A commenter on this thread has posted some statements from an article Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald wrote at another place, and has made some general allegations and asked some general questions about this site and my intentions. Since these are common questions, and quotes like these from Hugh are common fodder for those who attempt to discredit our work here, I thought I would post the commenter's messages to me and my reply as a separate post, for the reference of any fair-minded readers who might happen along.
First came this message from "RickS," replying to an earlier poster:
Ispanan -Of course, there is always Hugh's article "Islam for the Perplexed" - not written, as far as I can tell, as an "alternative" to Tancredo's suggestion.
"The second important goal is to stop all Moslem migration from Moslem lands, to the U.S., to Canada, to Western Europe. For obvious reasons, Moslems do not migrate to Eastern Europe and Russia. If possible, not only should migration be stopped, but life can be made more difficult, if not by the government, then by private individuals, so that Moslems will be discouraged from remaining.
What do I mean? I mean that we, as private citizens, do not have to hire Moslems, we do not have to buy their goods, or make their lives, economically, more rewarding. It may seem mean, and many of you may be offended by it, and I am perfectly aware that there are nice Moslems, that there are those who simply ignore the main tenets of Islam. But as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love. Even the innocent ones, merely by being here, swell Moslem political power."
In the St. Petersburg Times article that was recently linked to on JihadWatch, Robert Spencer said that "he bans" the "racists" who visit his site. Both quotes from him. Now, I know there are many among you who will say "Muslim" is a not a race. Clearly true, but the quote was in the context of people who are bigoted against Muslims. (To put this in context, the definition of Anti-Semitism in the M-W dictionary is: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." I'll assume good faith in your statement and assume you meant the same, just replacing the word "Jews" with "Muslims")
Seems that Hugh, "as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love", qualifies.
Mr. Spencer: Will you a) clarify whether you also hold similar opinions to those above and b) ban Hugh from JihadWatch as one of the "racists" you claim to abhor?
Will you also make an unconditional statement that you are against those who hold or practice "hostility toward or discrimination against any religious, ethnic, or racial group, including Muslims"?
Thank you.
Then another poster recommended that he email me, as I usually don't read the comments here, to which "RickS" responded:
Archimedes -Thank you - good idea.
Re: the Quran, yes I have read it. I don't dispute the fact that the much quoted verses are in there. I also don't think that what is in the Quran is any worse than what is found in the Bible (esp the Old Testament). All Muslims that I know believe in the Quran literally, but also have a very strong grasp of the concept of context - that much of the Quran was day to day instruction at the time it was revealed, while other partss were eternal mandates. Almost all of the verses quoted by those who want to demonize it fall into the former.
I do dispute the idea that the quoted constitute a majority of the verses, and I doubt the motives of people, like Spencer, who emphasize that without a single mention of the more positive, and common, elements of the Quran.
I also know, from first hand experience being in the Middle East, that Jihadist ideology is not widespread amongst Muslims. Nationalism explains (but does not excuse) most of the violence (Kashmir, Palestinians, Thailand, Iran, etc) better than religion. That jihadist groups have infiltrated these groups is very dangerous, I agree.
Frankly, I am as worried about Jihadists as everyone here is. I also agree with Stephen Schwartz that the Wahhabis are extremely dangerous, and they they must be stopped.
But I strongly believe that people like Hugh, who would easily be counted as an Anti-Semite if he had written the stuff he publishes about Jews instead of Muslims, are bigots of the worst kind.
And I believe Robert Spencer is trying to have it both ways - operating what I do consider to be a thinly disguised hate site while providing what I also consider to be valuable news and information about a real threat.
However, RickS did not email me, but Jihad Watch reader Miss Moneypenney alerted me to his posts, whereupon I posted this reply:
My dear "RickS":No need to email me. I have not read this whole thread but a reader alerted me to your questions.
Yes, Hugh is against Muslim immigration into Western lands. He opposes this because of the abundantly documented fact that violent jihadists operate within Western Muslim communities and that those communities have made little or no practical effort to root them out. Vague condemnations of "terrorism" that do nothing to address jihadist theological arguments not only do not cut it, but by their vagueness and obvious inadequacy raise suspicions as to their overall purpose.
As long as all that remains true, what natural right do Muslims have to settle into Western countries? Must Western governments cheerfully aid in the importation of large groups of people among whom are significant numbers who wish to remake their societies to the grave detriment of women and non-Muslims?
I personally am not in favor of ending Muslim immigration. But I believe that renunciation of any desire to implement Sharia and similar statements should be a condition of residency, and that the continuation of that residency should be contingent upon adherence to those statements. Just as former Nazis, when discovered, can be deported, no matter how long they have lived here.
This is a matter of defending universal human rights. You, on the other hand, decry it as "racist," saying, "Robert Spencer said that 'he bans' the 'racists' who visit his site. Both quotes from him."
Incomplete and inadequate quotes, indicative of the inadequacy of the whole article. As I have said many times here, comments are unmoderated. I never see 90% of them. Unless somebody brings a post to my attention, I probably will not delete it. If you wish not to be adversarial but to help in this work, send me notice of such posts, and I will delete them.
You continue: "Now, I know there are many among you who will say 'Muslim' is a not a race. Clearly true, but the quote was in the context of people who are bigoted against Muslims. (To put this in context, the definition of Anti-Semitism in the M-W dictionary is: 'hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.' I'll assume good faith in your statement and assume you meant the same, just replacing the word 'Jews' with 'Muslims')."
I am one who will say that Islam is not a race. It isn't. It is a religious ideology. People of any race can and do hold to it. I am not interested in keeping white jihadists here and deporting brown jihadists. That would be racism; it would also be asinine. To say, on the other hand, that I don't want those who want to impose Sharia law, which violates norms of human rights that are otherwise universally accepted, to be here, and that as long as a larger group does nothing to stop such people from living and working within it, that larger group is under suspicion, that has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. Bigotry is an irrational hatred of a group. I don't hate anyone; I simply oppose a murderous ideology of supremacism and oppression. Your analogy about the Jews founders on the fact that there is no global movement of Jews working to impose Jewish laws on the rest of us. Nazi Jew-hatred was essentially racial: the Nazis had all sorts of race laws to determine who was a Jew and who was not. That, sir, is racism.
If, on the other hand, the Muslim communities in the West today proclaimed their renunciation of Sharia now and forever, and acceptance of Western pluralism and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims, and full genuine equality of rights for women, and began to manifest the truth of such statements by their actions, well, I would be the first to welcome them by the planeload into our nation. But to assume that all who arrive here have already done that when there is so much evidence to the contrary -- that is just foolhardy. And it is in that context that I read Hugh's statement that you quote: "as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love." If you read his whole article (it is not on this site, but I'm sure you can find it), you will see that he explicitly says that all Muslims are not terrorists, etc. But the problem is, again, this business of distinguishing. I have said many times that it is virtually impossible to tell a moderate from a jihadist Muslim. Some have seized on that as some kind of statement of bigotry. I can't see why it would be. It is simply a statement of fact, confirmed by the strange life paths of Maher Hawash, Fawaz Damra, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the Lackawanna Six, and so many others. Where is the firewall? If there is one, why is it so spectacularly ineffective on so many occasions?
So finally, I will not dismiss Hugh from his position here, because he is not a racist, and because I (and he also, I am sure) would happily make, as you bid us to, "an unconditional statement that [I am] against those who hold or practice 'hostility toward or discrimination against any religious, ethnic, or racial group, including Muslims.'" Self-defense is not hostility or discrimination. Awareness of the facts of the case is not hostility or discrimination. Let the Muslims in America begin to expel and expose jihadists, working with law enforcement, and teaching pluralism and the equality of rights of all instead of the hatred of Jews and Christians that Freedom House discovered in so many mosques just last year, and I will welcome them happily. Let them stop opposing sensible measures like the monitoring of mosques for radiation, and I will applaud them.
You also say: "I also don't think that what is in the Quran is any worse than what is found in the Bible (esp the Old Testament)." You are quite wrong in this. The Qur'an contains open-ended statements calling for Muslims to wage war against all unbelievers. The Old Testament does not. What's more, traditional Islamic theology holds those statements to be valid for all time. No Jewish or Christian group teaches anything similar on the basis of the Old Testament.
And you add: "All Muslims that I know believe in the Quran literally, but also have a very strong grasp of the concept of context - that much of the Quran was day to day instruction at the time it was revealed, while other partss were eternal mandates. Almost all of the verses quoted by those who want to demonize it fall into the former. I do dispute the idea that the quoted constitute a majority of the verses, and I doubt the motives of people, like Spencer, who emphasize that without a single mention of the more positive, and common, elements of the Quran."
If you had read my books you would know that I discuss all this at great length, particularly in "Onward Muslim Soldiers." In that book I discuss the Qur'an's relatively tolerant verses and how traditional Islamic theology holds them abrogated. I am not the originator of this perspective. I just report on it. Here is a Muslim explication of it: http://www.islamworld.net/jihad.html
But at this point I am not writing this to you, because I can tell that you are not disposed to think anything but ill of me. However, I am writing it for unbiased observers who may be reading this.
You say: "I also know, from first hand experience being in the Middle East, that Jihadist ideology is not widespread amongst Muslims." That is, alas, changing.
You say: "But I strongly believe that people like Hugh, who would easily be counted as an Anti-Semite if he had written the stuff he publishes about Jews instead of Muslims, are bigots of the worst kind."
If Hugh had written about Jews what he wrote about Muslims, he would not only be a bigot; he would be a liar. But the fact that what can be truthfully said about one group cannot be truthfully said about another does not make it untrue, or bigoted. Especially when the group in question exists as a group because of its shared ideology. If that ideology has abhorrent features, that is simply a matter of fact. It must be dealt with somehow, and not allowed to continue because of fear of "bigotry" or "racism."
You say: "And I believe Robert Spencer is trying to have it both ways - operating what I do consider to be a thinly disguised hate site while providing what I also consider to be valuable news and information about a real threat."
In this you are like those who decried anti-Nazi efforts as "hatred of Germans" or anti-Communist efforts as "hatred of Russians," and you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
"Now, I know there are many among you who will say 'Muslim' is a not a race. Clearly true..." but what the heck, Rick will just proceed on in the face of the facts, won't he?
I suppose Rick would find opposition to the Ku Klux Klan racist, as well.
Now, I know there are many among you who will say 'Ku Klux Klan' is a not a race. Clearly true....
Mr. Spencer, I barely understand how you can put up with these people, much less answer them.
"Mr. Spencer, I barely understand how you can put up with these people, much less answer them."
-- from a posting by Anne Crockett above
Anne, if you ever get to know Robert, you will discover he possesses one quality which not all of us can emulate -- the patience of a saint.
Robert:
Kudos to you. What an excellent riposte. You crushed RickS intellectually. All that he will be left doing is sputtering ad hominem insults.
However, as Dr. Bostom says, and I am paraphrasing here, not having time to dig up the quotation, no one wants to believe that Muslims believe in Jihad ideology and Dhimmitude for infidels. They would prefer not to believe it because it makes them so uncomfortable. The bottom line is: some people see the world as they would like it to be; and some people see the world as it is. Whether you label them left or right it makes no difference, it is a mental habit of mind. To put it another way, for some people, seeing is believing but for other people, what they believe is what they see. And, of course, someone will post 2 minutes after I post this and accuse me of being as guilty of the latter as those whom I accuse wearing rose-colored glasses. Well, examine the Quran, examine the ahadith, examine the Sira, examine the history of Islam, examine the current teachings in Islam all over the world and we will see who is right.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rick S isn't the guy's real name but rather Ibrahim H. Pure slur but that's what we're up against.
what the heck, Rick will just proceed on in the face of the facts, won't he?
Where this canard is concerned your arguments are water off a duck's back.
Well if RickS wants his ideas about Islam to be further dissected and analyzed, I would recommend Ali Sina at faithfreedom.org. His debates are fascinating reads.
I was at a cardgame with some friends this past weekend, and Muslims came up briefly. So I spoke up. Everyone just looked perplex. Then we all laughed and joked. Political correctness is Islam's best friend and attacking those deemed politically incorrect has become the favorite pasttime of the apologists.
If you guys in the States don't know what (most likely ) caused this outburst ,I think it could be the (UK)labour party's full on defence of the rop going on in the Leeds crown court .
Is it just me or does this photo
http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1371116.jpg
resemble the one in the top righthand corner of this page .
Excellent rebuttal, Mr. Spencer. You eloquently and correctly exposed him for the 'useful idiot' that he is.
I have a question that is unrelated to the topic at hand, but since this isnt a forum, I can't post my own threads. So I'll have to use the most recent topic.
Can anyone here give me exemple of countries and nations that were originaly unislamic, but, because of demographics that favored muslims and because of external financing, from Saudit Arabias for exemple, eventualy became islamic, by force or other means?
The exemples do not have to be necessarily modern, and I dont need a detailed description of the events. I would only need the name of the country, or the name of the genocide/civile war that ensued, and I'll do my own research bewyond that.
As of now, I already know of Darfure and Thailand, thats all. I know Islam played a role in the Balkan Wars over this century, but its still unclear to me.
Thank you in advance.
Let us all be quite clear about one thing - race is your membership of a particular group of human beings as defined by all those who are members of that group and this membership is given to you by your mother and/or your father and you can never, never, never, do anything to change it. It is a property of you, like your skin colour, your eye colour, your hair colour, your gender, your height and your sexual orientation.
Let us all be equally clear about one other thing - religion is something you choose. It may be given to you in your formative years by your mother and/or your father but you can always, always, always change your mind about it by using your ratiocinative powers.
Therefore, it is perfectly permissible to discriminate against those who hold death-cult type religious ideas, such as Mohammedans, but it is not permissible to discriminate against those of a darker skin hue than your own (or, indeed, discriminate using any of the attributes given to a person by virtue of the genetic mixing undertaken by his/her parents).
I believe my definition to be correct and it therefore follows that Mr. Fitzgerald cannot be a racist nor is it permissible to accuse him of being one.
I also endorse his idea about using Ralph-Nader-type consumer tactics against Mohammedans - something that I and my circle have been practising for some years. Stop trading with them and do not make them welcome in your communities on a social level.
Rick wrote: "I also know, from first hand experience being in the Middle East, that Jihadist ideology is not widespread amongst Muslims. Nationalism explains (but does not excuse) most of the violence (Kashmir, Palestinians, Thailand, Iran, etc) better than religion."
Sure Rick, it's all about "nationalism."
India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Britain and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Sri Lanka and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and the Netherlands and Scotland and...
Stop chewing the mushrooms Rick...
Elliot
Every question you could ask about Islam is answered in Robert Spencers books & the following sources.
Legacy of Jihad by Bostom.
Bat Ye'ors books.
Sword of the Phrophet by Trifcovic.
All of these books are available on Amazon & required reading for any one who wish's to disscuss the subject of Islam.
Lawyers know that, if they are arguing a side on which the facts are against them (for example, if their client admitted guilt), your strategy is: 1) deny, deny, deny 2) if that fails, then minimize (the comments were taken out of context or misinterpreted or misunderstood) 3) if that fails, then attack the messenger.
They never argue the facts, because they know that strategy will fail. As we watch these ad hominen attacks on Robert and Hugh, keep in mind that the discussion is never over the facts of what JW editors are saying, since clearly by quoting the Qur'an and hadith they (JW editors) will win the argument of facts. Remember the strategy: if you cannot defeat the message, then defeat the messenger.
On another topic, RickS or any other moral equivilators out there: what are these Biblical quotations that are the equal of what is in the Qur'an? I am no biblical scholar, but I am unaware of any verses where Jesus ordered the beheading of people for not following his teachings (actually, I don't think he ordered the beheadings of anyone for any reason). I have done some research in the Old Testament, and found examples where God would punish people for not strictly following the rules of Leviticus; but it was God doing the punishing via diseases, earthquakes, floods, etc. It was not Jesus telling Peter or Paul to take an axe and smite the neck of the disbelievers until the streets ran with their blood. Either there are passages in the Bible with which I am unfamiliar, or you are unaware of what is actually contained in the Qur'an.
If telling the truth aboue Islam and Muslims is racism or racist, then I ,as a blackman, must've missed the boat somewhere. The only time I saw Muslims hanging on the end of a rope was when sharia law was enforced. Mr Spencer, if telling the truth is racist, then be the best racist you can be!!!
Trenchant rejoinder, RS. Patience, and point-by-point rebuttal, is the best way to convince others.
If telling the truth aboue Islam and Muslims is racism or racist, then I ,as a blackman, must've missed the boat somewhere. The only time I saw Muslims hanging on the end of a rope was when sharia law was enforced. Mr Spencer, if telling the truth is racist, then be the best racist you can be!!!
I suppose that one should remember what another American once wrote, too:
"...in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practise either of them." Mark Twain in 'Following the Equator' (1897), the heading of ch. 20.
Anybody seen Rick?
Thumper,
Maybe he is waiting for us to come to him. After all...everybody goes to Rick's.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Well, Hugh and Robert, today I get to join you in having been called a racist to my face. Usually those little valentines come by email...
Father, forgive them, for they truly know not what they do.
"...in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practise either of them."
Americans could spell properly in those days.
Yes, Interested,
but practice makes perfect!
Cordially
RS
Certiorari
Confused about what sexual orientation has to do with race...
Americans could spell properly in those days
I think when they get called "Amrikans" they are put off their stride a bit.
Excellent response Robert, but the Muslims (and I suspect that Ricky S is one) will wear you, there is a dedicated effort by Muslims to attack and defame you all over the internet..Internet Jihad, if nothing else they will achieve is to shoot so many bullets at you, that you will be distracted, go on the defense and stop your excellent work.
I argue every day, viciously, with Muslims and their coalition of the dhimmi's (mostly ..yes tis true, right wing extremists, just "antizionist", as opposed to prozionist right wing extremists) and of course a smattering of befuddled and ignorant leftists, and their tactic is (as JW'ers) know, to attack, attack, attack, ad hominems, lies, obfuscations and they are shameless as well as expert, I think it is something that is taught throughout their education in madrassa.
And they also claim to be German, or English, or American choosing for the purpose, the identity of the nation that they perhaps reside in.
Yesterday I had a muslim, who said he spent five years in Madrassa, say "that as an American, he objects to our policies that kill innocent Palestinian Children".. part of my reply was that he was not an American, regardless of what his passport or birth certificate says.. as a Muslim he can only be a citizen of the moslemah (worldwide community of believers), and to be a loyal citizen of any country in Bilad al kufr, would be treason towards the ummah,and make him an apostate.
I don't know who started this dual citizenship crap, but it has come back to haunt us with unintended adverse consequences.. We need to amend our laws and nullify the legality of dual citizens (other countries don't recognize dual citizens) and then after doing that, have Justice define as an enemy alien any person whose loyalty is to any country or group that is not the U.S.A.
How can one have dual citizenship? How can one have loyalty to two masters or countries, especially when at times their interests are in conflict, or when the laws of one (e.g. Islam) specifically forbid loyalty to any country or peoples that are outside of their nation, religion or ideology.
My point here is that, a Muslim cannot be a citizen, pledge fealty or allegiance, or even obey the laws of, any nation in Bilad al Kufr.
If he does then he is an apostate to Islam, and has left Islam OR he is a fifth column agenda pretending to be loyal while in reality struggling in the way of Allah (Jihad) to overthrow and/or transform his host nation, that it submit to Allah and Islamics.
We are dealing with two incompatible species of ideological animals, like trying to breed a dog and a cat.
"But I strongly believe that people like Hugh, who would easily be counted as an Anti-Semite if he had written the stuff he publishes about Jews instead of Muslims, are bigots of the worst kind."
Here we have again another attempt to equivocate between Jews and Muslims. The obvious difference being that the anti-semite spreads lies based upon FICTICIOUS conspiritorial B.S. whereas the content published on this site, while sometimes blunt and of low rhetoric, is based on CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGERS.
Interested -
Actually, neither the Brits nor the Yanks spell properly.
The suffix '-ize' denotes words derived from ancient Greek. The suffix '-ise' conveys such meanings as 'to make', 'to become', 'to use', 'to act like' (or 'as').
Accordingly, the following words should be spelt with the '-ise' suffix since they do not denote any of those meanings:
advertise, advise, apprise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disguise, enterprise, excise, exercise, franchise, guise, improvise, incise, merchandise, premise, revise, supervise, surmise, surprise.
All the other words ending in the same sound should be spelt with the suffix '-ize' (for example: legalize, fossilize, economize, tyrannize, etc.).
However, most people writing in English today no longer make any distinction between the two forms and the suffix '-ise' has come into almost universal use. Most authorities agree that this has not removed from the language any ability to convey any perticular shade of meaning. The tendency of U.S. English to standardise on the '-ize' ending demonstrates the same trend in one of the branches of English, although the reasoning that it is more phonetic is, of course, specious.
I also would like to congratulate Mr. Spencer for his calm and reasonable response. It's got to be frustrating to have critics that never address the facts, instead they resort to vile accusations and name calling. I don't know if I could do it.
Please keep up the good work. I refer people to JihadWatch.org not just for the information and articles Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fitzgerald provide, but also because they always respond to their critics with class and dignity.
kjbhd2k3-
Nothing, it is merely a property of you, like your skin colour, your eye colour, your hair colour, your gender, your race and your height. We do not discriminate using any of the properties given to a person by virtue of the genetic mixing undertaken by his/her parents) was my point. Sexual orientation was merely on my list of the things given to you by your genetic make-up that you can do nothing about.
The rest of my point was that it is permissible to discriminate on belief grounds because you can help that by thinking clearly, but no amount of thinking can change what you have been given by genetics.
Don't know if anyone is interested, but about a day after a certain "King Tolerance" was banned from this site, a remarkable thing happened: RickS appeared.
And in reply to his complaint about how the site did not discuss facts/arguments etc. in the way that he wanted them, at a thread on November 10, 2005, he had many back-and-forths with various posters, all of whom kept getting the better of him. He pulled out all the Tu-Quoque stops, and kept reminding everyone that he was, is, a "Roman Catholic." Here is a florilegium of excerpts from his various postings at that thread:
1. "I don't feel qualified to actually debate the meaning of parts of any religious books, and that is what most of the arguments are."
2. "Let me throw out there a theory. May be right or wrong, but something I have been thinking through. Assume that religions (or "civilizations" more generally) are inherently likely to cause tension. If that was the case, the civilization with the greatest number of contacts with other civiliations would be the one in the most conflict with the other civilizations.
"The Islamic World happens to be centrally located in the world, and so has the most direct historical contact with other civilizations. There is little historical contact between Hindus and Christians or Buddhists and Christians, or Sikhs and Christians. Islamic civilization has had constant, daily contact with each of them for the last 1400 years or so. That in itself would lead to more conflict and explain the perception of Islam being more violent."
3. "Honestly, I am not a religous scholar of any sort, just someone who reads, travels, and talks a lot. I have read the Quran, but don't feel qualified or justified in trying todefend/explain certain parts."
4. "Have you ever spent time in a Muslim country and asked what people think of the US? The answer is telling - in general, they love the US, our principles, our people. They watch our movies, listen to our music, wish for the concept of free speech in their countries."
RickS clearly has Jihad Watch on the brain, is working at the matter quite diligently (by no means only at this website, but at others as well, some of his own creation -- oh, it's quite an activity for him). Can't decide if he is a devout Muslim in Christian drag, or just exceptionally stupid. You be the judge.
Hugh said with class and dignity, "Can't decide if he is a devout Muslim in Christian drag, or just exceptionally stupid. You be the judge."
I'll vote stupid.
Certiorari - yes, I know all that. When I said "properly" I meant "like wot we do". Stands to reason, as any fule no.
Interested:
"as any fule no"?
Now you're talkin American!
Corjully
Robert Spencer
Interested -
How true. After all, we invented the language, for goodness sake. You would think that they could keep up with us, wouldn't you. One has to consider, as well, that Websters Dictionary was just a dhimi dictionary - according to Bing and Bob it was Morocco bound.
On a thread for November 10, 2005, at 12:03 p.m., RickS carefully announced that
"My best friend is a conservative Jew. My wife is an atheist. We share part of a 2 family house with a Muslim family. I do have Lebanese Christian relatives of various sorts... I wonder if that makes me "Arab by association"?"
He repeated that business yet again in an e-mail to Robert, as if that necessarily put paid to any possibility that he might be dishing out the Taqiyya-cum-Tu-Quoque stew as a Defender of the Faith. I offered a riposte, which was posted by Robert on November 12, and then just the other day, the occasion arose for me by cut-and-pasting, to re-post that same riposte.
And now I shall re-cut-and-re-paste, the already once and future reposted riposte.
Here 'tis:
"I somehow mistakenly believed that this was a forum for trading ideas/facts/arguments back and forth." -- from a posting by a wounded and disillusioned poster here
You were mistaken. This is in the main a pedagogic site, with occasional time out for paronomastic play and musings on language. Postings cannot be patrolled, though egregious examples of a lack of decorum will be removed when brought to the attention of the bouncer in the back, the one chatting up the hat-check girl. That some choose to trade insults with one another, to crudely or rudely emote, or to bite at the proferred bait of those trolling invitingly for unwary fish in McElligot's Pool, is not part of the site's intent, is not encouraged, is actively discouraged. And not only by the bouncer and that fetching hat-check girl.
There are many sites where people can "trade," as you put it, "ideas/facts/arguments" -- in short, all that Internet equivalent of the late-night discussion of such fascinating freshman dorm-room topics as "Is there a God?" and "Free Will and Determinism" and "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People" and "Why Good Things Happen to Bad People," and "Whether Pigs Have Wings." These are sites where no one really rises beyond a certain level. The cretins come to dominate, because they have the most stamina, while the intelligent, if they ever showed up in the first place, often drop out dismayed. True equality in the Great Democracy of the Internet is as much to be deplored as Democracy and Equality in any school or classroom, from that of the first-grade teacher in the hopelessly progressive school who has his charges vote on whether the next unit should be on dinosaurs or on Greek mythology, to the college teacher who glows as he tells you about how his students acquire the "Learning Experience" and complacently assures you that "I don't teach my students -- my students teach me. I learn so much from them."
Give me the sober atmosphere of the series of lectures on "Our Debt to Antiquity," delivered in 1903 by Dr. Zielinski of the University of St. Petersburg to the highest classes of that city's secondary schools, or Professor Nikolai Trubetzkoy in 1934 delivering lectures on Slavic phonology at the University of Vienna, or Dr. Yuri Lotman in 1977, in his Tartu exile, speaking on "Literature and Literariness in Pushkin" to rapt listeners who had arrived by train from Moscow and even Siberia in order to hear him speak. In each case, however passionately divine the icy intellect, human warmth heaved behind the glinting glasses. And a perfect internal thermostat, to be adjusted as needed, between that human and that divine. No nonsense, no sentimental "democracy in the classroom" or "learning" through trading of "ideas/facts/arguments," no voting by students as to whether they'd like to build models of a Triceratops this month or would prefer to draw pictures of Hercules killing the Erymanthian Boar. Spare us, please, all that yearning for earnest freshman-year exchanges of "ideas" and "arguments" -- as you optimistically call them.
There are many websites where you can engage, ad libitum, in those Yankee-swapmeets of "ideas/facts/arguments" in which you express such an interest. Your own postings offered little in the way of fact, or cogent argument, so one wonders. Exaggerated attention was given to such matters as the religious affiliation of your best friend, and the ethnic and religious identification of those to whom you are related by marriage, and you took great care to identify yourself (who cares?), more than once, as a "Roman Catholic." All of these inconsequential details -- conservative Jewish best friend, Lebanese Christian in-laws, Roman Catholic faith -- are apparently supposed to place your youth-wants-to-know disingenuous apologetics for Islam, no matter how lame or inane, as beyond criticism, because of that best friend who davens, that sister-in-law who cooks such fabulous kibbeh, and your own unforgettable if largely forgotten memorizing of the Baltimore Catechism when you were a kid and what you really wanted was to watch the Baltimore Colts on television. You have been semaphoring that not only are you most definitely not a Muslim (who cares?) but that you are surrounded by those who are most definitely not Muslims either, and that it must follow, therefore... -- therefore, what must follow?
At those thousands of sites where you can trade "ideas/facts/arguments" with the like-minded or unlike-minded, the kind of thing you have offered by way of ex-ungue-leonem sample would fit right in. And at the same sites, at no extra charge, you may exchange thoughts and feelings with others about what you think and especially what you feel, to your heart's content.
This site is not one of them.
Posted by Robert at November 12, 2005 05:43 AM |
And then, in the thread following that article, RickS came to announce to the world that he was picking up his marbles and going home, and this elicited one final remark:
“I am wasting my time and energy trying to have an intelligent discussion on this forum."
from a posting by RickS
Posted by: RickS at November 12, 2005 12:32 PM
In a Rodney-Dangerfield "I-don't-get-no-respect" fit, someone -- it hardly matters who -- has chosen to announce to the waiting world that he has left JW, and forever.
This forum is that cold classroom in St. Petersburg, with the neatly-dressed students sitting bolt upright at their benches, while out the window one can glimpse a little house at Kolomna, or possibly that equestrian statue which Ekaterina the Second presented to Peter the First; it's that brisk walk you take in Vienna along the gravelled path, just behind the two animated scholars, Nikolai and Roman, as you attempt to catch snatches of what they are saying about the morphological changes that turn "konets" (end) into "nachalo" (beginning), or possibly the reverse, thus demonstrating in either case the essential linguistic wisdom, for Slavs and Slavists, of that phrase "In My End Is My Beginning" (borrowed by the son of a St. Louis furrier from the French motto of Mary, Queen of Scots); it's that session in Tartu, where Gasparov, whom one was not expecting to find, has chosen to cross-question Lotman about amphibrachs in Tiutchev -- or perhaps I've misremembered, perhaps it was something about versified bees and wasps in Mandelshtam.
Let's return to our sheep, or the methods of sheep-shearing that proceed another event, one that we all wish to avoid, especially round about Eid el-fitr.
Posted by: Hugh at November 12, 2005 12:55 PM
Anyway, he won't be comin' round our door to darken it again. At least not under that name. A foe's by any other name is still the same damn foe.
American? Surely not. As any fule no, "As any fule no", was a saying of Molesworth, pupil at St Custards in "How to be Topp", "Back in the Jug Agane" and other children's books. Some of his fellow pupils included Fotherington-Thomas. F-T was a "girlie" who used to skip around the skool saying "Hello, sun, hello sky".
This doesn't sound like an American skool to me. You don't even have custard.
You're right, Interested.
I stand corrected.
No bubble and squeak, either, more's the pity.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
But could he be the goriller of 3B?
Rick, rick, you have to help me, Rick. I can't decide. You see, in a many dark hour I've been thinkin' about this:
Ibn Warraq, who left Islam and criticzes it in books such as Why I Am Not a Muslim. Is he a racist, too? And if so against whom?
Moneypenney:
Bravo. I was trying to think of some way to work in mention of Peter Lorre's immortal cry to Rick for help.
You have done the job admirably.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Mr. Fitzgerald -
"we shall lead the stale slate-pencil to where our voice will tell us to make firm and instantaneous inscription" is also Osip Mandel'shtam (I am sure from 'The Slate Ode) - sort of what you do here really.
Oh, and what about that Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Don't tell me, Rick. I know. Another racist.
You know, Rick, since you are the one who brought up the whole issue of race when wewere all discussing religion, could it be that the racist you are looking for is with you right now?
Perhaps if you run out of other interests, you could stay home and investigate yourself.
Mr Spencer..... keep annoying them with the truth. I wonder if they realize by making such a fuss about what you or Hugh say they are admitting people are listening to you and that they believe what you are saying. I wonder how many of your detractors blood pressure spikes when they read this site.
Ben Hur posted: Here we have again another attempt to equivocate between Jews and Muslims.
Muslims/islamists and their allies, have a perverse and contradictory relation to the persecution of Jews. On one hand many muslims rejoice that Hitler slaughtered millions of Jews. In fact they are disappointed that Hitler did not "finish the job". If on the other we criticise them for these views, they turn around and deny that the Holocaust ever existed.
The most bizarre aspect of this comes when any anti-Jihadist legislation is passed in the West or we start to look askance at muslims in our midst. Muslims then complain that they now suffer the same persecution as Jews in Nazi Germany (which muslims deny ever happened and believe it was a Zionist propaganda plot, but are also elated that Hitler did a good job killing the Jews).
RickS is probably a muslim - his reference to replacing "Jews" with "Muslims" to show that muslims are now subject to racist assault, falls in the category above.
Bhala Bhalaay Bhallay.....Bhanghra
Hugh added, "Anne, if you ever get to know Robert, you will discover he possesses one quality which not all of us can emulate -- the patience of a saint."
He must have. I don't think I have ever encountered three such supremely stupid characters as King Tolerance, Yalto, or now Rick.
I'm really getting very tired of painting every person racist who's remotely critical of Islam. I'm also getting very sick of this 'religion is peace' and 'Islam means peace.' stuff heard so often after 9-11-01.
One of the most disgusting examples of this politically correct stuff was an add that was pulled in North California, having something to do with illegal license(drivers). At any rate, the law to be passed was to stop illegals from having drivers license and one of the proponents of this law lost his kid on 911. The add incured the wrath of the politically stupid crowd and CAIR crowd because it featured real Jihadists in their 'brave heroic' masks on(images captured from the internet from actual terrorists) and this was deemed racist. Cair protested and this John Zogby protested and the billboard company had a dhimma moment and pulled the add as well. So this patsy, Zogby was on tv chastising the poor guy who had lost his son on 911 saying the add was racist. The man responded it was not and Zogby said, yes it is, the add was pulled because it was racist. Back and forth it went.
Hugh said "This site is not one of them."
That may be overstating it a bit, I hope. I am realistic enough to know that the main point of JW is the excellent writings of Robert, Hugh, and Rebecca, but I have a fondness as well for the sick grandma in the basement, ie. user comments. I am unrealistic enough to think that there is some pedagogic value in the comments section as well.
Personally, I would be interested in any Muslim's or Muslim-apologist's cogent description of how the Qur'an doesn't mean what it says, and how much success they have had in convincing their fellow religionists that they, and not the Islamic scholars who have studied it for their entire life, know what the "true" peaceful meaning of Islam is.
RickS et al, please note the word "cogent", as we have seen such fine reasoning as that Israel is located on the Arabian Peninsula, or that the Qur'an was abrogated back in the 7th Century, or other arguments that any 4-year old "extremist" Muslim could defeat with ease.
To me what Hugh said is simply extreme. I can honestly say that I would rather risk terrorism than have a discriminatory policy toward a group based on their religion. That said I do think we need to allow things like monitoring mosques for radiation and implement measures that monitor closer but do not inflict harm on Muslims. However, there is no arguement that can convince me that we should allow a certain religion to be excluded entirely as Hugh proposes based on the fact that there are extremists within the religion who are not being exposed. Fortunately or unfortunately we are a free country and our founding fathers took a risk by making it so. So if you want to change to a police state contact your congressman.
The Koran and Hadith are clearly anti-semetic in my view. Jason Pappas' blog has an interesting article on this subject;
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-islam-racism.html
Robert wrote:
If, on the other hand, the Muslim communities in the West today proclaimed their renunciation of Sharia now and forever, and acceptance of Western pluralism and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims, and full genuine equality of rights for women, and began to manifest the truth of such statements by their actions, well, I would be the first to welcome them by the planeload into our nation.
Hmmm... I, for one, would not welcome them by the planeload. While I agree with 99% of Robert's response, I'll stand with Hugh. Even if an individual Muslim proclaims a renunciation of Sharia, Sharia is an inseparable part of Islam. As long as the Koran exists, the idea of Sharia exists and is ready to be taken up by any of the descendants of even those who truthfully renounced it (not to mention the idea of "truthfully" and "Islam" being an oxymoron with respect to dealings with dhimmis).
Thinking about this another way, if you had a good old-fashioned Nazi wanting to come into the country, would you let him if he renounced portions of Mein Kampf (you know, the really bad bits), but not the whole, and still wanted to print and distribute copies of it?
Naseem said "Bhala Bhalaay Bhallay.....Bhanghra"
Unfortunately, this is the level of discussion from the RoP side.
Not many of us, I assume, possess Robert's "saintly patience (sic)". I get infuriated when handed a plate of Tu Quoque cooked in taqiyya sauce and marined in ad hominem.
I want an opinion on this from all you folks. Don't you believe that there's a psychological block that many people have that prevents them from accepting uncomfortable arguments? (not just Muslims) They might be experimental Physicists but certain truths hit too hard for their (un)intellectual consumption?
That's why I've learned a bit successfully how to distinguish between those who can be persuaded by facts and logic and those who are too full of themselves in their unconscious insecurity.
Tushar
PS - Naseem, having convinced herself of Islam's imminent conquest of the West seems to be celebrating with a little infidel dance called "bhangra". Oh, but no doubt since Pakistan is Punjabi dominated...somehow Islam invented Bhangra.
Sorry...that was "marinated"
Skeptic said "...based on the fact that there are extremists within the religion..."
Allow me to finish "... who are supported financially, morally, and materially by the vast majority of 'moderates', and who are not rejected in any meaningful way by the vast majority of 'moderates'".
Once again we are told that the problem is the work of a few extremists, who are working outside the writings of the Qur'an, not following it. Except that the 'extremists' can and do copiously quote the Qur'an to justify their violence, and the 'moderates' can only make bland "Islam is against all violence" statements and so on and so on.
The other guy is a sap, but it's not his fault, he was programed that way.
But,,,,, NOW HE IS NOT IGNORANT, HE HAS BEEN WARNED, THERE WILL BE NO EXCUSE IN THE FUTURE.
You get that buddy???
It's your responsibility to KNOW who and what you are SUPPORTING AND DEFENDING. That is,if, you're an adult. And eternal-adolescent 50 year-olds don't get a pass either.
Skeptic posted : However, there is no arguement that can convince me that we should allow a certain religion to be excluded entirely as Hugh proposes based on the fact that there are extremists within the religion who are not being exposed.
Some 40% of the muslim population of Britain supported the 9/11 bombers and what they had "achieved" in the US. And this at a time when most of them were keeping their heads down. Bear in mind this happened at the time when Britain, the Queen and the PM, all were standing with the US, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
My own view is that virtually all muslims are loyal to the tenets of their faith, which incidentally, includes the subjugation of you and me. The ever increasing Muslim presence in the West, even if they made sure that their zakat did not end up enabling the Jihad, enables the demise of liberal democracy. You may object to Hugh's view, but what do you propose when muslim numbers in a Western country are large enough for sharia to be democratically imposed?
I do not believe that muslim presence in the West is conducive to the health and peace of mind of all people, including muslims.
Tushar asks, "Don't you believe that there's a psychological block that many people have that prevents them from accepting uncomfortable arguments?"
Yes, absolutely. You really have to let go of your ego quite a bit to be willing to reconsider your previous positions.
Special_guest wrote RickS or any other moral equivilators out there: what are these Biblical quotations that are the equal of what is in the Qur'an?
I do not believe that there are texts of violence in the Bible that are the equivalent of what is in the Qur'an. This is not an attempt to argue in support of RickS' position which I disagree with. None-the-less it is useful to be aware of the texts that are usually (mis)used in this way.
In the New Testament there is one quotation that is often used in these types of arguments. It is Luke 19:27. "But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." These are the words of Jesus. They are however the words of a character in a parable that he was telling. They have universally been interpreted by the church as referring to the Last Judgement by God an not as a guide to Christian conduct.
The other group of texts used to claim that the Bible justifies violence is admittedly more problematic. They are found in the historical books of the Old Testament mainly Numbers and Joshua that describe the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land. Probably the most difficult of these texts is Numbers 31:15-18. "(15) And Moses said to them: "Have you kept all the women alive? (16) Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. (17) Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. (18) But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately." This occurs in the aftermath of a battle against the Midians. I've heard some people who hold to a literalist interpretation who tried to explain this by saying that the Midians were an especially evil people who engaged in things like child sacrifice. Saying that "we had to kill those kids to keep then from being sacrificed" isn't very satisfying. What is more important though is that there hasn't been any Christian or Jewish community in over 2000 years that has used this text to justify similar behavior. The texts of jihad in the Qur'an and Hadith have been quoted by Muslims to justify jihad for the last 1400 years. Muslims who currently engage in jihad still do. It is not a matter of non-Muslims standing in judgement on Islamic canonical texts and declaring "This is bad stuff! You need to repudiate it." The situation is that when Muslims who advocate jihad justify it to other Muslims they refer to these texts. Other Muslims may respond to non-Muslims and claim that this is not a correct interpretation of Islam. But they are not able to make that claim to Muslims who support jihad by making reference to any interpretive tradition within Islam that is widely regarded as authoritative. It is not just a question of texts in the Bible vs. texts in the Qur'an. It matters greatly how these texts are interpreted by the communities that regard them as sacred.
Unfortunately this argument doesn't condense well into a sound bite. Muslim apologists attempt to position any non-Muslim who makes it as a "bigot" or "racist".
Congratulations once again Mr Spencer. You summarize everything so succinctly. I particularly liked "self defense is not hostility or discrimination" and "awareness of facts is not hostility or discrimination". Also "tradtitional Islamic theology holds those statements to be valid for all times". All so true.
Calling all Buffalonians, calling all Buffalonians...wear blue scarves and gather at the UB campus...support is guaranteed by the Jewish Student Union, Buffalo Hillel and College Republicans (last one maybe).
Let's make this happen...
Tushar
PS - My French Jewish friend thinks its a waste
Excellent response Mr. Spencer, except one thing.
I may be too analytical, but I can't help it...
You use of the word "discriminate", or "discrimination". I think that was an error.
I think it is wrong to us that word in a moral expression context. I think doing that allows a certain ideology to have been successful in redefining and virtually OWNING that word. It's no secret(maybe it is to most) that "certain ideology" is heavily invested in linguistic manipulation and corruption.
"Discriminate" is a morally neutral word. To make it morally "wrong" to discriminate will remove a tool upon which to make VALUE JUDGEMENTS.
Like, truth or falsehood. Reality or fantasy, etc,etc.
I know of two current EVIL idealogies who would like that.
That's all, sorry....
Hehe, I should talk, I can't even spell.^
"I can honestly say that I would rather risk terrorism than have a discriminatory policy toward a group based on their religion."
-- from a poster above
I wouldn't. Not even "honestly."
And please define "religion" and distinguish it from a "cult."
Is a "religion" a belief-system to which a sufficiently large number of people belong, but below a certain size it is merely a "cult"? And if so, does that mean if we leave a "cult" alone so that it grows, it then becomes entitled to the word "religion"? Or does the content of the belief-system matter?
If Islam contains some elements of worship, and ritual, and yet also contains a great many elements that are, more or less, a complete geopolitical program that promotes and justifies conquest, and that, furthermore, singles out "the bets of peoples" (the Arabs), and convinces adherents that they 1) must read the Qur'an in Arabic 2) take as their model Muhammad (uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil), an Arab of the seventh-century 3) take as secondary models and authorities Muhammad's Companions, like him seventh-century Arabs 4) forget, or even regard with hostility, their own non-Islamic or pre-Islamic histories 5) regard Arabs as possessing a superior understanding,, and thus a higher place on the pecking order, of Islam.
Why is Islam a "religion"? Because that was the only word that seemed, in an earlier age, the most likely word for it. But does it differ from the worship of Kim Il Sung and his equally, or possibly even more glorious, and radiant, Son? Along with such deeply-believed in doctrines as Juche?
Political belief-systems can become religions. The cult of Stalin, or Lenin - zhivee zhivykh -- is not part of politics but religion. Religous belief-systems can become, predominately, political or geopolitical in nature.
What does Islam look like to you? Does what goes on, what is said in the khutbas at Friday Prayers, or the thoughts they'd be thinking as they stream out of that mosque in Dacca (there's a Hindu now, boys!), or one in Gaza, or one in Riyadh, strike you as being just like the First Congregational Church on the green of a New England town, or do they remind you, in the main, of something else? And why was Ataturk so dead set on vetting those khutbas, monitoring those mosques?
Question for those who think that limiting Muslim immigration is unfair.
Would you have supported the immigration of Japanese citizens to the US in 1944?
We're in a war, although formally undeclared so far.
We have no way of telling the true from false, without, as Hugh says, a significant loss of civil liberties, and a high financial cost borne mostly by those who aren't part of the problem group.
So, how is limiting Muslim immigration unfair? It seems a rational response to a significant threat. When the threat is removed, circumstances can change.
faqi posted: Muslims are the curse of the 21st century.
I would say that Islam has been the cross that humanity has had to bear for the last 1400 years. As I have stated many times before - muslims have been the first victims of islam, and having become victims of muslim violence, they perpetrate violence on free people, and try to force conversion. And so the cycle goes on. It is similar to child abuse, where it said that child abusers were themselves abused as children.
I do not believe that muslims and free people can live at ease with each other. The evidence is there for all to see - even liberals know this but are in denial.
1. Do you feel secure and happy when you travel by air these days?
2. Are you happy that their is suspicion amongst races and different groups because we are not sure who is a muslim jihadi and who is not?
3. Are you content that the goverenment is encroaching on long held freedoms in the name of security?
4. Are you happy that governments are thinking of bringing in hate speech legislation in the context of religious criticism - an amendment to freedom of expression, just to appease muslims?
5. Are you happy to see muslim gangs running around harrassing free women because they do not conform to islamic dress codes?
No one can honestly say that they are happy with this situation. And this heavy price we are paying for one primary reason - we have allowed muslims into the West, most of whom, in Britain anyway, are living on the dole.
Tensions between free people and muslims will grow, violence will grow, with no one feeling safe. At some time in the near future, partition of the nation will take place, with free people driven out of muslim regions. That has been the pattern throughout history in the ME, East and lately in the Balkans, and I can see no reason why it will be different in the West.
I'm opposed to expulsion, but complete cessation of muslim immigration must be a first step. Second, certain islamic practices and rituals that are inimical to Western liberalism, must be banned. Many muslim will leave of their own accord as a consequence.
Such a policy will have a devastating effect on the Jihad, whose main impulse of expansion would be severely curtailed. The effect on muslim states would be severe enough to make them re-assess islam and jetison it. This will be good for us, and more importantly for the mass of enslaved muslims. And even if it did not remove them from bondage, at least we would not have to live in unease in the West.
What we need is a kind of containment of dar ul islam, just as we had one for Warsaw Pact nations. At the time we did not allow millions of committed communists to settle in the West - and the same should apply to muslim immigration as well. More so, as communists do not necessarily have communist children.
On that happy day when islam folds as communism folded, we will be happy to allow ex-muslims ie free people to emmigrate here, though by then they wont see any need to do so.
"So if you want to change to a police state contact your congressman."
-- from the same posting above
What "police state" is that? Who lives in fear in Holland and Denmark, and from what? What frightens people in France? In Italy? In Spain? Is it the incipient "police state" you worry about? Or is it something else, something that makes Infidels uneasy, or silently despairing, not becuase their governments are turning into police states, but becuase they have failed to exercise a minimum of caution, and the necessary due diligence, in the past 30 years of wide-open and crazed immigration polices, have failed to educate their own populations as to the nature of Islam, have relied instead on the most obvious kinds of apologists and mis-directors of attention (Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel come to mind in France), and still keep taking seriously the demands of Muslims, still seem willing to yield or, where not willing to yield, still unwilling to connect all the dots between the behavior of Muslims, and in particular have not grasped the fact that the problem of Muslim behavior and attitudes is similar in every non-Muslim country in which they have been allowed to settle (with minor differences, reflecting only the size of that immigration, and the self-assurance of its Muslim population which in turn reflects the self-assurance, or lack of it, of theindigenous Infidels).
Is the problem today a "police state" or the failure of our leaders to fully inform themselves, and then either directly or indirectly to instruct those in whose name they claim to rule, and whose security it is their duty to protect?
There is not now, and will not be, any possiblity of a police state. But if intelligent measures, the bare minimum of measures, are not undertaken, then the result will be, alas, a turning by many toward what can only be described as fascism. What makes people, in despair, turn to the worst kind of elements in European politics, so that even the normally sensible might find themselves secretly rooting for someone as horrible as Le Pen? The menace of Islam, and the failure of the respectable parties to recognize the problem, to articulate the many things that could be done, and whose sum would constitute a kind of solution.
But does it differ from the worship of Kim Il Sung and his equally, or possibly even more glorious, and radiant, Son? Along with such deeply-believed in doctrines as Juche?
Yes. The ideology in North Korea is isolationist rather than expansionist. The worst thing about Islam is that it wants the whole world. The second worst thing is that it seeks to govern all aspects of life.
Personally I doubt that Juche is as deeply believed in as Islam. North Korean defectors don't believe in it. If lots of North Koreans were to come and live in London, as a fair few South Koreans do, and open restaurants, that wouldn't worry me at all. Islam is far more intractable.
Ispanan is functionally illiterate in the English language, which is part of the reason he (or she) is so frustrated with the West. They can see what they are missing, but just can't quite understand why. He wants to focus on the racial problems in the West while ignoring the accomplishment of people of color in the arts, music, sports, business, etc., when the question he/she should be asking is why have people of color in Muslim nations not made the same advancements, why are they more oppressed and why is every Muslim nation a third world country despite their enormous oil wealth?
"I also don't think that what is in the Quran is any worse than what is found in the Bible (esp the Old Testament)"
The critical difference that RickS has failed to grasp is that the instances in the Old Testament were records of one time events that are history past. The ones in the Quran are eternally valid for Musilms, so the commands to kill infidels have just as much weight today as they did in the 7th century. The Quran justifies the killing, rape and plunder of non-muslims by its followersas a means of spreading Islam, while the Bible condemns such actions.
Certiorari
I hate to point out that, in academia these days, and for the past decades, what's "thinking clearly" to you is, in efect, time, space, race, class and gender determined, therefore of no more value, foundationally, than any other ways of thinking about "thinking." There's one famous feminist (Irigaray) who claimed Einstein's formula for energy and mass and speed is genderded. Thinks a female formula would have been different.
Our major problem is not defensive, inferiority-cum-superiority-driven psychodrama like this fellow's, Rick.
It's restoring our people's confidence in rationality, in the type of thinking, whatever the name--Aristotelian, symbolic, positivist, scientific--which posits the existence of an objective reality, with facts that have intrinsic ontological value for otherwise we wouldn't be able to live--not just us, but Muslims and Hindu and Wiccans and other human beings as well--which makes us nurse babes, or they will die, grow wheat in the sunshine, not in a cave, hide in caves/bunkers against any kind of attack, including nuclear, protect our identities from identity thieves and enemies.
There has to be a renaissance of western re-evaluation of reason, logic, and "scientific" thinking, a reevaluation of "fact" and "history" as opposed to radical relativism,
for the simple reasons that, if you leave corn out in the field before the rains start, it'll grow fungus, and, if consummed, it'll lead to people/animals getting sick and dying; if you pocket funds meant for security at the yearly hadjj to Makka, it may result in hundreds dead (and a very Middle Eastern delight in voyeurism, those who stand by and watch the drama on the sidelines, next to corpses, something never to be seen in videos of Islamic/Palestinian butchery in Israel.)
Certiorari
I hate to point out that, in academia these days, and for the past decades, what's "thinking clearly" to you is, in efect, time, space, race, class and gender determined, therefore of no more value, foundationally, than any other ways of thinking about "thinking." There's one famous feminist (Irigaray) who claimed Einstein's formula for energy and mass and speed is genderded. Thinks a female formula would have been different.
Our major problem is not defensive, inferiority-cum-superiority-driven psychodrama like this fellow's, Rick.
It's restoring our people's confidence in rationality, in the type of thinking, whatever the name--Aristotelian, symbolic, positivist, scientific--which posits the existence of an objective reality, with facts that have intrinsic ontological value for otherwise we wouldn't be able to live--not just us, but Muslims and Hindu and Wiccans and other human beings as well--which makes us nurse babes, or they will die, grow wheat in the sunshine, not in a cave, hide in caves/bunkers against any kind of attack, including nuclear, protect our identities from identity thieves and enemies.
There has to be a renaissance of western re-evaluation of reason, logic, and "scientific" thinking, a reevaluation of "fact" and "history" as opposed to radical relativism,
for the simple reasons that, if you leave corn out in the field before the rains start, it'll grow fungus, and, if consummed, it'll lead to people/animals getting sick and dying; if you pocket funds meant for security at the yearly hadjj to Makka, it may result in hundreds dead (and a very Middle Eastern delight in voyeurism, those who stand by and watch the drama on the sidelines, next to corpses, something never to be seen in videos of Islamic/Palestinian butchery in Israel.)
"I also don't think that what is in the Quran is any worse than what is found in the Bible (esp the Old Testament)."
That's why Christians have the NEW Testament. It cancels the Old Testament out.
So true, ovidius_naso.
The party has to end... Don't know if it will before a catastrophe, or complete subservience.
___
I found this guy entertaining, concerning "hate" laws...
"The insidious thing about evolutionary tyranny is that it’s only as visible as the people are perceptive. It doesn’t beat you over the head like the iron fist of a despot or sweep you aside like a wave of revolution, but, rather, is a death by a thousand doses of bad medicine that makes benign neglect seem utopian..."By Selwyn Duke.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3213
“Let us all be quite clear about one thing - race is your membership of a particular group of human beings as defined by all those who are members of that group and this membership is given to you by your mother and/or your father and you can never, never, never, do anything to change it.”
- Certiorari
What about my children? They are neither Asian, nor are they Caucasian. So what “race” do they belong to if not the only “race”, that is, the HUMAN RACE???
That's why Christians have the NEW Testament. It cancels the Old Testament out.
I don't think it's as simple as saying the New Testament "cancels" the Old; to say so raises the alarm bells of "replacement theology."
Without spending too much time splitting semantic hairs, I think "fulfill" is a more accurate word than "cancel"; it's what Jesus himself said he came to do. (Matt. 5:17-19)
The two Great Commandments contain all the others (Matt 22:34-40), and also take the emphasis off jumping through ritual hoops and focus instead on what's in one's heart. But still, the question of not only how observant early Christians had to be of Old Testament laws, but even of baptizing Gentiles in the first place, was no small issue in the Acts of the Apostles, and the former question continues to define various denominations today.
I hope that's coherent. I'm a bit tired after I was up unexpectedly late in a delightful exchange of banter. Something about Cronopios... :)
But far better than my text-hemmorhaging is this article by Andrew Bostom about replacement theology and dhimmitude. A very lucky find on a Yahoo search:
http://www.orthovox.org/orthovox/03-08bostom.htm
The OT was of the Law - hence the harsh consequences of say numbers 31. God judged them.
The NT is of the Grace of Jesus Christ, who has taken our judgement (those who believe, then comes the final judgement on "the last day").
The Koran is open ended and vague. THAT is the difference between the violence in the Bible and that of the Koran.
To me what Hugh said is simply extreme. I can honestly say that I would rather risk terrorism than have a discriminatory policy toward a group based on their religion. Posted by Skeptic
Your logic baffles me. The doctrine of Islam has been clearly explicated on this site, so I will assume that you thoroughly understand what Islam teaches and what muslims believe. To make sure we're on the same page, you do understand that muslims intend to Islamacize America and eventually overthrow the government and implement Shariah. And that's ok with you?
Why do you feel that the U.S. or any other nation is obligated to allow muslims to invade their countries, build mosques, breed profusely, and wage jihad when they have bred sufficient numbers of holy warriors? Why do you think we are obligated to commit civilizational suicide just because the Constitution guarantees religious freedom? I'm sure our founding fathers never intended for that freedom to include our avowed enemies, for God's sake!
Hugh is not "extreme" in any way, shape or fashion, but you certainly are. You are an extreme idiot.
What I like about Spencer's style, for example in the above post, is the absence of the passion of hatred in it, its even-tempered reportorial style. Spencer is essentially a reporter who tries to focus on facts. He mostly forbids himself the indulgence of speculative proposals about how we should solve all our problems, nor does he go off on long, passionate, extremist-in-mood riffs throwing out millions of ideas, and declaiming outrage, indignation and anger at every turn. I am glad that Spencer mutes that aspect in his style, because there is something about wildly passionate anger or indignation, in those who have it, that communicates: "I am an extremist, I am a fanatic, I am out of control, etc." And it is so easy to lose one's balance and become a fanatic in hating things that no doubt deserve hate, such as aggressive totalitarian ideologies. But unmodulated, endless, passionate indignation, is nowhere near as powerful as Spencer's style. I'm not sure if Spencer's outlook is completely correct, but I do think he gives the impression of a calm, determined, mature, unbiased, and highly intelligent reporter. Many things about the way he writes remind me of the better aspects of journalists at the New York Times. His argument above is superbly clear and without vitriole.
Well said, Eduardo. I had to sign back in before posting this, and found your reply, but I think I'll throw in my $.02 anyway:
... You are an extreme idiot.
Not to single anyone out, but I might suggest that civility is more productive than verbal bomb-throwing (recalling a posting by Hugh in the past day discouraging emoting in all caps, as well). The surest way to conquer your enemy is to win him over to your side, and the likeliest way to achieve that is offering respectful and rational refutations, while maintaining a sense of humor, even when the exchange is initiated by someone who is neither respectful nor rational.
Sometimes that bugs the crap out of 'em, too. ;)
About spelling -- I'm told it wasn't all that long ago that there was no single correct spelling of any given word. The idea that a word could only be spelled in one single way is arguably a sort of totalitarian notion, imposed by the first compilers of dictionaries.
Oops. Those italics are to denote a quote, not my reply to you, Eduardo. Mea culpa.
I might as well send myself this:
http://piv.pivpiv.dk/
The idea that a word could only be spelled in one single way is arguably a sort of totalitarian notion, imposed by the first compilers of dictionaries.
Parts of Texas agree with you. There was a sign from my apartment's management in the laundry room for a few weeks that read:
"Please be curtious to your nieghbors and help keep this area clean." *cringe*
One could argue for the entire reformation of English for spelling according to the way things sound, but that would raise the semiotic question of why certain symbols denote particular sounds in the first place: Does "ay" stand for "eh" more than "eigh?" With that dilemma in mind you'd have to reform the alphabet, too, and necessarily apply for more grants... do some traveling... Hmm. Dibs on this project! ;)
Shinolite said" civility is more productive than verbal bomb-throwing," yes, but isn't it more fun to engage in the verbal bomb throwing?
Seriously,
1.Civility is productive in terms of winning people over to your point of view.
2. Often, a person's ego will not allow him to admit he was convinced, but he will later change his position when his adversary can no longer see.
3. I agree with eduardo who applauded Robert for not spinning wild fantasies of "what we really oughta do." He is not a policy wonk but an interested student of religion. He knows a great deal about all sorts of beliefs, and it is great fun to listen to him.
4. "Verbal bomb throwing" is an extreme way of putting it. I would say that Stanley Fish and Noam Chomsky and all the Humpty Dumpty "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean" crowd are the only bomb throwers- totally destructive of discourse
Commenters here are sometimes unkind, but I really think that calling Rex Tolerance, Yalto, and Rick S--- (hmm... wonder what that S in his name stands for. It can't be what I'm thinking; No mother would do that) "stupid" is not quite the same as killing or maiming them with an explosive device.
Besides, with any luck they are all the same person, in which case there is some small hope for the gene pool.
Skeptic writes:
"To me what Hugh said is simply extreme. I can honestly say that I would rather risk terrorism than have a discriminatory policy toward a group based on their religion. "
Really? So, these "Church of Jesus Christ, Aryan"
guys, or whatever they call themselves, who run
around shooting blacks and Jews, you'd rather
risk that too, rather than discriminate against
them because they're a religion, albeit one that
thinks blacks, and Jews, and nonwhites need to
be slaughtered?
I'm skeptical!
Islam isn't just a religion, it's a dean, you
know, like Dean Wormer. And when you die, there
are these raisins see, unless your wife is
Naseemah, then you get prunes...
"To me what Hugh said is simply extreme."
- Skeptic
"Hugh is not "extreme" in any way, shape or fashion"
- Susanp
Permit me to disagree with you both. On Susanp's side, I think Hugh stands for pluralism and against extremism in every word he says. However I think that Hugh's tone is sometimes extreme-sounding. And tone is important because many people are not detail-oriented, and mainly notice tone.
I think Skeptic's concern about singling out Muslims as a group is understandable and admirable, but I think Skeptic's conclusions about this are mistaken and need to be rethought. Why? In a nutshell, because Skeptic underestimates complexity and the compromises it sometimes compels between various cherished, but conflicting ideals. I loved John Lennon, but he was wrong when he sang, "There are no problems, only solutions." Unfortunately, full appraisal of complexity seems to show that sometimes there are truly insoluble problems. This should be
pondered on when one finds oneself imagining one might negotiate a path through the world without having to make difficult compromises between conflicting, but valuable ideals. There is the compromise we must negotiate every day between freedom and security. If we go too far in either direction, we'll lose both.
To shinoliite: thanks, i realized you did not mean to direct those words to me.
Rick S--- (hmm... wonder what that S in his name stands for. It can't be what I'm thinking; No mother would do that)
Hmm. Whatever it might be, it's probably a good thing he chose that diminutive of "Richard."
That's merely verbal pie-throwing, by the way. ;)
Muslim Americans Seek Reporter's Release
This is the headline of an AP article about CAIR's attempt to secure the release of an American hostage kidnapped in Baghdad, Jill Carroll.
AP article
Is this just a ploy by CAIR to make itself look progressive or is it sincere in its concern for the hostage?
Barry
Damage control. ;)
Anne Crockett wrote:
"4. "Verbal bomb throwing" is an extreme way of putting it. I would say that Stanley Fish and Noam Chomsky and all the Humpty Dumpty "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean" crowd are the only bomb throwers- totally destructive of discourse"
That's the major fallacy of engaging in dialogue with anyone like Chomsky. If you cannot agree on the definitions of the words you are using, you are wasting your time.
A good example of this is: "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance". To most Western Christians this sounds great. (I suspect most Eastern Christians know better.) The problem is that Christians and Muslims define "peace" and "tolerance" very differently in this context.
DP111, you talk sense as per normal, I agree with your analysis. I would however expel the known extremist ones on top of your suggestion. I think we have no choice but to discriminate against Muslims in regards to immigration. I would strip many of their UK citizenship.
Hugh, you make an interesting point, just recently I found myself looking at the BNP website to see how many areas I could agree with them, if I am doing that as an ex-liberal who just wants to do something about Islam before it really hurts, does that not say something.
On a previous thread I pointed out that there is a way back from a right wing fascist government, but once your conquered by Islam there seems no way back. Due to the abject surrender by the mainstream parties I only have the extremists, its 1935 all over again, but what choice do we have?
Anyway back to the left wing sites, but I screwed up on HP as I was doing other things and read HAMID KARZAI as Hamza and replied on that basis, such is life, I will only get in debates if I have the time.
Certiorari said:
"Let us all be equally clear about one other thing - religion is something you choose. It may be given to you in your formative years by your mother and/or your father but you can always, always, always change your mind about it by using your ratiocinative powers."
The tragedy is that this is not true for Islam.
Islam, once you're a 'member' is compulsory, and the price for Apostasy is death, and if not that, ostracisation by your community, and in many cases, expulsion from the family -- that is, your life as you knew it is over, you have no friends and family left, only enemies.
I don't think we can ask of people to be that brave, because the sacrifice needed of the individual is too steep a price to pay. Moreover, it takes an exceptional person to be in that kind of front line, and people who have been brainwashed since childhood into submission will not have the necessary mettle to fight and hurt those they love.
So, for now, I have come to the conclusion that Muslims are the victims and prisoners of Islam, since very few of them are there because of a free choice they made.
Imli
Hello all,
I have not had time to read this interesting thread but can you really say that this site/owners have nothing to do with rasicm.
Well no I cannot for certain (although I don't (yet) hold Mr. Spencer to account)....probably nobody has been subjected to the pressure that I have been on this site....I use the word pressure instead of racism...because it is difficult to catagorise.
For example... towel head, rag head , Laughing Sura Disease is racist.
For other things said e.g.
1.2 billion muslims should be killed (a constant theme here).
Muslims should be deported en-masse.
No Muslims , No Wuslims.
Korans, Mosques should be banned.
Lets check what is going on and said in Mosques.
To me this is implied racism, on the border of racism mixed with religious hatred.
Are muslims racist...for sure...but all of them ...I cannot say. A lot of what they do is instruction from the Koran...Mudh (Pubh) probably had his reasons for this....I cannot say, I am not a scholar or a historian.
The muslim has an altogether simpler philsophy...I'll do as the koran/Hadith says...is it Racist....don't know...don't care Allah T'ala knows best...so it is right & proper.
Is the Infidel racist....for sure but all of them ...I cannot say. The Infidel tries to take this higher moral ground with his own set of rules ...a non entity because he cannot accept the muslim or the Wuslim on face value. The Infidel spits & looks down at the muslim + muslim values....and worse tries to take the place of Muhd (pubh) and/or Allah....and you all know .....no one can ever do that.
One way you could combat racism is just to shut comments here....but I would never advocate that....I want to know how and when the Infidel attitude harden, when he becomes more racist and what he says in ragard to this.
This is an invaluable site for the muslims...It is an infidel gauge....hardly any muslims or wuslims post here ...so the same cannot be said for the infidel.
It's a ploy.
CAIR, as is Islam, is always concerned about image rather than accountability or honor. As I've said before, there is no honor in Islam, only arrogance.
Additionally, global Islam is not the same as Islam in the United States. Most Muslims come here to escape Islamic countries, hence they are following the core tenants to a lessor degree. This is no way makes the United States any safer. If conservatively 10% are radical, then 100,000 Muslims in the United States are radical. Moreover, global Islam is an aggressive military-religion-politically coupled entity deceiving masses by the millions if not billions. Anyone who studies the topic for more than 10 minutes can see it.
but it is not permissible to discriminate against those of a darker skin hue than your own
~
Certiorari
against lighter either, but that seems to be PC OK. People are being beat, refused service in urban areas, raped and discriminated against in jobs and education for diversity purposes because they are "lilly white". I've seen it. Frequently.
Think ROP? or frustrated nationalists?
http://seven.com.au/news/video Jan. 19 2006 -Attacks
Naseem:
If you would like to fight bigotry, I suggest you start by removing the phrase "infidel" from your vocabulary. Don't you think it is somewhat bigoted to immediately judge that a person should be treated as a second-class dhimmi simply because he/she has a different faith?
When I read this site, I don't see bigots. I see people who are generally concerned that Islamism is going to destroy the Civilization that did far more to raise man up from the stone age than any other in the last 10,000 years. You have the right to say whatever you want on this site. You have the right to pray however you wish in the USA. Can you say the same for me if I visit Saudi Arabia or any other country in the Middle East? If you think that freedom of conscience is a human right, then you've already admitted that Western Civ is superior.
>The Infidel spits &
>looks down at the muslim + muslim values....and
>worse tries to take the place of Muhd (pubh)
Please answer one question: was Muhammad morally right in killing the Jews of Yathrib/Medina? If the answer is "no," then Muhammad isn't the moral beacon people claim him to be. If the answer is "yes," then please explain why killing 800 unarmed men who hadn't attacked Muhammad - and were willing to leave Yathrib with *nothing* - was a morally right act. "Because Allah told him to" is a cop-out.
>The muslim has an altogether simpler
>philsophy...I'll do as the koran/Hadith
>says...is it Racist....don't know...don't care
>Allah T'ala knows best...so it is right &
>proper.
I suppose you've never read "Huck Finn." At the end of the book, Huck Finn concludes that he is going to hell because he is against slavery and certain Southern preachers claim that the Bible endorses slavery. If Huck Finn had been in Arabia, he would have reached the same conclusion as slavery is permitted in Islam. Please explain why Allah apparently believes that it is fine for a human being to own another while every other world religion has condemned slavery since (at the latest) the early nineteenth century.
Borg - Correct. I should have said lighter and darker. Thank-you.
Ovidius-nasus - I agree. I really must take more time over my postings. I tend to rattle them off in a hurry without really thinking - I'm usually trying to work at the same time.
3rdtimelucky - Precisely. Your children can do nothing about the mix so why should anyone want to discriminate against them. They can't help their racial mix and they can't change it so it is not valid to use it, or any other genetically inherited characteristic, against them.
Imli - What you say could also be true. Thank-you.
Naseem -
All you have mentioned is discrimination on faith grounds i.e. against Mohammedans (or Muslims, as you call them). Being a Mohammedan is not a racial thing so you haven't proved your point - all you've done is confuse faith with race. Such a lack of logic in one so young but you'll learn, little one, you'll learn.
eduardo odraude -
Another classic piece of nonsense about language. "What kind of performance would you expect from a naturally gifted footballer who refused to train, or a dancer who never exercised? Or how do you fancy going under the knife of a gung-ho surgeon who can't wait to slice those nasty lumpy things from your stomach lining, but has never bothered to find out how all the colourful bits inside join together.
A generation of children has been coached by enthusiastic teachers to encourage free expression without giving the little darlings the means of communicating the experience to anyone.
Just think of the writers you most enjoy and ask yourself whether or not a good grounding in English got in the way of their creativity. Then imagine their books littered with weird mis-spellings and punctuation. Would you still read them? Would you still be able to read them?
The variety of dialects of English spoken around the world is certainly good for the vitality of the language, but the anything-goes mafiosi forget that each of these regional forms has its own (sometimes uncodified) 'rules and regulations'. Each, that is, has its accepted standard.
To encourage people to ignore the norms is to betray those who most need a skilful use of language in order to make themselves understood."
-----Most of the above quoted from David Arscott, 'Good English', Pomegranate Press, Lewes, UK, 1997.
It is hard to believe that any part of this has gone unanswered, but one part has so allow me:
Rick "S" (maybe it stands for Sue. That would explain a few things) asks, "What about all those good Muslims out there?"
You know, some people have driven safely under the influence of way too much alcohol. Therefore, there must be no connection between intoxication and driving impairment. Right?
Wrong?
Oh, of course, because wen we look at accidents and notice an unusually high number of them involve drivers who are drunk or high, we begin to suspect that there is some cause and effect relationship. We begin to ask whether or not there is some connection. (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is not a valid argument; we have to investigate.)
In the same way, an unusually high number of terrorist acts seem to involve Muslims. The common thread is not race or nationality, but rather belief. We begin to suspect that there is some cause and effect relationship between what they believe and what they do. We begin to ask whether or not there is some connection. (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is not a valid argument; we have to investigate.)
"1.2 billion muslims should be killed (a constant theme here)."
-- from a posting by "Naseem" above
Nonsense. Not only is this not a "constant theme" but such a remark has not, to my knowledge (I don't read everything, or nearly everything posted) appeared here. Were such sentiments ever to be posted, whether by some fool or madman, or more likely by a deliberate Muslim provocateur, they would, if brought to the notice of The Management, promptly be deleted, and the poster permanently banned.
Hi Robert,
No problem with Hugh's suggestion about restricting immigration from muslim countries or the fact that muslim is not a race, but the part that worries me is his following recommendation:
" If possible, not only should migration be stopped, but life can be made more difficult, if not by the government, then by private individuals, so that Moslems will be discouraged from remaining. What do I mean? I mean that we, as private citizens, do not have to hire Moslems, we do not have to buy their goods, or make their lives, economically, more rewarding."
Does not this suggestion trouble you at all? Well it does for people like myself, coming from the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country with an official policy to make the life of religious minorities and non-hardline muslims difficult so that they leave Iran (as many of us did). Mainly by the same measures: Discriminating against them at work and jobs, limiting their business opportunities, limit8ing their access to universities etc, and all of them under the guise of "national security".
I am not trying to convince Hugh or anybody else on this site, but I don't think the west should copy Islamic dictatorships in order to defeat Islamism. Even though most of you couldn't probably care less to have muslim people on your side. Hugh's remark may not be racist, but it perfectly reminds me of my ex-home country's policies, and as bigoted as those.
My 2 cents.
"But what can we do to avoid the almost certainty of war with these people? You have told the truth about them, but, now what?"
-- from a posting above
Here is a Things-To-Do List, a Permanently Postable Post-It Note, as a response to your query, which was put up at another thread earlier (that is to say, back, in the day):
To bring to the attention of Infidels everywhere the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and to offer evidence from the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, that the instruments of such Jihad are varied, and that the end results have, over 1350 years, and from Spain to the East Indies, been remarkably similar in their dutiful expression of attitudes that naturally emerge from those passages in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, hardly constitutes a "sewer of hate."
As for this business of "planning to enlist" -- this is actually the least bellicose of websites, for it is argued again and again that qital, or warfare, is at the moment the least effective instrument of Jihad. It is argued here that the Infidel world should have as little to do with the Islamic world as possible, that it should remove its troops from Iraq because this constitutes a terrible misallocation of Western (i.e., American) resources -- men, money, materiel, attention), and that by leaving Iraq, and allowing the natural fissures, sectarian and ethnic, so obvious there, to develop as they naturally will -- without the slightest need for any American or other Infidel encouragement or even partiicipation -- will help to weaken and divide and demoralize Islam. The Iran-Iraq War was in the interest of Infidels, and any similar war, this time within Iraq, but possibly drawing in, to support either Sunnis or Shi'a, of men, money, and materiel from outside, would be a welcome development.
The Infidels have no military interest in further intervention in the Muslim-ruled countries. For they should be interested only in permitting the creation of conditions -- free from Western jizyah, Western interest and solicitude of all kinds -- that will force Muslims themselves to recognize that the source of their own political, economic, social, and intellectual failures can be attributed to Islam itself. From the habit of mental submission, to inshallah-fatalism, to the inability to permit women or non-Muslims full equality, the problems of the Islamic world are those of Islam.
We, the Infidels, need only concentrate on four things:
1) Educating ourselves as to the tenets, attitudes, atmospherics, and instruments for furthering, Islam
2) Diminishing the revenues avaiable for the Jihad world-wide -- those mosques, madrasas, that army of Muslim propagandists and non-Muslim hirelings who serve as apologists and agents. This in turn requires gigantic investments in nuclear, solar, and wind energy, and in conservation projects, and in much higher, ever-increasing taxes on gasoline and other uses of oil.
3) Preventing any Muslim peoples or polities from acquiring major weaponry. Any non-major weaopnry supplied by the Western world -- beyond those jeeps and zimbudars, -- should have their computer systems jimmied so that they can be controlled by the suppliers from afar, in order to prevent misuse (i.e. use against Infidel interests).
4) Limiting the Muslim presence within the Lands of the Infidels, the Bilad al-kufr, which are regarded by Muslims as essentially enemy territory, Dar al-Islam, territory which by right in the end belongs to Muslims, as does the property, and the women, of those same Infidels. Already the large-scale presence of Muslims, everywhere in Western Europe, has created a situation far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for the indigenous Infidels (and for all non-Muslim immigrants -- Chinese, Hindus, Vietnamese, and others -- as well) than would otherwise exist, without that large-scale, presence.
5) No enlisting needed. No tramping around with "boots on the ground." The fewer Infidels --soldiers, diplomats, aid workers, the whole thing -- in Muslim countries, the better. Contacts should be reduced to an absolute minimum. Payment for oil should be by direct deposit, with as little human interaction as possible.
Posted by: Hugh at January 19, 2006 10:31 AM"
Will that do to get the Peace Pipe smoking?
Hugh said "Here is a Things-To-Do List, a Permanently Postable Post-It Note..."
I have often thought that it would be nice to have an FAQ here; it could have links to answer some of the most obvious questions, like
"Doesn't the Old Testament have the same things as in the Qur'an?"
"Isn't pointing out the justification for violence in Islam being racist?"
"What is taqiyah? Does Islam permit dishonesty?"
"Didn't the Christians start the Crusades against the peaceful Muslims?"
"What are some reasons for ending our involvement in governing Iraq?"
"What makes you think that the Qur'an condones violence?"
and of course
"Well, then, what to do next?"
Hugh and Robert have already answered all these and more, it just needs some links to point to the existing articles and postings, with references to Robert's books for more details.
It is reasonable --including by traditional liberal principles, I believe-- that a society or state has the right to keep out anyone who wants to make war against that state. Since jihad means making war against non-Muslim states, then non-Muslim states, including the USA, have the right to keep out anyone who believes in jihad. And given that jihad is a principle of Islam, and Islamic jihadists are making war on infidel states, then it is reasonable to ask prospective Muslim visitors or tourists or immigrants just where they stand on Muslim jihad. So Robert can add that to his conditions for Muslim entry into the USA or any non-Muslim state.
Now, about racism. the Ottoman empire used to legally seize non-Muslim boys, take them from their parents, raise them as Muslims and make them janissaries, etc. We could argue that is not racism, after all, the janissaries had honor and power in the Ottoman empire, but was it right? So maybe we should be less loose about use of the word "racism." Now, as to color prejudice among Arabs and Muslims. Bernard Lewis points out in Race and Slavery in Islam [or whatever the title] that Muslims took both white and black slaves from infidel lands. But in practice they could also have color prejudice. Arnold Toynbee claimed that they were not racist, period. Maybe Toynbee never read that exceedingly "rare" book called The 1000 and One Nights.
"Hugh's remark [about private boycotts, etc. in order, out of sense of self-preservation, to make Infidel lands less Islam-friendly, more Islam-hostile] may not be racist, but it perfectly reminds me of my ex-home country's policies, and as bigoted as those."
-- from a posting above
Why? What do Zoroastrians, Jews, Armenian Christians, and Bahai do to threaten the wellbeing of Muslims in Iran? Nothing. They are entirely innocuous. And they are subject, as they were not under the Shah, to the kinds of attitudes, and treatment -- see "najis" at Al-Sistani's website -- that are associated with the traditional treatment of dhimmis.
If, in 1938, I were to come out of my class at Evander Childs High School in the Bronx, and take the subway into Manhattan to picket either the German consulate, or a restaurant owned by a member of Fritz Kuhn's Bund, would that be equivalent to the smashing and looting of Jewish shops in Nazi Germany, and all the other things that happened?
If Islam contains certain tenets, if its texts are immutable, then why should one not sensibly regard those who continue to call themselves Muslims even though they are now perfectly aware of that the doctrines of Islam mean, and have had every opportunity in the West to inform themselves of the true, as opposed to heavily sanitized view, of the history of Islamic conquest and treatment of dhimmis, if after all this, they continue to deny, to confuse, to distract Infidels, continue to hew to Islam out of filial piety -- a diseased filial piety -- then it seems to me that it is reasonable to live defensively.
Even if someone is a refugee from the Islamic Republic of Iran, and deplores everything going on there, that is not enough, if one continues to claim it is all about "crazy mullahs" who have nothning to do with the "real Islam." They do. Khomeini was a learned, if fanatical, theologian. His attitudes were not plucked from the atmosphere.
And besides, even those parents of children born here do not know exactly what will happen should those children, or grandchildren, react in strange ways -- returning to Islam, some of them, the way some of the children of people who have been refugees from Soviet Communism turn out to disappoint their parents not only by failing to feel the horror of that Communism, but by, in this country, adopting the kind of left-wing attitudes that their parents, those refugees, deplore and fear, and by which they are horrified.
Would I be a "bigot" if in 1954 I refused to buy books from the Soviet-supplied Five Continents Bookstore? Would I be a bigot if today I refused to buy pistachio nuts from Iran, or a rug, from an Iranian rug dealer here, unless I were convinced that this in no way furthered the position of Islam in this country?
Why does that make me a bigot? And why can't those who were born into Islam take the Ali Sina--Azam Kamguian -- Homa Darabi -- Ibn Warraq example, and emulate it?
And if one wishes to preserve an Iranian identity, do a little generation-skipping transfer in reverse, in the dark backward and abysm of time, and go back to those distant Zoroastrian or Jewish or Christian ancestors, and take up whatever was there before the Arabs arrived with their Islam. I'd vote for Zoroastrianism, without knowing a thing about it. Why? Because it is linked to the pre-Islamic history of Iran, and carries all the freight or weight of pure Persianness, and the Greatness That Was Persepolis, that any Iranian patriot could possibly want.
Why stick with Islam? Why defend it? Why be annoyed when Infidels become sufficiently alarmed to believe that they have a right and a duty to weaken its presence everywhere in the Lands of the Infidels? What would you do, if you were not born into Islam, or had no connection to a Muslim polity, even by ancestry, or memorie of food and family tendernesses, but instead were an Infidel, and knew what the visitors to this site all know? How would you react? What would you do?
Hugh wrote:
"Would I be a "bigot" if in 1954 I refused to buy books from the Soviet-supplied Five Continents Bookstore? Would I be a bigot if today I refused to buy pistachio nuts from Iran, or a rug, from an Iranian rug dealer here"
There is a significant difference. A soviet supplied bookstore can be compared to an Islamist bookstore; you are perfectly correct not to buy or get associated with it.
Boycuting an Iranian rug dealer in the US is similar to Boycuting a grocery store run by a Russian refugee during the cold war. Yes, if you find out that Russian is advocating communism or harms the national security of the state, you boycot his store and report him to the authorities. But you are not talking about such people. You were suggesting boycot of ordinary people.
I agree that your solution is indeed a "solution". But a solution that is borrowed from the very enemy that the west is fightiung against.
Seena,
Muslim had their chance to stand with their fellow citizens against Islamofascism after 9/11 and they failed that test of citizenship again and again. Now chickens are coming home to roost. I agree with Hugh that Muslim immigration should be restricted and that we should not do business with Muslims.There is no right to immigrate to the US or any right to my hard earn money or a job in my company.Muslims in Islamic countries go out of their way to make life unpleasant for non-Muslims, they really shouldn't be surprised if something similar happens to them the West.
"Boycuting an Iranian rug dealer in the US is similar to Boycuting a grocery store run by a Russian refugee during the cold war...You were suggesting boycot of ordinary people"
-- from a posting above
Nonsense. A refugee from Soviet Communism would be moving heaven and earth trying to convince Americans that they failed to understand the nature of the threat. He would probably, at the height of the Cold War, be trying to prevent any sign of appeasement, would be quick -- possibly even too quick -- to sense Reds under assorted beds -- and would certainly not hesitate to suggest policies even more unyielding, implacable, and aggressive toward the Soviet Union.
Anyone born into Islam, who is now here because, say, he did not agree with the fanaticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but nonetheless does not spend time alerting Infidels in this country to the nature of Islam, but instead claims that what is going on in Iran "has nothing to do with the real Islam," and furthermore, when it comes to destroying Iran's nuclear capability, suddenly exposes a certain religio-nationalist streak and, highly revealingly, suddenly insists that the "regime in Tehran is bad" but that "Iran has a right to develop such weapons." No. No Muslim state, from the viewpoint of those who are not Muslims, and who understand Islam, can be permitted -- even under a post-Ahmadinejad regime, even under one headed by the Shah's son or other figures who are entirely welcome from the ancien regime -- to possess such weapons.
Any Iranian in exile who agrees with that assessment, knowing that as long as there is Islam, then a Khomeini can follow the Shah, and the Shah's son can follow Khomeini's sucessor, and then, of course, the Shah's son may be followed by the son of one of those successors to Khomeini.
I would not boycott all Iranians. Just those who slyly insinuate that there is nothing wrong with "the real Islam" and who contribute to continuing Infidel innocence and ignorance on the matter.
Do you disagree? It is important to know.
The muslim has an altogether simpler philsophy...I'll do as the koran/Hadith says...is it Racist....don't know...don't care Allah T'ala knows best...so it is right & proper.
That sums it up, folks. Why do we beat ourselves up over the cry of "racism"?
Can't decide if he is a devout Muslim in Christian drag, or just exceptionally stupid. You be the judge. Hugh
I say Muslim - pretending to be something he is not. It's just another tactic of Islam.
Besides, you will know what's in the heart - by what comes out of the mouth.
No Roman Catholic that I have ever known, put so much effort in defiling Holy Scriptures.
I believe that the Islamic threat is not remotely understood and appreciated by the majority. All we can do is keep hammering on the point that Islam is not a religion of peace but a cult of destruction. The question needs to be continuously emphasized and debated. To that extent I recently posted the article Islam - Peaceful or Violent? http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/01/18/islam-peaceful-or-violent/#comments
SeenathePersian,
I'd be happy to do anything in my power to make
Ali Sina, an Iranian EX muslim, welcome in the U.S.
I've known lots of wonderful Iranians. Hugh's point
is that it's the MUSLIM part that's the problem,
even if they're the kind of muslim that's bad, from
the muslim point of view, since we have no way to
tell the difference, and the children can be a
problem. What's the difference between a muslim and an islamist? None, really.
Iran is a perfect example of what could happen
here, a superior culture overwhelmed by an inferior
one. I think the risk is too great, I would boycott
all muslim owned businesses. Not Iranian owned, I'd
happily trade with Baha'i or Zoroastrian, or former
Muslims, or ... of Iranian descent.
When did muslim become a race?It is a religion.It is a mans duty to pray to the Great Spirit in his own way not any organized religion.Religions are organized to control men.There is only one Great Spirit who watches over all men and all that is on the earth.
there is no arguement that can convince me that we should allow a certain religion to be excluded .... Fortunately or unfortunately we are a free country and our founding fathers took a risk by making it so. So if you want to change to a police state contact your congressman. Skeptic
No changes are nessecary Skeptic:
We the people in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. IV. Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Against domestic violence:
009.005 fight and slay the Pagans "wherever" ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.
Article. III. Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
But...the Koran says...
008.067 It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war [slay them] until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. {{{ If that isn't Treason Skeptic - what is?
Article. VII of the constitution of the United States of America:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven {that year signifies only One Possible Lord for America] and of the Independence of the United States of America. {{{ Muslims are commanded to attack those who believe in the Son of God} 009.030 037.152 005.051
Islam excludes all other religions - by bloodshed:
009.029 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [Islamic tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
And so Skeptic, you see - No changes in America's laws are needed.
And no - there is no room for Islam in America - because Islam makes it that way.
005.033 THE PUNISHMENT of those who '''wage war''' against Allah and His Messenger IS: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet.
Surely Skeptic - you can see how Islam violates the laws of America?
The muslim has an altogether simpler philsophy...I'll do as the koran/Hadith says
~Naseem
So simple that it is misunderstood the world over. You need a scholar to tell you how to use the bathroom.
Hugh,
I think it is not realistic to lump a whole people of different opinions and a range of viewpoints into into two big groups on each extremes. This is what bothers me most about your posts, lumping people of different cultures, customs and traditions together all the time. The following is what I think as well as many other Iranians in our community:
- I have met very very few ex-pat Iranian, regardless of their degree of religious devotion, who would support "any" Islamic government in Iran or anywhere else. Our 27 year horror showed that a government based on Islamic rulings and ideology, whether headed by clerics or not, does not work. So most Iranians I have met, religious or atheist, reject the whole idea of Islamic government now (except a couple of paid agents of the Islamic regime).
- Most ex-pat Iranians are either not religious or what Robert often calls ..."cultural muslims?" In that sense, an average Iranian does not take his religion more seriously than an average European does.
For that reason, you would find very few ex-pat Iranians who would argue about "true Islam". Most of us perfectly understand that the regime in Iran is simply implementing what in 1979 was thought by the majority of Iranian muslims as an Islamic government. Khomeini was not a fringe scholar in 1979. So the problem lies in Islam (or our interpretation of Islam) itself.
That said, it does not require one to join either the Islamist or the Ali Sina/Hugh Fitzgerald camp, as the world is not divided between the two extremes. I personally enjoy Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis views very much, whose views on the issue quite differ from yours. and Pipes is hardly an Islamist.
It should be noted that most of us Iranians simply don't care much about what ayatollahs say about true or untrue Islam. We have no Church or Pope in Islam, thus while Iranian people may refer to this or that reference book (Resalah) occasionally, in essence everybody defines his/her own interpretation of his/her religion.
If there was no Islamic government to force her own version down my throat, what would I care if a personal version is the true Islam or not? For most of us, Islamic traditions became part of our culture. Just part of it, not the whole. We had a rich culture before it that we have maintained throughout centuries. A culture that predates Christianity and Zoroastrianism as well.
A couple of notes:
1. On the nuclear issue, in a poll on some Iranian discussion forums that over 60% were opposed to Iran under Ayatollahs having nuclear energy. Note I am not saying nuclear weapons; even peaceful nuclear energy. As you mentioned, if tehre was a democratic government in Iran, the ratio would probably change significantly.
2. As for conversion to Zoroastrianism, as far as I know Zorostrians run a closed club and do not accept conversions. Also, Zoroastrianism's record in Iran is mixed. Persepolis and other ancient Persian cities were mainly built at a time that Persia was not completely Zoroastrian. When that religion took full charge (220AD-620 AD), Iran essentially became a religious Zoroastrian distatorship with a class-based society and extreme discrimination and persecution against non-Zoroastrians. Something not much different from the Islamic Republic of today or the Chsirtian Europe of middle ages.
Someone seems conspicuous by his absence in this thread. Maybe Rick is still googling Latin phrases, Arabic names and Johnny Cash lyrics, trying to make sense of it all. Perhaps he thought a canard was some kind of duck, and things just went straight downhill from there. Perhaps he just didn't get it.
Ok, I must revise my viewa based on what has been said. However, I do not believe that a majority of American Muslims want to impose Sharia on the US. If you have statitics or proof of any kind to the contrary bring it forth. They probably do wish for the US to become Muslim, I dont doubt, but neither do I doubt that Jews wish for more people of their faith and Christians likewise. Before we can take measures as Hugh proposed we must truly see the scope of the problem. I know some Muslims and I can say that they would never support a Sharia government despite what the Koran may say. Just as some Christians ignore impractical parts of their religion so do Muslims. Lastly, Hugh is an alarmist individual who believes that Muslims have political clout in the US. They do not. How many Muslim lawmakers and businessmen are there? I have personally not seen a single one.
Num. 31:1] And the Lord said unto Moses, “Avenge the children of the Mid’-an’ites.. They warred against the Mid’-i-an’ites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slay all the males. And they took all women as captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. Moses said, “HAVE YOU SAVED ALL THE WOMEN ALIVE? NOW KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES, AND KILL EVERY WOMAN that has known a man by lying with him, BUT ALL THE YOUNG GIRLS WHO HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN BY LYING WITH HIM KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES.
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) WHEN A MAN SELLS HIS DAUGHTER AS A SLAVE(…)
Posted by: Ispanan at January 19, 2006 10:27 AM
Well we see you can't keep up
SEE
Numbers 31.1
says
And the Lord spake unto Mo'ses, saying,
SO THE WEB SIGHT YOU HAVE COPIED OFF OF GOT IT WRONG??
Most people have a bible in their homes and can pick it up for themselves??
And sence you mulsums say that Moses was realy a Mulsum what does this say about your book??
It was Moses who orded this??
Numbers 31:12
And they Brought the Captives, and the Pray, and the Spoil, unto Mo'ses and E-le-a'zar the Priest, and unto the Congregation of the children of Is'ra-el, unto the camp at the plains of Mo'ab, which are by Jor'dan near Jer'i-cho.
but you left out the part?
Numbers 31:16
Behold these caused the Children of Is'ra-el through te 'counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the mater of Pe'or, and there was a plague amoung the congregation of the Lord.
Ispanan
YOU THINK YOU WOULD LERN BUT NO??
I'm still waiting for some mulsum to do what I just did seams you can't??
You say islam is peace but can't prove it by your book
WE ARE WAITING???
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
PS
I don't see Jews, Christian, Hindues, Buddates, running around cutting the Heads off of people...
BUT, I do see mulsums doing this in the name of their god??
CAN YOU EXPLAN CURRENT EVENTS PLEASE??
But the others wait for an answer from RickS... and wait... and wait... and wait.
I think it is not realistic to lump a whole people of different opinions and a range of viewpoints into into two big groups on each extremes. Posted by: SeenathePersian
If a person claiming to be a Muslim refuses to go after the non-Muslims - then that person is not a Muslim - not matter how much they claim to be...
Fom the Koran:
008.065 O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. {Which is what the imams are doing within their mosques]
009.038 O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter.
009.044 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons. And Allah knoweth well those who do their duty.
002.216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing [war] which is good for you and that ye love a thing [peace] which is bad for you?
009.039 Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.
SeenathePersian? If the god of Islam is not dealt with? there are going to be those Muslims who take their Koran seriously.
Those would be the 'true' Muslims.
Beth, I am not sure that you have the authority to decde who is a true Muslim or not. Most churches have people who stay even if they shrug off some part of the doctrine they don't like. Of course, that does not change what the doctrine is.
Actually, though, I was just checking in on the thread to see if we ever got a reply from Canard Soup. Not yet...
Mama always told me it was unladylike to hang around a web thead until closing time.
But here I am. Waiting.
Oh well. I thought he had a bee in his bonnet about this issue. I thought sure he'd be back.
First Hugh's is a racist under the new meaning of the word. First I convert to Islam as it is than peaceful religion, and there are now 12 million muslim in america and with all the lie being spead by people attacking muslim more people in america are converting everyday. Dan_man know nothing about Islam expect for what he read or hear on bias media. First honor killing is than old tribal custon from before Islam and Christian and jewish arabs practive honor killing also. Islam total forbit honor killing. Woman are treated equall in Islam but some man choose not to follow Islam treaching on this doesnot mean Islam doesnot treat woman equall. In our mosque women are allow to pray but in seperate room and on one of our holiday alots of woman show up and they where allow to have some pray behind the man. Muslim woman arenot force by muslim man to wear the hijab to cover the hair, loose-fitting clothes,long pants or dress to the ankles and a shirt,gown or blouse that cover to the wrists.Excessive makeup or perfume are frowned upon.
Islam is than simple religion to follow and it have no central autherity like the Rome Chat Church. During the fasting month than non-muslim woman those daughter attend the Islamist pritrate school wore than micro-minishirt to our breaking of the fast dinner, I advice one of our younger brother who convert also to not saying anything to her let the women handle her. Some other women who
arenot muslim also told her she was improper dress
and the Pope wouldnot let her into the church in Vatican City either. The next time she was better dress with dress below the knees and covering her breast also.
Beth, I am not sure that you have the authority to decde who is a true Muslim or not. Posted by: AnneCrockett
I don't have ANy authority to decide who is a true Muslim - and who is not. 'allah' has that authority - EVEN more than any imam:
009.030 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; in this they but imitate what '''the unbelievers''' of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! {With that being said - everyone can see - just who '''the unbelievers''' are - according to the Koran, Islam's god
008.065 O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. {commanded by the god of the mosques
009.038 O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter.
009.044 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons. And Allah knoweth well those who do their duty.
002.216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing [war] which is good for you and that ye love a thing [peace] which is bad for you?
009.039 Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.
009.123 O ye who believe! fight '''the unbelievers''' who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you.
005.051 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors {authorities]: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
AnneCrockett? What part of the commands of the god of Islam are you not able to understand?
Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations.
Jam 5:11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. {unto the very end of all things]
and with all the lie being spead by people attacking muslim DefenderofIslam
I as a Christian - follower of the New Covenant that was promised by the Old Covenant as you ow can you - DefenderofIslam - do you 'justify' beheadings?
The God of the New Testament condemns that teaching. This is prophecied for all humans who carry out that vicious act....because....
Hbr 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto Me, I will recompense, saith the Lord.
Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels [NOT HUMANS] shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.
Luk 19:27 Those mine [Jesus] enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Rev 21:8 The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, [includes beheaders] and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
There was a death that reigned already - from Adam to Moses.
It is God Who gives life - thereore - only God has the right to take it.
And He ALREADY appointed all humans for the grave - for the Judgment of God.
What right does Muhammad have - in teachings humans to fill them?
The God o the New Testament condemns Muhammad - or preaching 'vicious tidings' to humans....Because Jesus preached 'good tidings'.
He preached Peace - for all!
Dear Beth,
The Koran came when the idiot workshipper where
planning than attack on Medine to murder all Muslim there. In Mecca the muslim where not allow to fight back against they idiot workshipper even in self defences. Since Medine was than Muslim State God told then they now have the right to fight back and defend themself. In one battle 300 muslim with no armour and lightly armed defeat than Meccan army of 3000 with 300 carvalrt men on horse back wearing armed and heavy armed. Medine have after awhile alliance with other pagon idiol workshipped tribe and Christian tribes against pagon Mecca. Than I witch you far righht wing christian stop quoteing the Koran out of context and out of it historal context. The Islam religon like the jewish religion doesnot convert people by force or by the the sword like Christian did in the dark age with than Frankisk King with heavy armed knights with sword in they hand convert his people to Christian of Rome.