Islamic principles that Islam is peaceful, and explain to me the correct and peaceful way to interpret all the non-peaceful stuff in the Qur'an.
Even if Islam truly is peaceful (and it might be), a worrying number of Muslims are being convinced by the jihadists that Islam is not peaceful. We need an Islamic theology that shows them the error in the jihadist ways, and convinces them that Islam is peaceful. We need it badly and we need it now. Unfortunately it does not seem to be forthcoming. If you are right about Islam being where Christianity was in 1700, then we will have to wait a while. We also need sites such as this one, because although a large part of the change in Christianity has come from the inside, plenty came from the outside. The transition in Christianity from 1700 to today was not something that would have happened if Christianity existed in isolation. The reform was at least accelerated by outside pressures. Fundamentalist Christians like to claim that the Christian influence gave the west all the good things it has, but I think the west has also had (and has) influence on Christianity.
As an aside, I wonder if in 1700 there wasn't someone called Ye-Olde King Tollerance, who may have claimed that because there were many peaceful Christians around, the hapless victims of western imperialism could be assured that the Christians who came to take over their countries and convert them to the ways of the west were just a tiny minority of extremists.
"Fourth, wanting Islam "erradicated" is tantamount to what Hitler did in WWII. Face it."
I have never supported any form of "eradication". I would be overjoyed if the whole world spontaneously converted to Christianity tomorrow, but "eradication"? I have never argued for the eradication of Islam. Incidentally, for the record: I do not and will never condone genocide, mass deportation of Muslims from the west, violence against Muslim civilians in retribution for terrorist attacks, torture and execution of prisoners of war (terrorists or not). Sadly I've compiled that (non-exhaustive) little list of things I don't agree with from comments on this site and on Jihad Watch. I oppose those things as strongly as I oppose the jihadists and their mad plans. I think it would be a shame, King, if you took the comments on this site as representative of the thinking of Robert Spencer and the site's crew, because I think they make some interesting points, and I don't agree that the site promotes hatred. It seems to attract a fair few infidels who hate Muslims, and quite a few Muslims who hate infidels in general and Robert in particular (see the recent death threats on Jihad Watch). But to judge the whole site wrong because of the actions of a few who post here, why, that would be like judging Islam by the actions of the terrorists.
Hi Viking - I appreciate taking the time to type your reply to me and I respect your well-stated position. Allow me to respond to several of your points. I do apologize for the length but it is required.
"I think your interpretation of this site is faulty."
King: I read your response to this and I respect your point of view. While one of the purposes of this site may be indeed as you perceive, I also think it encourages hateful thinking, as evidenced by the dozens of posts I read. It took me this long to actually find a poster I could actually have an intelligble conversation with (you) after hacking through the dozens of posts filled with people who ran out of things to say after their first try with me.
"maybe someone has a peaceful interpretation of the Qur'an that can effectively counter the argument of the jihadists"
King: I know such people, quite well. As Ihave stated, a moderate is able to cast aside the archaic and embrace progressive, modern thinking and apply their religion thusly. What you percieve as "silece" from these folks is not quite a fair assessment. As Christianity moderated from within so too shall some people's interpretation of Islam. As a non-Muslim you would have a difficult time seeing this.
"I don't think that religion can be discounted when it features so heavily in the words and actions of the terrorists. Nor do I think that it's unreasonable to have a website such as this dedicated to exploring the religious aspects of terrorism."
King: I agree that religion cannot be discounted, I never said it should be! I do not like radical Islam, either and I deplore the way radicals claim their dirty work as "God's" work. I do not blame Islam for this, I blame those who interpret and apply Islam in a radical, extreme way. I disagree that this website explores the religious aspects of terrorism - I think this website tries to make complete fools out of all Muslims.
"There would be less confusion if those who claim to speak for the Muslim community in the west (eg CAIR) spent less time feeding their persecution complex and more time explaining to us exactly HOW the excesses of the terrorists and "Islamic" regimes are contrary to Islam."
King: I agree with this partially. I do agree with the persectution complex part. However, I have heard many Muslims, on TV, denounce terrorism and other such barbaric behaviors such as wife beating and polygamy as "Against Islam." Period. I have also heard my Muslim friends say the very same, while looking me in the eye. Bottom line is that many Muslims look to Imams and that is where the pressure has to be placed. It is up to the governments with large radical populations to force moderation by allowing it to thrive. It is up to governments like the US and UK to pressure governments to make this so.
"You know, for a guy who yearns for civility, you are perhaps a little quick to use words like "bigot" and "fool""
King: Point taken, however, this comment was not directed at you in the least.
"Your point is interesting, but I think you support me when you say this."
King: Indeed I do!
"Christians did exactly what Muslims need to be doing right now."
King: I agree 100% With this statement, I assume that you also support my point that Islam can, indeed, be a widespread moderate religion.
"Preferably I would like an interpretation that would be understandable to someone with my pseudo knowledge of the Qur'an, but at this point I'll take what I can get."
King: I encourage you to put less emphasis on interpretations and more emphasis on actually sitting and talking with people who practice peaceful Islam. I could surf the web for such moderate interpretations just as I could search the web right now for interpretations of Christianity that support white supremecy. I put my money on the people, not the interpretations.
"I think that if we were really interested in Middle Eastern democracy, we could have done better things after 9/11 than invade Iraq"
King: I agree 100%.
"I don't believe I ever said that I hated all Muslims, because I don't."
King: Once again, not directed at you. I will say, however, that your searching for "alternate interpretations" is doing little to broaden your understanding of what is actually being done within the moderate Islamic community. If you are waiting for people to "bring you proof" then I'm afraid you will miss a large part of this particular show.
"I am quite willing to listen to anyone who wishes to argue from Islamic principles that Islam is peaceful, and explain to me the correct and peaceful way to interpret all the non-peaceful stuff in the Qur'an."
King: I really do hope you are able to find such a person who is willing to sit and chat with you over a coffee. This situation has to be sought out and invited, openly, and it would be a wonderful step for anyone to take, this is all I am asking!
"Even if Islam truly is peaceful (and it might be), a worrying number of Muslims are being convinced by the jihadists that Islam is not peaceful."
King: Ahhhh, we arrive at the nugget! This jihadist "convincing" relies heavily on corruption of religion and government - one needs the other. When church and state mix purely bad things happen. When the conditions are right, the masses will believe anything they're told. Let's face it: Bush convinced millions of Americans that Iraq had WMD's and many still believe it! (but I digress) I do not think Islam commands this kind of corruption and rule, I think those who emmerse themselves in draconian interpretations of the Koran command it.
"I would be overjoyed if the whole world spontaneously converted to Christianity tomorrow"
King: A rather deflating statement.
"to judge the whole site wrong because of the actions of a few who post here, why, that would be like judging Islam by the actions of the terrorists."
King: Your point is well taken.
I hope my exchange here proves that I am actually quite reasonable and I am genuinely interested to engage those with opposing points of view than my own.
Just a quickie:
'"I would be overjoyed if the whole world spontaneously converted to Christianity tomorrow"
King: A rather deflating statement.'
Viking: Muslims (even the peaceful ones) surely hope the same for their religion, because they believe that this would be the best for everyone. I don't begrudge them this. Any Christian who does NOT hope that everyone finds Jesus (of their own free will, of course) is a Christian who wants some people to be excluded from the Truth and the joy of knowing God. I'm sorry if you find that deflating.
'"Even if Islam truly is peaceful (and it might be), a worrying number of Muslims are being convinced by the jihadists that Islam is not peaceful."
King: Ahhhh, we arrive at the nugget! This jihadist "convincing" relies heavily on corruption of religion and government - one needs the other.'
Viking: I understand that corrupt governments play a large role, and that Islam has the potential to be a peaceful religion. But I don't think that the government problem is all there is to it. Jihadists are also signing up recruits in secular countries such as France, Britain, and the USA. You can't blame the governments for encouraging them there, nor can you blame the lack of access to free education. In fact terrorists tend to be better educated than average, and many are also well-travelled. Something is amiss in the way Islam is understood and practised, and it's not just a church / state problem. I don't think it's enough for moderates to say terror is "against Islam", they have to explain why. Even if moderates have it all figured out in their heads (and I'm sure many do) their ideas need to be openly discussed, hammered into a coherent theology, and then spread as loudly and widely as possible so that they can counter the arguments of the Jihadists. I'm afraid that in the nuclear age, we can't just kick back and hope that Islam sorts itself out in a century or three like Christianity did. The moderates are at present a defensive and quiet minority within Islam, they need to put jihadist mentality in the same position that the white supremicist Christianity occupies.
I'll let you have the last word, and then we should probably move on from this thread. It was an interesting discussion, thanks for that. BTW you are right about people looking to Imams too much for guidance. The deference to imams suggests to me that Islam needs not only an Enlightenment, but also a Reformation! That's a few more years back from 1700 :-)
Viking5
You have made mince-meat out of the Popinjay Baby. Well done :-)
Viking5: "I'll let you have the last word, and then we should probably move on from this thread."
King: No last word needed, agreed we should move on. I thank you too.
Zilcho: "You have made mince-meat out of the Popinjay Baby. Well done :-) "
King giggles: Indeed, I congratulate Viking for having the ability to engage me in a stimulating and meaningful exchange of ideas. Sorry you see this as a competition, but that is precisely why you need to use words like poppinjay (over and over and over and over again). Eventhough Viking and I are of differing opinions, we were able to have a civil discussion barring the colloquialisms and emtpy posturing you try to employ. No go back to your corner.
p.s. Where did you learn to make that little smily face? Its cute!
Like the Nazis, the Thuggee and slowly but surely the Klan, islam shall join the dustbin of history. Nuff said.
Popinjay
Oh good, have you learnt anything from him? I agree, Viking has well and truly schooled you like a stray dog getting told. So why do you carry on running around in the ugly nakedness of your ignorance and stupidity? You are getting slapped by everybody you engage with and its fun to read.
Now control yourself, I am about to set your tail on fire, try not to have an epilepsy like you did before:
Only a morally neutered and depraved relativist of the most idiotic kind could equate what amounts to a recitation of the blood libel (hook nosed Jews spitting on 'The Prophet' and all that those clips contain) with the inanities of a cheap western soap-opera.
Another cut close to the bone! Thats you I am talking about ;-)
Good Zico, sweet and gentle man,
Thou sufferest much,
To be so pester'd with this popinjay,
What a lack-brain he is! By the Lord,
A frosty spirited rogue.....
The skipping King, he ambled up and down
With shallow jestes, and rash bavin wit.
It's Shakespeare Jim (HenryIV PartI mostly) but not as we know it.