The site they're sponsoring is called Radical Middle Way. They're doing to counter the growing jihadist influence among British Muslims, which, as we have pointed out here many times, proceeds by presenting itself as "pure Islam" -- an appeal to which moderates have yet to formulate an effective counter.
One immediate note of caution: the Radical Middle Way features audio of a talk by Hamza Yusuf. That's right, the same Hamza Yusuf who invoked the Treaty of Hudaybiyya that Muhammad opportunistically signed and just as opportunistically broke -- and told his audience: "There are times when you have to live like a sheep in order to live in the future like a lion." Mr. Yusuf, are there times when you have to advocate a Radical Middle Way, only to reveal your leonine nature later?
And another note of caution: Jamal Badawi, who almost made me rich once, is on their list of scholars.
"Al-Qa'eda is winning the war of ideas, says Reid," by Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite in the Telegraph:
John Reid has issued a dire warning that the Government risks losing the "battle of ideas" with al-Qa'eda.The Home Secretary spoke out at an emergency meeting of ministers and security officials amid an ever-growing threat from home-grown Islamist terror groups.
He called for an urgent but controversial escalation in the propaganda war and said al-Qa'eda's so-called "single extremist narrative" was proving ever more attractive to young British Muslims.The Government needed to do much more to win the "battle of ideas", Mr Reid said. The meeting came as ministers — including Jack Straw, Ruth Kelly and Phil Woolas — started to take a much more aggressive stance against radical Islam.
Ministers have told The Sunday Telegraph that 30 terror plots are being investigated and that 1,500 young Muslims — many more than previously estimated — are suspects.
A key government weapon in the struggle to win hearts and minds is the decision to fund covertly an Islamic website appealing for moderation. A classic of New Labour terminology, it is called the Radical Middle Way. Government documents disclose that the site is "run as a grassroots initiative by Muslim organisations". However, it has "most of its financial backing from the Foreign Office and Home Office". The site uses video and podcasts to spread an "alternative message" to young Muslims. Some content is available through the iTunes website with no indication that it is effectively an arm of Government.
Around 100,000 CDs promoting moderation have also been funded and distributed free to Muslim students as an "antidote", apparently, to the jihadist CDs circulated at universities and colleges.
Oh, the "surrender to the mythical moderate muslim triangulation game" Submit! or the booggie muslims will get you.
I thought we had all agreed that there is no such thing as "moderate muslims?" Even Anjem Choudary says so.
My frustration on seeing this news has hit all time high. Let these dhimmis get a single penny from saudi government for any moderate christian/hindu/buddhist/pagan web site. This is crap.
Today I am sure that we are bound to loose in this struggle and soon there will be Islamic flag all over the planet. It is totally pathetic that my grandchilren (if not children) will be polygamous, wife beating zombies with no regard for rationality or sense of refined human pleasure as well as adpatability and flexibility. Many of you would find this unrealistic but history is witness that barbarians have always triumphed over the mighty civilizations because of intrinsic civility of the civilizations.
Again, more incidences along the same pattern by muslims seeking to impose Islam on the western world and continued failure by western policymakers and intelligence agencies to connect the dots but more appeasement. Here is the reality that neither Blair nor Bush can see…
1. There is coordination among Muslim states in supporting each other’s territorial demands on non-Muslim states.
2. There is coordination among muslim states in supporting minority muslim militant groups that violently work to undermine non-muslim states with money, arms and men.
3. There is coordination among muslim states and muslim minorities in non-muslim states in political pressuring non-muslim states to not require muslims to submit to the law of the land while the muslim states’ own non-muslim minorities are severely persecuted.
4. Muslim states are behind both nuclear proliferation crisis, the one in Iran as supplier (Pakistan) and user, the one in North Korea as supplier (Pakistan).
5. There is coordination among many muslim states in foreign policies that seek to weaken and ultimately destroy Israel.
6. There is coordination among muslim states in radicalizing minority muslims in non-muslims by imams who preach loyalty to the umma and sharia over loyalty to the state and civil law, which is a central tenet of Islam and raises the question to what extent is Islam compatible with a non-Islamic government.
The source texts of Islam explicitly call for violent overthrow of non-muslim civil authority and that process includes murder of non-muslims. Whatever crap shia posts on this site it’s there in many places in the Quran, and in the Hadith, it was practiced by Muhammad himself and by muslims for 1400 years all over the world. But this is both illegal and immoral. A religious belief in murder is not subject to religious protection any more then a death threat is entitled to freedom of speech – both are incitement to murder. Any religion that has a political program involving its’ seizure of power in its’ source documents is not a religion but a political party, and if this political program includes violent overthrow of the existing legal civil entity as is the Koranic teaching, it can legitimately be banned. When someone thinks God told him to kill someone, putting the person in prison for murder is not infringing the murderer’s religious freedom. Since muslims believe God told Muhammad to violently impose Islam and a political order on the rest of the world, and Muhammad’s murders of the unbelievers were meritorious and not illegal and immoral, they are essentially a violent political movement and should be treated as such, and not as a normal religion that recognizes the civil authority of the state. Again the professions of religion of peace by CAIR is a load of crap totally out of touch with reality– there is a coordinated worldwide movement of money and men to both muslim minorities and muslim majorityies originating in muslim states and the results always are murder of non-muslims. The worldwide extent of the network, the amount of money, arms, men moved, the numbers of non-muslims killed convincingly show this is not the work of a few extremists, but has the wide support of the muslim world. It’s very sophisticated, Saudis provide the cash, Pakis the nuclear umbrella for the training of the militants – and neither has stopped their activities since 9/11 as Indian authorities discovered the Pakistan secret service was involved in the recent Indian train bombing. No other “religion” has such a network. Such coordinated violent destabilization of non-muslim states by the muslim states is unacceptable, regardless how many times they invoke God. Here are some steps the western world needs to take to defend itself and what the British should be doing…
1.Revocation of freedom of religion for religions whose original canons and founders did not recognize the legitimacy of civil authority of a state of a different religion and which call for violent replacement of that state with a theocracy. “Religions” that have such a violent overthrow in their source documents would be closely scrutinized and subject to restrictions
2.Restrictions of emigration, travel and study to western countries by muslims. A softer regime against travel could be adopted against muslim states that show real reforms – allowing proselytization by other religions, supporting Israel, etc, though I emphasize REAL and SUSTAINED reform, not windowdressing
3.Economic sanctions of various degrees against muslim countries based on their human rights record against non-muslims.
4. Restrictions on technological tranfers to muslim countries
5.Banning foreign states funding of any religious institution which is affiliated with a religion whose source texts advocate violent overthrow of civil structures and replacement by theocracy.
6.US declaring that a nuclear strike on a western target will be followed by a large scale nuclear strike against the sources of the proliferation of the nuclear weapon – and informing Pakistan that we know Pakistan was the source of proliferation to North Korea and Iran and that we will hold Pakistan directly responsible if these states then ship it to Islamic militants who then hit a western state.
7.Manhattan project to end dependence on oil – and I think the US could think about bringing some allies such as Japan into this to increase the money available and the brainpower
Islam is a violent tribal ideology that thankfully became irrelevant because it cannot sustain the technological development needed to be relevant in the modern world, Unfortunately, it got a second lease on life thanks to exploiting the openness of western societies and Saudi oil money. However it can only parasitize off the west by sending it’s people to study abroad as well as by using Saudi oil money to buy the end product. Much like communism, restricting its access to western technology would bring a collapse. The ex-muslim states would then be forced to replace Islam with something which can work in the modern world.
""There are times when you have to live like a sheep in order to live in the future like a lion." Mr. Yusuf, are there times when you have to advocate a Radical Middle Way, only to reveal your leonine nature later?"
By the way, osama means "lion" in Arabic.
OT sorry but I am struggling to place this rant:
The Telegraph has asked if the war in Iraq is the new Vietnam. I must admit that I am feeling a little mystified by the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam.
For a start McNamara had the will and the firepower to assault Giap north of the DMZ but was largely limited to defensive actions by the American government, partly because of fears of involving China directly by placing soldiers too close to the Chinese border.
America was involved in Vietnam for a decade and lost over 50,000 soldiers. The Vietnamese losses amounted to millions. America expended more ordinance during the Vietnam War than they used during WWII. Finally America used B-52 bombers and Napalm as close support for ground troops.
In Iraq the death toll is far lower and the war is less intensive. So it would be more appropriate to compare the Arab insurgents in Iraq to the Viet Cong than the NVA.
As for the Tet offensive, Giap understood the power of the American media and knew that by throwing his might against the south he would shatter the impression given by the US government that they were winning. He was right, but he left himself depleted and practically defeated by the time the battle to retake Hue was completed.
If MACV had been able to fight the Tet offensive away from the glare of the media it is highly likely that they would have followed up Tet with a counter offensive and crushed Giap’s army in the south. But the will to fight had been lost. Giap won by sacrificing his army.
The left through the media took away America’s chance to win the war and they are doing the same today. The only difference is that thirty years later the thought of losing one soldier in war as become so terrible that the left scream for peace as each coffin is flown home.
On the first day of the Somme the British Army suffered 57,470 casualties of which 19,240 died.
America loses 3000 soldiers in three years and it is time to retreat? No wonder militant Islam is sure it can win.
Even the BBC has admitted that it is staffed by homosexuals and ethnic minorities who would rather see the Bible binned over the Koran (the BBC’s words not mine).
I ask you. When did 3000 soldiers lost in war constitute a reason to retreat? If that thinking prevailed in 1944 the D Day landings would have been impossible. Although the idea of leftist journalists cowering behind an hedgehog while the German 352nd Infantry Division poured fire on them does make me smile.
I also wonder if the family of Terry Lloyd would have been so fast to call for a murder trial if the Iraqi who shot him first had killed him. A battlefield is by its very nature a confusing and brutally dangerous place, and the idea that civilians should be able to transverse it with impunity is laughable. Terry Lloyd chose to be their in the middle of a battle and he was killed. Guess what, if you drive into a battle you stand a chance of being killed. The soldiers in that battle are trying hard to stay alive by killing as many of the enemy as they can. It’s just like John Simpson getting upset because an American pilot bombed his convoy of 4x4’s.
Islam really doesn’t care if you’re a journalist, you are still an infidel and the death toll for journalists in Iraq should wake them up, but it doesn’t?
We should tell journalists in war zones that they are there as free agents who have chosen to be there and if they travel into a battle and are injured or killed then they have made that choice.
When did journalists claim the same rights as the Red Cross? And when did John Simpson get the right to tell the world that his Iraqi interpreter died when the British Army is sending friends home in body bags?
This set of photos, from their "Gallery" section, is from what appears to be a talk titled "Is Islam in need of Reformation?" from June 19-21.
http://radicalmiddleway.co.uk/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=46&catid=10
And the man at the podium?
Just hover your mouse over one of the pics.
Why it's none other than Tariq Ramadan!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013318.php
Here's further description of the event, from http://www.aauk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=52:
So Ramadan is clearly featured, and the entire series is clearly sponsored by... the UK Government!
This initiative reeks of desparation. Does anybody involved really believe it will have any effect whatsoever? The money would probably be better spent buying rubber bullets.
Is it just me, or does "radical middle way" sound out and out ominous? If the opposite of "radical" is democratic - and what else should it imply? - then the implication for us dirty kuffars must be that we would have to give something too, i.e., some of our freedom.
What is a "radical middle"? I failed to understand that term years ago, when it was used by the estimable Renata Adler (whose account of the Biafra War in The New Yorker is the best thing on it) as part of a title: "Notes Toward a Radical Middle." I fail to understand it now. If this "Radical Middle Way" falls between two extremes, then what are those extremes? Is one extreme the anti-Infidel fanatics of Hezbollah, Hamas, Lashkar Jihad, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Ansar al-Sunna, Al Qaeda, Jamaat Islamiya? And if that is one extreme, then is the other extreme, by any chance, those entirely civilized people, those apostates born through no fault of their own into Islam who have managed to think their way out of it, such people as Ibn Warraq, Anwar Sheikh, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, Irfan Khawaja, and many others? Is it between the fanatics and the perfectly sensible that this Radical Middle Way will wind its course -- a course that of course may well run all too smooth, fooling those Infidels, delaying the day of recognition of the nature of Islam, and the permanent textual and by now extra-textual sources of the menace it presents to all Infidels -- that essential anagnorisis that can't wait until the very end of the tale, but has to be achieved, by Infidels, a good deal earlier in the narrative.
Oops. I posted without having read an earlier posting, and hence did not realize that this "radical middle" business is just as phony and absurd as it can possibly be, for it is sponsoring a lecture by -- or is he the head of the whole wretched thing -- Tarig Ramadan, the smoothly hissing serpent with his smile, and his wiles, and his doctorate in Deceiving the Infidels. See, inter alios, Caroline Fourest, Magdi Allam, Olivier Guitta, Alain Finkielkraut, even Nicolas Sarkozy.
The fact that a "battle of ideas" is raging is worrying by itself. Muslims are wondering if they should be blowing up infidels and honor killing their sisters and mother, or if they should follow modern values and principles. Decisions, decisions.
If Islam truly were as as people claim it is, then I don't think a battle of ideas would be taking place. Muslims would confidently laugh the foolish extremist preachers out of their mosques, and only a true few would follow them.
"Oops" here as well. Let's try that again:
If Islam truly were as as {insert positive, Christianity-like descriptions here} people claim it is, then I don't think a battle of ideas would be taking place. Muslims would confidently laugh the foolish extremist preachers out of their mosques, and only a true few would follow them.
What an idiotic waste of money. Until the BNP or similar comes to power, there is no hope.
here the Brits go again with their leftist methods of throwing money at the problem. The British tax payer needs to pay attention and scream, fax, call , to your politicians.. editorials.. do something about the abuse of your tax money being used for such loopy ideas.
How much more PC can the Brits get? Every day, a new low. On you feet or on your knees.
One other idea: If terrorists can counterfeit American and Euro currency to finance terrorist enterprises, why not reciprocate?
Iran needn't counterfeit our currency without fearing the same in retaliation. How about doing the same to Lebanon? North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and others who think the game is only played one way?
If Iran can hold competitions for anti-semitic cartoons, why can't the rest of the world lambast terrorists and their ideologies?
What they really want is to intimidate and silence the West. If we exercise our free speech, they don't win.
One other idea: If terrorists can counterfeit American and Euro currency to finance terrorist enterprises, why not reciprocate?
Probably because some Pentagon or State Department lawyer would oppose it as being illegal or imoral. America does not bomb Taliban funerals, remember?
There never has been and never will be a "moderate" Muslim. Either they want to dominate the entire world(the Jihadist type) or they are indifferent to much of Islam (the average mosque goer who just wants to get along in this world). Unfortunately, those Muslims who are not indifferent are causing a hell of a lot of trouble in the world. We can't expect the indifferent ones to get the jihadists under control; therefore the West has to fight them to the death. How many "moderate" Nazis were there in Hitler's regime? About the same number as the "moderate" Muslims of today.
Can anyone really explain what "pure Islam" is? Maybe the moderates can explain that.
So Ramadan is clearly featured, and the entire series is clearly sponsored by... the UK Government!
Posted by: kamala
Whom does the Englisch Government think they are fooling? Their contempt for their own population knows NO BOUNDS. They need to be thrown out of office. Maybe after they are removed from power they can get jobs at the BBC where the whole lot of them would seem to fit in rather nicely.
hey either think the Brits are THAT DUMB that they'd buy into this website idea or they JUST DON'T GIVE A FLYING F*** WHAT Joe Q. Brit thinks about anything.
They talk about bringing Democracy to Iraq.
I say: DEMOCRACY STARTS AT HOME!!
What really gets me is.. WHAT exactly motivates these traitorous politicians these days?!
So Ramadan is clearly featured, and the entire series is clearly sponsored by... the UK Government!
Posted by: kamala
If anything is served by the presence of Jihadwatch/DW and similar sites and blogs it is to
LET THE GODDA*N POLITICIANS KNOW WER ARE ON TO THEM!!!!!!
Will they react by serving the will of the people or will they try to shut us down one day?
The 'radical middle way' is newspeak,
one end can't be the middle, ignorant boys!
And to steal from the Buddhists, how pitiful!
Hamza Yusef, is a willing slave
of the black rock moon god allah
and his perfect man mahammed
who inspire michief in their wake.
Hamza Yusef wants to live
his fantasy of 7th century
vizhir at the white house of the great satan
but will find his end will be the same
as the American adam jihadi,
their lives sacrificed for an evil fantasy.
How much more PC can the Brits get? Every day, a new low. On you feet or on your knees.
Posted by: Charles Bogle
One word: TELETUBBIES!
The fans of Liverpool, Chelsea and ManU should get State-funded websites too. Maybe that will make them less Hooligan-like, eh?
Same for Celtic and Glasgow.
Just a thought..
Among the other 'scholars' is Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson.
In Sept. 2004 Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson proclaimed to the Islamic Society of North America "I took that test (Daniel Pipes questions to be asked to distinguish moderate from extremist Muslims) and I failed. And I want to say to all of you, I hope you fail that test too."
See: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/327
As Pipes notes, his questions are not intended to be a test. But here they are. These are the questions which Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson thinks every good Muslim should throw back to Daniel Pipes with disappointiing answers. And we all know the answers Pipes is looking for to identify a 'moderate Muslims'. I point out the implications of 'failing' the 'test' (as Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson must understand it) in each instance.
See: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1322
Violence: Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Armée, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and al-Qaida?
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson must assert that he does not condemn these organizations.
Modernity: Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Do Muslims have anything to learn from the West?
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson must assert that jihad as a form of warfare is acceptable, and that Muslims have nothing of value to learn from the West.
Secularism: Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? May Muslims convert to other religions? May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men? Do you accept the laws of a majority non-Muslim government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government? Should the state impose religious observance, such as banning food service during Ramadan? When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for drivers' license pictures), which should give way?
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson must reject equality of civil rights between Muslims and non-Muslims, that Muslims may convert to other religions, that Muslim women may marry non-Muslims, that women should have equal rights; and must assert that the loyalty of Muslims belongs to Sharia and the umma whenever there is a conflict with laws of the state.
Islamic pluralism: Are Sufis and Shi'ites fully legitimate Muslims? Do you see Muslims who disagree with you as having fallen into unbelief? Is takfir (condemning fellow Muslims with whom one has disagreements as unbelievers) an acceptable practice?
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson must accept takfir as an acceptable practice.
Self-criticism: Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was responsible for the 9/11 suicide hijackings?
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson must reject scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam.
Defense against militant Islam: Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Islam, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)? Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism should be shut down, or do you see this a symptom of bias?
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson must reject security measures to fight militant Islam as well as the tactic of shutting down financial institutions that fund terrorism.
Goals in the West: Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian and secular or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law?
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson must seek to transform Western countries into majority Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law.
"Al-Qa'eda is winning the war of ideas, says Reid," by Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite in the Telegraph:
John Reid has issued a dire warning that the Government risks losing the "battle of ideas" with al-Qa'eda.
I can fix that. Make me the Islam Czar for the USA or Britain and I'll take care of losing the "battle of ideas" for you.
First day on the job I'd hire most of the people on this site as consultants.
Having such a distinguished team at my side would make the job rather easy, don't you say?
Only catch would be that whatever country we worked for would be bound to carry out all our decisions re. pislam.
I can GUARANTEE 100% - 1000% even - that we'd win a lot more than the "battle of ideas".
We'd be winning back our lands!
I really don't care who has the best "ideas" anyway? what is this - a debating club? In this case we are discussing Britain so I say: "This is Britain. We really don't care how you do things in your country but this is how we do things over here and you are free to leave if you don't like it." Insert names of other Western countries as needed.
I don't want to win any "battle of ideas" with muftis. I'd much rather not be in their presence.
This set of photos, from their "Gallery" section, is from what appears to be a talk titled "Is Islam in need of Reformation?" from June 19-21.
http://radicalmiddleway.co.uk/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=46&catid=10
And the man at the podium?
Just hover your mouse over one of the pics.
Why it's none other than Tariq Ramadan!
Even worse.. from what I gather they were using a CHURCH for these meetings. They allow these bearded snakes to sully Churches with their vile presence.
I think these rats ought to be rather humble and BEG us to come to their little mosks if they have something to say to US.
We and they have things really twisted right now.
According to Pipes blog, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson all of a sudden asserts in June 2005 that he 'passes the test', after at least three assertions that he is proud to have 'failed'.
How can one flip flop on these issues when the implications are so very, very disturbing?
And how can Western leaders trust someone who has so 'proudly' proclaimed his extremism?
What an idiotic waste of money. Until the BNP or similar comes to power, there is no hope.
Posted by: george_rem
If only they weren't so damn anti-semitic. I am not sure what their views are on Hindus, either. I for one consider all non-moslems my allies and I wish them all the Best.
Totalitarian Islamic regimes offer no growth and are at odds with human nature. Blinded by their ideology, fanatic and militant jihadis and militias carry out their own selfish desires, and offer no benefit to the majority of non-militant Muslims. Due to globalization and technology, and their changing lifestyle and worldview, Muslim entrepreneurs, workers, and students, are better informed and seek crises resolution. Knowledge is power. Muslims are trying to evaluate their situations, and make choices. Their futures do not have to be a repeat of the past. They want a pathway to new insight, and to participate in an objective examination. Muslim youth seek supportive communities, and a dynamic and reformed religion, to provide the necessary framework. They need mature guidance to help them navigate through the complex maze of self-exploration and development. Muslim democratic regimes are expected to practice a higher level of maturity, transparency, honest accountability and self-assessment of past actions, and to respect the pragmatic truth, and the life stages of individual citizens. Muslim entrepreneurs and workers are struggling to build societies that offer lifelong personal and economic challenges and rewards. The highest productivity will be found where Muslim citizens have essential skills and desire. By their nature, the regimes are representational, and must be aware of turning points, where citizens show enthusiasm and engagement, and find fulfillment. Through relationships with peers, teamwork, and self-education, and inline with human nature, Muslims citizens will find deeper understanding and personal and intellectual renewal over time, and may not necessarily make the same decisions, or vote for the same representative twice.
Conservative or not, Islam is attacking the rights of everyone in this world regardless of religion or political associations. Islam attacks all that is not Islam. So cry for me Argentina. It is Islam against the world, not Neo-Cons versus Libs you dope! Read some Quran, and realize they do not give a damn where you came from, who you are, or what you believe in, they want to shove Islam and Shitria down your throught. Comprende!
Throat!
I'm with some of the others - how can anyone believe information on a site called "Radical" "Middle" Way? How stupid is that?
Went to the site, and started reading. Three paragraphs, and I started getting a feeling of being mislead, of feeling a illness comming on..
Ha.Ha!What a sick joke.Not satisfied with sending out craven E Mails NOT to arrest Muslims during Ramadan,the Dimwit Dhimmis are at it again-this time funding a Website for the very people who INTEND TO PUT BRITAIN UNDER ISLAMIC FLAG AND SHARIA LAW.
Greetings All,
Let's put this discussion about Islam and war into a sensible context. Compare the Qur'an with the Torah or the Christian Bible. Compare the references to war in the name of G-d in the Qur'an to the references made to war in the cause of G-d in the Torah and the Christian Bible.
You will find that the older scriptures are filled references to religious war. The are filled with references to strategy in war.
If you are arguing that Islam is a warlike religion, you must compare it to other major religions. You need to read the scripture of Islam (the Holy Qur'an) and compare it to the scriptures of other religions.
The arguments made in the article "UK govt funds moderate Muslim website" above are out of context, misleading, and intellectually unsound.
Peace,
Qasim
Peace,
Qasim
True, the Old Testament does contain stories of war and violence. However, the Old Testament has the New Testament as a less violent counterpoint.
Also, Christianity has evolved somewhat from the time of the Old Testament-for one thing, slavery has been abolished and wars of aggression are frowned upon by most rational people.
Islam is a religion that grew by the sword, lived by the sword and, if it continues picking fights with the rest of the human race, will die by the sword. Sooner rather than later, I hope.
Henry.. calm down.. we say those things all the time. and most of us agree with everything you said.
Ha.Ha!What a sick joke.Not satisfied with sending out craven E Mails NOT to arrest Muslims during Ramadan,the Dimwit Dhimmis are at it again-this time funding a Website for the very people who INTEND TO PUT BRITAIN UNDER ISLAMIC FLAG AND SHARIA LAW.
Posted by: Morgane
They want to do the same the Germany, the USA and so on.. They are close to doing so in France, which as I am sure you know, has nukes.
Once they have control of France and her nukes we're in Big Trouble. We must do something about the mufti invasion NOW!!
excuse me, henry is always not careful, I meant " religiously correct" not politically correct! sorry folks, I try to be a Champion, but it is this damned low IQ. But if not for that, I would be amoung the best!
Posted by: henry
Henry.. You are among the best! You are among Robert and Hugh, Ronin and a.i.g and so many more. Not enough room the mention them all.
I'm sure your IQ is way higher than anyone's who's ever read the Kloran.
Greetings Mr. "ISLAMFORLOSERS"
The last book of the New Testament is replete with images of war and violence.
The history of the Holy Roman Empire and its succesor states in Europe are replete with religious and patriotic violence.
It is fine to rant. Emotional release has its place. If we are to analyze a religion, we should rationally and soberly examine both its scriptual claims and its cultural history.
So, read the book of Revelations and see if warfare is advocated. Compare the references to blood and war in Revelations and the Qur'an.
Peace,
Qasim
I don't like "radical" in "radical middle way". We are being deceived again.
Please, will somebody answer the troll. My cup has runneth over, and the only answers I have for muslim zombies require that they be in my immediate proximity.
Mert
First rate post! All liberal "thinking" insists,
Mass slaughter in WW1 = Generals mindless butchers.
Mass slaughter of Viet Cong in Tet offensive = Giap miltary genius.
But, "Even the BBC has admitted that it is staffed by homosexuals and ethnic minorities who would rather see the Bible binned over the Koran (the BBC’s words not mine)". Any more details ref where and when?
It might be a qualification in the BBC as their top Middle East reporter Robert Fisk smugly told R4 last week that he was fired as school librarian because he insisted on putting the Bible on the fiction shelves.
Well, I am a Hindu, and the dhimmi behaviour of the Hindus is legendary. I woudn't have been disturbed if the Indian government had done this. Dhimmi living is the usual norm in India.
But the British dhimmi behaviour is foreboding, given the traditional Anglo-Saxon down-to-the-earth pragmatism.
I only wish wisdom dawns on the British before their country goes the Indian way.
First of all, I do not think that it is sound to promote a political party such as the BNP because this party has links to the Fascist movement. As such it is no different than an Islamic theocracy. Life under the BNP would end up being like life under Sharia. You need a moderate new party that is not inclined to racism, whilst being dedicated to not giving into the Islamofacists of the UK.
Second, Tony Blair and co. are wimps because they are in fact afraid of any bursting forth of rage in Great Britain. If they had the ability to not act like eunuchs, they might have had a better chance to control monkeys and dogs who have barely made it out of the trees.
Third, it is not correct to compare the Torah and the Christian Old Testament with the Koran when it comes to the violence that is to be found in the pages of our Bible. There is a big difference because the violence in the Old Testament is a chronicle of events. It is not prefaced with the statements such as "God said that the unbelievers are to be killed" (not a proper quote). Take for example the Books of Samuel and of Kings. It is true that there is a lot of gratuitous violence in those chronicles. However, there is nothing in those pages that excites either Jews or Christians to do violence against their neighbours as a result of those chronicles. To give an example, there is a king who makes a promise to the Lord that if he is successful, he will sacrifice the first thing that comes out to him as he reaches his home. That person is his only child, his daughter. He is heartbroken, but the girl insists that he goes ahead to keep his promise. This is written as a lesson to those who make foolish promises. It is not written for the purpose of emulation.
It is also true that the Book of Revelation contains scenes of violence. However, what is written there is a description of a scene that was familiar to the author of the Book of Revelation, that is the Roman sacking of Jerusalem. It is a chronicle of something that had taken place, but it was couched in language that could be interpreted to mean that it will be a future event. It was not written as an incitement to violence. It was written to bring comfort to those who were suffering from persecution at the hands of the pagans.
Now compare these situations with the Koran, and there is no real comparison, because in the Koran the words are an incitement to violence. It is written that the unblievers are to be killed. Nowhere in the New Testament is it written that the unbelievers are to be killed. In the New Testament there are scenes of violence against the Christians that are clearly depicted, especially in the Acts of the Apostles. However, there is nowhere within the text that the Christians are told to attack the unbelievers.
This leaves the charge that the Christians committed acts of violence and that Christianity was spread by the sword. This is patently not true. For over 400 years the Christians suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Jews and the pagans. This did not stop until Constantine made Christianity the state religion. Constantine did not convert to Christianity until on his deathbed. Some of his successors contined the persecution of the Christians. The Chrisitans did not fight against this persecution, although they tried to hide from their persecutors. This did not stop Christianity from spreading during that era. Now look at what happened in the seventh century, and the Christians were faced again with violence, this time from a camel driver by the name of Mahoomoud. When the Roman Empire fell the Catholic Church ended up taking over the governance because most cities and towns did not have the structures to set themselves up in the political sense. There was still no spreading of Christianity by the sword. However these Christians faced a deadly foe, and in the end the Pope called on all of Christendom to help defeat this enemy that was so intent upon imposing a form of slavery upon all Christians, Jews and pagans alike. Thus we had the birth of the Crusades.
Christian Europe had a right to defend against the hordes of barbarians that arrived from the Middle East. It is called a just war. However, there were some who joined in the Crusades who did the wrong thing. One of those really bad things was the sacking of Constantinople. The participants were wrong to have taken that action. Ditto, for those other actions of rape and pillage across Europe. This action was never condoned by the Pope or the Church. It was unilateral, and the perpatrators could hardly be called Christians when they behaved like brigands.
It is even true that there have been times of war between Christian groups. We accept the truth, but do not have to condone what took place in the name of religion. This form of violence comes under the description of the actions of men, and is not to be confused with good Christian living.
The difference however, is that the real meaning of jihad, is not as claimed, because jihad means a war against the unbelievers. In Islam this means that a declaration of jihad is a declaration of war against all who reject Islam.
The Torah contains God's Truth. The stories of the Creation, the Flood, the Exodus and so on are there for a reason. They are not there for us to follow them slavishly. The parables of the New Testament serve as a way of telling us how we should live a life in Christ. The example of Jesus Christ is an example to be emulated. The parables are full of deep and hidden meanings. However, the Koran has no such depth.
That is why it is taqqiya to compare the Koran with the holy Scripture of the Old Testament (TORAH, Prophets, and Wisdom Books)and the New Testament. The Koran itself has borrowed heavily from the Gnostic Gospels as well as from the Torah, and without a doubt the Koran is full of error.
Mohamood (MHRIH) was a fallible human being, a thief, liar, murderer and rapist. As such he is not a man of good influence on others. Moses and Jesus, on the other hand were good examples. Moses was fallible, and he made errors, including some acts of disobedience. However, Jesus was Perfect and He was always obedient. That is why Jesus sets the example of how to live as the Perfect Human Being.
It would appear that some people are still living
in or would want to live in 627 A.D. or whatever.
Has Islam ever been reformed or any tenets of
the "religion" been changed in order for it to
adapt to the passing centuries ?
If it hasn`t can there really be such a thing as
a moderate muslim ?
Peace,
Qasim
Unless you meant the peace of surrendering to Allah that was a normal lie from a Muslim!!
And I will give you a typical British statement in reply, up yours!!!
Well it`s like this , surrender is not in my
vocabulary...certainly not to supernatural
deities.
Some of the human race have managed to evolve
and progress.
Two men arrested in attack on 4 moslems in Greater Manchester Mosque, 21:30 on Sunday
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6076074.stm
The local Mohammedians are blaming the attacks on comments about veils made by MPs. Of course, this plays well for the arguments of the Islington Lefties of the sort that had one of its number interviewed by Sky news over the weekend. He was a journalist who thought that his London town was nicely multicultural and so there could be no trouble there. The northern towns, he thought, had something wrong with them. Ironic, isn't it?
It left me with no doubt whatsoever that the Leftist Elite that has ingratiated itself into power in Britain has absolutely no idea what to do except to wring its hands. I don't think that it will ever wake up. I think that it will keep surrendering and offering appeasement until it finally abdicates all of its rights to defend us.
Which would be natural. The State as the Left imagines it forgets that it is there by the grace of the people. In the end the people will obey or disobey the law as they see fit. Let's just hope that it doesn't get too bloody.
Fred - Am I correct? Robert Fisk is the same guy who was beaten up in Afghanistan by some Pakistanis/Afghanis within an inch of his life. When he wrote about it he said that he didn't blame his assailants because he understood how they must have hated his white western guts. I think that he even went so far to say that he deserved his own beating.
This is the sort of defeatist cowardice that we have in our "higher echelons".
Have you read Melanie Phillips' blog? There is an article there about the how the readership of the Independent and the Guardian regularly swallow anti-semitic clap trap without finding anything to be concerned about.
Even in its entertainment programming, the BBC is revisionist, anti-English and immersed in the culture of Victimhood.
How are we going to win if our national psyche is being formed by these degenerates?
Quasim ,
Greetings from Hampshire , UK .
You are mistaken to assert that the book of Revelation endorses armed conflict against unbelievers . You are probably thinking particularly of Jesus' words in 2:16 .
The emphasis here is mine but is relevant to the explanation of what Jesus is saying .
The 'You' is the membership of the church in Pergamos ...
" Repent , or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword
OF MY MOUTH "
'Them ' is not persons of any type , but the heretical doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitians which were believed in that place. The sword Jesus brings is 'of His mouth' , that is , by the word of truthful testimony . No suggestion there of pursuing unbelievers with real swords , far less of 'Striking off of the hand and the foot on opposite sides' as proscribed for unbelievers of Allah . Elsewhere , at His arrest in the garden of Gethsemene , Jesus tells Peter (who had drawn a real sword and struck one of the arrest party with it , injuring his face) that those who live by the sword would die by it (it's in Matthew 26:52) . Is He likely , then , to tell believers to rearm themselves to pursue infidels ? Only Islam does that , or are you one of those who really believe jihad to mean 'Inner Struggle' ?
Anyway , thanks for posting . This is how we in the West persuade ... By reasoned argument , NOT by death threats against those who disagree .
PS Hugh ... Short one today ? In a hurry ?
I usually read every word of your essays which are always well researched and presented . It must take you ages !
We go over this again and again and again.... This is not a comparative religions class here at Jihadwatch. It doesn't matter a whit if the Old or New Testament have parts that are equally as repulsive as that found in the Koran and Hadiths BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ORGANIZED CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS GROUPS JUSTIFING THEIR ACTIONS BY APPEALLING TO THE BIBLE. Not One.
Islam must be reformed or destroyed as a political philosophy. Period.
One doesn't get to hold repulsive and anti-social ideas by saying, "they are my religous beliefs, therefore, you must accept them and cannot critisize them."
Lets go through it then:
Jihad is wrong,
treating women and gays as second-class citizens is wrong,
killing people for their religion is wrong,
killing muslims who no longer are muslims is wrong,
stoning is wrong,
beating your wife is wrong,
killing innocents is wrong,
marring 9 year olds is wrong,
killing American soldiers who are trying to help your country is wrong,
lying about what your religion says is wrong,
forcing your religon on others is wrong,
trying to make governments into Islamic republics is wrong,
killing your sisters is wrong,
threating violence when people speak out against your religion is wrong.
And I am sure there are many other aspects of Islam that I have forgotten that are also wrong.
It's not too hard, Islam is full of bad ideas that must be oppossed. Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch is the place to start.
Want to get the violence out of Islam? Here's how.
Mohammad originally proscribed praying fifty times a day. All moderates and reformers have to do is insist that 'this' is the true way to Allahs paradise. Praying fifty times a day will keep the boys off the streets and out of trouble. Of course none of them could work so they would probably be on welfare. Or maybe Allah would feed them...
Greetings To All,
Thanks for the well thought and lucid responses to my post, especially those from "WeatherPermitting", and "Americaningermany". I accept your points about the metaphorical and symbolic readings of Revelation and the Torah or Old Testament.
My point is that the Holy Qur'an is a religious scripture that is to be approached with the same respect and the same awareness of symbol and metaphor. Like the older scriptures as well, the reader needs to be sensitive to the themes and context of the Qur'an.
I merely desire to point these issues out to those who are willing to consider them. For those like "royga" who are convinced that Islam is full of bad ideas, I accept that as your opinion. But remember, the ideas in Islam are for the most part the same as those in Christianity and Judaism.
Peace to all on this day of recurring happiness at the end of the fast month of Ramadan (Eid-ul-Fitr)
Qasim
FREE LEE
Robert Fisk - almost certainly the same man. Typical of the self rightous know damn-all prats who infest the media. On the same programme he said he would not go to see his conservative father when he was dying but his dad sent him a very nice letter anyway. To call such men a******* is an insult to any decent a******.
And yet there's no such thing as 'moderate' Islam.
When will the world EVER learn?
"their [the BBC's]top Middle East reporter Robert Fisk"
Hold on a minute, I don't think Fisk's a BBC reporter is he? (They may interview him, but that's a different matter.) He was the reason I stopped reading the Independent years ago. He also gave a new word to the English language, "fisking", See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking
JFGR
Sorry you are right I was only half listening to "Desert Island Discs" anyway. Great link, he has got to be bad if the other journos think he's a prat. I liked this one,
1 Irish journalist Eoghan Harris had earlier used the term "fisking" with a different meaning - "To fisk is not to face the facts for as long as possible and, when found out, to divert the public from your mistake by spinning shiny stories in the air." (Sunday Times, June 13, 1999).
Mert I got some news for you. The media is not Left or liberal, it is establishment, and that means corporate, and that means conservative.. this bullshit that the media is liberal is a strawman to disguise it's real nature (to protect and advance the cause, status and wealth of the corporate elite who control both political parties and write the scripts which bozo's without brains follow.
But keep plowing that field Mert,you and the rest of the right wing nut jobs and we will indeed lose the real war, the real culture war.. the one between the west and the east.
I read garbage like yours and can't help but think, that there is damn little difference if any between muslims and your ilk, both are full of self righteousness, eliteness, and in fact you have a lot in common with Muslims they too hate the secular, the liberal, the homosexual, the other.
Press on dude..and people like you will only wind up creating more friends and allies for the muslims. And those that survive the onslaught from Islam will condemn you like those of us who condemn the Germans of the 1930's and 1940's for Hitler.
Nariz
I do not read Mert’s every post but his knowledge and analysis of history is far better than most so “right wing nut job” is somewhat extreme. As to Liberal media bias you could look at Melanie Phillips diary for 23 October, Brazen Bias Corporation, which reported,
“At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians…”
Also your reference to “The real enemy” had a rather familiar ring.
Last week there was a brief report on the BBC that two representatives from the EU were to investigate disgraceful Electoral corruption in Birmingham by - guess who? The Labour spokeswoman’s answer to any question was to scream and I do mean scream, “This is unnecessary the real problem is not corruption in postal voting it’s the fact that not enough postal votes are registered”.
“The real enemy” and “The real problem” - sure your not a Guardian reader posing as a rational person?
Greetings Henry,
I appreciate and agree with your generous comments on human nature. I am sure that Muslims are equally as human as are Christians and Jews.
The Holy Qur'an protects the sanctity of human life. Taking of human life is allowed only for specified causes. Life can be taken in the case of war. This concept is not at all peculiar to the Qur'an. It is agreed on by much of human society.
There is no general prescription of death for conversion in the Qur'an. While there are Muslims who believe that the killing of apostates is justified, the logic of the Qur'an and the conduct of Muhammed the Messenger of G-d indicate that apostasy is not to be punished. Verse 256 of the Second Chapter of the Qur'an is translated into the English by Yusuf Ali in the following manner:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."
Certainly the conflicts of recent decades have caused tension and hatred between Muslims and Christians in parts of the world.
Terrorism should be condemned by reasonable people of all faiths and opinions. We should all be on the watch for extremism in our own outlooks as well. To condemn all Muslims for the criminal activities of a minority of Muslims is extreme. To read terrorist injunctions into the Qur'an because of the political and military strategies of small bands of Muslims is extreme.
I understand that this site is concerned with the political and military activities of Muslims who define themselves as jihadists against the West. That is a prudent and necessary concern. It is not necessary that this concern result in gross mistatements of the logic of the Qur'an.
Peace,
Qasim
Greetings Ryoga,
You state, "We go over this again and again and again.... This is not a comparative religions class here at Jihadwatch. It doesn't matter a whit if the Old or New Testament have parts that are equally as repulsive as that found in the Koran and Hadiths BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ORGANIZED CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS GROUPS JUSTIFING THEIR ACTIONS BY APPEALLING TO THE BIBLE. Not One"
Let me mention one. The Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
Peace,
Qasim
qasimat
On a worldwide basis how many heads have the KKK cut off on television lately?
Greetings Fred and "Americaningermany",
The white supremist views of the Ku Klux Klan are no longer popular in the Western world. I am very happy to affirm that the KKK has been discredited and prosecuted to the point that it is neither feared or respected.
The KKK is an excellent example of the terror that was used in the name of Protestant Christianity against African-Americans, Jews and Catholics in the United States of America.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. struggled against the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, but he knew that their white supremacy and terrorism were not accurate representations of the 2,000 year old Christian faith. He called on the spirit of Christianity and the spirit of humanism in white Americans to assist the movement against racial discrimination and racist terrorism. And he eventually received an outpouring of support from white Christians throughout the nation and the world.
My point is that one does not need to attack a religion because some who profess the religion engage in terror. Attack the logic of the terrorists. It is counterproductive to search for every negative aspect one can discover or imagine about a world religion.
Jesus is reported to have said, "let him without sin cast the first stone." (see the 8th chapter of the Gospel of John for the incident). Persons who want to condemn Muslims as intrinsically violent and prone to terror because of their faith should be aware of the record of their own co-religionists.
Dr. Martin Luther King took a balanced look at Christianity and challenged Christians and Americans to live up to the best of their ideals. The response of Americans -Christian, Jewish and the non-religious- has made this a better place in which to live.
Peace,
Qasim
qasimat
Accepted.
But we have to watch the children of what one Pakistani writer described as "illiterate farmers" declare to a BLACK activist on BBC television "We are taking over this place man bringing in thousands false passports and everything. This place is going all Paki" a word or word quote to the best of my memory. If we dare to protest at this we are jailed as racists.
BTW the KKK started in the South after the American Civil War during a period called "The Reconstruction". I have not researched this but maybe the other posters will know. I have the impression that the Northern States were obliged to be generous to the South but nevertheless hated them for fighting so long at such a cost in blood. So they took their revenge by what we now call "positive discrimination", allowing blacks generally to give the defeated whites a hard time. There is a suggestion that KKK was formed as a self defence organisation in response to this.
Question - Was the appalling race situation in the South made worse by white "Liberals" spite and use of the blacks for revenge?
NOT a defence of the KKK but asking if "liberals" are always as nice as they like to think.
Anyone know?
Greetings Fred,
I am very concerned about the activities of terrorist or would-be-terrorists who scheme to use Islam and Muslim communities in the West as cover for their activities. I do not and will not defend the actions ot the logic of terrorists who twist the Qur'an and the practices of the Prophet to fit their anti-Western agenda.
Now, you commented on the situation during Reconstruction in the former Confederate states after the American Civil War. Labels are very tricky here! The party of the Union, that is the party of Lincoln, was the Republican Party. This party was backed by the money, power and prestige of the Northeastern industrialists. This class is thought of today as "Conservatives" rather than as "Liberals".
As you have intimated, however, there appears to have been at least some measure of insincerity in the support that the Republican Party gave to the political aspirations of the ex-slaves and their supporters in the Reconstruction South.
It is also clear that the KKK was an organization that gained its aims through a campaign of terror. Murder, burning, torture and intimidation were used to disfranchise the ex-slaves.
White southerners continued to utilize terror to enforce their control of African Americans until societal changes following World War II allowed the Civil Rights Movement to successfully challenge the terrorist and racist status quo.
I don't believe there is any more justification for the reign of terror in the name of Christianity and White Supremacy of the KKK and other shock troops of the slave power than there is for the reign of terror by Osama Bin Laden and those that share his political and relgious views have initiated in the contemporary world.
Both the KKK and Bin Laden had legitimate grievances. What is not legitimate is the method that they chose to address these grievances.
Peace,
Qasim
Cannot disagree with most of what you say but unfortunatly most terrorist groups the world over start with legitimate grievances and do not know when to stop. Also as a historian I know you do not need a legitimate grievance to kill people just a political idea and a good sales pitch.
BTW did you know that there is a muslim woman called Yasmin Amali Brown working for better understanding in Britain. She says she gets more hate mail from fellow muslims than white racists.
So you are very much in the minority, but good luck anyway.
Greetings "americaningermany"
You wrote, "Yeah, I'll bet you're happy about that. Your muslims friends though are modern-day KKK members, just that they are brown and black."
I will assure you that I have no personal friends, Muslims or others, who are terrorists.
I hope that you are as happy as I am that the KKK no longer terrorizes Americans.
I am sure that each of us is supporting all reasonable efforts to end terrorism in the contemporary world.
Peace,
Qasim