Well, which is it?
"I used to enjoy Robert Spencer & jihadwatch. But now I see a lot of anti-Bush, "cut & run, let the Shia & Sunni fight it out in Iraq" rhetoric there. My advice to all good LGFers is to just avoid jw. Don't even go there. Stay here, where President Bush is A#1." -- poster "visitorstay" at Little Green Footballs (thanks to JP)
"Spencer's role is rather to whip up anti-Muslim bigotry among the general populace in order to prime public opinion to accept Bush's imperialist warmongering abroad and suppression of civil liberties at home as a necessary defence against the Islamic hordes." -- Martin Sullivan at the ridiculous "Islamophobia Watch" (thanks to Carlos)
Sorry, gentlemen, you're both wrong. We are neither cut-and-run appeasers nor imperialist warmongers (or bigots), and we certainly can't be both. Jihad Watch: your home for original, incisive analysis that baffles those who can't think outside of the prevailing ideological boxes.
Hey! What's the deal? JihadWatch doesn't have its own category on their website? I think perhaps I'll register with them and tell them to keep a better eye on the islamophobia happening at JihadWatch. :) Surely Robert Spencer should be listed in a class by hisself.
First time poster, long time reader. Keep it up, Mr. Spencer!!
I think the LGFer is reacting to Hugh's posts. I don't agree with the 'leave' advice at all - but Hugh has a lot of other intersting things to say. I'd no more stop reading here than I would stop reading LGF.
As for 'Islamophobia' watch, I wonder what they'd make of the Faith Freedom site. (I'd have tried a search but I couldn't find one.)
I found out about LGF by reading this site. I love both sites. I don't see the problem.
Whether we agree on everything is unimportant, we're in the middle of a world war, it's time for allies to remain allied to the cause.
Islamophobia Watch is a joke. They should be taken as seriously as ZMag, IndyMedia, or even NPR. Islamophobia watch is just a Pravda for the Kalifa-In-Progress. They use the same double standard the Muslim world uses in general against infidels. Muslims are allowed to criticize Judaism and Christianity and it's freedom of speech but if Jews or Christians criticize Islam, it's "racism". If Muslims don't follow the Geneva Conventions it's out of "necessity", but if infidels don't then it's a war crime or "genocide". Same song and dance, different tempo.
LGF I'm afraid, has jumped the shark. Charles Johnson is great, but most of the commenters on that site are so partisan that they really think that "democracy" will work in Muslim societies and if you disagree you are either a leftist or a racist. No it won't work. Islamic society is so zombified and so ignorant that the only thing they want is more Islam because that is the only thing that they can define as the objective good, Islam. They abhor democracy, whiskey, and sexy more than any other society for obvious reasons (obvious if you have studied Islamic history and theology). LGFers mistake temptation from the West as love for freedom. It's far from the truth. Yes, Muslims would like the wealth, technology, and luxuries of the West but not if it means even giving up even a little bit of Islam. But their idea of freedom is quite different from ours. Freedom is defined as the ability to practice Islam fully and spread Islam to the furthest ends of the globe. Anything that prohibits either, whether it be an infidel superpower or an apostate ruler, is oppression. If they were really in love with our definition of "freedom", they would be leaving Islam in droves because our "freedom" and Islam cannot co-exist without a lot of compromise.
JW/DW simply report on the activities around the world. Although it could be said that the opinion of some of those posting here could be anti-bush/anti-muslim/some other discriminatory viewpoint it could not be said about the site as a whole.
Those advising that JW should not be viewed because of a biased opinion either have not spent much time here or are promoting their own prejudices using deceitful means.
I cannot recommend JihadWatch highly enough.
Cheerio.
Mr. Spencer, I just got back. Me and the redbone hound were out all last night trying to track them varmints over at Wikipedia. We bagged a little quote from the objective biographer Yalto over there. Wanna see it?
Now if that ain't neutrality I don't know what is.
And guess what? After venting his spleen about how much he hated you, he deleted his comments from the discussion page. I guess he suddenly realized that a quotation like that sort of spoiled his Neutral Point of View credentials.
But the archive of his little speech is here
I guess I must have missed all the "cut'n'run" stuff somehow.
I must have missed all the "whipping up of Anti- Islam bigotry as well.
It seems whenever I come to read what's being posted, and the comments that follow I see people exposing the truth of what Islam is, and what Islam does all over the world. What Islam does is kill people, proving by thier own hand that Islam is NOT a religion of peace.
Sometimes the occasional Muslim, in defense of Islam swings by, defending islam insulting other religions with the standard "101 lies about other religions my Imam told me" playbook, and basically confirming what we all know is Islam's "tollerance" of other religions. They confirm what we claim Islam does to the Muslim mind; it causes it to shut down, reders it incapable of free throught, incapable of reason, incapable of seeing the truth of what Islam is, proved by it's own "scripture". These "drive-by" Muslims prove to us that they are incapable of reading and understanding thier own religions scripture, they prove that Islam is learned not by reading and studying it's scripture, but by force, forced recital of the koran in a language they cannot even speak or understand.
"Islamophobia, as a racist tool of Western Imperialism, is strongly advocated by the political right but has also found an echo in the left, particularly sections of the left in France and the countries that make up the United Kingdom."
-From the Islamo-phobia watch site.
I am STILL waiting for ANY Muslim or their do gooder apologists to describe the "racial" features of Islam!!???
Simply shows the lack - no, the total absence of intelligence of the author of Islamophobia Watch. Since when is Islam a race???????
Maybe he/she gets his/her Biology facts from the Koran!
Notice how both of the quotes mentioned Bush. So many people can't accept any middle ground there, either believing he's a living saint or the anti-Christ, and all political opinions filter into one of the two categories as a result. Never mind adhering to timeless principles.
Reminds me of the saying, "if two people always agree, only one of them is thinking."
Posted by: igor at January 2, 2006 06:51 PM
I don't like LGF for the same reasons. They are far too partizan and so pro- Israel, any disagreement on Israeli actions simply cannot be discussed.
I don't mind the articles posted there, but I don't bother reading the comments.
The comments here are not neccesarly the opinion of Jihadwatch either, I guess that LGF writer forgot to read the disclaimer.
FWIW, the LGF poster "visitorstay" is most likely a phony, a sarcastic troll or Moby that absolutely no one there agrees with. His posts are a broken record, consisting entirely of asking how anyone there could possibly disagree with any statement or policy of "our Great Leader, George W Bush".
visitorstay comments search
Who knows where those comments come from? It
could just be another attempt by troublemakers to
stir the pot.
I voted for Bush twice, but I am not convinced
that nation building will work in Iraq. I'm
with Hugh and others who say we should get out.
That doesn't mean I hate those who disagree, I
just think that creating a nation in "Iraq" won't
work. Cut and run? We've been there for years.
"Spencer's role is rather to whip up anti-Muslim bigotry among the general populace in order to prime public opinion to accept Bush's imperialist warmongering abroad and suppression of civil liberties at home as a necessary defence against the Islamic hordes."
I am having trouble controlling my laughter. All these web sites (DW/JW) do is post news articles. I guess simply pulling all that information into one location would make the readers too informed about what was happening, and that would lead to hatred of Islam. /sarc
As for the Quran being in league with Mein Kampf, well it is to the Jihadis, and it is plainly evident to those who have read it why that is the case. There is ample authority inside of the Kuran to justify terrorism. One 18th century recent example of terrorist activity our then fledgling and certainly not "imperialistic" country had to deal with can be found here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/london200512160955.asp
I too have my doubts about the Iraq situation, but I am willing to let this adminstration and this country do its best to prove me wrong. In the meantime, I will support my country and the president. However, some of readers here have legitimate questions about the policy. To the LGFers, please know that asking questions and debating is not treachery.
About LGF: There are thousands of great readers over there. I would like to think that they are not in any way, shape or form some kind of an enemy of JW. There are a few posters there, as with every site, that stir shit up, that's all.
Personally, my take is that LGF is certainly an ally, not a foe. Although we all have our opinions about the way our government does things, and about Republicans and Democrats, the message remains the same: We have a problem with the Islamist way of thinking, and that we know it is not good for the country.
What is good for the country, no matter what side of the political fence we're on, is that we can all stick together and combat this 7th century belief system as one.
Posted by: AnneCrockett
That's quite the comment by Yalto. Shoots himself in the foot quite nicely, exposes who and what he really is.
Truth has no place in the USA I guess. As stated before, the ACTIONS of Islam's followers only confirms what we learn from those "few books" we read on the subject. That and the 1400 years of it's brutal, bloody history.
"...please know that asking questions and debating is not treachery."
Yyyyes! All the right-wing ideologues talk about "standing behind our Commander-in-Chief in time of war." Would they be that unquestioning if said Commander-in-Chief were a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry?
I, too, have voted twice for Bush, but I don't worship the man.
Funny how America is so unreligious, and yet so many seem to seek a messiah for our times in our politicians.
I'm
with Hugh and others who say we should get out.
-American
I'm not. At least not yet. While the place will never be perfect, and may always be too Islam, at least for the forseeable future, A democratic Islam is do-able. Islam MUST reform to the 21st century, a slow gradual secularization of Iraq's government is as good as any a place to start. The radical fundamentalists must be destroyed to give this a chance. Plus, ensuring certain favored groups are strong enough to win a civil war should be realized before there is any pull out. An engineered civil war could be plan "B".
There will never be a complete pullout, not until Iran and Syria are put in their places. Something would have to go terribly wrong if there was a massive pullout before then.
It's too much to try discuss in this small space, that's for sure.
I could even agree with a 'cut'n'run argument if the conditions in Iraq favored it. The current "insurgency" as the media calls it isn't one of those conditions however.
If people at LGF don't even like to discuss these things, too bad for them. Nothing is carved in stone, I think you would agree.
Firstly, let me say I am non-religious. However, we are at war. Due to our state or war we do not want to give the enemy aid and comfort. True, Bush is not at all a messiah, but he is fighting terrorists both inside and outside of Iraq, isn't he?
The problem is that we will likely be perpetually at war for decades to come, and so, it is (and will always be) morally acceptable to criticize the commander in chief, or anyone else for that matter. Nonetheless, we must remember that our enemies await to see president (and country's) demise. A defeat in Iraq is what many wish to see from us. As sceptical as I am about a 'victory' in Iraq, Bush's vision, however naive is worth a shot isn't it?
Didn't mean that as a slap at the non-religious. I should've said "anti-religious"-- that more accurately the type of former classmates I used to debate with, who'd have liked to crown Howard Dean king for life.
Could've sworn that said "that more accurately describes the type..." above.
Verb-stealing gnomes.
I think Roger Kimball of The New Criterion sums up the silliness of "Islamophobia" quite nicely:
"[I]t is worth noting the word “Islamophobia” is a misnomer. A phobia describes an irrational fear, and it is axiomatic that fearing the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but on the contrary very well-founded indeed, so that if you want to speak of a legitimate phobia—it’s a phobia I experience frequently—we should speak instead of Islamophobia-phobia, the fear of and revulsion towards Islamophobia."
http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/after-the-suicide
I am disgusted by the cut and run imperialism advocated here. We need more Islamic tolerance. Just look at the Jews and Christians freed by Sharia to lead the way. When things are dissolving, Islam is the solution!
Quijybo
come on guys , dont you start falling out. the wars just started,
When things are dissolving, Islam is the solution!
Nice one! A good pun is like a fine cheese. Some find it offensive, but it's an acquired taste. :)
l know that most people who read this and post, all agree that Islam is a cult of death, and needs to be defanged either by force, introduction of democracy, etc or all the above. many disagree on the way to achieve the results needed, but we mostly all agree Islam is not a peaceful religion!
Just to be clear, "visitorstay" is not a "real" LGF poster. He intentionally posts outlandish comments in order to portray LGF in an absurdly hyper-pro-Bush light.
Go Robert and Hugh!
E*X*C*L*U*D*E* D*H*I*M*M*I*T*U*D*E*
My feelings are that the problem IS Islam. It looks to be based on a idea that was misleading the founder and all who follow by a false god.
Because people are brougt to this "faith" from a young age, they are led on this path to the false god, never being able to hear anything else because of islams nature.
I don't hate muslims, they have little chance to walk away from the faith without trouble. If I am "racist" for being against a "faith", then the guilt is indeed mine.
" ...Just look at the Jews and Christians freed by Sharia to lead the way. When things are dissolving, Islam is the solution!"
Quijybo
SHARIA TO 'FREE' JEWS AND CHRISTIANS!
Ah yes, nothing would be more freeing to us than the Sharia! I am Romanian and know well what your wonderful Ottoman Sultan did to the dhimma in Europe. He forced them (in exchange for autonomy) to pay tribute by providing young men (janniseries) to the cruel, wicked and primitive Sultan. It is also documented that the sickening pedophile Sultans also enjoyed a few of the young handsome white young men for their sexual pleasure. Those men also fought for the cruel and oppresive Sultan. THIS WAS NOT THAT LONG AGO!! The last Caliph about whom OBL grieves was Ottoman, was he not?
DRACULA A MONSTER? IT'S ALL ABOUT ISLAM
Moreover, I like to use as opportunity as a history lesson to all people reading this website. Dracula, about whom so much was written by an Irishman who never stepped foot in Romania - so many movies and legends were born out of our Romanian hero. His real name was Vlad Tepes who lived in the 1400s. He fought against the Moslem hordes attempting to cross the Danube. He was a Romanian hero and an European hero, yet he is made fun of by the stupid media/hollywood and turned into a monster. Admittedly, he was brutal, but he was a product of his time. He impaled the barbaric hordes (according to rank) after cleverly ambushing them with far fewer men. All of this in hope that such actions would strike fear into the hordes and they would not return. Sadly, they did return.
TURKEY IN EUROPE?
Romanians tell the Turks that once they are members of the EU (shortly), they will 'assist' Turkey in doing the same. It's all talk. We know what Turkey is about and what Islam is. Let's see if that happens after Romania and Bulgaria join the EU. Romania may be EXTREMELY pro-US, but they must never do as Condy Rice tells them: support Turkey's membership in the EU.
It is possible a person might conclude this to be nothing more than a scam to generate increased interest in both LGF and JW.
Being a lurker of JW/DW for a long time, I've noticed many posters with unfamiliar taglines.
I think the time is coming when all criticism of Islam and of Muslims will be outlawed. I also think the time is coming when those of us in the West must take up the sword in order to defend our families, loved ones, communities, and Faith. Our Christian ancestors did not hesitate to defend Europe from invading Muslim armies. Why should we?
Abu Maven, there are other regular LGF posters who also are "absurdly hyper-pro-Bush." Just try posting a JW-style criticism of Bush's policies or speeches on Iraq or Islam and watch...
visitorstay doesn't even represent himself honestly.
"My advice to all good LGFers is to just avoid jw. Don't even go there. Stay here, where President Bush is A#1."
-- from the article above, quoting someone or other
A tellingly nervous attempt to prevent others from even visiting this site, for fear that they might be exposed to arguments against remaining in Iraq unlike those they are likely to be used to, and that are easy to dismiss because based on an entirely different worldview and assumptions about Islam from those on which the objections presented here are based. And if what has so often been presented here turned out to be illogical, or naive about Islam, or based on some kind of hatred for the United States, then no one -- like this officious censoring busybody -- would have felt the need to try to wave people off the site. It is the coherence and logic of the arguments, based not on innocence about Islam, but a much more comprehensive take on the matter, and on the varied instruments of Jihad, and on the matters that will not wait (Iran, the islamization of Western Europe), that so far have completely eluded the members of this Administration, stubbornly defending their indefensible innocence of both Iraqi reality (there is no "Iraq" and there are no "Iraqi" people, and until that is understood, all kinds of madeningly futile efforts will continue). That is why this censor tells his fellows, "don't even go there." He's afraid not that they will be appalled at what they read -- but that they won't.
If anyone ever told me something of the sort, the first thing I would do would be not only to go promptly to JihadWatch, but what's more, I would deliberately seek out the arguments that this fellow finds so offensive because, apparently, Bush is not "A#1" at this site. True. And how would I find those arguments most easily? Well, I might google such phrases as "Light Unto the Muslim Nations" and "misallocation of resources" along with "Jihadwatch" to see what all the worried fuss was about. And then I would attempt to not only read the arguments about why Iraq, at this point, is simply a crazed, and obstinate, and silly misallocation of resources, but why, even worse than that, it represents a continued refusal to understand the menace of Islam, and how , not "democracy" but rather sectarian and ethnic fissures within Iraq, if encouraged or at least not discouraged, are the only likely way to come away from the venture with something like that "victory" or "total victory" that the current president likes to invoke, in such misleading fashion.
Yeah, at islamophobia Watch the comments are all off.
That is so Islamic. You have no choice but to get all that crap from above and.... woe to you if you don't agree!
That is why there are no Islamic democratic countries.
That is why the Saudis spend zillions in Europe and the US promoting 'understanding and tolerance beyween cultures', while remaining a feudal dictatorship at home where apostates are beheaded and no other religions are allowed.
The problem with Islam is that it cannot stand being interrupted or contradicted.
Let's be proud of the label islamophobia, for it's the natural consequence of loving freedom and being ready to defend it.
I've seen this Islamophobia Watch site, and it is complete buffalo dump. "Islamophobia"....How original. Never heard that word before. Who's the genius who put all the thought into naming that site anyway?
Islamophobia isn't even a word. It's a fake, made up description of those who do not fear Islam, but speak the truth about it.
Keep kicking......Keep punching.....and keep scratching. Division is not an option.
Does this entry at JihadWatch concern jihad or "JihadWatch"?
Does the ubiquitous Hugh have the answer?
Excellent point there Hugh. I am also in the habit of investigating the source both when it comes recommended and when advised against.
The reason why those such as visitorstay feel comfortable suggesting that JW is avoided is that they would avoid a website/journalist/politician etc based upon the opinion of others that think along the same way.
What they fail to understand is that without investigating opposing points of veiw you limit your total understanding on the topic. You cannot form an argument against your opponent if you are unaware of your opponents argument.
Now wait a second here....
Mr spencer has been VERY forthright in telling
Many people that this site is to INFORM!!!
People to the truth....
He has actually stated several times by now
That this is NOT a Bash the Muslims site...
Or a hate site....
He also has not shied away from telling the truth about islam in a non emotional manner...
Something i still as working on by the way...
So to accuse Mr Spencer or his staff is
no only innaccurate but disengenous at best...
I sometimes whish i was as cool headed as mr spencer and staff are...
I also wish i could write as eloqently as Hugh...
(Although Hugh) does go into some lengthy discourses) while i like it a little shorter...
No offense... :)
"It is possible a person might conclude this to be nothing more than a scam to generate increased interest in both LGF and JW.
Unlikely. It got buried in a bunch of other stuff at LGF (found some nice sinus-related home remedies in that same thread, though). And, any "buzz" generated by Jihad Watch is newsworthy, not out of narcissism, but in kind of a "Schrödinger's Cat" sense: Do we change the outcome by observing it?
Being a lurker of JW/DW for a long time, I've noticed many posters with unfamiliar taglines."
You're a poster with an unfamiliar tagline.
Does the ubiquitous Hugh have the answer?
It's only his job... shame on him for being around quite a bit and having things to say, and so eloquently at that.
"Lengthy discourses" I can live with. "Windbag" -- one former poster's favorite epithet, and not only, I discovered, about me, after repeated use, was too much to accept.
Richard Weaver will now say a word for verbal plenitude, the kind that in one of his essays he said was such a distinctive feature of the past, and such a contrast to the clipped, almost staccato arguments of the present (and he died twenty years ago, and the age of the Sound Bite or Emotive Web Squeak had not yet been born). Slow Food rather than Fast Food. The leisure of long periods, here and there broken up by a different rhythm, and the oddly abrupt. But there's much to be said for "lengthy discourses." Hydriotaphia, or Urn Burial, the prose of Milton, Gibbon, Johnson, all sorts of essayists and historians.
What from the sound-bite perspective of today may appear to be a "lengthy [i.e. too lengthy]discourse" is from the viewpoint of the intelligent past the crudest and rudest shorthand, and a deplorable embarrassment for that reason, not for its length.
The biggest problem is the nature of the debate. We cannot have an honest debate about Iraq anymore because the anti-war left's arguments are so deranged, the Democrats are arguing in bad faith because a Republican president decided to go to war, and the paleocon right is being its paranoid anti-Israel self again because they think some mighty Jewish cabal rushed us into war. These reasons and many more are why Hugh's excellent critcisms of our foreign policy are brushed aside because he is assumed to belong to one of these groups when he does not. Nobody reads history any more and nobody bothers to read any ethnography either and when the subject of Islam comes up, we hear the same thing over and over: five pillars, "proud religion", the "beauty" of the Koran, the hajj. Blame "leftism", blame "PC culture", blame big oil, but please, also blame laziness, that seems to be most common denominator here. Why else would NRO insist that Islam is not the problem and that "democracy" is the solution? Why do all these conservatives who are of a religious bent so insistent on finding a "moderate" Muslim that they can have a dialogue with? Why does the Guardian let Islamists write columns that go against everything they stand for? Why does Daniel Pipes insist that moderate Islam exists? Why is Robert Spencer treated as an unwelcome guest by the media while Bernard Lewis is treated like a scholar who has a deep understanding of Islamic theology (I mean, have you read "The Crisis of Islam"? It's a book so absurd, dishonest, and full of platitudes that I could have sworn it was written by Thomas Friedman)? People need to read more about Islam, preferably old works before the "Orientalism" naqba.
If you want to know about Islam and the Arabs, read Churchill's "The River War". It's an account of his time in the Sudan. One quote: Churchill said that the Islamists were 'either at your feet or at your throat'. It seems nothing's changed.
It seems though written all those years ago, Churchill could have told us a great deal about what we're grappling with if he were alive today. Kitchener could have told us more. The Mahdi and his hordes, the Islamists, murdered him.
Since I stated that I favor withdrawal of troops
from Iraq, and think building an "Iraqi" state is
a fools errand, let me make it clear that I am
emphatically *not* a pacifist, and that I don't
hate (or love) the Bush administration.
I'd be perfectly, one hundred percent, happy,
with nonconventional air strikes on Iran to
take out the pending nuclear threat, amongst
other things. No feet on the ground are necessary
there.
There is no Iraq, in the sense of a single people
with roughly common culture and desires. There
are at least three nations there, even if an
Iraq forms it will soon break along these lines:
Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Shia Arab. I do not
understand why I should support the creation of
a state encompassing those three entities.
Also, I don't see why being anti-Muslim is a
bad thing. Sure, sure, I know we'd rather say
we're anti-Islam and not against Muslims as
individuals, but that's a hair splitter's
difference. I'm anti-Nazi too, and since Islam is
like Nazism, I am not ashamed. If a muslim drops
the mohammadanism (a la Ali Sina) then they
aren't a muslim anymore.
Hugh, I enjoy your lengthy discourses. I'm a
fast reader, with a large lexicon (not as large
as yours!), you write much better than I do,
and for that I'm grateful.
If anyone would like to learn a bit more about
debate, choose a topic about which you'd like to
debate, and intelligently argue THE OTHER SIDE.
If you can't do that, you shouldn't debate.
There are only two available categories. Where should stories that are about "Jihadwatch" go? "Jihadwatch" in this case was chosen. "Dhimmiwatch" might also have fit the bill. No tertium quid was available. And, I might add, now that the 2005 tax year has passed, precious few quid have arrived from all those supposedly enthusiastic visitors, a situation which not only gets my goat, but makes him gruff. It flabbergasts me that all sorts of pseudo-acceptable 501(c)(3) groups, including universities that hire Cornel West or Rashid Khalidi, and political candidates who already have their private fortunes, and museums that will be meaningless in an islamized world, keep raking it in, and nothing, practically nothing, comes to JW. Why? Does it really require one of those carefully crafted but essentially sickening fund-raising letters that so many are apparently so good at, or one of those cruises -- a shakedown cruise in more than one sense -- where you get to rub elbows with one another and the Great Men and Women of the magazine or website in question, or perhaps something akin to those ludicrously-named Renaissance Weekends where the obvious is said, in obvious fashion, by the Purveyors of the Obvious Since 1997, and apparently, lapped up by those supposedly numinous presences. Send me a few thousand bucks and I'll show up at your doorstep for breakfast, and perform party tricks.
No. A direct, forthright appeal, is made, as we hold out our hand in Eleemosynary position #1. Many are capable of figuring out why this site deserves support before all other objects of charitable giving. And you know grimly why. If you have figured that out, then where's the support? A reasonable excuse for not contributing exists: your own quite possible difficult financial condition. That's reasonable. But I can't think of any other.
"What from the sound-bite perspective of today may appear to be a "lengthy [i.e. too lengthy]discourse" is from the viewpoint of the intelligent past the crudest and rudest shorthand, and a deplorable embarrassment for that reason, not for its length".
Hugh, you are more right then you know. I recently toyed with an online writing program by entering sections of the Federalist Papers.
The program gave the FF very poor marks for writing skills.
American,
There are probably tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people who have been born into Islam through no choice of their own, and many of their ancestors were forced to "accept" Islam or death. Many such "Muslims" do not know Arabic, and many cannot read in any language. They have no clue what Islam is.
Consider the black Muslims of the Sudan. Many pray to some mysterious "Allah" but still yearn to practice the tribal customs that have been around far longer. They are subjected to an awful, genocidal Jihad from their Arab neighbors, and no one seems to care.
I suggest you read "Slave" by Mende Nazer--a black Muslim Nuba woman who survived an Arab raid on her village, was abducted into a life of slavery, and finally escaped while still a slave to her Arab masters in England--and see if you are still against her because she is a Muslim.
Hugh,
With respect, you are missing the point: "visitorstay" is not a real LGF poster.
For what it's worth, I enjoy both JW and LGF. I've read quite a bit on Islam, and remain undecided whether Bush is in fact right in his democratization approach (typically applauded on LGF) or whether the whole thing is foolish (the JW view).
Hugh-- thanks for the info on your funding situation. A challenge to my fellow posters: I'm a grad student, and even I found a few bucks to send via the link on the main page. A lot of people giving a little will add up to a respectable amount of dough.
American-- "There is no Iraq, in the sense of a single people with roughly common culture and desires. There
are at least three nations there, even if an
Iraq forms it will soon break along these lines:
Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Shia Arab. I do not
understand why I should support the creation of
a state encompassing those three entities."
I think without the history between Turkey and Kurdistan, you'd see a dissolution along the lines of Czechoslovakia.
Any sentiment among the Sunnis for a united Iraq is out of enlightened self interest. They'd be in a landlocked sandwich between an independent Kurdistan and a Shia-republic under whatever name (or possibly merged with Iran).
The Kurds would have most of the oil and the Shia would have the ports. But on the other hand, one could argue the Sunnis don't seem to care that much about the breakup of the country, considering their early enthusiasm for boycotting any election.
From there, it wouldn't be out of the question for an independent Sunni mini-state to declare war on its neighbors, Saddam-style, in order to regain access to the goodies in those lands.
Let's help them be free at last. Let's help them jettison Islam.
Publish a PO Box or some other non-electronic way to receive donations and you'll be pleasantly surprised...
American
Agree with what you say about Bush & Iraq War. We
are all comrades in the struggle against Global Jihad but it does not mean we can't debate a different point of view - this is what makes JW so interesting. Surely it is also TRUE DEMOCRACY : we are allowed to think for ourselves and have opinions even if some of us deviate from left/right/centre 'popular' line from time to time. The true mark of a patriot isn't how loud he or she shouts, it is the willingness to fight for the ideas they believe in and defend a patch of earth to the Death either of the Enemy or their own... We all hope this won't happen but we must be prepared for worst scenario. As those old Romans used to say
'THOSE WHO WANT PEACE SHOULD PREPARE FOR WAR.'
Thought Churchill quote posted by foreign devil above was most apt. Islamists are either looking at you with liquid pleading brown eyes protesting
they are persecuted asylum seekers - please give us a chance or throwing incendiary material be it
bombs or anti-western literature including those
beheading videos at Infidels. I am sure there are many decent peaceable Muslims out there but dare we risk any more in our countries?
Abu Maven,
Please put forth your reasoning as to why Bush's "democratization approach" might in fact be "right."
Hugh,
I am curious if you think it even *possible* that democracy could have any beneficial effects on the Muslim world. I realize that democracy may serve as a vehicle through which Islamists further consolidate their power ("one man, one vote, one time"), but do you see zero possibility for a positive outcome, even if such positive outcome is nothing more than a "watering down" of "pure" Islam, vis-a-vis the introduction of concepts such as individual rights (see the Iraqi constitution).
I've heard it remarked that Islam outside of the Arab world is *on average* less militant because Islam in such cases was blended with preexisting traditions. For example, isn't it true that the average Indian Muslim or Malaysian Muslim is less militant than the average Arab Muslim? If my hypothesis is correct and Islam can in fact be successfully "watered down" by a preexisting tradition, do you discount the possibility that Islam can also be "watered down" by a subsequently-imposed tradition -- in this case, democracy?
Kamala,
Didn't see your message, but my last post should cover it.
Abu Maven, you're talking about a democracy whose constitution begins with (Chapter 1, Article 2):
* First - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam
...
Are any of the following "rules of Islam" disputed? 9:29, 4:34, 2:282, 4:11, 2:223, 9:30, 5:13, 8:12, 8:7, 8:39, 5:51, 2:65?
Further, if "democracy" means one man, one vote, you must be aware that such systems would have brought (and are bringing) Islamists to power in Algeria, Egypt, Gaza, and now Iraq, where something like 60% of the vote is for Shiite fundamentalists.
This "tradition" is equivalent to the amazing Indian culture and tradition that continues to fuel their defense against Jihad today?
Kamala,
I acknowledged that democracy may in fact worsen the Islamist problem, but you do not answer my question of whether democracy, and the concomitant commitment to individual rights, may just as plausibly lead to a "watering down" of pure Islam. While you point to the Iraqi constitution's statement that no law shall contradict "undisputed" principles of Islam, you totally overlook the following:
PART ONE: RIGHTS
FIRST: Civil and political rights.
Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status.
How can all Iraqis be equal before the law but at the same time be complying with Islamic teachings? I don't know -- perhaps one can argue that there is in fact some "dispute" as to some of those teachings that imply otherwise.
Again, as I stated, my point is not that I am convinced that the democratization project will work completely, only that it is plausible that it may work, and thus, it is arguably "worth a shot."
Hard to follow threads on this site, by I think
those nominal Muslims who really are good people
should look into Islam, and jettison it.
Some here will go on about Jesus, and that's
great, but I'm of the opinion that almost any
other religion or lack of religion entirely is
better than Islam. Certainly, having read on
almost all of the major ones, and observed the
followers of many, Islam is really very bad.
If they're Pakistanis, they can go to a Hinduism/Sikhism/Jainism/Buddhism of their
ancestors, or something else. If they're
Iranians, Zoroastrianism, or even Baha'i. Just
about any other religious belief system or lack
of one is better.
If they don't ditch it, well, I feel sorry for
that lady, but no, I feel sorrier for my own
descendants and those of the West. In the case of
Africa, I feel sorrier for the Christian and
Pagan/Animist Africans slaughtered by
mohammadans. I don't feel sorry for mohammadan
Iranians who'd like a more moderate Islamic
state. A kinder, gentler, Nazism, until they
finally read their Mein Kampf.
I'll look into contributions. I've bought RS's
books and given them out, so I've done something,
but I should do more.
From the original poster,
"I used to enjoy Robert Spencer & jihadwatch. But now I see a lot of anti-Bush, "cut & run, let the Shia & Sunni fight it out in Iraq" rhetoric there.
the part about "letting the Shia and Sunni fight it out" alone would intrigue me, since that is neither part of what the MoveOn crowd recommends, not is it a position of the Buchanan/Novak brigades.
On another topic, since I wasn't sure where to bring it up:
Robert, it looks like you will be on Lee Rodger's and Melanie Morgan's program this Thursday. The guests page at ksfo has
7AM: ROBERT SPENCER
Director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, says muslims are held to a lower standard than westerners.
Is that going to be the topic on Thursday? What is the context in which it has arisen? I can think of a lot of Jihad related items that Lee, Mel & OV would be happy to discuss, but the different standards?
If you do get the chance, I'd like to hear you explain the concept of Taqqiya. If there is anything that would make people examine the role of "moderate Muslim", this should trigger an eye opener, and make people more skeptical about the claims of Mohammedan activists and their apologists.
I agree that many religions would be an upgrade from Islam.
But Jesus is possibly the ultimate antidote to Mohammed, not only because of the Abrahamic roots and the non-violent teachings of Christianity, but because, for Christians, Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, which renders a superseding "prophet," Islam, and Sharia just plain unnecessary.
So it not only offers an alternative, but nullifies Islam's entire premise.
AM--
I have seen all the rest of the constitution, chock full of wonderful niceties about equal rights. But is it worth a damn given that it explicitly contradicts Chapter 1, Article 2?
Practically, even if it weren't one big non sequitur, who is going to enforce it?
Chapter 1, Article 7 says
So the "Grand Ayatullah" Sistani will be "banned" for declaring--as Hugh has pointed out--that the kafir is #8 on the list of 10 "najis" things, neatly sandwiched between pork and booze? Yeah right.
And who is arresting all those Shiite "policemen" (actually, militiamen) who are getting their "sectarian cleansing" off to a fine start, torturing Sunnis who did the same to their friends and relatives?
As has been pointed out (and predicted) here, votes were split across ethnic/sectarian lines, putting a Shiite government in power. Constitution or no constitution, they have already shown their eagerness to exploit their position. What will convince them otherwise?
And as for the larger war, how is any "democracy" that excites Iran good for us? Reverse psychology?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009538.php
Abu Maven, I'm glad that you acknowledged that "democracy" could be problematic in an Islamic context. The question that I pose to you is what makes you think that democracy or individual rights will contribute to the watering down of Islam? Based on history, we know that the most "tolerant" Muslims were the ones who were the most ignorant of their religion but we live in a different time now, Islam and its texts are readily available on the internet, dvds, cds, sattelite tv and audio cassettes. They don't even need to be literate in order to get the full message of Islam. The full message of Islam is contained in the Koran, Hadith, and Sira and all those texts are immutable except for the more tolerant Meccan verses, those are abrogated.
I think you also have to take the Muslim mindset into consideration. Why would they give up sharia and Islam for democracy or individual rights? What would make Muslims agree that a Christian, Jew, or Hindu should have the same rights as them, Allah's chosen? How could we change Islamic family law? That is one part of sharia that has not been changed in most Muslim countries. How can we make sure that women are treated equally and that they won't fall prey to wife abuse or honor killings? A few words in the constitution doesn't solve this problem because despite what the Iraqis say, Islam will always trump the constitution and individual rights will be compromised if Islam still remains the dominant cultural force. We may see some leniency on individual rights, but to say that they will be protected because the constitution says so is foolish. In Islamic society, Muslims honor the law of Allah more than the law of man. Placing the constitution before sharia is considered shirk. We mustn't forget that.
I disagree with you, I don't think it's worth a shot. Saddam's weapons program has been dismantled, mission accomplished. We shouldn't worry about Iraq but we should worry more about Iran and Europe. Iran's nuclear program is more dangerous to us than Zarqawi and Europe's rising Muslim population must be dealt with before it's too late and we see even more Muslim riots over various slights. Focusing all of our effort on Iraq prevents us from dealing with the jihad that is happening on many other fronts and for what? To give the Iraqis something they do not deserve and do not understand? There are many other parts of the world that are more deserving of democracy than the Arab Muslims like Central America, Eastern Europe, and Sub Saharan Africa. And the funny thing is, if we spent our time there we could help democracy flower by spending less money since we wouldn't need to occupy their countries and be fighting terrorists for years. Yet, the Iraqis are deserving for some reason because they sufferred under Saddam. Well, sorry but they don't deserve it. Islam created the conditions for Saddam to seize power and they don't want to jettison it, so they should have dealt with the consquences. The Iraqis are not worth all this effort and they certainly aren't grateful for us saving their asses either.
Kamala,
Your points are legitimate, but I don't see them as definitive. You state that the promise of equality conflicts Chapter 1, Article 2, but can we not just as easily contend that Chapter 1, Article 2 conflicts with the promise of equality? Which view (Islamic supremacy or equality) will ultimately win out, who knows, but, at the very least, the equality advocates have a constitutional leg to stand on in advancing their argument. We cannot expect total transformation overnight. Remember, the DoI's statement that "all men are created equal" was not realized in America for many years thereafter.
With respect to Iran, if Iran were so "excited" about the prospect of democracy in Iraq, why would it be trying so hard to undermine it by funding the insurgency? I think this is more complex than you allow.
Igor,
Fair points. You mention the Internet as possibly facilitating familiarity among Muslims with "true Islam", but cannot the Internet at the same time also serve a tool for criticism of Islamic doctrine (as on this website) or for promotion of democracy?
I appreciate the seemingly immutable nature of Islam as set forth in the Koran, but in practice, Islam has changed, evolved, and been practiced differently in different contexts. You seem to assume that "watering down" is impossbible because Muslims, as they become increasingly literate and informed, will invariably choose the literalist version of Islam, but what about Turkey (where the majority of literate, Internet-savy Muslims are not fundamentalists)? I realize that times are a-changing in Turkey, or at least seemingly so under Erdogan, so no need for a full exposition on Turkish history. The fact remains that it is possible that literate Muslims may -- at least conceivably -- choose to "water down" their religion, or selectively pick and choose what they like, just as many Christians and Jews do their religions.
Don't get me wrong. I am open to persuasion on this issue. I definitely do not think the issue is as straightforward as the editors of Jihad Watch, or alternatively, Natan Sharansky, would have us believe.
AM--
Ultimately, the USA needs to decide where to invest its money and its military. Continued investment in a pipedream in the face of facts and logic pointing otherwise can only go on for so long before the "definitive" answer you're holding out for becomes too high a bar.
Even if it took years for to reach a point where "all men are created equal," that vision/goal was not funded by some other nation's money and lives. And it wasn't based on a Constitution that is one big contradiction.
Kamala,
I am not at all convinced it is a "pipedream." For abundant evidence to the contrary, read Norman Podhoretz's "The Panic Over Iraq" in this month's issue of Commentary magazine.
With respect to your point on the Constitution, sure it was one big contradiction. The DoI's promise that "all men are created equal" resulted in a Constitutional legitimization of slavery (3/5 compromise, etc.).
By the way, may I ask if you are Indian? If so, I'd be especially curious to hear your thoughts on the Islamic situation in India (you made a passing reference above).
Dr. Spencer: I hope that you have thick skin. Louay Safi is spreading lies about you. It is too bad that he doesn't realize that your own understanding of Islam is accurate and truthful. No racism on Jihadwatch- just articles about the truth of Islam. His direct quote from Islamophobia is really distorted:
"Louay Safi on the threat posed by the Islamophobic Right in the US. He continues: 'Robert Spencer, a prolific anti-Islam writer and a leading Islamophobe who is bent on distorting Islam and demonizing Muslims, has persistently argued that violence and terrorism employed by Muslim extremists is rooted in the Quran and its message.'
Hang in there. I look forward to reading your next book.
I don't mean to change the subject. But I have to let you all know that I watched a taped program on C-SPAN this evening. It was a symposium sponsored by the Muslim Public Affairs Counsel Annual Convention on December 17, 2005. The director, Ahmed Younis, spoke about the importance of Muslims in America having a Muslim identity as Americans. He believes that the Anglo WASP ( White Anglo Saxon Protestant) majority that has helped to form America is not inclusive enough to Muslims living in America.
Brian Conley, British Deputy Counsel General, provided a feel good presentation to the largely Muslim audience about how the government in Britian reached out so well to the Muslim community following the London terrorist attack on 7/07. Isn't that so sweeeeeeeeeetttt of those British?
Bruce Sherman, Manager of Broadcasting Board of Governing Strategic Planning, spoke about the " Brussels Approach " to foster integration. In a nutshell, it amounts to Muslims coming together from the U.S and Europe to have a large convention and "talk to each other" about Muslim issues. Muslims of all nationalities, occupations, and social classes working out Muslim issues in order to "integrate" better into the larger western world.
No observers attended. Sounds like it was an exclusive event for Muslims only. What an oxymoron!
visitorstay on LGF is a troll/moby. It is a mistake to take comments posted by that identity at face value.
A while ago, I read and commented at LGF semi-regularly, but tired of the constant jump-the-troll attitude, especially when those jumped on were not trolls.
LGF started (circa 2001) as an "anti-idiotarian" (I think that word may have been coined/popularized by Charles Johnson, LGF proprietor) blog. Which is to say it was visited by people who tried to avoid thinking others' cliches, and demanded sources, evidence and logic for conclusions. The comments have become, over the last couple of years, increasingly politically partisan and closed-minded, and have recently approached idiotarian on occasion (an empty assertion that "Iraqis" generally have a strong sense of national patriotism, in response to something I had written, comes to mind.) The posts are still often worthwhile. One caveat: Victor Davis Hanson can do no wrong for most at LGF. Some more caveats: LGF comment sections are a sort of social subculture with a well defined hierarchy of long-time commenters, more recent commenters, newbies...The top-dogs currently are ex-military partisan Republicans. Many other, particularly newer, commenters will seemingly do anything, just to get a nod of approval from the top-dogs. They need new intellectual blood, but at the same time, don't want any new or different ideas. So they're in a rut.
AM--
Nope, not Indian. A number of Indian friends though...
Still surfing JW, DW and LGF.
The wise AngryMuppet (always puts forward a balanced view) says "the opinion of some of those posting here could be anti-bush/anti-muslim/some other discriminatory viewpoint it could not be said about the site as a whole".
I do agree with that wholeheartley. Looking at postees like the vile "American" and the disagreeable "suzan" whose posts target muslims on a personal level as opposed the valid ponts that they might make to people like "Gary", "Waterdragon52" and "Angry Muppet" who make at a minimum curteous argument on the points made.
The world is fast reaching a watershed point, where like it or not Islam will be the dominant global society of this centuary. Laws, financial institutions, architecture, practices of prayer, polygamy, general ways of living in a lot of countries will be changed to Islamic ones through the democratic process for fairness.
I agree that these should be discussed and understood.....not so much to oppose them but more on integrating them into the said country....this is a good way forward.
Mr. Spencer's commentary section allows me to paint a picture for the future and I am using that to smooth the future for Islamic integration into the West, so as to change the hate stance to one of intergration with a small bias to Islamic values.
So folks, we need to focus on these objectives....people like American will always have vile things to say...well we have rogues in all societies don't we.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I did not represent "visitorstay"'s comment as the view of Charles Johnson or LGF, and I do not think it is. I like Charles. He has been an immense help to me and to JW. "visitorstay"'s comment is his and his alone. It is irrelevant whether he is a "troll" or a "regular" at LGF. I put it up here because of what he said, not because of who he is or isn't or where he said it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
I've heard it remarked that Islam outside of the Arab world is *on average* less militant because Islam in such cases was blended with preexisting traditions. For example, isn't it true that the average Indian Muslim or Malaysian Muslim is less militant than the average Arab Muslim? If my hypothesis is correct and Islam can in fact be successfully "watered down" by a preexisting tradition, do you discount the possibility that Islam can also be "watered down" by a subsequently-imposed tradition -- in this case, democracy?-- quote from Abu Maven
I disagree strongly with this statement. As an Indian I can assure you that the average Indian (or Pakistani or Bangladeshi muslim) is no less militant than the average Arabian one. Islam CANNOT be successfully "watered down" by any subsequently imposed tradition. It always finds a way to rear its ugly head no matter what tradition is imposed on it.
Oops, I misplaced my brackets. That should read:
As an Indian I can assure you that the average Indian (or Pakistani or Bangladeshi) muslim is no less militant than the average Arabian one.
I haven't read LGF for ages. Charles Johnson's original posts are thoughtful and informative, but the comments are often repetitive and there is no real debate there.
Islamophobia Watch is always good for a laugh. My favourite post was: Dolly Parton defends Yusuf Islam.
There's a picture of her - doesn't look very Islamic to me.
Regarding Hugh's lengthy discourses, he once did a really short post. It said "No". I can't remember what the question was, but it was probably a very good answer.
Favorite Dolly quote: "It takes a lot of money to look this cheap."
"Islam will be the dominant global society of this centuary" Posted by the Troll, Naseem.
Only in your wet dreams oh brainwashed one. And over the dead bodies of each and every poster here.
Mr. Spencer,
How did we win World War II? Against Japan? Against Germany?
How did we win the American Civil War?
How did we defeat the ideologies/religions of slavery, Shinto-emperor-worship/Japanese supremacism, and Nazism?
How?
By beating our enemy mercilessly, and then, when they were defeated, we added the coup de gras; atomic bomb, Dresden, Atlanta.
Are we fighting this war that way?
No.
Instead of giving up on the idea that Democracy can work in the Middle East, I would suggest you push for a return to what works in war.
War is an extension of human nature. Therefore, as is true with human nature, the rules of war do not change.
And yet, we have abandoned them in pursuit of a kinder gentler war.
I agree with the guy who said you are a cut and runner, because you want to cut and run on a billion people who are bound in the chains of slavery to the evil ideology of Islam.
I left out the most important part.
After we are done absolutely humiliating our enemy militarily, we need to be as brutal to their ideologies/religions as we were to their militaries.
We outlawed the religions of Nazism and slavery, and we picked the Shinto religion apart, and remade it a la carte.
That's how you fight and win a successful war.
It has been proven by history.
And yet, you and Fitzgerald want to play by the rules of Realpolitik (which has been proven to not work), instead of by the rules of Real War.
This whole flap centers around a difference of opinion over whether Moslems can be civilized. George, the consumate ignoramous, sez yes. Hugh, an immersed in the history and theory of Islam, sez no.
Islamophobia [sic] is an offensive weapon invented by Mohammed himself in the burning sands of Main Street Mecca. So who gives a damn.
HARVARD TREASON COLUMBIA TREASON USC TREASON GEORGETOWN TREASON
"The world is fast reaching a watershed point, where like it or not Islam will be the dominant global society of this centuary.... general ways of living in a lot of countries will be changed to Islamic ones through the democratic process for fairness."
-- posted by Naseem
I agree about the watershed. But will the multicultarists succeed in surrending us to the Moslems? I agree that the Moslems may take over and succeed in snuffing out civilization, but there will be a major fight, a bloodbath, that will surprise the Moslems in their animalistic overconfidence.
We all know we're in this for the long haul. It will be generations (or until the Apocolypse) before Islam either ceases to exist or becomes king of the hill.
The best long-term strategy, I think, to keep the hill compatible with individual freedom, can be summed up with the quote: "Give me the boy from two to ten, and I will have the man" (Plato, I think; one of those old guys, anyway).
Muslim women. They give birth to, nurture and raise their daughters, and their sons to age 7 or 8. Historically, to have produced the apparent results, their maternal instincts seem to fall somewhere between depraved indifference and criminal intent.
I don't know how to change that, but it seems like the best, if not only, place to start. The democratization process now being attempted in the ME, faulty though it may be, can help affect the necessary female attitude adjustments.
Kafir Nonbeliever, Thank you, very interesting stuff on Dracula and Romanian historical data.
I think, though, that you missed the sarcasm of another poster's tongue-in-cheek comment and pun: "... Sharia to free Jews and Christians; ... when things are dissolving, Islam is the solution..." ("solutions" in the chemical compound sense, dissolve things).
Naseem:
While Islam has certainly made its presence known of late, and primarily in the most negative ways, I wouldn't want to take any bets on dominance, which doesn't rest solely on demographics. Development is what it's about and the Muslim world is still largely eating the dust of the more developed economies, many of which aren't oil-dependent.
Hello Naseem,
Please take a look at this photograph:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/images/ANC_surroundings/PAGES/image09.html
These are some of the graves of the more than 2 million Americans who have died for our country's freedoms over the past 230 years. The same freedoms that you so arrogantly brag and boast about taking away from us.
You are truly insane if you think we are going down without a fight. You are truly insane if you think that we will so easily give up the freedoms that so many of our ancestors fought, bled and died for.
Off now to buy some Danish beer, cheese, cookies and ham. Later on this year, I plan to buy a hybrid vehicle that gets 55 miles to the gallon. And send a fat check to the Barnabus Fund or Open Doors. Life is good, Happy (Christian) New Year to all.
Skol!
As a brit i can honestly say i love this site, it actually is one of the few online media formats that honestly states the muslim threat and appeasement which is occuring in britain
given our home grown media is sanatised about the islamic problem to such a degree you'd think the 7/7 bombers were in fact the victims of cruel christians daring to not die that day, keep up the good work is all i have to say to the man behind this site, sooner or later the majority will end up here reading the extremely long list of dimmitude and violence associated with islam and then hopefully we can begin to deal with it as it should be dealt with in britain
Naseem: " The world is fast reaching a watershed point, where like it or not Islam will be the dominant global society of this centuary. Laws, financial institutions, architecture, practices of prayer, polygamy, general ways of living in a lot of countries will be changed to Islamic ones through the democratic process for fairness."
Sorry Muslim lady but you are doing doing way too much day dreaming here in your post. ( I read in an earlier post that you are a Muslim woman). I have to laugh about what you wrote.
The vast majority of people in the world aren't going to accept a false religion that is not based on a spiritual truth.
Contrary to what Islam teaches, the light of God's truth DOES NOT shine within Islam. Muhammad was no prophet of Allah. The angel Gabriel did not reveal a thing Muhammad. Jesus Christ was not just a prophet. He is truly God.
Polygamy has always been offensive to God in the past and will remain so in the future. Read about it in the true word of God, the Bible.
Islam plagiarized the majority of its spiritual material from Jewish and Christian sources and then corrupted it.
Muhammad was illiterate, bloodthirsty, and had little control over his sexual appetite ( like most Arab men of his time). He is not an inspiring figure that is worth emulating.
The sharia is good for a pack of wild dogs but not for humanity or world civilization.
We in the west won't be intimidated by your terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life. Believe me, there will be resistance to your jihad. Islam will eventually pass away. Islam is not as powerful as you seem to imply from your post. God does not will the world to remain in darkness for ever.
igor:
The muslim to which you refer lives in Pakistan but was raised in Britain. Her son lives in Britain, attending university.
To Interested: I, too, saw the posting of Dolly and laughed. Think she'll be giving a concert anytime soon in Saudi Arabia.....dressed the way she was in the photo? Perhaps she and "Yusuf" could be photographed together and those photos distributed in tolerant islamic societies like those in S.A. and Pakistan
One thing's for sure; you can always count on islamists, and their clueless apologists, to beat us over the head with the icons, tenets and morals of our own civilisation. Don't have any of their own, I guess.
As for the future of Islam? It's pretty bleak.
So many Muslim males are raised without discipline or self-restraint that controlling them and keeping them quiet and on the sidelines while naseems's "stealth takeover" happens is simply impossible. Irresponsable males are the purvey of stupid and submissive women who've neither the power, nor the authority to teach self-control to their offspring. Helps explain why Saudi Arabia with its TRILLIONS in oil wealth has yet to produce even ONE scientist of note. And never mind a female scientist.....
I think Naseem's tone of rhetoric, his utter lack of perspective and humility illustrates my point very well. He can't control his urges and so is prone to a kind of premature ejaculation.
As a result, a small group of jihadis will, at some point, overexcite themselves in wet dreams of a caliphate and set off a WMD in a major western capital.
When that happens, Naseem, you'll witness first-and just how superior the Judeo-Christian world is. And you'll learn the meaning of humility....the first step to being civilised
Suzan,
Isn't it just typical for an infedel to talk about war and graves. Where in my post have I talked about fighting wars to integrate....you grossly misunderstand and misintrepret(as usual).
Muslims will use the one person one vote and the democratic process to slowly move the puzzle one little step at a time. No fighting...that's for losers. We don't want to fight you for your freedoms....no we want to give you ours instead....a fair trade if you will.
Jonathan says "The vast majority of people in the world aren't going to accept a false religion".
Eh... 1.2billion and counting!!!!
Jesus Christ was not just a prophet. He is truly God. ....and just how do YOU know?
We in the west won't be intimidated by your terrorists or your jihad.
Eh...they are NOT my terrorists & I don't think that Jihad will achieve much...I abhor violence.
Igor says "Naseem, you vile piece of degenerate shit". Here we go again ...that's right shoot the messenger never mind the message, what have I done to you personally.
Don't you dare brag about Islam becoming the dominant cultural force in the West, that will never happen. We will not integrate Islam into the West for your benefit.
Eh cough cough "France" cough.
Actually, I look at how tough Amerika became after 9/11...but most things and people are going back to the way it used to be.
In order for the Western ideals to have any success in the Islamic world, Islam must be jettisoned or else we'll get many, many, many "moderates" like Naseems in the West.
Eh...well see you sson then.
Most people know that Islam is (mostly) a religion of peace and that's good enough for most people, and there's "Jack" to be done.
Let's take this pro-jihadi fellow, Mr Sullivan, at his word that he is an "anti-imperialist." If so, then let's ask him some questions on that basis.
1- is he aware of the tremendous share of "means of production" in Western capitalist countries that are owned in fact by the superrich Arabs of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc? This share is usually owned through stock in captitalist corporations. Western govts have favored such acquisitions of shares in Western corporations, especially since the 1973-1974 jump in oil prices.
2- Is he aware that Western capitalist countries --which are imperialist willy nilly according to Lenin's definition-- supply huge sums to the so-called "palestinian authority." The EU, USA, and Japan are major suppliers of funds to the PA, in addition to the Arab oil-exporting countries which got rich due --among other reasons-- to special tax supports for the Western [American, British, and French] oil companies producing Arab oil. Re the economics and politics of oil, see, inter alia:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/kindly-making-arabia-rich.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-does-left-really-mean-in-2005.html
3- is our "anti-imperialist" aware of the special agreements between the EU, EU member states, and the Arab world, which have yielded what historian Bat Yeor calls Eurabia? Now, in what way do these "imperialist" powers oppose the Arabs? After years of coddling Saddam Hussein, several Western powers deposed him. Does our "anti-imperialist" deny that Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands [maybe more than a million?] of his own people? That the so-called insurgency in Iraq is more a sectarian war of Sunni Arabs against Shiite Arabs and Kurds?
4- Do the "anti-imperialists" deny that there is slavery, oppression of women, subjugation of non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled societies? Both now and throughout history since Muhammad?
The Bolsheviks proclaimed a pro-Islamic policy shortly after their coup d'etat in Russia. So "leftist" support for jihad is no surprise. On the Bolshevik pro-Islamic manifesto, see:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/bolsheviks-for-jihad-genocide-stalins.html
Isn't it just typical for an infedel to talk about war and graves. Where in my post have I talked about fighting wars to integrate....you grossly misunderstand and misintrepret(as usual).
Sorry, but we will not "integrate" with people who want to take our freedoms away from us. Also, you should know that I regard the word "infedel" (please learn to spell) as a racist slur-word. Why are you posting racist slur-words against people here? You should be warned by Mr. Spencer that your racist slurs are not welcome here. I have never used racist slurs to characterize Muslims.
Muslims will use the one person one vote and the democratic process to slowly move the puzzle one little step at a time.
See how fast we rebel against that, if it should come to that. We can have "separatist" movements too. They are already starting up.
No fighting...that's for losers. We don't want to fight you for your freedoms....no we want to give you ours instead....a fair trade if you will.
What "freedoms" do you want to so generously "give" to us Naseem dear? The freedom to murder our own daughters for "honor"? The "freedom" to genitally mutliate 4-year-old girls? The "freedom" to stone people to death? The "freedom" to demean people with racist names like "infidel" just because they have a different religion? The "freedom" to be wretchedly poor, illiterate, scientifically backward? The "freedom" to give up music, art, movies, dancing, ballet, great symphonies so that we can live in the dull, cultureless monoculture of a backward outdated creed? The "freedom" to not ever have a single thought of our own, but only to submit to a long list of out-of-date rules thought up by a warrior from the 6th century? The "freedom" to not explore space or the moon or planets, because we are too busy living under the yoke of mind-deadening Islam to dream of space travel and seeing other worlds?
Kindly keep your freedoms to yourself, my dear.
Folks, read it here, the ones of you who consider dear Naseem to be a "moderate." Not all boastful, bragging Islamists will come at us with a bomb.
Naseem, you are nothing more than a parasite and a psychopath.
Since you have revealed yourself to be a slow jihadist, one that believes in demographic conquest as opposed to military conquest, don't count your chickens before they're hatched. The West will not put up with your Muslim riots, FGM, honor killings and threats. Muslim immigration will stop and Muslim migration will begin. It is not a question of if, but a question of when. Obviously, France is a little slow to the game but soon they will have no choice. They must do something about Muslim immigration or the far right will gain more influence and that will bode badly for all of us (especially Muslims). The media, academia, and the elites may be treasonous but the average people will not be ruled over by barabarians that a barabaric creed. Islam cannot produce civilization or culture. It primitivizes man.
Let me make this clear: WE DO NOT WANT YOUR "FREEDOM". WE HATE ISLAM AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR. WE HATE IT FOR THE SAME REASON WE HATE COMMUNISM AND NAZISM. IT IS A PRIMITIVE PERSONALITY CULT AND IT HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED ANYTHING TO HUMANITY THAT IS WORTH PRESERVING. IT IS NOT EVEN AN ORIGINAL IDEA BUT A COMBINATION OF LORE AND SOME OF THE WORST CULTURAL HABITS KNOWN TO MAN.
If Islam was so great Naseem, why is your son studying in England? Why not Pakistan? Surely, Islam is an intellectual religion, and it is capable of creating universities of the same caliber as British ones? If not, why not? Why are the majority of Muslims illiterate?
Lastly, yes there will be violence. Islam is not a religion of peace but a religion of hate. Hatred of the infidels. You think I can't read your disgusting texts? You think I don't know what's in them? You think I don't know that there are different types of jihad and that in order for jihad to be successful that da'wa and jihad must work in concert each taking the lead depending on the conditions? I am on to your "program". There will be violence because there is still a debate among many Muslims as to which path they should take right now, jihad or da'wa by demographics (your choice). Some are not as patient as you Naseem and they will cause riots and terrorist attacks, that is why there will be violence, but we will not put up with it. You dream of an Islamic world reaching the ends of the earth, I dream of an Islam isolated from the rest of the world, that means no foregin aid even during your earthquakes Naseem, and watching Islam destroy itself from within. My dream seems more plausible than yours.
I've been coming here for about two years and it just dawned on me that Nassem appears to be a kinder gentler version of Reza. I'm sure long time readers of this site remember the notorious Muslim troll Reza who was eventually banned from this site.I wondered then what I wonder now, why do people continue feeding the troll?
I've been coming here for about two years and it just dawned on me that Nassem appears to be a kinder gentler version of Reza.
Yes indeed, right on the money.
Dawa in Poland! Sorry if off topic, but I need to share this! I was watching Polish news - a piece regarding the health of Siamese twins, whose operation was conducted in Riyadh and sponsored by ....guess who (a question for a fiver!)? - the king of Saudis Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. The girls are well, but how long for? The generous king has now also donated 300 thousand dollars towards the creation of a "Centre for the Dialogue" in the twins' village called Janikowo, which will promote a good image of....well another question for a fiver - of Islam!
http://www.radiozet.pl/wiadomosci.htm,5234
I just volunteer the first 10 quid for a Catholic Centre in Riyadh! Any followers?
Harvard, Georgetown and now ...Janikowo! Janikowo can be proud in such company! Ha ha!
Naseem:
Excuse me, but Christianity is the largest in terms of population.....2.1 billion and counting!!!!!
Read:http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
I know that Jesus Christ is God because I am a Christian.
Read the Bible. John 6: 43-47 " I came in the name of my Father, but you do not accept me; yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father: the one who will accuse you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"
John 7: 38-39 " Whoever believes in me, as scripture says: 'Rivers of living water will flow from within him' "
John 8: 12-13 " Jesus spoke to them saying, ' I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.' "
John 8: 58-59 " Jesus said to them, ' Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.'"
John 14: 6-8 " Jesus said to him, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will alos know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.'"
John 14: 10-11 " Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works."
John 14: 15-18 If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you and will be in you."
My dear igor....can I call you igor...you said "Naseem, you are nothing more than a parasite and a psychopath".
Why do you keep on attacking me personally. Stick to the points on debate...no need to spray your pee.
Jonathan says "Excuse me, but Christianity is the largest in terms of population.....2.1 billion and counting"!!!!!
Yes, yes I know ...but it is the TREND that is important...not the itsy bitsy numbers. As someone here said ..."we are all in it for the longhaul"
Suzan...my sincere apologies for the infidel slur & spelling. A lot of people here including the eminent Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald uses the term quite frequently...what's good for the goose.....what would you like me to use Kaffur.
Polish...Poland is as important as Amerika...it's all Allah's land.
what would you like me to use Kaffur.
No, that word is even more racist and bigoted than "infidel." Hugh only uses it to point out to certain Muslims how racist they are against people of other religions (the way that black rappers like to use the "N" word for the same reason). Sadly, with most, they are so used to expressing their contempt for people not of their religion, that Hugh's context usually goes completely over their heads. As it has gone over yours, dear Naseem.
Naseem, please seek help for your lack of self-esteem, the only people who brag and boast about how "superior" they are to the extent that you do are people with serious inferiority complexes. I know the type.
Naseem: " Polish...Poland is as important as Amerika...it's all Allah's land."
How arrogant of you to make this kind of claim! Your true jihad colors are shining brightly in this post.
Now let's set the record STRAIGHT!
" Poland or America never was or ever EVER be ALLAH's land."
Correction, Naseem. Poland is the land of God, not of Allah and we will stop you at the gates of Vienna yet again. Ha ha you cannot overestimate the power of Polish Catholicism.
Naseem the taquiyya queen:
You just can't stay away from here, can you?
Lot more fun than kneeling, or asking hubby how
he likes his raisins, huh?
There's not much more to say to you, except the
obvious, that you're an obnoxious two faced liar,
mixing threats with pleading, and sorrowful stories.
At our throats or at our knees. Bipolar, with a
narcissistic personality. In short, a Muslim.
Don't worry about demographics my dear. We'll
reverse that. Hope to be seeing you real soon!
Nasseem, In the most civilized language I can muster, and not just me but a multitude that you and your ilk could never imagine, all I can say and you can bet your lives on it: " Not on our watch."
I think the main reason Naseema comes here is that this forum provides honest and stimulating intellectual discourse, something which is not readily available to women in Pakistan.
Ever check out the Islamic forums? It's clear why she doesn't post there....mindless and borrrrinngggg!! Yawn. No fun there!
Personally, I'm kind of pleased she's the only Islamic female who visits here regularly, although I wish there were more. This forum obviously feeds a need for her, and depite her bravada of late, the topics here must make her ponder when she's away from her keyboard and out in her hijab and jilbab, witnessing first hand the oppression of women in Pakistan.
Does she think of her friends here at JW then? I hope she does.
"The freedom of islam"? That means the freedom to wear a portable house everywhere you go, because to be seen out of your house is unacceptable. Women are one big walking sex organ...according to islam (it's freedom, don't ya know) You also have the freedom to a public beating if your ankle shows. How about being hanged for being raped, that's a good example of the tremendous freedom of islam.
Also there is the freedom to be put to death for leaving the RoP®
Jonathan quoted John 14: 6-8 " Jesus said to him, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will alos know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.'"
John 14: 10-11 " Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works."
Thank you for sharing these Jonathan, they were beautiful and you are true to your faith and I respect that.
Suzan says "Naseem, please seek help for your lack of self-esteem, the only people who brag and boast about how "superior" they are ...blah blah.
I have never said that I am superior...why do you say that...you assume too much... I only tell you things in a matter of fact way.
American...hellooooo, missed your lovely cutting edge posts
I have never said that I am superior...why do you say that...you assume too much... I only tell you things in a matter of fact way.
Yes, you do, you constantly brag and boast about replacing our peaceful, advanced and prosperous societies with your "superior" Islam.
Do you ever wonder why there has never been a Muslim Mother Theresa, a Muslim Ghandi, a Muslim Martin Luther King, a Muslim St. Francis of Assissi, or a Muslim Albert Schweitzer?
Too much of a sense of "superiority", too much prideful boasting and bragging about how great you are, to ever give of yourselves unselfishly to humanity as they did.
I think part of the problem why LGF is so staunchly Pro Democracy and that is MUST work in Iraq is that they view anything less as a failure for President Bush!!
Let me say that this is WRONG regardless of how the MSM will spin it.......Mr. Bush was right in taking out Saddam and he prevented a monster from using WMD's ever again..........WE cannot force the horse to drink from water.....in otherwords, we have given the Iraqi people their chance at freedom BUT it is no failure on our behalf if they screw it up which they will I am sure of...
AT the very least, the Kurds will have a free society (incredibly their are even churches in Free Kurdistan with ex muslims in them) and we can safely establish bases in the North of Iraq too keep an eye on the disintegrating mess that will be Southern Iraq the minute US Troops leave..
I do not agree with leaving yet........not before some decent Iraqi police and army are establish to let them try and rein in the simmiering Islamic parties that cannot wait to slaughter one another........
LGF's have to understand that it is NOT a blemish on America or Bush if Iraq descends into Islamic mass murder.....you cannot bring democracy to a Muslim people......it simply will not work.......you CAN bring a democracy to a people that hold onto Islam very lightly ie the Kurds.........BUT A TRUE Muslim will NEVER accept democracy....it is foolish to think otherwise!!
Regardless of all that, the President did the right thing in taking out Saddam.....now lets hope he continues to do the right thing and take out the Persian leadership!!!
Thanks
"Polish...Poland is as important as Amerika...it's all Allah's land."
Everyone, Naseem is just stating it "as it is". Don't take this threat lightly. What she forgot to say is that all the wealth of the world is Allah's as well and that it rightfully belongs to the Muslims. So let's send more aid to Pakistan so her brethren can oppress more Hindus and Christians, it's their Muslim duty.
If Naseem wants to prove how tolerant Islam is, she should get a visa to Saudi Arabia and become a foreign worker there. Of course, they'll have to stamp "infidel" on her card so they know that she is an Ahmadiyya. Let's see how well she's treated by the tolerant Muslim Arabs who love the South Asians so much over there. Maybe she'll wake up.
Nassem:
Polish...Poland is as important as Amerika...it's all Allah's land.
In your dreams zombie. You are a robot who repeats the Islamic swill you've been programmed for
Thinking about Naseem, she is among the most powerless group in the world, not only a muslim female, but a member of a despised minority offshoot living in the hellhole of Pakistan.
Rewards won't come through her own actions, career, political activity, creative ability, business saavy, work ethic, or whatever.
No, the only conncection to power she has is as part of the ummah. She will never be free and powerful as an individual, not unless Islam somehow dominates the world. Then there will actually be many people worse off and more powerless then she is, as dhimmis under an Islamic world state.
Rather then struggle for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for everyone (including herself and other women in Pakistan), her dreams involve the destruction of these qualities for everyone who is now fortunate enough to enjoy them.
Thus does Islam twist the hearts of its followers.
I'm a fan of LGF as well as this site and see no reason for idealogical purity from either. Pity tbose who are afraid to stray from thier own mindset.
The whole concept of Islam ever dominating the world is absurd.
Christ's victory over evil has already been won, on Calvary, and we are just going through the final motions of Satan's death throes.
It's all over people...nothing to see here...move along.
Nothing to worry about.
God has given Satan one last fling on earth by way of a 'going away party, ie to hell',
to test mankind.
Some, like Naseem choose Satan...
and others choose Christ.
Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
Naseem:
" Thank you for sharing these Jonathan, they were beautiful and you are true to your faith and I respect that."
Your welcome Naseem. I am happy to share with you about Jesus Christ. He has changed my life for the better. I try to live a life that is focused on Him rather than the secular ways of the world.
Robert,
You know you've hit the target when you're criticized from both sides.
I don't always agree with everything on JW (sometimes from Hugh, rarely from you) but I know I can trust where you are coming from.
I'm also opposed to the Neo-Con Imperial adventures with their bizarre fantasies that they can democratize Islam. I think they ought to pation Iraq into Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, and Assyrian Christian countries, and guarantee the security only of the latter.
Just remember, the Truth is its own defense.
I wasn't very clear above: I sometimes disagree with Hugh but rarely disagree with you.
So keep the truth coming. You can't get honey unless you're willing to anger some bees.
Naseem is baiting folks, ignore her. She probably wants to evoke dozens of nasty retorts that she can cut and paste on Islamophobia Watch to prove how "racist" we all are.
Naseem isn't stupid; she doesn't believe a word she says.
Igor mentioned the South Asian workers in Saudi Arabia. Now, that's a topic we should be talking about much more, especially when so-called "leftists" criticize "islamophobia." Once upon a time, the "left" was concerned with the welfare of workers, the working class was above all. The Commies said that politics had to be "class based," etc. etc.
Now, the so-called "left" does not acknowledge the existence of the millions of foreign workers in the rich Arab oil countries, let alone champion their cause. The humiliation and exploitation that these people undergo are of no concern to Geo Galloway [al-Gallawi?], or redken of London, or the "anti-globalization" screamers, and so on. Of course, there is so much poverty in the countries where these people come from that they are willing to be exploited in Kuwait, etc., if they can at least bring money home to Sri Lanka, the Philippines, etc. But I want to know where the Left is on the plight of these people, especially the women who are often sexually exploited, or practically enslaved, etc. So the next time some self-proclaimed "leftist" tells you he's against "Islamophobia," ask him/her what he/she is doing about the plight of the millions of foreign workers in Kuwait, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Ras al-Khaima, and all the rest. How do your "leftist" friends feel about the Bulgarian nurses in Libya [plus a Palestinian Arab physician], or about the women enslaved in Saudi Arabia [at least one of whom was brought to the USA], or about the foreign workers, even Americans and British, who undergo humiliation and judicial persecution in the land of Geo Dubya's good friends the Saudis?? Challenge the so-called "left"!!!
ROFL!