"They answer not to a particular leader but to an ideology. In short, they operate under the radar. And that makes their detection that much more difficult."
That means, of course, that that ideology has to be confronted and combatted. American Muslim advocacy groups should do this energetically -- or if they refuse, be shut down. The ideology that leads to terrorism and the idea of the Islamic subjugation of the U.S. should be made unwelcome here -- and anyone who works to advance it made equally unwelcome.
Freedom of religion? Sure. Just not sedition. Freedom of speech? Sure. But again, not sedition.
"Suicide Bomb Scare," from USNews, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
Soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks, officials at the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency began worrying that the next attack against the United States might involve the kind of deadly suicide bombings of malls, restaurants, or theaters that have been so widespread in Israel. So DARPA began a quiet collaboration with the Israeli government to use that country's vast video databases of suicide bombers approaching targets to develop biometric face and gait recognition software, sensors, radar, and other technologies to detect and deter suicide bombers, a former military official familiar with the program told U.S. News.In fact, since 9/11, hundreds of U.S. bomb technicians, police chiefs, police officers, and FBI, Secret Service, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) agents have made repeated trips to Israel to learn from their counterparts and their extensive experience in detecting and deterring Palestinian suicide bombers. The train bombings in Madrid and London during the past two years and the U.S. military's daily bombardment from Iraqi insurgents' homemade bombs have only heightened the sense of urgency. Last month's arrests in Toronto and Paris of dozens of young Islamic men for allegedly plotting bombing attacks have raised the worry meter still further. Just a few days ago, FBI agents broke up what they described as a homegrown terrorist cell in Miami, arresting seven people for allegedly plotting attacks on the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI and other federal buildings in Miami.
In a speech delivered before the City Club of Cleveland a day after the arrests, FBI Director Robert Mueller said that pockets of "self-radicalized" jihadists represent the new face of global terrorism. "These extremists are self-recruited, self-trained, and self-executing," said Mueller. "They answer not to a particular leader but to an ideology. In short, they operate under the radar. And that makes their detection that much more difficult."
But remember, Islam has nothing to do with all those Muslim terrorists.
religion?....Sorry..Too many dead children...To many widows..Islam is nothing but War....a nasty little book of war about unfair fights...Murder,Rape and Taking whatever you want.Islam is nothing more than hitler in a Turban.
I'm so tired of cowardly fools leading us towards the cliff's edge.
There should be no freedom of religion for Islam in the United States of America! I don't give a damn what anyone says otherwise, not Mueller, not President Bush or anyone else with a case of brain-rot. I won't ever back down off that. I won't rest until this becomes a reality.
Take the U.S. back from these cultists now and save the lives of our friends and family by having the courage to be precient, for once in our nation's history!! Why do we have to be so damn reactionary! It is moronic and a betrayal of everything that is still good about being an American!
If multi-culturalism and making a giant petri dish out of the U.S. is more important than the sanctity of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights and the real intellectual wisdom that went into those documents, then we might as well just quit fighting right now.
Hi Robert and all,
Last week I printed a one page 'flyer' titled 'No to pedophile prophets' suggested by one of your contributors. I've started leaving copies around town (Sydney Australia)...the local library and on trains.
Do you have something similar that summarises the life and behaviour of M and beliefs of Islam, eg., the slaughter of the Jews of Medina, Mohammed's career of pillage, rape and murder and the calls to lie to and kill infidels etc ?
...and with references to the 'holy' books and websites for further information.
As long as they execute themselves and noone else, no problem.
The question is, how many are there. every Jihadi will say exactly the same words as a "moderate" Muslim up until the point they press the button, fire the rounds or take a hostage.
The words ""Self-recruited, self-trained, and self-executing" jihadists" says it all. In effect what we could end up seeing will be much like a virus spreading, one attack sends the signal to others who then in turn also start using the same methods yet without having contact or knowing about each other.
There could be another attack at any time from now until doomsday, then there may be none, the recent scares could also be an attempt to make the government funnel money into security which would have otherwise gone to public service, infidel public services.
Either way they will say that they are scoring minor victories and laughing into their sleeves while at the same time saying that terrorism is incompatible with Islam, that Islam forbids the murder of innocent people while secretly seeing us not as innocent people but legitimate targets.
This has not made the news outside of Denver, but yesterday a guy "went postal" at a Safeway warehouse and killed one innocent and wounded several others:
http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=11805fac-0abe-421a-00c3-1053ea792baf&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf
Guess what "religion" he was? We need to officially replace the phrase "go postal" with the more current "go muslim."
BS:
said Mueller: "They answer not to a particular leader but to an ideology. In short, they operate under the radar. And that makes their detection that much more difficult."
BS! Go to the mosque, Muller! Just go to the mosque and listen in! Stop looking for 'leaders'- start looking where Islam leads....
I support and would fight to the death to defend the right of storemanager and Foehammer to say what they have just said, but I find the remarks disturbing and tiresome.
Islam should not be banned as some argue. Monitored closely, but to say that a segment of the population (the majority who are not engaging in terrorism or support terrorism) should have no right to practice is just ridiculous and extremist in and of itself.
Should we make the practice of political Islam hard, of course, as much as I diasagree with hugh Fitzgerald on this matter I agree that the practice of political Islam (not all of Islam as Hugh suggests) should be made very difficult. This can help towards relegating, Islam as Ibn Waraq points out "to the person". The Islamists are becoming more cunning, some are abandoning terrorism, for political action. This is a form of subversion that can almost be deadlier than actual physical terrorism.
I know that some of you are blowing off steam, because you are angry about Islami and terrorism. But you arent alone. Lots of Muslim are as well. I lost two very close friends on 11 September and have lost friends in Israel because of terrorism.
Everyone wonders why Muslims are so quiet. Part of the reason is the culture and climate of fear within Islam. The fear of being accused of being an apostate. Most Muslims want to live with their heads down. If they speak, they could be killed. As a convert, its easy for me to speak.
These Muslims need to be given a voice. Robert asks why reformers like Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Abdullahi Na'im who present devesatatingly clear arguments on how and why Islam can reform (whom Robert has never commented on from what I know, probably because he has a lot on his plate). The reason again, is because of fear of most Muslims to speak up. The formal religious establishment that took form when Muhammad died helped extinguish any chances. The creation and fabrication of some hadith which were uesed to help set up political power did not help, the misuse of nansakh to justify hadith, etc.
I'm not making excuses. The ball is in our court. The onus is ours. I want us to be pressured. But I also want vulnerable Muslims to be given a voice. I want them to be given the free choice to leave Islam with no consequences or to help us build a new framework.
Islam does not have to be what it has become. There is scope for change. I think some of you don't want to believe it (a trait you share with many Muslims). I'm not asking you to take my word for it, or commence a tit for tat exchange. This is just my view.
@Haidon
Please, whisper in my ears how glad you would be if the world is under the Sh'ira rule and there are no nations anymore, except for the Islam Caliphat?
No thanks!!!
Grateful if the world were under shari'ah rule? Please. People who have mentored me like Mansour are victims of shari'ah. I am a victim of Islamic law myself, recently being subject to a religious edict, which places me in a degree of possible danger. I reject political Islam in any form. I reject the imposition of shari'ah in any form.
I work with and support so called "apostates" who have left Islam formally or constructively, believe me none of us want the restoration of shari'ah. I reject subtle forms of shari'ah as wellm including ever popular Islamic banking, and Islamic mediation. It is a slipperly slope and must be fought tooth and nail.
Damn it! Spoiled again, and I would have been able to continue with my deception if it werent for you!
But seriously, grateful if the world were under shari'ah rule? Please. People who have mentored me like Mansour are victims of shari'ah. I am a victim of Islamic law myself, recently being subject to a religious edict, which places me in a degree of possible danger. I reject political Islam in any form. I reject the imposition of shari'ah in any form.
I work with and support so called "apostates" who have left Islam formally or constructively, believe me none of us want the restoration of shari'ah. I reject subtle forms of shari'ah as wellm including ever popular Islamic banking, and Islamic mediation. It is a slipperly slope and must be fought tooth and nail.
And as far as the Caliphate is concerned, nothing could be worse for humanity than its establishment.
Haidon:
Imagine the early followers of Christ being murdered for their beliefs , Jesus must have displayed some proof of his claims in order to give a man such a conviction that even under the threat of death they wouldn't denounce their Lord and Messiah.
It's awfully nice of your muslim brothers and sister to being willing to let me die to protect their values that Islam is all about Peace and Allah is the real God of all the people, but just in case he isn't they'll stay mute and pretend to go along with the Islamists because Muhammad isn't worth dieing for as a actual Prophet from
god.
Again, thanks for taking a firm stance that it's better and safer for you to not take a stance and let the infidels die from the Jihadist
that don't really practise the True version of Islam that all you moderates have managed to
find in the exact Quran the Islamists use.
I'm not quite sure how to respond ala-sux. It seems to me that you think I'm somehow being unreasonable for asking non-Muslims to try and discern, where possible, Islamists from moderates. When I try to explain a key problem, from a Muslim perspective as to why some Muslims may be silent, you paint me as an extremist.
I am trying to engage in a civil discussion here. We are all adults I presume. I am not attempting to obsfucate the issues. We know Islam is replete with internal inconsistencies and major problems. We are just trying to solve the problem in different ways. Your way would involve probably killing most Muslims (lets be honest, while you and others arent saying this, you really wouldnt mind if we just disappeared). My way involves helping Muslims to leave the Muslim religion or help rebuild it. Which is more reasonable, more consistent with the human rights guaranteed in the UDHR ICCPR and the four gospels and Beatitudes. That said, I support military action to fight terrorism. But to target every Muslim (without care if they are a terrorist or terrorist sympathiser)makes you a monster.
My concious is clear. I work for the good of all, not just Muslims. What do you work for? Again, I experienced 9/11 just like every other American and suffered a bit more than most. I wonder what gives you the moral imperative to place all Muslims in one basket. And intellectual laziness does not count as a moral imperative.
I spend most of my time condeming Muslims for their beliefs, actions and inactions, so please spare me the "you should be criticising your co-religionists not us" argument. You cannot strip away the humanity of all Muslims. You are wrong. And I would be willing to bet that some of the people you admire most would disagree with the degree of your stance of banning and systemically destroying all Muslims.
I also find it ironic, that whenever I post on this site, no matter how innocous a statement. I am insulted. Some of you need to grow up a bit and learn to debate and discuss like adults. More will be accomplished that way.
Cheers
TH
From Haidon's comments:
"These Muslims need to be given a voice. Robert asks why reformers like Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Abdullahi Na'im who present devesatatingly clear arguments on how and why Islam can reform (whom Robert has never commented on from what I know, probably because he has a lot on his plate). The reason again, is because of fear of most Muslims to speak up. "
Look, in the Islamic world like Saudi Arabia or Egypt, there is government oppression. Rights are clearly curtailed, and Moslems want to leave for a wide variety of reasons. From their perspective, this is to be expected.
But the West is free. The marketplace of ideas(and ideals)are not restricted by the government. I would argue the voice that most Muslims seem to want to hear, is a more radical voice. First, they are set free from their own region's government's strong arm moves. Second, they marvel at the West in their heart of hearts, but also reject the freedom(s). They are at a loss.
But my major critique of your thesis of Muslims needing to be given a voice is this: the voice they choose is not one of the reformers, but, for the most part, of the rejectionists. One could make the arguement by looking at many of the 911 'pilots' and many others who do not stoop to physical terror, that the West itself is a radicalizing influence as if free from their constraints, they bury themselves within their faith.
Muslims choose how to practice their faith in the West--like Jews and Christians. It is up to them(not us)to choose 'the reform' path of a 'Muslim lite' practice. But have they chosen such a path? Will they? If Muslims had chosen a reformist path in the West, we wouldn't be here, chatting away. The sad reality is Muslims when they are free to practice their faith without governmental restrictions choose the more virulent path. This argues that the problem is Islam itself.
Foehammer wrote
If multi-culturalism and making a giant petri dish out of the U.S. is more important than the sanctity of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights and the real intellectual wisdom that went into those documents, then we might as well just quit fighting right now.
I wonder is Foehammer actually understands what the Bill of Rights actually says, particularly in terms of the freedom of religion and the right to equality before the law and due process. I find it hilarious that Foehammer calls for the criminaisation of the practice of Islam (I suppose according to his dimwitted thuggish, idiotic rationale) it will be easier to dispose of Muslims by imprisoning them and then maybe killing them. But to endorse this sort of broad baseless actions (without realising that measures to restrict Islam (if they ever were implemented) must be narrowly tailored to support the "compelling governmental interest". But apparently Foehammer knows nothing of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Only an absolute idiot would use these instruments to endorse such a practice.
Of course, the freedom of religion is not absolute, particularly in cases of sedition or treason; provisions which are rarely invoked.
Haidon
"to say that a segment of the population (the majority who are not engaging in terrorism or support terrorism) should have no right to practice is just ridiculous and extremist in and of itself."
Rational measures of self-defense which a society takes inevitably and unavoidably involve targeting innocent people.
You seem to have a difficult time with the limitations involved in life and reality. A typical psychological attitude for a person seeking perfection in this life: a Leftist and a Muslim.
Haidon, (caution world's largest run-on sentence ahead!)
You seem to be a rational, intelligent person....what I don't understand is why you would convert to a religion that has a holy book that is the direct word of God yet contains numerous contradictions, has a flimsy reason for it's obvious plagarization of a couple other religions' holy books, tells it's followers to kill people that don't agree with their beliefs,treats women as chattel, says slavery is just dandy, teaches if you die as a martyr,not the Christian kind that goes to their death refusing to denounce their belief in Jesus, but the "martyr" killing infidels, usually women and children going about their daily business, that you gets 72 virgins (and let's not forget all the young boys that are often left of that little reward phrase... and you thought homosexuality was haram) and who's "prophet" ordered the murders of people that critized him, took a six year old for a wife (waited till she was 9 to take her from her toys to consumate the "marriage" YUK), slaughtered hundreds of men and boys oh, and graciously took in one of their wives to be whatever umpteenth wife for himself as well as producing nothing, instead stealing whatever he could saying that his god told him that was okay.
What part of that exactly attracted you to this "religion"?
Greetings biorabbi
You raise fair points in your response.
You wrote:
But the West is free. The marketplace of ideas(and ideals)are not restricted by the government. I would argue the voice that most Muslims seem to want to hear, is a more radical voice. First, they are set free from their own region's government's strong arm moves. Second, they marvel at the West in their heart of hearts, but also reject the freedom(s). They are at a loss.
I think you are correct on some level. Many Muslims may be more prone to listen to radical voices, because these voices are viewed as authoratative. Teh Da'wa Ministry of Sauid Arabia has played a major role in promoting Salafist principles of Islam, which is now spread to teh four corners of the globe. Millions of dollars are spent, perhaps billions each year in propogating this strain of Islam in the West. Most Western mosques are externally funded (ie Saudi, Kuwait or UAE). This practice should be banned. Reformers, despite the quality of their arguments do not have a strong enough organisational base to gain influence. I would dare say however that Islam in the West is often more radical than in the Muslim world. Muslims who speak out may not face serious fear of death but may experience social exclusion if they speak out. I know may Muslims, who have been excluded from communities because of this. After a year they came back crawling on theri stomach begging for forgiveness.
Stop external funding for mosques, stop external preachers. The government should monitor and oversee mosques and centres to ensure radicalism is not existant. Imams should be home grown. Governments should subvertly ensure that home grown institutions are preaching a moderation and modernity. Ataturk did it, so can we.
Muslims choose how to practice their faith in the West--like Jews and Christians. It is up to them(not us)to choose 'the reform' path of a 'Muslim lite' practice. But have they chosen such a path? Will they? If Muslims had chosen a reformist path in the West, we wouldn't be here, chatting away. The sad reality is Muslims when they are free to practice their faith without governmental restrictions choose the more virulent path. This argues that the problem is Islam itself.
Yes. Most Muslims havent chosen any path. They are ambivalent and probably confused. I think the battle is still ripe. Muslims have not chosen a reformist path because there is no prominent reformist group with the capability or resources. You will disagree but the framework for reform has been articulated by guys like Na'iam, taha and Mansour. What is needed is a startegic plan, super-marketing scheme to get it across. It can be done. How, I'm not sure yet. But it can be. All it takes is political will. This is why I support government and societal pressure on Muslims. We won't change until we really think we have to. This is why there is some merit in what Hugh syasy about making the practice of Islam uncomfortable. It may be necesary.
Television. For your information, I'm a fiscal and moral conservative, member of the Republican party and National party in NZ. I support the war in Iraq, Afhganistan, and anywhere where terroisms is a threat. I support the Patriot Act, the Saudi Arabian Accountability Bill, and any measures that makes life difficult for Islamists. Leftist? I think not.
Television you wrote:
Rational measures of self-defense which a society takes inevitably and unavoidably involve targeting innocent people.
Just a bit of clarification. When you say self-defence, are you talking about collective punishment (ie arrest, killings) or just enacting laws to ensure that Islamism does not flourish and is subjigated. I agree with the latter if this is what you are saying.
Human rights are not absolute and are subject to limitation. But masures restricting people (directly or indirectly) whould be done carefully. There should also be some level of accountability so that innocent people who are affected can be vindicated. Surely you would agree with this. That there must be a degree of fundamental fairness, which protects people and does not condemn and stigmatise all.
Australians would have a hard time understanding this, there is no bill of rights (that is not a criticism by the way).
No_Mooselimbs
With respect, Why I am Muslim is irrelevant. I have answered that question a hundred times, but don't have the energy to respond now. One of the reasons involved my view of Jesus Christ. But I was fully aware of Islam's travalis when I converted. I read Ibn Waraq, Bat Ye'or and the like. I came in with my eyes wide open.
Cheers
TH
We need to make it illegal to convert to Islam. Scr*w the ACLU's response to that one.
"Muslims have not chosen a reformist path because there is no prominent reformist group with the capability or resources."
-- from a posting above
What would a "reformist group" do about the Qu'ran? What would it do about the Sunnah? How would it make any changes to the Qur'an or the Hadith (or a re-ordering of them so that "authentic" ones would be de-authenticated, and vice-versa) acceptable to a billion convinced, and mostly quite primitive Muslims, well-versed only in the verses of the Qur'an, the stories of the Hadith, the model of Muhammad, and the habit of mental submission?
Just how would it work? Sketch it out for us, so we can begin to imagine.
Some comments on the initial Haidon’s comments:
Right there we have a prime example of the concept of asymmetric warAny preventive action or criticism from the West will be met with this same argument, as to the enemy everything is allowed. I am also sure that the poster understands that this is not a personal attack, and that the scope of this argument goes well beyond Islam.
This is absolutely necessary, and one can make an analogy with Latin America: over the past, say, 20 years, a plethora of left-oriented parties were allowed to flourish unchecked in many Latin-American countries, as the general population seemed to bask on the false idea that democracy and stability were finally on their way. Slowly, but inevitably, any hint of a right-wing opposition was emptied of any ideological meaning, then ridiculed, and any serious adherent of the principles of free-market, equal opportunity etc., labelled “pro-American” and, sin of all sins!, “conservative”, and, finally, ostracized. These were not popular movements, but populist movements which aimed, only and exclusively, to the establishment of the next great communist enclave in the world. Today, we have the unsavoury Evo-Hugo-Lula-Fidel axis for all to see.
Back to Islam, we have (1) a political movement, in Europe, that since the early 90s actively seeks to establish a supra-governmental, Islam-only parallel society, geared at catering exclusively to the needs of the flock; (2) the multiculturalism blanket, which relentlessly empties Western culture of its meaning; and (3) unchecked proliferation of Islamic centres and organizations, along with an overly generous immigration quota, which while taking advantage of our institutions, have as ultimate goal the destruction of these same institutions.
There is an opportunistic parasite taken advantage of a momentarily sick West; to deal with it, one has to (1) strengthen the body (which is a route I profess more often, that is, rehabilitating our values) and (2) chemotherapy, which, in this case, is going to have to be bitter.
Hugh. I don't have all of the technical answers as to what it takes exactly. You think I don't realise that we have an uphill battle that may never be realised? Of course i do.
You wrote
What would a "reformist group" do about the Qu'ran? What would it do about the Sunnah? How would it make any changes to the Qur'an or the Hadith (or a re-ordering of them so that "authentic" ones would be de-authenticated, and vice-versa) acceptable to a billion convinced, and mostly quite primitive Muslims, well-versed only in the verses of the Qur'an, the stories of the Hadith, the model of Muhammad, and the habit of mental submission?
A reformist group, would find a group of "reformer" scholars to develop a new tafsir. The initial step would be to develop the principles and rules that would sit behind the tafsir. The commentary would apply similar techniques to itjihad in terms of using modern circumstances to contextualise the Qur'an. The new tafsir would reevaluate jihad, dhimmitude, and the remainder of the Qur'an according to these principles. Following Ghazali's approach to abrogation could also be of use. The result would be new explanations taking the teeth out of these provisions. What to do with Sunnah? For me it is a problem. The fundamental problem with fiqh is that far too often Sunnah is used to explain Qur'an even when it is not necessary. We need to demystify the Sunnah, expose its weaknesses to encourage to follow the Qur'an more closely in line with the new tafsir. Commissioned research should be carried to look at the origins and methods of the four madhabs in interpreting hadith and the so called science established to determine verification. There is no question that many hadith were fabricated to assist the Caliphate consolidate political power (the Ummayad's are largely responsible). (Incidentally Ibn Waraq has made one of the best cases to scrap hadith). Muslims would have to address some of teh disgusting traditions, such as the relationship with Aisha and the killing of Asma bin Marwan. I don't know how this could be done however.
These are only two aspects of a larger plan I would imagine a movement could look like.
We cant even get to the stage of marketing and how, until we have developed a comprehensive outline of exactly what moderate reform is. There are others who have articulated this much better than I.
1. There is no good side to evil and Islam is evil.
2. How does civilization Leadership or US fight a fair War or politically correct War for total Victory with an Evil it refuses to name?
3. This is truly a life and death Leadership issue knocking on our doors pushing The Trojan Horse of Compromise and Capitulation.
History of World Survival, finds it is way past time to purge the earth of Mohammed's Islam for it is consuming life itself.
Remember, there is no good side to Evil or its brother the Less of Evils, for The Fruit of Islam tree, big or small.
For sure, Islam must kill conscience of soul, execute the mind in Hell and feed a rage with a rape of spirit and body.
Time to cut this Devil tree down and salt the ground.
Haidon,
Re my quote: "Rational measures of self-defense which a society takes inevitably and unavoidably involve target innocent people."
"When you say self-defence, are you talking about collective punishment (ie arrest, killings) or just enacting laws to ensure that Islamism does not flourish and is subjigated."
I mean any and all measures that a rational modern Western democracy takes, varying depending on the nature of the actual and potential offenses of the enemy, in order to defend itself. A rational democracy always tries to limit with precision the targeting of the enemy. This is an imperfect process because life is imperfect.
When one is dealing with an enemy that is not clearly defined and specifically located, but, on the contrary is probably the most amorphous and globally disparate and easily camouflaged enemy in history, one will unavoidably end up targeting innocents for any or all the measures that may become necessary to defend ourselves from the Satanic hyenas that are pullulating out of your culture --
at an alarming rate,
at an alarming number in globally disparate and unpredictable locales,
and with varying & complex degrees of passive enabling, ambivalent support, strong support, and outright collusion, from millions of Muslims worldwide.
T. Haidon-
You read the Koran and still joined Islam?
You subscribed to the revenge fantasies of a pedophile warlord? A man whose "recitation" is larded with pseudo-"compassionate" interludes that only appear to have be added in order to confuse the unwary and lure the naive?
A work with seriously-distorted chunks of the Old and New Testament lore grafted on to give a little cachet to Mohammed's own pedestrial mutterings?
With no Sermon on the Mount?
No "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
No "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's"?
No "It is not what goes into a man's mouth but what comes out of it that renders him unclean?"
Wouldn't you agree that, compared to Jesus's level of thought, Mohammed is an example of a tediously shallow intellect? One that never had an original thought in his entire blood-soaked career?
If Muslims can't see this -cannot or will not see what is in their own religious documents- and will not then leave Islam in repelled disbelief, I fear we are dealing with a group that is paralyzed by its preference for cultural cohesion over intellectual or spiritual honesty.
Why should I feel anything but angst having this "religion" in my neighborhood?
There were nearly no Muslims in my area as I grew up, and I didn't miss their absence, because their presence now is only a source of worry. An impending sense that some of them will take the rambling, violent, vendetta-soured dogmas of the "perfect" man -and start killing more people.
As they do daily in Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Kashmir, Bangladesh, Thailand, Afghanistan, France, The Netherlands, Algeria, the Phillipines, America, Sudan, Iraq, Bali, Russia, London, Madrid and any number of other formerly-peaceful, once Muslim-free places.
The mindset of anyone who unskeptically swallows such a tyrannical playbook leaves me cold.
I think it would be best if believing Mohammedans returned to Arabia and tamed their "religion" . Before they were re-accepted back among those whose faiths have already been civilized by an intensive reform of their once-equally-violent creeds.
But, it appears that, to the average Muslim, this kind of self-restraint, "holy" textual analysis and humane understanding of the need to keep religions out of government (where they always collapse into theocratic tyrannies) only seems 'weak', contemptible, blasphemous and deserving of destruction.
Islam is challenging the West to react to its Koranic call to "holy" carnage -and planetary dominion- with enlightented self-interest/defense, at the very least.
Repatriating the most militant servants of Mohammad back to Arabia seems reasonable to me.
And sending all who actively support such firebrand members of the Ummah off to Mecca right after them. Along with the mealy-mouthed "moderates" -who are quietly engaged in undermining the free world.
Glibly proclaiming its Allah-ordained extinction. And that it shall be humbled into "submission".
What does the West gain from Islam?
Other than the threat of its inevitable doom at the hands of the Muslim true believers?
Why should such ingrates be welcomed?
The Jews add great scientists, fine musicians and comedians, the Chinese stir in uniquely delicious dishes and an inherently joyful culture, Hindus bring brilliant techies and a lively film world, reggae rises from the Caribbean immigrants, the French spice things up with a beautiful language and superb wines, the Italians have the best food and opera on Earth, while the English blend in a unique sense of the absurd and brilliant literature.
But, what have the Muslims brought, but dread??
URGENT – TO ALL AUSTRALIANS!
Murdoch has made comments about the Islamic threat in the past http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1127918/posts and he has now repeated this at a Sydney function naming him the most influential Australian of all time.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19597136-2,00.html
About an hour ago, influential Australian television program “A Current Affair” (ABC) has asked viewers to phone in and vote on the question: “Can Muslims be patriotic Australians” – or words to that effect, a resounding NO vote would send a clear message to politicians about the nature of public unease regarding Muslim immigration. So please vote ‘NO” – Phone: 1902 552 202
Haidon~ After reading all the back and forth, the following comes to mind:
You are between Christianity (Rock. Pun intended) - Haidon - and Islam (Hard Place. Pun?)
I now understand my own status as a 'Moderate' a bit better. 'tis next to impossible to win an argument with anyone!
Haidon,
what religious edict have you been subject to, that would place you in possible danger?
Someone should do a parody of Haidon's Own Private Islam, by taking Mein Kampf (and selected other writings of the original German Nazis), then subjecting those writings to a rigorous filter of a new "tafsir" that renders the magic of turning them into warm, fuzzy, peaceful documents on which to base a humane and ethically progressive organization.
This parody, of course, would not merely satirize Haidon, but the many other "moderate" Muslims and their fawning Infidel bedfellows who claim there is -- or even ever can be -- a beneficent and peaceful Islam.
"No_Mooselimbs
With respect, Why I am Muslim is irrelevant. I have answered that question a hundred times, but don't have the energy to respond now. One of the reasons involved my view of Jesus Christ. But I was fully aware of Islam's travalis when I converted. I read Ibn Waraq, Bat Ye'or and the like. I came in with my eyes wide open.
Cheers
TH"
Wow, Haidon, all I can say is that's pathetic that someone can read about mohammed's life vs. Jesus and say, "Yep THAT'S da man fo' me!"
No_ML
From Timbo's link above:
One of Australia's leading Muslims later disagreed with Mr Murdoch's assertion.
"He's way out of line," Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president Rahim Ghauri told AAP.
"Both (religion and nationality) go hand in hand.
A "leading Muzlim" tells us once again to 'walk the line'- it is as if they set the standards and they call the shots.
It is infuriating that nobody stands up to their drivel and tells them where to shove it....
Haidon:
Paranoia and denail forces a persons brain to fabricate a reality that fits into the comfort zone where a false perception doesn't get challenged.
Since you couldn't counter any of my claims with historic facts you reverted to what is easy and that's to attack ther author of a comment , but the truth stands on its own .
I question the convictions of the peaceful Muslims that claim it's to dangerous to oppose the Jihadists by standing up for Muhammad and attesting to his Prophethood and peaceful teachings.
I have no fear of being killed by Muslim jihadists or suicide bomber because I know my future and I'm no fool that can be tricked into believing that God gives special dispensations to people that kill on his behalf to purify the Earth and bring about peace by having just one faith that people accept , or be killed as unbelievers.
Muslims that stay mute during terrorism in the name of Islam speak volumes about how weak the faith is , and just last week a Islamic scolar
excused away the violence by Muhammed and his followers by claiming that he had to kill the people trying to stop him from practising islam.
Kinda reminds me of the abusers that justify assaulting their spouse because they accused them of being violent and they had to attack them to stop the lies about them being abusive.
Imams at Mosques are already in denial and they have responded to the arrests of 17 Jihadists in Toronto by asking Canadians and canada what they did to make these good Muslim boys want to murder civilians.
I feel sorry for the female Muslims that have to get help from these Imams if they are abused by the husband, the Imam will ask her what does
she think she is doing to make your husband so violent and want to abuse you.