Going bananas over Khomeini
Rod Dreher is a columnist and editorial writer for the Dallas Morning News. A few years back he wrote this review in National Review of my book Islam Unveiled. In the Morning News he had an interesting exchange with Mohamed Elibiary of the Freedom and Justice Foundation in Dallas.
Elibiary spoke in December 2004 at the Dallas "Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary," the Ayatollah Khomeini. Now Elibiary says he didn't know it was to be a Khomeini tribute; one wonders, looking at the poster above, what he did think it was about.
Anyway, in the course of their present exchange, Elibiary says:
I had offered you a trade a little over 1-1/2 years ago to answer your biased questions about speaking at the Irving Shia Mosque if you'd answer mine. I answered all your questions and you independently corroborated my answers, but you sir didn't show the same degree of honesty to answer mine. I, my wife and now my kids are examples of those home grown Muslims you're so fearful of turning violent on you, and my message to you is just treat people fairly and we as a country will make it fine though these rough waters. Treat people as inferiors and you can expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe or something.
Dreher doesn't let this pass, responding:
Are you threatening me? I take this as a threat, and I have passed it on to certain people.Anyway, the reason I will not agree to "debate" you is because I've been on the receiving end of "debate" from members of your community, and it all goes one way: yelling and bullying and blustering from your side, and groundless accusations of "racism" and "Islamophobia," and what rot. And now I suppose I have to worry that someone from your community would see me drive up, identify my car, and alter it to cause me harm. Great work, Mohamed.
They also have an illuminating exchange about Sayyid Qutb's Milestones, a jihad manifesto that I discuss in my book Onward Muslim Soldiers, the contents of which Elibiary attempts to obfuscate. And Dreher concludes with these superb statements:
I reject your definition of my "strategy" as Islamophobic. Insofar as I have a "strategy," I would call it responsible journalism. I welcome co-existence -- why shouldn't I? -- but not at the cost of a see-no-evil mentality that refuses to ask questions that make some Muslims uncomfortable -- and to expect answers, not a shabby p.r. strategy that depends on mau-mau'ing critics into guilty silence. As former FBI counterterrorism chief Buck Revell put it, "If we continue to be deaf, dumb and blind to what's plainly in front of us, we have no one to blame but ourselves."
Bravo.
Read it all.
Tabari IX:69 “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us.”
Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.” Qur’an 33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy—a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering
Mo Elbiary is a fine example of double talk to fool stupid Infidels. Suppose we must be grateful
he threatened a banana instead of bomb in exhaust...
"I [Rod Dreher] welcome co-existence -- why shouldn't I? -- but not at the cost of a see-no-evil mentality that refuses to ask questions that make some Muslims uncomfortable -- and to expect answers, not a shabby p.r. strategy that depends on mau-mau'ing critics into guilty silence. As former FBI counterterrorism chief Buck Revell put it, "If we continue to be deaf, dumb and blind to what's plainly in front of us, we have no one to blame but ourselves."
-- from the full article of which an excerpt is given above
Everything is fine except that I do not understand what the phrase "I welcome co-existence" means or should mean. "Co-existence" meant, when used during the Cold War, that the Russians and the Americans should, very far from each other in their own countries, "co-exist" -- i.e. not destroy each other.
But Mohamed Elbiary is not content to live in Dar al-Islam. He lives, like many other Muslims, deep behind those lines that Muslims are told to regard as enemy lines -- the lines that define Dar al-Harb, the Domain (House, Abode) of War. It is Infidel territory, and Mohamed Elbiary, if he is a good Muslim, must obey the duty to further the Jihad, either through direct participation in it, or in supporting those who do, who may have, through their own acts, made for the moment unnecessary active participation by the entire community of Muslims.
It is not possible to be a Muslim and at this point, to be unaware, or to claim ignorance of, the duty of Jihad to further Islam until it dominates everywhere and Muslims rule. Those who deny this central duty cannot be regarded, any longer, as mere innocents, ignorant of what is in Qur'an and Hadith. They must be regarded as the enemy, for all who promote unwariness and continued innocence by Infidels are using an instrument of Jihad.
Mohamed Elbiary, one hopes and assumes, is under constant monitoring. That monitoring, of course, costs money. A lot of money. Other Muhammad Elbiarys also cost money -- a lot of money. How many Muhammad Elbiarys will we permit to settle in this country? How many among those who are subject to cunning campaigns of deceptive Da'wa, will be permit to continue to be putty in the hands of past masters at deception, appealing to all the psychically and economically marginal with a false view of Islam, turning them into figures now alienated from their own non-Muslim relatives and histories? How long will this instrument of Jihad be permitted when its success is that of indoctrination every bit as dangerous and malevolent to the laws and institutions of this country as was Communism in 1948 or 1953 or 1962?
Earlier in the piece Dreher makes a similar concession -- something about having no objection to Islam in America.
I object. I object to those whose sole allegiance is to the umma al-islamiyya, coming to this country, throwing out tentacles, deceiving people, creating an atmosphere of unsettlement and doubt, of expense and worry, the same atmosphere of great unpleasantness, expense, and physical insecurity (one hopes the FBI will be sending people to discuss that little matter of the "banana in the tailpipe" threat) with Mohamed Elbiary, that now plagues the insuficiently wary, insufficieinly suspicious, indigenous non-Muslims of every country of Western Europe.
This can't go on. The same kind of reaction one would have had in the 1930s to the news that someone down the street had a flag with a Swastika, and was a member of Pelley's Silver Shirts or Fritz Kuhn's Bund, or perhaps simply went around telling everyone that "they didn't understand, Germany was now proud, Germany had the leader it needed, Germany was only making its just claims on the world" must be the same reaction that Mohamed Elbiary, and all those who claim to believe in the same belief-system, should evoke in listeners.
It may take more study before one will feel that same alarm, that same justified suspicion, that same horror. But the study must be undertaken, so that the humanly understandable desire not to see, not to comprehend, to make every conceivable excuse, to find every conceivable way to deny -- which one can see on display, perhaps in sharper relief, in the countries of Western Europe, by so many of its citizens and members of its ruling classes -- what is staring everyone, as Buck Revell says, in the face.
In our collective face.
As usual, Google is your friend. Elbiary had earlier said this:
http://www.islamistterrorismitisnot.net/
The goal of this website is:
http://www.freeandjust.org/
I need not deconstruct in detail this collection of lies and nonsense for folks here. Anyone who is a fan of JW should easily be able to do that for themselves, as a simple exercise. "Disconnecting" Islam from terrorism is not a matter of "public relations." It's a matter of life and death.
Re:
"Banana in mufffler" a commenter from LGF wrote:
"I thought homosexuality is forbidden in Islam...!"
___
Other than that its no different from those Kuwaiti sheiks who went to Scandinavia right after the Cartoon-rage affair 'demanding respect'- a very typical example of Islamic supremacy and megalomania.
It is regrettable that these people are not put in their place when they create a nuisance and become a threat to security. Hopefully it is only a matter of time now that the necessary measures are taken to shut them down...
Like the criminal organization they are...!
Double entendre alert!
Truly it sounds to me like a completely bungled attempt at a soft core terrorist joke. Nevertheless, I wouldn't try too hard to make any Muslim feel too comfortable here. They simply don't belong here. This kind of outburst has happened many times since 9/11 with Arabs and Muslims. We have stories aplenty where Muslims are confronted for irregularities or bad behavior -- they instantly lose control and blurt out stuff like "Now I'll blow up the plane" or "Check under my coat -- I have a bomb on." I don't condone any of it -- I don't condone their presence here, after all. Efforts to appear appealing to us are suspect. There is ample evidence that they may revert at any time to a much more black form of outburst -- and so, humor from them is utterly unwelcome by my way of thinking. Their beliefs are a cancer for us.
This bad joke attempt is also a kind of self destructive non-humor. No doubt, when a joke coming from a Muslim bombs, the humiliation may actually make them more fond of actually bombing us the next time, and for that reason, I couldn't care less what attempts they might make to attempt to appear appealing or humorous or light. Still, as much as I deplore their presence in our domain, I don't think this was a terribly serious transgression. I'd argue that his attendance at Khomeini-Fest 2004 was a far more serious breach, or revelation of his evil designs.
Besides, nobody thought to warn Mr. Dreher that a bannana in the tail pipe is one of the ways for a Muslim to say: "I'm glad to see you!"
"nobody thought to warn Mr. Dreher that a bannana in the tail pipe is one of the ways for a Muslim to say: 'I'm glad to see you!'"
-- from a posting above
Yes, Dreher could contemplate such a reply --"Is that a banana in my tail-pipe, or are you just glad to see me?" -- but only after first reporting the whole thing to the FBI and the police.
And what is this Freedom and Justice Foundation that Elbiary heads? Where does its money come from? Who supports it? What is it all about? Does it have tax-exempt status? Can any group that acts as an instrument of Jihad have such status?
Congressmen, there are a thousand bills to be passed on this matter, dealing with all the instruments of Jihad that the "war on terror" brigade will not recognize.
Recognize and identify those other instruments of Jihad. Then, instead of voting another $50 or $100 billioin for Tarbaby Iraq, draft legislation and pass it that will target the instruments of Jihad within the Dar al-Harb. Start using those phrases -- Jizyah, Dar al-Harb, Dar al-Islam. Muslims use them every day, and have done so for 1350 years. What are you afraid of? What's keeping you?
Are those Halloween decorations on the Kaaba? They look a little like ghosts.
Hugh writes: "How long will this instrument of Jihad be permitted when its success is that of indoctrination every bit as dangerous and malevolent to the laws and institutions of this country as was Communism in 1948 or 1953 or 1962?"
Hugh, I agree with you ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Unfortunately, the entire Democratic Party and intellectual establishment in this country have long since decided that tracking anyone for advocating radical ideological beliefs is "McCarthyism," and they don't want a repetition of that.
You tried to make the analogy with the threat from Communists in 1948-1952. I must remind you that the "conventional wisdom" in America has since become that there was no Communist threat (except from actual Soviet espionage agents); American communists in Hollywood meant no harm; and all attempts by the FBI to keep track of Communists were "McCarthyism" and even racist. (One or two Communists were close advisers to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and he himself had expressed strong anti-capitalist sentiments on occasion.)
After all, if you can track Elbiary for being an Islamist, why can't you also track Pete Seeger for being an avowed Marxist? Or any of the university professors right here in America who still proudly call themselves "Marxist" today? Or track the Congressional Progressive Caucus for moonlighting as members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), something I'll bet even their constituents don't know about? How can we craft the laws to track only Islamists, and not Communists or fascists or socialists? Can't have a return to "McCarthyism," you see.
So unless Elbiary is actually advocating violence (and he sure came close with Mr. Dreher), then I very much doubt that the FBI could launch such a program. The howls from even mainstream Democrats, not to mention the ACLU and the news media, would be enormous.
"After all, if you can track Elbiary for being an Islamist, why can't you also track Pete Seeger for being an avowed Marxist? Or any of the university professors right here in America who still proudly call themselves "Marxist" today? Or track the Congressional Progressive Caucus for moonlighting as members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), something I'll bet even their constituents don't know about? How can we craft the laws to track only Islamists, and not Communists or fascists or socialists? Can't have a return to "McCarthyism," you see."
-- from a posting above
Communism was a threat to the laws and institutions of this country when Communists, or many of them, were working for what they considered to be the victory of Communism all over the world through support for whatever the Soviet Union did. Those who call themselves "Marxists" today strike me as not the threat they might once have been, because Communism -- on its own terms, the terms of economic wellbeing -- has failed.
Who, today, is a "Marxist"? Those who are ecoomic determinists include George Bush and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, both of which appear to think that economic development, "prosperity," will make Muslim peoples and polities our friends, or at least stop making them the threats they so obviously are -- but these Marxists, these economic determnists, fail to explain why Saudi Arabia and Iran became the dangerous enemies they are, the promoters of Jihad world-wide, not when they were miserably poor but only when they became quite undeservedly rich from oil revenues.
It would be silly to expend resources -- resoures are always finite -- on those handing out their Trotskyite rags in Harvard Square or along Telegraph Avenue. Communism, like Nazism, will never disappear, but as the Nazis are not the threat they were in 1938, when all of their sympathizers should have been monitored and prosecuted, or as real Communists should have been monitored and prosecuted in 1946, or 1953, or 1968, both groups are hardly worth diveting major resources which, at this point, should be devoted almost entirley to the threat of those whose loyalty is, and must be, only to the umma al-islamiyya, and who, it is legitimate to believe, take their views not from Das Kapital or Stalin's Short Course, and not from "Mein Kampf" or Der Stuermer, but from texts that preach hostility, hatred, even murderousness, toward all the Unbelievers, if they do not yield, do not submit.
You put the word "McCarthyism" in quotation marks as if it were a figment of some left-wing imagination. It wasn't. McCarthy was an intolerable vulgarian and liar, and he did more to prevent intelligent anti-Communism, provided more easy fodder for Soviet propaganda, especially in Western Europe (where people so easily assume that "McCarthyism" represented anti-Communism, which it did not -- it represented a crude mutation of anti-Communism) than almost anyone else in America.
I'm with Joseph Welch. I'm with those Brahmin Communists at Hale & Dorr.
Steven L. called our attention to a Muslim website that describes its mission as "Playing our role in the Public Relations Fight for the War on Terror by disconnecting Islam from Terrorism."
News Flash: the broad consensus in the West is that Islam is already disconnected from terrorism, and has always been. The Muslims at that website should reword their mission to "Playing our role in the Public Relations Fight for the War on Terror by making sure Islam remains, in the Western mind, disconnected from Terrorism."
At best, we may surmise a Silent -- or Silenced -- Majority who sees the direct relationship. At sad worst, we are still a small minority.
Did anyone else notice that pivotal point in the exchange between Dreher and Elbiary where Dreher confronted Elbiary with irrefutable evidence of Qutb's extremism, then asked Elbiary whether he agrees with Qutb -- and Elbiary's response was to completely ignore Dreher's evidence and questions, but instead to harp on Dreher's supposed Islamophobic tactics?
henry: If I were to see a demon possessed man than in some sense I would fear the devil more than I did God, but only in a certain way. What we see in Islam are people who are deeply influenced by the devil in the form of Islam. Allah is not a God but a raging monster who orders his followers to cause suffering and horror wherever they go.
The bible warned about men who's feet rushed to spill blood. Being such a person is required by the Koran.
Well, I can't say that I blame Mr. Dreher for not wanting to waste his time trying to have a rational debate with a congregation of people likely to scream, holler and throw slurs and invective. It would be an exercise in futility.
However, he need not worry about his vehicle while in my fair city, I'm sure I could round up a few guys willing to help out with security.
As long as he makes sure, prior to leaving the vehicle, to state clearly, preferably in front of witnesses, that he's asking us to look after and take care of his property while he's gone.
That would give us all the legal leverage we need to do the job efficiently.
JW readers need to know that Mr. Elibiary carries far more influence than the exchange with Rod would leave one to believe. Almost every 2-3 months Mr. Elibiary is devoted 1/3 to 1/2 page of op-ed space in the DMN. As you might imagine the stuff he writes waters down the current Jihad being waged against us. To see his Islamist apologist material for yourself, please see:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-elibiary_15edi.ART.State.Edition1.135e610c.html
and
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-elibiary_29edi.ART.State.Edition1.3dbf09e.html
He is a Jihadist of the most scariest variety.
Rod Dreher is the journalist I've been fantasizing about - not like that! Someone who will take the usual confrontational and inquisitive approach we see in the extreme in the White House briefing room, or the old 60 Minutes ambush interviews, and apply it to the people who need it the most, dissimulating Muslim apologists and victimhood specialists.
Heck, I'd settle for one tough question in most of the interviews I've seen. Just one interviewer who's taken the time to skim the Qur'an (available online in dozens of locations) to ask some questions which demonstrate a barely functional level of competence. It's not much, but it's my dream, and has been for quite a few years now.
Just be as tough on Muslims as you are on Christians. That is, apparently, far too much to ask for most journalists.
Somewhere, there is a quote from the late great Ayatollah about how it's perfectly acceptable for jihadis to indulge in a bit of ...ahem... "animal husbandry" if they've been away from the comforts of the harem or the 'slutty womens' for too long. I wonder what 'Mr. Crunchy-Con' would think of that?
The more one learns about this gang of proto-Mafiosi, the more one realizes that they can justify absolutely anything - no matter how depraved it is - upon the writings and teachings of Mad Mo and his acolytes. Gatti and his crew are rank amateurs compared to this bunch. Murder, Inc. on mescaline!
This is not our problem. Texas is part of Mexico (or maybe Aztlan). Let Presidente Fox deal with Muslims in Dallas.
Don't worry, be happy!
Listen to your government. Islam is a religion of peace.
Viva El Presidente Jorge bin Jorge al-Bush!
Allahu akbar, you poor doomed losers. The fight, such as it was, is over. You never had a chance.
This is preposterous!
Bananas are shaped like the Islamic crescent. This is a desecration of Allah and his prophet, Mohamed (PUBAH).
Someone issue a fatwa for Elbiary's sawed off head. Or at least, stick a pineapple up his pipe.
In all fairness to Dreher, at least he seems to be catching on to the hard truth after that bananna threat.
Mr. Fitzgerald, I think perhaps you define Marxism too narrowly. The Leninist-Stalinist approach has clearly failed (for now) but the Gramscian model is very much ascendant among the entire ruling elite in the western world. I think that the underlying philosophy goes far deeper than mere economic determinism. There's a quasi-religious aspect about it, which explains why the majority on the left have openly allied themselves with da'wa and jihad. Their entire goal is to bring about a utopian vision: the free-and-equal supermen emerging to establish the new order. The only way this can happen is if the old order is totally eradicated. Islam is their ally in this regard.
Jihad in Texas?
Has anyone told Kinky Friedman?
Zebo, if you mention our Dear Leader, please be careful to give the full title (pbuh):
HRH Jorge Arbusto II "the Decider", Mahdi (former Messiah) from West Texas, Caudillo frrom Crawford, Opiate of the Conservatives and Commandante of Compassion over the Earth. Please show the appropriate respect to our Dear Leader. ( a moment of silence, please.)
You should also take care to sacrifice the requiste number of chickens and spread their entrails before busts of the DemiGods Condi, Wolfowitz, Perle, and others, who are the saviors of our world from evils of "violent extremism."
Always remember thar Islam is a "religion of love and peace." If we just try hard enough and sing "kumbayah" enough times, the jihadis will beat their AK's into microphones - from which they will ask the great question of eternity that was first asked by St. Rodney King in 1992:
"C-c-c-c-an't we just all get along?""
Ah, Ayatollah Khomeini, a veritable spiritual giant,
"A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine."
What spiritual insight.
"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel," Khomeini added, "their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned."
Another gem.
This story has run over at LGF, as well.
Scroll down a bit, and you'll see that LGF quotes a very revealing passage from a Khomeni speech where he says:
"Islam wants to conquer the world"
and:
"Kill all the unbelievers"
Khomeini speech
"Ayatollah, Don't Khomeini Closer" indeed.
George Bush quotes on the "War On Terror"
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
—Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
—Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
In just 7 months, Bush completely changed directions.
Hugh asks: "And what is this Freedom and Justice Foundation that Elbiary heads? Where does its money come from? Who supports it? What is it all about?"
From their website:
http://www.freeandjust.org/
if you click "About Us", and then click "Meet Our Board and Officers", you will see that this organization is a front for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), with the President of the Houston chapter of CAIR and several other CAIR officers also officers of the F&J Foundation.
Anytime you see CAIR involved that heavily, an alarm should go off in your head. CAIR is to the jihad what the German-American Bund was to Nazism in the 1930's.
And yes, the F&J Foundation enjoys 501(c)3 status by the IRS.
The West eats its own. To Muslims this is decadent, and, to some extent they are right. Muslims eat people who eat their own. To Muslims this is justice for Allah, and, to every extent they are absolutely right.
What would any of the myriad arguments raging in the West signify once they have been eaten, digested, and ejected out as Islam's excreta? While we enjoy our long earned right to hash out our differences through our freedoms, they are gnawing on our sinews like carrion feeders, thinking of us like carrion.
Are we carrion, or are we living human beings enjoying the ability to speak and act of our own free will?
(And while we're at it, what are we going to do with that pesky rat who's feasting on our leg and gouging out our eye? I say: Kill the rat. Poison the rat. Whenever you see a rat, have no reluctance to recognize that it doesn't belong in the house where you live, and take measures to destroy it.)
Mike_W,
Thanks for the Khomeini quotes! Maybe that's why Miss Condi changed the trademark to the "religion of love and peace" during the Ramadan shindig last winter.
I also wonder what the PETA folks would think of the AK's little homily on sexual morals?
Salaam y'all from Big-D,
Hope you don't mind me commenting on a few comments above.
It's nice to see that it only took a few postings for people to start getting the banana joke. Rod knew it was a joke, but decided to play it up for publicity. And he certianly got it here and at lgf. I've been involved in a long discussion with folks there if you want to read my postings on this exchange with Rod: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20995_Dallas_Islamic_Leader-_Expect_Someone_to_Put_a_Banana_in_Your_Exhaust_Pipe&only
Anyways I've pasted below my responce to Rod's posting on the DMN blog last Friday. Hope you'll enjoy it, it covers his Qutb comments and much more so that you can get more "enlightened". And as always if anyone is interested in an honest and intellectual conversation then here's my personal email address: melibiary@yahoo.com
Peace,
Email responce to Rod on early Sunday morning:
My Dearest Rod,
Well you underestimated Charles's network on LGF, there were more like 300 folks interested in your post instead of your guess of 3. :-)
My response will be shorter this time, because I've readjusted my sleeping schedule to accommodate the World Cup. Hopefully you'll get my 10 points this late:
1. Come on now "Islamic truck bombers"? Do you go around saying "Christianity truck bombers"? I can understand "Muslim or Christian truck bombers". You seem to think it doesn't make a difference stating: "You are drawing a distinction without a meaningful difference." If that's the case then what's the harm in joining the rest of the civilized world moving towards making that distinction. If you don't put much value in those folks in Africa, Asia and Latin America; Europe and the UN have both started moving in that direction. I, like a lot of folks, who understand the War on Terror from a broader spectrum then most are telling you that it makes a world of difference even if you don't understand it. Just call them "Muslim Terrorists" and you wouldn't have to deal with people like me, now isn't that a treat.
2. Now dragging in the Khomeini speech and putting it at the top is a shameless attempt to dispel whatever points I'd make later. Look I've been around the block and did the Conservative Talk Show rounds before, so I'm familiar with the tactic. It doesn't work too well on intellectuals and is quite the cheap route to take when you have a platform to monopolize (ex. DMN Blog) where rebuttals from average Joes don't get posted.
3. You wrote: "Mr. Elibiary wrote a piece for Viewpoints in which he distanced himself somewhat from the radicalism of Khomeini". First of all you called me "Mohamed" up on top, so please don't go formal on me when you're about to insult me. By sticking the word "somewhat" in that sentence, your grasp of the English language as a journalist knows exactly what you did. I'd like you to tell me what radicalism of Khomeini did I somehow leave out and didn't distance myself from???
4. It was never my intention to threaten you Rod with anything. I'm about to turn 31 and you couldn't find anyone I've ever threatened past maybe the 5th grade, so I'm not exactly starting with one guy's opinions I don't care much for. All I did was flip the Golden Rule on you and stated the understood other side of the coin. Get over yourself, you aren't that important that anyone would do a darn thing to you or your car. You can refer your alleged threat to whomever you'd like ("I take this as a threat, and I have passed it on to certain people"), but I would recommend the FBI because that's where I send my Death Threats http://dallas.fbi.gov/. You can tell them Mohamed sent you, they'll know which Mohamed. :-)
If the American Muslim community really had a violent streak instead of being the most law abiding portion of the general society, somebody would have done something to Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, Daniel Pipes, etc. a long time ago. Ironically American Muslims post 9/11 are fighting to defend the Bill of Rights more than people like you. And you know that, but decided to hype "Bananagate" for publicity so as to not really address the irreconcilable difference between us. There is a difference between Islam and Muslims, and you want to keep Islam hostage to a single Muslim misbehaving. You're able to do that only because Islam is so new to most Americans, but that's the definition of bullyism (being abusive only because you can get away with it). Not very moral for a self-appointed Conservative Catholic.
5. You know I read the papers and am very much on top of the news. Do you think I'd be picking on you for the past few months if I didn't know a whole lot more information than you're seeing printed in papers? You leveled that advice on me when speaking about the Toronto folks, and my message to you is still the same. Research before regurgitating ignorance that serves factional/special interests before you pretend to be a fair and accurate journalist. Rod, I care about your reputation and just want to see you more "enlightened". Knowledge coupled with a little bit of humility is not really all that bad, believe me. Just check around the whole country, out of hundreds of relationships with Journalists you're the only one I pick on. Don't be a bully, stop hijacking Islam and practice the golden rule to clean up your reputation that's all this Muslim who's paying your salary through his subscription is asking of you. Now is that too much to ask for???
6. You act like Islam is asking for special treatment, I see it as Islam asking for equal treatment. Just like the era of institutionalized white privilege ended decades ago, so will the era of institutionalized Islamic disadvantage come to an end here in Dallas one day. If a nut job Christian gets up and does something retarded that reflects poorly on Christians. I never approached your board and asked you guys to get rid of the word "terrorism" though there's a very valid case to be made for that. You might remember the whole "Global War on Terrorism" vs. "Global Struggle against Violent Extremism". I see a legitimate need to classify a person as a "Muslim Terrorist" at times, but I can not see ever a legitimate right to classify someone an Islamic Terrorist unless he's a religious authority holder acting in that capacity. For example you're a Catholic, there's a lot of stupid Catholics out there but unless someone from "the Church" says something then it's not an official Catholic Theological Ruling. If those weren't Priests (officials of the Church) doing the child molesting, we wouldn't have even referred to them as "Catholics". If Osama is an Economist, Zawahiri is a medical doctor, and your boggy man (Syed Qutb) is a Science of Education (starts with a "P", can't remember now) graduate; where was the official theological ruling by an Islamic authority making the terrorism "Islamic". We want equality, not special treatment!!!
7. See how I ask you for evidence on ICNA and MAS and you respond with a couple of lame articles, and yes I did read them before. But see I was a little more responsible. I'm neither a member of ICNA nor MAS, nor have any of my family members ever been. But I see absolutely nothing wrong with these folks, and in fact see a lot of benefit to Islam and to America that they do daily. See I understand the Islamic world in it's totality, which you certainly don't nor do you want to learn about it. Your so irrational, it's hard to have a logical conversation with you. In my position at the helm of a network of 75,000 Texans post 9/11, I can't afford your assumptions. I've researched these groups and others very toughly (theologically, philosophically, culturally and financially), and found them to be exercising their legal rights under the law to propagate their viewpoints. When I've found leaders of our community organizations acting irresponsibly, I've asked them to resign and that includes at the national level. I can with the utmost confidence also tell you that your understanding of what are the ICNA/MAS viewpoints are is extremely shallow and at times totally incorrect. Now with both the Government and my much smaller research capacity (though I can go in places our government struggles) telling you that your assessments are WRONG, are you prepared to reassess them instead of continuing to repeat them?
8. Okay now we get to Syed Qutb. You continue to "adjectivize" his name with all kinds of leading commentary, but you know what that's your first amendment right no matter how wrong it is so enjoy it. Now after writing you last time, I took his three books we had at our office library home and re-read Milestones. To most Muslims Syed Qutb is known for layman's commentary on the Quran in Arabic, which my mom has a copy of at home, not his Political Theory. A very small number of Muslims can explain his political theories, and if you don't believe me just ask the average Muslim and you'll see. His political views are his right to hold, just like mine and yours. Syed Qutb's message in Milestones (Arabic original and English) is that "sovereignty belongs to God, not man and that's the message we should internalize from the Islamic declaration of faith". He further states that "Jihad is an integral part of Islam that can't be removed", and he's absolutely right on that one just like "mission" in Christianity. You can translate Jihad as Holy War all you want, but that's your problem not Qutb's. Theologically speaking most scholars agree with him that Jihad is not just a "defensive war", but does that mean that he advocates "offensive never ending war until absolute victory"? Absolutely not to those who understand his writings. I've pulled a couple of quotes from your inadequate English translation that even proves this point.
"This f religion forbids the imposition of its belief by force, as is clear from the verse, "There is no compulsion in religion"(2:256)"
"The Islamic Jihaad has no relationship to modern warfare, either in its causes or in the way in which it is conducted. The causes of Islamic Jihaad should be sought in the very nature of Islam and its role in the world, in its high principles, which have been given to it by God and for the implementation of which God appointed the Prophet-peace be on him-as His Messenger and declared him to be the last of all prophets and messengers." Notice how he leaves the methods that killed millions of people to the peace-loving non-Crusading Christians, and advocates a non-modern warfare (belligerent) approach.
It's you that defined "jahili" as "non-Muslim". In my copy of Milestone's translation, Qutb defines "jahili" as anything that denies the sovereignty of God and enslaves man to the rule of other men. Many Conservative Commentators, mainly because they get their non-education from the same places, ascribe to Qutb the use of violence in order to spread Islam. Karen Armstrong, the British Islam expert, has written a lot analyzing why there's so much disinformation about Islam and Muhammad in the Angle-Saxon world because it's not this bad anywhere else. You quote Milestones as saying "Anyone who understands this particular character of this religion will also understand the place of Jihaad bis saif (striving through fighting), which is to clear the way for striving through preaching in the application of the Islamic movement." This sentence alone nullifies a "Jihaad bis saif" ever against the United States, Europe or just about everywhere in the modern world unless facing military occupation or assault by the US, Europe, etc. Why you ask, because of a right modern man enjoys called "Religious Freedom". Meaning he can practice whatever religion he wishes to. Now if a country stated that Islam is hereby outlawed and no one can preach it, then Qutb is saying that this country would be a legitimate target for a "Jihaad bis saif".
Like many political theorists in history, Qutb laid out his "philosophical milestones" as his opinion. No organization at the time accepted all his views including the Muslim Brotherhood who's supreme guide wrote a book countering several of Qutb's views. A bunch of angry activists came later, who admired this martyr for freedom under Nasir's secular dictatorship, decided to selectively quote his works as justification for their angry ways. Is that Qutb's fault, my assessment like all rational folks is of course not. There was a time when Conservative Catholics like yourself selectively quoted from the Bible to give this world 200 hundred years of useless war in the Holy Land, or did you forget? Or how about Hitler selectively quoting from previous German Philosophers, and the list goes on and on?
Now what I really suspect you have a problem with again is Islam's desire to spread and gain converts in the soul saving business as I like to call it. Qutb is a very big proponent of that Islamic Evangelism, and I suspect that's why you call it "totalitarian". Qutb is saying that he wouldn't force you to convert, but so long as the law allowed him to preach and work through a social movement to gain converts to Islam he would. Funny how a free market approach to religion doesn't seem acceptable to a Conservative. :-)
10. You wrote "Anyway, the reason I will not agree to "debate" you is because I've been on the receiving end of "debate" from members of your community, and it all goes one way: yelling and bullying and blustering from your side, and groundless accusations of "racism" and "Islamophobia," and what rot."
There are 150,000 American Muslims in the Dallas-Fort Worth Area where you live. You can't find a single one to speak with that's not hostile to you? Wow, even David Duke said "he had a Black friend". There are Muslims in this area who are foreign policy advisors to President Bush, briefers on national security to our national intelligence/law enforcement agencies, and department of homeland security appointees; yet you can't find a single one you're comfortable to speak with. And that's from a Muslim community with a 0% track record of violence/hostility towards any non-Muslim group in this area. Rod, you're in a paper where hundreds of employees work and no one else (0%) receives the hostility from Muslims you do. You're a smart man, and can figure it out. The process of deduction should lead you to where the fault lies here.
When you're ready to move on over from the dark side, just call one of the 150K and they'll help get you a Muslim friend. :-)
I'll always be around when you're ready to have that ice breaker conversation, and not only will I continue to pay your salary with my DMN subscription but I'll pay for your Coffee too. Call it "Islamic Generosity" since you refuse to use the term "Muslim ...". :-)
emotacon alert!
*~@:-)> would have been more apt, Mr. "Muslim" "Friend".
(Note to self: find an emotacon for "sneaky taquiya liar"...
:-) comes close, but too many are still fooled ...)
jsla- :-)
tookya, ha ha. you're a conspiritorial nutjob. I'll write later about this subject because I'm on the road right now out of town. there's no tookya (toaquiya) going on here, but then how does one prove that other than to agree with your viewpoint huh?
Peace!
p.s. please excuse any mispellings due to internet access method...
"There are Muslims in this area who are foreign policy advisors to President Bush, briefers on national security to our national intelligence/law enforcement agencies, and department of homeland security appointees..."
-- from a posting above
Perhpas some of these people are "foreign policy advisors" and "briefers on national security" etc. But one assumes that intelligent non-Muslims will have by now schooled themselves, and therefore steeled themselves, against the outward plausibility, the affable smilers whose object is to deflect or minimize attention, comprehension, and therefore criticism, of Islam. Of course, there are fools and wise men, but the numbers of the former can decrease, and the numbers of the latter decrease, if proper instruction is made available.
"tookya, ha ha. you're a conspiritorial nutjob." -fom Muslim poster above.
Muslimspeak translation into plain English: "Don't look at the knife I'm holding... keep your eyes locked on my smile... on my smile... on my smile..."
"p.s. please excuse any mispellings due to internet access method..."-from same Muslim poster above.
Muslimspeak translation into plain English: "I haven't had the opportunity to sanitize my post so that I appear even more affable and intelligent than I really am."
Mr. Fitzgerald -- did you intend to reduce both the fools and the wise men? That's one way of dealing with our problems I suppose.
jsla - Loved your 6:45 PM comment, very creatively funny. My hat's off to you.
take care,
me
Such deliberate disguises.
Roger that.
elibiary: “Get over yourself, you aren't that important that anyone would do a darn thing to you or your car. ………but I would recommend the FBI because that's where I send my Death Threats. You can tell them Mohamed sent you, they'll know which Mohamed. “
You’ve sent so many death threats to the FBI that they know you by name? Sounds like you’re the one who needs to get over himself. Of course, we know common CAIR tactics when we see them by now so it doesn’t surprise me at all that you’ve sent so many death threats to the FBI. It’s just amusing to observe the pot calling the kettle black.
”If the American Muslim community really had a violent streak instead of being the most law abiding portion of the general society, somebody would have done something to Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, Daniel Pipes, etc. a long time ago.”
Yes well thank goodness we’re not like the Netherlands YET.
“Ironically American Muslims post 9/11 are fighting to defend the Bill of Rights more than people like you.”
Muslims are fighting to defend the bill of rights only out of self-interest in the wake of 9/11. It is ludicrous to imagine that the average Muslim American is more of a liberal democrat desiring to nobly defend the bill of rights than the average American. Pure self-interest.
“….you want to keep Islam hostage to a single Muslim misbehaving.”
A single Muslim misbehaving? And you claim to be following worldwide news closely?
“Don't be a bully……..and practice the golden rule”
Why is that Muslims, who have no equivalent to the golden rule, always throw that at Christians? Why don’t they instead say – “Why can’t you be more like Muhammad?”
Could it be because Muhammad was a bully whose actions were the very antithesis of the golden rule?
“You act like Islam is asking for special treatment, I see it as Islam asking for equal treatment. Just like the era of institutionalized white privilege ended decades ago, so will the era of institutionalized Islamic disadvantage come to an end here in Dallas one day.”
In what way is Islam not getting equal treatment? What institutionalized disadvantage are you talking about?
“where was the official theological ruling by an Islamic authority making the terrorism "Islamic".
Well I believe Spencer has written quite a lot about that and there is no need to reiterate it here. But to start with, when Muhammad says “I have been made victorious through terror” – that at least implies some basis for linking the two.
”Syed Qutb's message in Milestones (Arabic original and English) is that "sovereignty belongs to God, not man and that's the message we should internalize from the Islamic declaration of faith". He further states that "Jihad is an integral part of Islam that can't be removed", and he's absolutely right on that one just like "mission" in Christianity. You can translate Jihad as Holy War all you want, but that's your problem not Qutb's. Theologically speaking most scholars agree with him that Jihad is not just a "defensive war", but does that mean that he advocates "offensive never ending war until absolute victory"? Absolutely not to those who understand his writings. I've pulled a couple of quotes from your inadequate English translation that even proves this point.
"This f religion forbids the imposition of its belief by force, as is clear from the verse, "There is no compulsion in religion"(2:256)"”
Ahhh – the old 2:256. Hahahahahahahaha!!
As you say, jihad is obviously an integral part of islam. Yes, we will translate jihad as “holy war” because that is its obvious meaning. Thanks for admitting that it isn’t just defensive (which was already obvious by Muhammad’s own history). And the most you can come up with to disprove that is 2:256?
"The Islamic Jihaad has no relationship to modern warfare, either in its causes or in the way in which it is conducted. The causes of Islamic Jihaad should be sought in the very nature of Islam and its role in the world….,”
Well how could Muhammad advocate a modern warfare approach when he lived almost 1400 years ago? The fact that islamic jihad has no relationship to modern warfare is utterly irrelevant. It has everything to do with the 7th century but carried into the present ideologically unchanged. Yes, obviously the causes of Islamic jihad "should be sought in the very nature of Islam". Tell us something we don't know.
”In my copy of Milestone's translation, Qutb defines "jahili" as anything that denies the sovereignty of God and enslaves man to the rule of other men.”
So our bill of rights, by that definition is “jahili”? By your definition, our constitution is a form of “enslavement” which denies the sovereignty of God.
“Why you ask, because of a right modern man enjoys called "Religious Freedom". Meaning he can practice whatever religion he wishes to. “
It is we – western man – who permits religious freedom but it is indeed a man-made law for which we might need an exception in the case of those who would demand such a law merely to gain enough power to make Islam supreme, at which point, as you noted above, Muslims would start pointing out that western man’s laws (including religious freedom) enslave men to men and deny the sovereignty of God. In other words, it is quite clear that you demand the right to use our laws (the right to religious freedom) while at the same time believing those laws to constitute enslavement to the rule of man, ideally to be replaced by Islamic law – “the sovereignty of God”.
“Funny how a free market approach to religion doesn't seem acceptable to a Conservative.”
And this “free-market” approach to religion is prevalent throughout Muslim countries?
No it is not. It is a fact that this “free-market approach” to religion is not acceptable to Muslims, except when they happen to live in our western countries, when they have something to gain by it (that self-interest again).
And you are also implying that if western countries did as Muslim countries do – limit free evangalism on the part of Islam in our Christian majority countries – that there would be a price to pay:
“Now if a country stated that Islam is hereby outlawed and no one can preach it, then Qutb is saying that this country would be a legitimate target for a "Jihaad bis saif"”
What a double standard. So if Muslim countries refuse to allow open Christian evangelism and the building of churches on demand, Christians could justifiably launch a crusade against them? By your values, we would be justified in launching a bloody crusade tomorrow against Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim majority country which puts any restriction whatsoever on the practice or open evangelism of Christianity.
You would agree with that right? Because "religious freedom" is every modern
man's basic human right.
Caroline -- please get in line -- I'm still patiently waiting to be lectured to by the endarkener as to how I'm an "conspiritorial [sic] nutjob." Mr. Triumphalist hasn't reared his pompous head yet, though. :-(
Maybe the "jsla - Loved your 6:45 PM comment, very creatively funny. My hat's off to you." comment was his explanation, or perhaps he understood he was seriously out gunned before you even showed up. He left this apparently for us to ponder:
*~@
I wonder what it is...?
jsla: "I'm still patiently waiting to be lectured to by the endarkener as to how I'm an "conspiritorial [sic] nutjob."
It's sheer projection jsla. How else do you think it is that the FBI apparently knows him by name ("they'll know which Muhammad") on the basis of all his paranoid death-threat reports, while all the while accusing both you and Dreher of being paranoid/self-important/conspiratorial "nutjob"[s]"?
Does the FBI know you by name jsla? No. I thought not. Nuff said.
Yeppers.
He did leave his hat though. Gee -- I'm gonna miss that guy.
jsla & company, I was out of town for a few days. Ironically giving lectures on Political Islamic Movements and the WOT's use of terminology. Read your comments and appreciate your engagement.
If you ever need to email directly, here's my email: melibiary@yahoo.com
Due to my responsibilities, I don't get to blog as much as I'd like.
Caroline, remember that only Mohamed Elibiary speaks for me and not Syed Qutb or anyone else. Reread what I wrote and you'll see me punching holes in Rod's conclusions from his own quotes of Qutb.
Anyhow, it seems to me like y'all are an extremely terrified bunch of what the future will look like. It seems to me that you have three choices:
1. Stay a terrified bunch fearing the unknown and building your logic's house of cards. This isn't going to work and that's my problem with all of Robert's work. He thinks that if you attack the Quran or Islam's Belief system, some how the light will come and we'll unify our homeland in opposition and force Muslims to question what they've known for centuries. This is wishful thinking, because as I said "Islam is not on trial" no matter who says what about it. It's too large and too well established in people's identity of self.
2. Convert to Islam. Kind of like the attitude of if you can't beat them, join them. That's happening from Americans daily and I don't see anything that'll ever slow that down. We live in an age where people respect strength, and of the alphabet soup of spirituality out there Islam's a very competitive option to say the least.
3. Or finally you can start a Conservative Protestant Christian Revivalist Movement that can keep up demographically to have the ability to compete in the 21st Century. I for one would like to see a stronger religious revival in America, especially a Christian one. Islam is not going to take over America directly, it'll probably do as in other societies and just inherit decaying local Christian infrastructure. I could be wrong, but that's what I see. As ironic as it sounds, chalk me up as a Muslim who'd like to see more true Christians living under our constitution as is protecting every citizen's freedoms in perpetuity.
Peace!
enlightener: "Convert to Islam. Kind of like the attitude of if you can't beat them, join them.
You need to work on your da'wa Mr Elibiary. Appeals to "opportunism" don't sound very "spiritual", if you know what I mean.
That's happening from Americans daily and I don't see anything that'll ever slow that down. We live in an age where people respect strength,
That may be so, but thankfully there are still enough of us out there who respect something called TRUTH more than they respect STRENGTH.
and of the alphabet soup of spirituality out there Islam's a very competitive option to say the least."
What do the words "spirituality" and "competition" have to do with eachother Mr Elibiary? Think about it.
Caroline,
You seem like an intelligent woman, so I appreciate the exchange. I do understand the difference between spirituality and competition, but I'd like you to consider these points.
1. Most people never experience "spirituality".
2. This is a forum for "competition".
3. If Islam lacks enough spirituality, then I'd like to know what has more spirituality in your mind?
Peace!
Mr. Elibiary – thank you as well for continuing this conversation on a buried thread, especially as you are without a doubt a much busier person than I am.
“1. Most people never experience "spirituality".”
That is undoubtedly true. But it is also irrelevant.
”2. This is a forum for "competition".”
I wasn’t aware of that. But you can re-read the mission statement of JW and decide for yourself if that is an accurate characterization of this forum. Frankly, I don’t know where you get such an idea other than the fact that Islam does seem to be peculiarly interested in “competition”. Many Muslim posters here have betrayed their interest in competition by declaring essentially “We win. You lose”. That seems to be a peculiarly Islamic trait, which actually doesn’t surprise me as Islam has as a stated goal to conquer the world for Islam, by violence if necessary. So no wonder so many Muslims PROJECT this peculiarly Islamic competitive trait onto others.
”3. If Islam lacks enough spirituality, then I'd like to know what has more spirituality in your mind?”
That is a very interesting question. In responding, I would return to something you said in a previous comment: “Stay a terrified bunch fearing the unknown”
You’re quite wrong in your assumption there. In fact, I think that statement is another classic case of “projection” on your part. I don’t fear the unknown. It is Muslims who so fear the unknown that they have to accept what Hugh has frequently termed “The total explanation for the universe” that Islam is, which regulates every single action down to the proper way to wipe one’s posterior. We’ve all seen the Q&A’s by Muslims inquiring into every ridiculous detail of life. No – I don’t fear the unknown. What I fear is the MUSLIM”S FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN – which is so beyond the pale that they need to impose their totalitarian system on the rest of us – because to do so assuages THEIR fears of the unknown. Then all of life becomes utterly predictable and totally DEAD. Then everything is “Known” and the mystery of the unknown is gone. That’s what I fear.
As to what constitutes “spirituality” – well – I actually think spirituality has more to do with tolerating the UNKNOWN than it does with clinging fearfully to the “total explanation of the universe”. One way to look at it, is to recognize that we may NOT be able to “directly know” the truth (except for perhaps a few rare individuals who have graced our earth, such as Jesus or the Buddha, who may well have “known” the truth). So what we do instead (our interest here being in getting at TRUTH ultimately), is to practice a negationist way of thinking. In other words, we strip away the FALSE. We start by eliminating the manifestly FALSE (this is an idea which is central to Buddhism as I understand it).
The notion that a man such as Muhammad was a prophet, let alone God’s final prophet to mankind – a man who robbed caravans, had 600 men beheaded, took slaves, took as wives the wives of men he had killed in battle, married a 6 year old girl – etc etc (you know the score) – the idea that this man was the final prophet of God’s word is utterly and completely ludicrous! It is obviously false!
Does that mean that I know what TRUTH with a capital T is?
No. I merely know falsehood when I see it. But I can live with the resultant ambiguity. I can live with the unknown. It is YOU who cannot. It is Muslims who would rather grab on to a CERTAIN FALSEHOOD than live with uncertainty and with the ambiguity of the unknown. Live, in other words, with the mystery.
That makes Islam DEAD. The antithesis of spirituality. The antithesis of life.
Which no doubt explains why Muslims are so proud of the fact that they “love death” while the rest of us “love life”.
But what makes Muslims so dangerous is that they are not content to live this narrow life of (false) certainty all by themselves. They need to kill or subjugate the rest of us, and subject us all to very narrow draconian laws - that restrict art, and science, and free inquiry, and beauty, and other faiths - which may well be getting at ultimate truths but each in their own unique spiritual language - all in order to remove any lingering doubts on the part of Muslims about the unknown, about the mystery of existence, about the meaning of life.