Clash of civilizations update from Holland, from the BBC, with thanks to Designnut:
The Dutch government will announce over the next few weeks whether it will make it a crime to wear traditional Islamic dress which covers the face apart from the eyes.The Dutch parliament has already voted in favour of a proposal to ban the burqa outside the home, and some in the government have thrown their weight behind it.
There are only about 50 women in all of the Netherlands who do cover up entirely - but soon they could be breaking the law.
Dutch MP Geert Wilders is the man who first suggested the idea of a ban.
"It's a medieval symbol, a symbol against women," he says.
"We don't want women to be ashamed to show who they are. Even if you have decided yourself to do that, you should not do it in Holland, because we want you to be integrated, assimilated into Dutch society. If people cannot see who you are, or see one inch of your body or your face, I believe this is not the way to integrate into our society."...
Mr Wilders has explicitly linked his wish for a burqa ban with terrorism.
"We have problems with a growing minority of Muslims who tend to have sympathy with the Islamo-fascistic concept of radical Islam," says Mr Wilders.
"That's also a reason why everybody should be identifiable when they walk on the street or go to a pub or go into a restaurant or whatsoever."
There is a backlash building, I can feel it in my bones
As opposed to the true, peaceful kind? Well shouldn't we be hearing more from the moderate Muslims? Shouldn't they, rather than Mr Wilders, be speaking out against the burqa?
Wash your mouth out, Mr Wilders. A good muslimah would never go out onto the street without her husband, who would be able to identify his property if need be. As for going into a pub, perish the thought. That said, according to our own dear Naseem, there is a pub named after the Prophet - "Mohammed pubh".
We are not told what the penalty would be for wearing the burqa. On-the-spot fines? An ASBO? When this was discussed on another blog, a poster living in Holland said that sometimes, if you ride your bike without lights, the police give you a "gruff Calvinist lecture". Mmmm, nice.
Being a boyfriend to an Iranian who recently immigrated to Canada, I have no love for the Burqa.
If there is a better symbol for male-supremacy, I haven't seen it.
But I fear this decision may backfire and do the opposite of what is intended. If only 50 people or so use the burqa in Denmark, than this is not an appropriate mechanism to launch a much needed attack against Islamic Extremism.
There are other models available. In Ontario, the issue of allowing optional Sharia courts to settle disputes came up. After all, if Jews and Christians get this opportunity, why not Muslims.
Ironically enough, it was not the Jews and Christians who marched against this idea, it was the Muslims. In the end the anti-Sharia Muslims, and Canada itself, won.
Just like in Iran and Canada, we must create policies that encourage Muslims to turn against fundamentalism. No other method seems to work.
But I fear this decision may backfire and do the opposite of what is intended. If only 50 people or so use the burqa in Denmark, than this is not an appropriate mechanism to launch a much needed attack against Islamic Extremism.
JordanR, it is possible to argue that the numbers are too small for this to matter; that this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, I think this argument is outweighed by the importance of sending a clear message about the limits of tolerance in a Western country. The burqa, however few wear it, is not the way we do things. It offends. It "frightens the horses", so to speak.
The issue will sort the sheep from the goats. Moderate Muslims should be in favour of the ban. To those "moderate Muslims" who oppose the ban, who favour the burqa, a message is being sent - don't get too comfortable. Don't count your chickens.
Hmm, I can smell the farmyard, but it's too early for a glass of pinot noir.
Hello all,
An interesting thread.I feel that this is just the start of measures for Dutch courage.
I'm pretty sure that there is nowhere in the Koran which instruct the use of the Burka, so I have little objection to this law.
I very rarely wear the burka...and never ask my daughter to either.
I hope though that it is not a creeping law...now let's ban this.... let's ban that....let's ban the Koran.
Dutch courage, eh, Naseem? You get better with every post. L'chaim!
Bravo Interested, well said.
I have had many a conversation with Dutch travelers in the course of my work and the tide is turning.
Naseem posted:
"I hope though that it is not a creeping law...now let's ban this.... let's ban that....let's ban the Koran. "
My dear Naseem - I will be running for House of Representatives in my state this year. I can assure you that if I win, this is EXACTLY the kind of legislation I will try to pass.
First the burqa, then having islam officially recognized not as a religion, but a geopolitical mechanism for arab colonization. Then I'll move on to banning the koran as a book of hate, which incites violence. Complain all you want, YOUR people started this war long ago and I for one intend on using the ideological supremacy of democracy and freedom to defeat your corrupt and nihilistic cult.
LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM!
שלום
"I will be running for House of Representatives in my state this year. I can assure you that if I win, this is EXACTLY the kind of legislation I will try to pass." -Constantinople
Bless you, kind sir, our prayers are for your success. Even if you don't win this time around, keep running and keep putting the issues into the public square. In the end, we will triumph.
JordanR, if just one individual steals do you say "well...it is just one. Let him get away with it"? If we believe it is wrong then no exceptions. Besides ...one burqua can frigthen a dozen of horses. As for moderate Muslims, they only stay so if they take Koran lightly. Every Muslim is like a volcano - can erupt any minute.
And yes, Naseem, it is exactly Koran that should be banned, burquas are secondary problem.
JordanR:
Check out Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissives), the French organization that campaigns against violence by Muslim men against Muslim women.
This is from the Ni Putes Ni Soumises website:
To counter these problems, many young people in the ‘quartiers’ have turned to religion, in most cases Islam. In the fundamentalist, often distorted version of religion to which many of the youth adhere, women are inferior to men in every respect. At the same time, violence in the housing projects turned inward. In the 1980s and early 1990s, teen-age boys burned cars and scribbled graffiti to protest against marginalization and to attract the government's attention. Today, says Orain, boys are often belittled and discriminated against in jobs and in school, so they take out their aggression on those they can still dominate: girls. 20 years ago, women in the ‘quartiers’ were either ‘closed in and had no rights’ or were ‘considered prostitutes.’ But today, she says in an interview, ‘they also suffer from rapes and violence.' In fact, rapes in the housing projects have gone up by between 15-20% every year since 1999, according to government statistics, and women's-rights advocates estimate that unreported rapes make the figure even higher. Members of the group say girls are subjected to a hidden system of surveillance, in which neighbors, older brothers or even other girls scrutinize them everywhere they go. Any deviance -- smoking, hanging out with boys -- is promptly reported back to their parents. First and foremost, the girls are judged by their clothes, which, according to the code of the cites, are expected to cover up their bodies. Most girls drape themselves in baggy athletic jackets and track pants. Those who don't conform are harassed, called ‘prostitutes’ and ‘whores.’ So girls dress conservatively and make complicated detours to avoid walking in front of groups of boys. Some even resort to wearing a veil -- not necessarily because of their Muslim beliefs, but as a way to protect themselves, says Orain.
http://www.niputesnisoumises.com/html/presentationanglais
baggy clothes today; burkas tomorrow.
I get a bit nervous when I hear people talk so easily about banning books. It seems to me to be on a par with the limitations of freedom of speech that are being passed in Europe. No one can be mocked, or offended, or have their little feelings hurt, lest they be taken to court. Or with laws against blasphemy in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, where saying the wrong thing will get you imprisoned or killed.
Our best weapon is not to ban, but to openly discuss, analyze, and report on what is in the Koran. Do the same about Mohammed and his life. Truth is a potent tool. Censorship smacks of the rules of the Islamic world.
Constantinople, by all means run for Congress, but please don't use the tactics of the enemy if you get there.
CAIR
Action Alerts
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Incitement Watch: Muslims 'in a Riot of Reproduction'
DESTINED FOR THE SUPPER DISH
Suzanne Fields, Washington Times, 1/16/06
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/sfields.htm
The birth dearth puts us at a growing disadvantage because the most intolerant cultures usually engage in a riot of reproduction.
Between 1970 and 2000 the Muslim world accounted for 26 percent of the increase in the world's population while the Western countries accounted for under 9 percent.
During those same years the developed world -- the euphemism for the West -- declined from just under 30 percent of the world's population to just over 20 percent, while the Islamic world grew from 15 to 20 percent. The implication of these statistics is clear.
We argue over whether America was founded on the ideals of our Judeo-Christian faiths; we're told it's at least impolite to think so. Muslims, even many of the peaceful Muslims, work for the day when their progeny will live in an Islamic world.
SEND POLITE COMMENTS TO:
http://washingtontimes.com/contact-us/index.php?
Department=LetterToTheEditor
COPY TO: cair@cair-net.org
Send polite comments to http://washingtontimes.com/contact-us/index.php? and tell them to keep up the good work......
Hello all,
Constantinople says "First the burqa, then having islam officially recognized not as a religion, but a geopolitical mechanism for arab colonization. Then I'll move on to banning the koran as a book of hate, which incites violence".
This is the 1st time I am talking to you and how unfortunate a way for us to "touch base" and say hello....still needs must, and I have 2 points to make.
1) If you want to ban the Koran....please ban the Bible at the same time...or you won't be able to do it.....your own American people will vilify you on the freedom to practise whatever religion you want to in America. I'll have you know that it is against your constitution.
You will kick off a global fuss and your own administration will kick you out of office....you sir, are gonna be a crap, short lived (and livid) official. Your wife will leave you and your childrens will starve...is that something that you would wish on your immediate family....where are your family values?
You have to have a very clear objective about what it is you want to achive and even more importantly how you will achieve it. Trying to Ban the Koran is the most stupid thing I have heard.
All you will do is unify the divisions between Sunni & Shia ...and make Islam stronger.
There are better ...smarter ways to achieve your objective...(but I'll keep them to myself for the moment).
Also you said "Complain all you want, YOUR people started this war long ago".
2) Once again sir I have to disagree. YOU (collectively) started this hassle when you corrupted the bible and the testaments. Muhd (pubh) through Gibreel (mkbuh) laid out in the Koran ...showed the relatioships between Islam and Christinaity ...gave the utmost respect to Jesus (pbuh) ...and you go and spoil it.
Would you think about changing the Bible to line up with the Koran....so that history is straightened out....NO ...well you need to.
Oh....and I wish you every success in running for office.
There are other models available. In Ontario, the issue of allowing optional Sharia courts to settle disputes came up. After all, if Jews and Christians get this opportunity, why not Muslims.
Easy. Moslems should not be given the opportunity because Islam is a governmental ideology, not a religion.
your own American people will vilify you on the freedom to practise whatever religion you want to in America. I'll have you know that it is against your constitution.
Don't you mean "Amrika"? You're slipping!
And aren't you being a bit disrespectful to your prophet? How come Jesus gets his name in full and a pbuh, but "Muhd" only gets a pubh? And what on earth is a mkbuh?
"Then I'll move on to banning the koran as a book of hate, which incites violence."
--Posted by Constantinople
While the overall objective is good here, I think banning a book, any book, is not a good idea and will backfire. The banishment would merely attract those wishing to eat of the forbidden fruit.
What is needed, is strong legislation that insures that, within this country, the Koran and Islam, by name, are not exempt from criticism. More specifically, those non-Muslims who wish to analyze and expose the contents of the Koran are to be protected from prosecution and from government harrassment. They are also to be protected from frivolous lawsuits from pro-Islamic organizations.
Criticizing the Koran and Mohammedan ideology is not "hate speech" and is not "racist." Such criticism is protected by the Constitution as freedom of speech. We need an unambiguous law that says precisely that.
The law should specify disciplinary punishment--dismissal--for any public official who does not comply, and heavy fines (or removal of public funding, licensing, tax exemption, or other subsidy) for any organization that works against this right. Severe punishment must be specified for anyone who threatens retributive violence on those who exercise that right.
Mohammedan ideology can only be defeated by exposing the truth of it, as Robert and Hugh so ably do on the pedagogical JW/DW. No thoughtful, tolerant, freedom loving person with full knowlege of Koranic teachings would ever subscribe to Islam or support its spread or succor. The problem right now is ignorance.
It is obvious that our laws already protect us theoretically. But they don't in practice, and Islam is using our humane laws as a weapon in their war to subjugate us.
Under the current legal environment, exposing the truth of Islam and Koran is forbidden speech, for all intents and purposes. This state of affairs must be overturned, decisively.
The Dutch are deciding what they want their land to be.
Burqas fit in Mecca, not in Maastricht.
Out with this 7th century symbol of a woman's worthlessness.
And read the damned Koran.
That'll ban it from every intelligent skull.
Wilders is an "ultra-right" politician, lumped with Le Pen and Co.
It's usually the "ultra-right" politicians who get it right about Islam. Now why is that?
Besides ...one burqua can frigthen a dozen of horses.
Now that's "horse sense."
Now then, property need only be identified by its relationship to its owner, i.e., someone else saying, "yes, that's mine." That's where the burqa clashes with western civilization.
Not being property, a woman as an equal member of society has the right to stand up and be counted, and be identifiable for who she is, not who she "belongs" to.
Naseem-
Freedom of religion is not absolute.
See below.
The Belief-Conduct Distinction .--While the Court has consistently affirmed that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, protection for religiously motivated conduct has waxed and waned over the years. The Free Exercise Clause ''embraces two concepts-- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'' 189 In its first free exercise case, involving the power of government to prohibit polygamy, the Court invoked a hard distinction between the two, saying that although laws ''cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.'' 190 The rule thus propounded protected only belief, inasmuch as religiously motivated action was to be subjected to the police power of the state to the same extent as would similar action springing from other motives.
"We have problems with a growing minority of Muslims who tend to have sympathy with the Islamo-fascistic concept of radical Islam," says Mr Wilders.
Could it be that the term "Islamo-facism" is becoming a widely used AND accepted description of the "religion of peace"? Now that's a positive development and one which we should all use when discussing Islam with our friends, relatives, and associates.
Naseem Posted:
"1) If you want to ban the Koran....I'll have you know that it is against your constitution."
Naseem - It would seem you're better at writing than reading. The Constitution (Ammendment 2) states
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
My exact words were "...then having islam officially recognized not as a religion, but a geopolitical mechanism for arab colonization."
Henceforth, if islime isn't recognized as a religion, any law can be made pertaining to it. And I'll remind you, throughout American history, ammendments have been made to suit specific needs at specific times. They may later be repealed, but that's another matter all together.
I will cede that banning the koran is not the way to go. Banning it's evil ideology is. The ideology of hatred needs to be eliminated or at the very least moderated in the extreme.
Naseem posted: "YOU (collectively) started this hassle when you corrupted the bible and the testaments. Muhd (pubh) through Gibreel (mkbuh) laid out in the Koran ...showed the relatioships between Islam and Christinaity ...gave the utmost respect to Jesus (pbuh) ...and you go and spoil it.
Would you think about changing the Bible to line up with the Koran....so that history is straightened out....NO ...well you need to."
Naseem, there is just so much here that is wrong with your viewpoint. So now WE started this by corrupting our scriptures! I've heard this argument before. If I recall correctly, the koran stated for muslims to study the Bible. This was before Mo got his feelings hurt because the Jews and Christians saw him for the fraud he was. Then magically the Bible became corrupted.
The only time Mo saw Gabriel was either when he was having a seizure, or got a "revelation" in Aisha's bed. I hate to break it to you, but when a man get's a "revelation" in a woman's bed - it's called an ORGASM you freaks!
You said "gave the utmost respect to Jesus (pbuh)" No you didn't! The utmost respect would be to acknowledge Jesus for who he was - the Son of God. Your broke-down version of what his is to appease Mo's narcicism is appauling at best.
You also stated "and you go and spoil it." Listen to you! You sound like every other pathetic, spoiled, narcicist fool on the planet. "You spoiled it! I'm going to get you!" Really good Naseem! I should make a campaign icon out of you alone!
You also stated "so that history is straightened out....NO ...well you need to." Again, here we go having to alter history to suit islam as being the all-knowing, all-wise "religion" so that the poor baby's feelings aren't hurt and they don't feel inferior to the rest of the modern world.
I have to say that I think a different approach is needed. I like Alerted Pig Farmer's advise
"And read the damned Koran. That'll ban it from every intelligent skull."
Indeed sir, I think you're right.
שלום
ישראל בליבי
Treehugger, I also point out that the US Supreme Court NEVER HAS RULED ON WHAT A RELIGION IS. They have avoided that purposefully. The day may soon be coming when it has to be defined.
שלום
My biggest concern about the burqa is - how many of those 'fine looking' burqa clad "females" are actually 'fine looking' burqa clad MALES trying to deceive the likes of us infidels?
Once again sir I have to disagree. YOU (collectively) started this hassle when you corrupted the bible and the testaments. Muhd (pubh) through Gibreel (mkbuh) laid out in the Koran ...showed the relatioships between Islam and Christinaity ...gave the utmost respect to Jesus (pbuh) ...and you go and spoil
posted by naseem
Once again you parrot the thoroughly refuted Islamic myth that the Bible was "corrupted." Naseem, it's just the other way around, any fool can see that except the biggest fools of all---muslims. Islam is the very embodiment of historical revisionism; it would have zero credibility otherwise. And its distorted version of history is credible only to those who want to believe it, muslims. Just because some ancient mullah declared that the Bible had been corrupted does not make it true, any more than Muhammad's claim to be God's final prophet is true.
Why can't you see the obvious? The inventors of Islam had to discredit the Bible if Islam was to have any legitimacy, so they just erased or altered history prior to the advent of Satanic Islam. Very convenient, but not convincing.
Uh, Naseem... ...the Bible was corrupted according to whom (other than the self-appointed Prophet, who certainly had quite the agenda for making this claim, among others)?
For a while there, I thought you were a little more intelligent than the assortment of Islamic loons whose opinions are translated by MEMRI for all the world to see by them for what they are: puerile bile and spleen, largely arising from naked envy of the developed West.
Your posts of recent days, complete with misspellings, suggest that someone else is using your ID.
I was thinking of running for office,too.
In the blue state of Illinois,as a conservative republican i don`t stand too many chances,but i think i`ll try nonetheless.
Constantinopole,how did you go about it??
"...I also point out that the US Supreme Court NEVER HAS RULED ON WHAT A RELIGION IS. They have avoided that purposefully. The day may soon be coming when it has to be defined."
-- Posted by Constantinople
Trying to define what a religion is, legally, is a hopeless undertaking.
What is not hopeless, and what should be done, is to create a legally enforceable declaration that Islam is "not a relgion" under our system of jurisprudence, even though it might be considered so in certain alien cultures.
That exception would remove from Islam the special privileges and protections that we, with our humane legal system based on separation of church and state, extend to "real" religions.
I think it is possible to declare "not a religion," any movement that rejects separation of church and state.
I think it is possible to declare "not a religion" any movement that declares non-believers to be already judged by its god, and that authorizes its believers, as its god's temporal agents on earth, to carry out that Divine judgement by means of humiliating subjugation, physical mutilation, and mortal punishment.
I think it is possible to declare Islam "not a religion."
Palliative at best... Addressing the symptoms of cancer without attacking the cancer itself will only allow the cancer to metasticize and spread...
Burqas or no, Islam is spreading, a terminal scourge for non-Muslims...
Adela - I believe it is our responsibility as citizens to try to affect change from within. Even if you don't think you have a chance, it is THE AMERICAN WAY to persevere and be held accountable for what you believe to be right. If you're right or wrong doesn't matter, that's actually for the voters to decide. More of us need to stand up in defense of democracy, armed with the truth and knowledge of the adversaries of our way of life.
I beg you, even if you think you'll lose, run anyway. I too am facing a Democratic opponent but at the very least, my running will alert the public that not everyone is fooled by the leftists ploys.
If you want to run, first you should contact your state GOP office. In Illinois, it's www.ilgop.org - (312)201-9000 in Chicago area. Ask for a Candidate Qualification Packet, then contact your local GOP chapter and attend their meetings and get your name out there. There is a lot of support, especially if you're the only Republican running in a Democrat controlled area. Hope this helps.
שלום
Ban them?
No, BURN them!!! (We think they're FAR WORSE than bras!).
Constantinople:
Good luck on your run for office. However, it would be difficult to challange Islam from a state legislature. It is the IRS that grants non profit, tax exempt status to those organizations that apply and are approved. Any challange you might make would be done at the Federal level. Some churches have been challanged by the the government in recent years because they have engaged in political, as well as religious activity. A similar approach could be taken that mosques are more political than religious, although I don't think they overtly support candidates.
If the message of islam is that of hate and violence, should it be concidered a religion? Would the Ku Klux Klan be granted tax exempt status if they applied? I doubt it.
My biggest concern about the burqa is - how many of those 'fine looking' burqa clad "females" are actually 'fine looking' burqa clad MALES trying to deceive the likes of us infidels? Posted by: CelticCoyote
Ever stop and think... how many men from such cultures have a fetish about dressing up in a burqa/niqab/etc.? I mean, if you're living in the West, who's to know?
"Just like in Iran and Canada, we must create policies that encourage Muslims to turn against fundamentalism. No other method seems to work."
-- from a posting above
The poster, whose girlfriend is from Iran, and who would not be with him were she not an opponent of the Islamic Republic of Iran (quaere: would she marry him if he refused to become a Muslim? Would he refuse to marry her if she made his becoming a Muslim a condition for marriage?), perhaps is a bit too quick -- explicable, under his personal circumstances -- to see the problem as one of a clearly identifiable group of "Islamist extremists" when 1) there is no such "clearly identifiable" group for all sorts of people may feign certain attitudes, or for that matter may hold certain "moderate" attitudes and then, for all sorts of reasons (including emotional desarroi, perceived loss in status, any number of things), may become more "extreme" and less "moderate." The very notion of a "moderate Muslim" must be examined carefully, and always one objective criterion kept in mind: does this person, in his (or her) being, contribute to a truthful understanding of what the tenets of Islam teach, and what the vast majority of Believers believe, or does this person lead the unwary astray, whether out of embarrassment at what Islam really teaches, or filial piety (perhaps toward pious ancestors, or simply toward one's own cultural heritage, at times leading some to become Defenders of a Faith they do not really support or accept, but cannot bear to allow it to be criticized). The bar should not be set too low.
There is altogether too much solicitousness about those "moderate" Muslims and what they may or may not feel, or how they will react. The Shari'a thing almost went through, and the whole story does not lead one to draw the comforting moral that, in the end, those "moderate Muslims" will come to aid of the Infidel society in which they live. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't. In this case, since the imposition of the Shari'a was to immediately affect the well-being of Muslm women, some Muslim women -- of the refugee from Islamic Republic of Iran variety -- entered the fray. But what if the measure in question were, say, a law to monitor all the sermons -- khutbas -- in the mosques of Canada, possibly by employing government agents to tape record, or otherwise, openly or surreptitiiously, insure that what goes on in mosques has nothing which might tend to inflame people to hostility toward Infidels, their laws, customs, manners, and understandings. What, then, would be the attitude of those "moderate" Muslims? And what would be their attitude if Infidels began to discuss, to suggest, that perhaps they had no duty to permanently welcome into their midst those who chose to call themselves the adherents of a belief-system that, right down the line, in every jot and tittle, divides the world between Believer and Infidel, and encourages the former to spread his belief-system at the expense of the latter, because "Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated."
There is much more one could say, but all over the Western world there has been entirely too much holding-back in order to win the favor and support of so-called moderate Muslims. I see no great effort by those largely-imaginary, or quite ineffective and inarticulate, "moderate" Muslims. No mass marches, no rallies, no expression of horror at much of what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Instead, a continuing effort to distract or soothe Infidels, and to prevent them from learning about what is contained in those immutable texts, and making sense of them, and understanding what that means.
That kind of thing has gone on too long. Infidels are losing patience pari passu with the level of their knowledge, and their comprehension, of Islam. And since more and more are learning about it, and trying to improve their understanding every day -- not in the way, I'm afraid, that CAIR and other Muslim groups had in mind when they began their own propagandistic outreach efforts -- the more Infidels will not be willing to tolerate those who do not speak truthfully about Islam, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, and the history of Muslim conquest of Infidel lands, and the subjugation of non-Muslim peoples -- including, by the way, the Sassanid Empire of Persia, with its official state religion of Zoroastrianism.
GFB Posted: "...it would be difficult to challange Islam from a state legislature.....Any challange you might make would be done at the Federal level."
Not necessarily, and I say this because there are many statutes introduced in State legislature that never acheive federal equivelancies. Take a look at "Jessica's Law", founded in Florida but has spread throughout the states. The States can ratify legislation separate from federal legislation. If, in the event the two are diametrically opposed (say medical marijauna), the issue would be brought before the courts to solidify if there is a violation of the law or spirit of the constitution.
MANY laws that the consider "federal" are actually state laws that have been adopted by many states. This circumvents the Washington Elites from dictating policy against a state body's wishes. Say a bill is introduced in Washington that "everybody" wants but there aren't the required number of votes to pass the bill. Let's say Illinois happens to like that bill and a member of the state legislature introduces it and it passes the house and senate and Illinois now has the law, even though the federal government shot it down.
The general rule of thumb for Republicans (that's me) is that the body closest to the people (state legislature) governs the best as State Representatives are (supposed to be) the members most in touch with the voters.
שלום
A message to Naseem:
I know you are sincere,so I will let you off as politely as can.
You have stated that the Judeo-Christian Bible is corrupt and full of distortions, have you not? That is the assertion you want to stay with, is it?
All right. Here goes:
The Qur'an states that truth is disposible under certain circumstances; falsehoods may be told at times deemed appropriate (and that alone makes the Qur'an suspect, if lying is permissible how do we know WHEN the source is telling us the truth...it could be lying to us all the time because it has permitted lying!). In contrast, the Bible clearly declares telling falsehoods to be a MAJOR sin as it violates one of the 10 Commandments given to Moses by the deity Yahweh (NOT allah...you see, my dear Naseem, allah and yahweh are two distinct and separate entities NOT to be confused with one another). In the Bible, unlike the Qur'an, telling a lie is NEVER acceptable to the creator of mankind! If the Qur'an tells you that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same deity it is lying. Muslims worship Allah, Jews and Christians worship Yahweh...two different entitites AND ideologies.
Now tell me Naseem which is more conducive to distortion and falsification--an ideology that permits telling falsehoods or one that doesn't??
Now which is more likely to be correct--the one where falsehoods are deemed acceptable practice or the one where falsehoods are deemed forbidden?
Please give it some serious thought. I promise I won't tell your imam you actually THOUGHT ABOUT SOMETHING CONNECTED TO RELIGION! (I know this is very, very dangerous where you are...truth is aborted in Islam when possible--sorry but it is).
GFB "It is the IRS that grants non profit, tax exempt status to those organizations that apply and are approved."
So, currently, it is the IRS that is determining whether or not we are allowed to defend ourselves from violent, phony religions. Makes sense, doesn't it?
In this matter the Dutch will be every bit as brave and as firm in their resolve as they were when the Nazis came riding into town.
The Dutch action is appropriate and useful. It remains in some sense, symbolic, however.
Burkhas are the tea cozies on top of an ideolgy that has confounded politics, murder and rapine with religion. As such, they signify an allegiance to a foreign power and the bearers of such allegiance ought to be held accountable. Lose the burkha or lose the right to reside in the West.
Naseem:
Always a pleasure to see what you've cooked up in your posts my dear. You brighten my day. With you I know that no matter how hopeless the situation appears, it's never serious.
leelion posted: There is a backlash building, I can feel it in my bones
From Laurence Auster's site
All is not gloom in Europe though. The Dutch seem to making substantial progress with the expulsion of Moslems. Official figures show 53,000 immigrants (mainly Moslems) departed over the last year from the Netherlands. This was partly due to the expulsion of 26,000 illegals (also mainly Moslems) but the remainder were immigrants legally there. Life is getting harder for Moslems in the Netherlands (and Denmark). Immigration there for Moslems is restricted now and family reunification more difficult. The Dutch are also clamping down on other liberal behaviours eg alcohol, drugs and red light zones. Apartheid in schools with separate entrances for Moslems so that they cannot enter the school and sit with the pure Dutch children is making their second class status very clear.
It is apparent that there is no substantial challenge to all this from the Moslems. Apart from a few complaints from them, there have been no adverse incidents since the death of the film maker, no riots, no suicide bombers, and no demonstrations. They are just voting with their feet and leaving the country quietly. It seems that when they feel the heavy hand of the state on their collars, they know its time to move on. I wonder where they are going? – probably to England! Still 53,000 expulsions in a year is a significant number.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004917.html
The answer is not to make the West so islam-friendly as it is now.
DP111 - Only trouble is they are outbreeding us 3:1. Immigration is but only one front.
Here in Australia 1/3 babies are aborted in the name of "women's rights". Of the 2/3 that survive to birth, that figure includes Muslim babies, destined to make those "aborting" women their dhimmi's and sex slaves, all the while there aborted children are no where to be seen defending them, as they were murdered by their mothers.
The situation is about to get worse with the introduction of the "abortion pill".
The future belongs to the culture that has children. The West no longer honours family. The future will therefore, belong to the Muslims. The will eat us from the inside out.
Women in the West need to see that the greatest thing they can do for their society - is to raise infidel kids in a loving home. That ain't gonna happen when our welfare state taxes the crap out hardworking women, only to hand that money over to breeding losers and Moslems. We are breeding a society of losers and lazy bums. Perfect Dhimmi fodder!
Constantinople,
“I will cede that banning the koran is not the way to go. Banning it's evil ideology is. The ideology of hatred needs to be eliminated or at the very least moderated in the extreme.”
Right now and over the next several years the Koran has to be exposed. To get the majority opinion where it needs to be on Islam, they've got to see just how truly hateful and disgusting the book is. Best of luck in running for office.
Naseem,
“2) Once again sir I have to disagree. YOU (collectively) started this hassle when you corrupted the bible and the testaments. Muhd (pubh) through Gibreel (mkbuh) laid out in the Koran ...showed the relatioships between Islam and Christinaity ...gave the utmost respect to Jesus (pbuh) ...and you go and spoil it.”
Yeah, about that. Read this. http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm
You'll find that Mohammad or whoever authored that semi-random assortment you call a religious text stole parts of it from the Talmud, etc., including commentaries of rabbis. Who'd have thought Mo/Allah was into pastiche? I guess when Mo was not coming up with verses to justify his infidelities with his wife's maid, or absolving himself from honouring treaties, or having "Allah" forgive him of all past and future sins (now there's a diety with foresight), or giving himself permission to marry practically any woman he wants and to take slave girls...he was also plagiarizing material! Yes, even the beloved 5:32--the good part, anyway--comes from the personal commentary of a rabbi.
As for corruption of scripture, exactly what form of corruption would you call it when the passages of some quranic verses, never to be retrieved, passed through the metabolic processes of a farm animal that had eaten them?
Stendec,
“Mohammedan ideology can only be defeated by exposing the truth of it, as Robert and Hugh so ably do on the pedagogical JW/DW. No thoughtful, tolerant, freedom loving person with full knowlege of Koranic teachings would ever subscribe to Islam or support its spread or succor. The problem right now is ignorance.”
100% agreed. We live in democracies and therefore we need to educate the majority so they can make the right judgement about Islam. This will put pressure on politicians to act.
I've always thought that the Koran itself is going to be the achilles heel of Islam, at least insofar as it becomes exposed to western minds. The Koran cannot stand up to scrutiny here. I mean, how long do the hucksters and apologists of Islam think they can hide what's in there?
Nasseem - as a Christian, I wish to thank you, as a Muslim for setting me straight about the corruption of the Bible.
I will now go down to my local farmers co-op, buy some potassium nitrate, some ball bearings, some rusty nails, make a bomb out of it, and blow as many innocent infidels up as I can. Hopefully I will also get to shoot some 3rd trimester pregnant Jewess and her little kids in the stomach, like my fellow “freedom fighters” in Judea. In fact I think I will prove that I am no longer "corrupt" by going to the local synagogue and blowing the crap out of a few unarmed Jews! Hitler ......er Mohammed would be proud!!
Yes.....I always had my suspicion about the Bible where it says, "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord" and "Love one another". No I will now follow the Koran and all the good Muslims, and do Allah's bidding here on earth (he seems to need people to do his killing). Allah Akbar……than a pile of BS!!
Oh I forgot to add, before I have my little “Islamic Revival Meeting”, I will make a video quoting the Koran. I think I’ll also watch a few Islamic snuff videos of beheadings of infidels and Jews, just in case Allah’s need arises! Spreading Islamic love will be so much fun!!! I’m so happy that my mind is no longer corrupt! Oh look, there’s an infidel walking past right now, quick, where is my knife!
"....let's ban the Koran." Naseem, that is one of the smartest things you have ever said. The Koran contradicts the words of Jesus, who called God His "Father", and who predicted his death on the cross and His resurrection three days later. The Koran says "Alah has no sons", though apparently he had three daughters, which Mohammed later retracted because he (Mohammed) had been deceived by Satan. So the Koran calls Jesus a liar. However if Jesus is a liar, then he cannot be a prophet of God, and therefore cannot be the Madhi of Islam. Quite a problem for Muslims. Either the Koran is right and Jesus is a liar or Jesus is right and Mohammed was a liar. In the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 18) God says He proves Himself to be the only true God by prophecy, something the Koran has none of.
....we want you to be integrated, assimilated into Dutch society
To be honest, I am surprised that anybody would say that. But now that I have seen it in writing, it's not so bad.
I have just now realized that there is not a thing wrong with saying to those who wish to immigrate to the United States:
WE WANT YOU TO BE INTEGRATED, ASSIMILATED INTO AMERICAN SOCIETY
Perhaps this could be a very simple test to immigrants. Welcome to America. Are you here to join us, or stay among yourselves? If you're here to join, then again, WELCOME.
This is slightly OT, but useful to have on hand when Muslims claim the Torah and Gospels were corrupted. Also a great topic of conversation at parties...
http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv12.html
Perversion of the Quranic Verses.
Events Which Led To The Loss Of Some Verses
A Domesticated Animal Eats Qur’anic Verses
In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235 and 236), Ibn Hazm says plainly,
"The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Qur’anic) copy. When Muhammad died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it."
A’isha herself declared that and she knew exactly what she possessed. Also, Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book, "al-Kash-shaf" by the Zamakh-Shari, asserts this fact in page 518 of part 3. He says that the ones who related this incident and said that a domesticated animal ate the verses were reliable persons among them ’Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A’isha herself. This same story has been mentioned also by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq who heard it from ’Abdulla who himself heard it from A’isha.
Professor Mustafa indicates that this does not negate that the abrogation of these verses may have occurred before the domesticated animal ate them. Why then did ’Umar want to record the verse of the stoning in the Qur’an if its recitation was abrogated? And why did people used to read the verses of the breast-feeding? And, if Muhammad died while these verses were still recited who abrogated them? Did the domesticated animal abrogate them? It is evident that this really did occur according to the witness of the companions, Muslim scholars, and A’isha herself.
"Verses that the Jackass Ate"-
(Lost bits of the Qu'ran):
"Love thy neighbor as thyself."
"The dead sword must give way to the living heart."
"Woman is as great as man; as wise; and as honorable in every way."
"Peace is greater than war."
"Blessed are those who endure humbly to bring comfort to this confused world."
"What enters the mouth as food cannot be unclean; only words spoken in hate are unclean."
"Honor all faiths as seperate human paths, like the fingers of one hand, striving for the same divine End: to grasp the Eternal Mystery."
The damned mule ate the only worthwhile Suras!
(Maybe distantly-related to the one Jesus rode into Jerusalem?)
It's another great pillar of civilization that Islam can take credit for: the "dog ate my homework" excuse!
Shinoliite-
That would be the "Mule ate my commandments" excuse -(for their millennial machiavellian barbarity), literally.
But I like the way you think.
(Next, it will be told that Abdul and Achmet Riyat {Arabic for "Wright"?} secretly tested the first lighter-than-air craft, their "Islamic flying machine" named "The MoJo 1", -and circled Mecca with it during the Hadj in 1899 [causing hundreds of pilgrim deaths in the resulting stampede], long before their distant cousins in America, Orville and Wilbur, ever propelled their infidel "Flyer" above Kitty Hawk.)
Qur'an 24:31 "Say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty except what (must) appear; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display them except to their husbands...
~don't show your breasts - that should mean the face and neck and arms are ok.
.
.
Qur'an 33:59 "Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and all Muslim women to draw cloaks and veils all over their bodies (screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way). That will be better."
~ face veil? or full cover?, wonder who put in the one or two eyes part since it is in parenthesis? was that in the original?
~ is this a contradiction?
believing women / muslim women/ and yet in some countries all women are being forced to wear this
.
.
.
That will be better.
~I'm sure this means better to keep him from lusting after them and adding them to his haram. Which means it was historical and doesn't mean it applies today. Course, I'm no expert....
Adela and Constantinople are doing the right thing by offering to put themselves on the front lines of our struggle. Spencer has declined (I hope only temporarily) to run for public office, and so far my appeals to draft DC Watson haven't come to fruition. The point is not victory in poitical races as yet but the first step of announcing to the public that we are here and we are gaining ground. The point of publicity is to encourage the public to come out from the shadows of fear of their neighbours. When we are known as courageous enough to stand up to the Left dhimmi fascists and the fascist Muslims they use as battering rams to destroy our Western Modernity, then we will find the streets swollen with angry people who will say they too have been on our side all these years awaiting the time to come out and speak their angry minds about the travesties of the intelligentsia.
Again I'll appeal to yu to meet on Jan. 26 at 7-9:00 pm at your local McDonalds, to sit there and wear a blue scarf in solidarity with others, to attract those who would speak to you about this movement to roll back Islam from the world.
I will sit at a McDonalds, the secular equivalent of a mosque, on the 26th at 7-9:00. McD. is everywhere, and if you so choose to sit in public you'll find one close by to make a silent statement of protest against Islam, against fascism, and in favour of Modernity, democracy, and Human decency.
I'll be at the McDonalds near Terminal st. on Main st. in Vancouver, Canada.
Volataire "will be at McDonalds in Sydney, Australia, on the 26th January as well. That will be Australia Day, and I assume that they will be open then.
"I'll be at the McDonalds which is opposite the George St Cinemas, and right next to Planet Hollywood, and which is called Plaza Court. It's at 600 George St, just down from Town Hall. I'll be there between 7.00 and 9.00 pm in the evening.
I'll be wearing a light blue scarf."
Let us know if you too will sit in for a few hours to meet those who come. If we can run for office, we can sit for Human rights.
Banning the burka and all religious headdress would have a far greater effect than most realize.
The rigid repression and control of women is a cornerstone of islamofascism.
I think it is possible to declare Islam "not a religion."
Possible; but extremely improbable. Why? Because, as Spencer says, "this is not a conservative or liberal issue". (Caution: sarcasm may drip onto your keyboard.)
Stendac wrote:
"No thoughtful, tolerant, freedom loving person with full knowlege of Koranic teachings would ever subscribe to Islam or support its spread or succor. The problem right now is ignorance.”
This diagnosis of the problem implies that the only thing in the way of people becoming like us at Jihad Watch is the simple process of moving from the ignorance stage to the stage where information is received. But this diagnosis of the problem ignores a crucial element: the PC ideology. With the PC ideology as culturally dominant as it is, the simple process of moving from the ignorance stage to the stage where information is received is hampered by complex and insidious socio-psycho-cultural obstacles.
The problem right now is not merely ignorance. The problem right now is that vast, complex sociocultural filter called PC. With that filter in place, the kind of correct information which Spencer et al. present doesn't, for the most part, stand a chance in Hell.
I hope though that it is not a creeping law...now let's ban this.... let's ban that....let's ban the Koran.
YEAH. Now you're talking sense, girl.
And the Hadiths, and the Sirat. And then make all Moslems attend deprogramming classes where they are forced to intensively study the U.S. Constitution... especially Molslems in Europe. Be good for 'em. Open up their minds.
And force all current generation Moslem Males to work for women for the remainder of their careers.
If we don't act to organize ourselves in defence of our Modernity, then we will see the time when, as an old commentator here, Reza, used to gloat: "Your grandchildren will be Muslim."
Do nothing and Islam will come to you. Rely for your strength on others and you'll find yourself prostrate facing Mecca, a Muslim man's boot on your neck. Do nothing and wait for the whole of the world become like Europe is today, and worse.
T-ham will join us at Mc Donald's in New York.
Hi Nazz, how are you? Still spouting the Islamic mantra, I see. Good for you! After reading my koran, I still see where a woman has to cover herself, leaving only her eyes exposed so that she can see. Hey, it dosen't matter if she sees her rapist, her testimony wouldn't stand up in the court of Islamic law anyway!
And why must a beautiful woman want to hide her beauty from the world if she can bring joy? Because she might unwitingly seduce the chaste man of Islam? The man of Islam should respect the woman of Islam. But yet why should he if the prophet didn't? And what did the prophet have against womens breasts anyway? Was he gay? I mean, he did hang out in caves with men. (Allah forbid!!!) A real man would appreciate the female form, just as God intended.
I love seeing a nice set on a woman. I love the way a woman walks, be it in slacks, mini skirt or dress, evening gown, swimsuit, or thong bikini. Nazz, I'll bet that you're a knockout. But yet you have to hide your beauty under a ton of hot clothing, be it warm weather or cold. The Dutch are doing you Islamic women a favor, whether you know it or not!!!. But then again, you're married. Lets hope that you don't become the victim of a "honor killing."
Face it Nazz, you're on the losing end of a backward religion. I'm sorry, It's true. Submit yourself to the fact that you'd love to be free as an American. To do as you want under the law, Costitutional law. Wear what you want according to the climate and/or weather. To even debate men as an equal, one on one. To know that you can trust our courts to protect your "right to exist", and if they can't, you have the right to "keep and to bear arms" to protect yourself. To repell a rapist and not be put to death for defending yourself. Yes, in the words of John Lennon, Imagine. Smell the freedom. Come on, don't be afraid. Smell it. That good feeling is what freedom feels like. Freedom, the scourge of Islam. Good thing I don't charge these sessions!
I am dutch, and although I am a big fan of Geert Wilders I must say, that the argument that a Burka is a medieval symbol is not the way to go. I do not think people and/or children are afraid of Burka's, because they cannot identify these woman. People are afraid for the ideas that wearing a burka represents. Woman wearing a Burka (or men wanting their wives to wear one) scream at the top of their lungs that:
- homosexuals should be thrown of a rocky cliff and when that does not kill them they are to be hanged
- married woman/men who have sex out of wedlock should be whipped 100 times.
- unmarried woman who have sex shoul be stoned to death (the stones should not be to big, since that might kill them instantly, and not to small, because that may fail to kill them. The stones should be medium sized and very pointy)
- eating pork and drink alcohol will be punished with 40 whiplashes
- a disbeliver is punished by not giving him/her any water resulting in death.
- Etc. etc.
Wearing a Burka is a public statement of disgust and disapproval towards people who have different ideas and lifstyles. And that is what makes the dutch population dislike them.
What I consider to be most peculiar about these Burka Woman. Is that they suddenly appeal to the dutch law, that guarantees freedom of speech and expression. While on the other hand they publicly denounce dutch law by saying that Islamic law always overrules dutch law.