They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply — they’re reactive and they don’t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis. And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. The come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing. -- Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the New Duranty Times
This has been said, repeatedly, by Robert Spencer from the very beginning of this site, in October 2003. It was insisted upon by him before the site came into existence, in articles, books, and speeches. It is not a complicated point. It should be obvious. Islam is a powerful, coherent, all-embracing Belief System. It rests on several texts: the Qur'an, which is the uncreated (that is, it has always existed, forever) and immutable word of God.
Any internal contradictions are, through the interpretive doctrine of "naskh" or abrogation, settled in favor of the later, much harsher verses. The full meaning of the Qur'an can be gleaned from what Muhammad said and did, as recorded in stories written down (the hadith, plural ahadith) about what he said, and did, and even when he was silent.
Those stories, the tens or hundreds of thousands of them, were collected and studied. Their isnad-chains (A told B who told C etc. -- well, who was C, and B, and A, that make us trust, or not trust, their versions?) were examined this way and that, until finally the hadith-scholars or muhaddithin could finally assign different levels of "authenticity" and winnow down the vast number of hadith to those deemed "authentic." Of all the collections of Hadith, six are deemed most reliable, and two in particular -- those of Bukhari and Muslim -- deemed particularly authoritative.
When someone, for example Karen Armstrong, quotes a hadith in support of her crazed view of Islam, for example that Muhammad returned from a war to home saying he had come from "the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad" (i.e., the "Jihad" of mastering himself at home), few stop to ask -- and Karen Armstrong clearly has no idea -- where that hadith appears, and what level of authenticity has been assigned to it by Bukhari, by Muslim.
In fact, it appears in neither. Nor does it appear in any of the other hadith collections Muslims deem authentic.
This excerpt from the interview simply makes clear what all those who have left Islam know perfectly well. For what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says here would be said and has been said by Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and hundreds of others. It has been thought by tens or hundreds of thousands of apostates who have gained their mental freedom, and possibly thereby the ability to lead not double-lives riddled with deception and self-deception -- among others who are now fellow Infidels, and no longer those enemy Infidels from whom one must at all costs hide the reality of Islam.
And it has been said by Robert Spencer, whose perfectly straightforward view is immune to the concerns that cloud the vision of others -- the vanity of some, desire to keep getting well-paid audiences by others, or an inability to come to grips with the problem because of this or that personable Muslim whom one knows, likes, cannot bear to alienate, or any number of other reasons, including careerism of every sort. By now visitors to this site are able to distinguish the unswayable from those who were swayed long ago, with their their book deals, and their lecture fees, and their think-tank or university appointments that must be kept, and those donors to one's empire-building who must under no conditions be scared off.
And that is why there are so very few, outside of the apostates, on whom one can thoroughly rely.
Re: Fitzgerald: Why there are so few on whom we can rely
All of this re "alternatives" is simply common sense. People do not leave anything unless they have something to go to. Even a woman beaten like a dog will stay with her "husband" if she has no place to go to.
Islam cannot afford alternatives, it must dominate, must have no equality with other belief systems, or it will die. Once people have real alternatives to this belief-system in the Muslim world, once they have real freedom of conscience, they will run from this system (even in Saudi Arabia). Islam cannot afford alternatives. Islam must dominate or it will die.
The problem with "alternatives" is that what folks like Fitzgerald and Ayaan Hirsi Ali see as a problem is also seen as a problem by the clerics, but from a different point of view. For both the lack of "alternatives" are important issues.
A big right on to Hugh and Robert Spencer who have provided me with my education in Islam. What Islam really is. What kind of life Mohammad really lead. How the Jihadists draw their inspiration from Islamic scripture and use it quite accurately to justify mass murder of the infidel. Same as Muhammad did in his time. Same as his four immediate successors to the Muslim empire who Muslims call the rightly guided Caliphs
Why is Ayaan Hirsi Ali still a Moslem?
When a Muslim wakes up to the horror of Islam they should leave it. Especially when there is no possibility of reform.
Again, why is Ayaan Hirsi still a Moslem?
"Why is Ayaan Hirsi Ali still a Moslem?"
-- from a posting above
She isn't. You know that. I know that. She knows that. Leave it -- at that.
"And that is why there are so very few, outside of the apostates, on whom one can thoroughly rely."
And that is the sad, sad, truth. The so called "moderate" Muslims spend all their time trying to rationalize the Jihadis actions or worry more about possible "Islamophobia" than take a stand against against them. Wether they are afraid of the Jihadis or in secret agreement with them is irrelevant. The result is the same: They can't be counted on to stand up to them, they can't be counted on to stand with infidels.
When I read your site, I can't understand one simple thing. Those who studied Islam and do no take ostrich position can't not to understand that Islam is a death cult. But what should be done, once we internalize that we dealing with implacable murderous enemy.
Why there is no movement, no petition that Islam should be outlawed in this country? This is the only just humane step that should be taken, which may prevent huge coming destruction.
All mosques, Moslem organizations, schools, charities, etc. should be closed. All their funds should be expropriated to cover huge expanses in preventing terrorist slaughter. By taking this law, we will give chance to those people who were born as Moslems, which they can't change, to live as normal human beings. Those who will plot and riot should be confronted militarily with utmost ruthlessness. The massive campaign should be launched through alternative media and rallies to expose mainstream mass media, companies, universities, congress members, politicians and diplomats who are bought by Saudis and boycott them.
The government should declare that next terror act will lead to annihilation of all Moslem holy sites. Instead of sitting in Iraq and wasting lives of our soldiers, allied troops should take under control oil fields in KSA, Iraq, UAE, etc. to prevent economic upheaval. Only when Moslems will see the weakness and falseness of their "religion", they may try to reform it. But it would not be Islam. Why would they try to reform this cult after victorious 1400-years triumphal march from West Africa to East Asia (the last ones being Bosnia, Kosovo; add scared to death Americans, dhimmified Europe, surrendering Israel, etc)?
If these measures are not taken, I do not envy my and your children and we are to blame. Can this be implemented via government structures? Republican leadership is mostly associated with Saudis and military industry. Thus, they will not confront Saudis, who fund and fuel hatred against infidels. They are not eager to stop American bleeding in Iraq: the longer war, the more profit for weapon industry. The democrats are more complex story, but, in general, they are more preoccupied in blaming this country. Therefore, only if people are involved, arise, take it to the streets and put pressure on government, the Moslem aggression can be stopped.
Shouldn't this happen, the future historians will be wondering how technologically superior and benign (despite many evils committed in history) civilization, which has the capacity to smite these barbarians over couple hours, lost this fight due to lack of spine and treasonous self-destructive proclivities of its so-called elite.
Ynkedoodl2-
I've read she is a victim of the Muslim practice of genital mutilation. What a crime. I think this should happen to that pig eyed guy Ibby Hooper. But it would not make any difference with him.
Jud-
There is so much to learn. My only advice is to stay with the program at Jihad Watch. All of a sudden all the various pieces of info will pull together as if drawn to a magnet and you'll see the whole picture clearly. Stay the course with the data here, as if it is a college course that goes on for an indefinite period. Answers don't come easy to really good questions.
rudie, it happened before, in Byzantine lands like Syria. And modern-day historians have the record of treachery and terror that made it happen (e.g. Bat Ye'Or, "Islam and Dhimmitude").
Yes, there are movements, yes there are petitions. There's a lot of work to do. Go check out 910Group.com or something.
Jud - for whatever it's worth, it didn't seem to me that that what Frank was saying -- seemed that he didn't quite know the answer to this big question and was inviting and encouraging you to investigate it together with the rest of us here.
Historically, the Catholic Church (per same Bat Ye'Or) has tried to play with the Muslims in order to gain more control of the Holy Land. This pope I think has a very good knowledge of the situation. How and what cards he is playing is hard to tell, of course.
The way I see it; if Americans are hell-bent on the written word, the Islamics will take over while they're reading.
Any interested persons should see a very excellent interview posted today at JW/DW co-website: FrontPageMag (see menu bar at top of JW/DW sites homepage for link to FPM) with Mr. Bill Warner, the director of Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). Among other information, Mr. Warner explains that the goal of the organization is systematic study and statistical analysis of the doctrine contained in the key writings of Islam –what CSPI calls “the Trilogy” (the Koran, the Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed) and then comparing these with reality via the historical records spanning the 1400 years.
One example – 97% of key writings –hence codified doctrine –which must be adhered to by all believers- is about war jihad while 3% reflects on the “peaceful inner struggle” jihad. This brings up another CSPI conclusion that Islam is a “dualistic” belief system (politely speaking) – with clear and distinct “political” versus “religious” aspects, violent jihad versus peaceful, relationships between people and muslims, …or anything goes – (if you’re muslim…). So now to be added to the resistance is a statistical info base, also which agrees with and can reinforce what Mr. Spencer, Mr. Fitzgerald, et al of JW/DW are daily presenting
CPSI has published much of its work/statistical findings and combined these with historical record (which can be found via link to its website - embedded in the interview).
"The so called "moderate" Muslims spend all their time trying to rationalize the Jihadis actions or worry more about possible "Islamophobia" than take a stand against against them. Wether they are afraid of the Jihadis or in secret agreement with them is irrelevant. The result is the same: They can't be counted on to stand up to them, they can't be counted on to stand with infidels".
Proud Infidel, you have succinctly summed it up.
An ex minister of Pondicherry, a muslim , once very bluntly said that "islam is no religion but political ploy for muslims' imperialism" ; however added he ,like the majority among them would never repudiate as it served their ambitions and did not cost them much. The so called moderates also are willing to trade Infidels' lives for their own survival. So the question is why we the Infidels are bothered about them and their lives and rights?
Trust a "moderate" Moslem? What a joke! I don't know how these "moderates" could prove their loyalty to us?
But then that's their problem, isn't it? Not ours.
Just watched Ayaan Hirsi Ali on H&C, and she pretty much check-mated Allan Colmes when she disclosed that what al Qaeda stands for is consistent and compatible with mainstream Islamic teachings. Alan asked her whether that's what 1.4b people believe, and she pointed out that even if most Muslims don't endorse terror, Islam does.
Hannity described that book 'Infidel' as an eye opener. I have no way of knowing whether he has actually read it, or was actually sucking up, but if it was the former, the day is not far off when he gets it. Of course, I don't expect him to ever play host to Robert.
Responding to Judd's inquiry re B16. He is perhaps one of the most proliferate writers of current times. His writings are totally in tune with Robert's and Hugh's re Islam. Here are a few of his books which I would recommend in this order (written before by became pope):
1. Without Roots - The West, Relativistm, Christianity, Islam
2. The Salt of the Earth
3. Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures ( a bit difficult unless you have had some pholosophy).
No.1 deals more with Islam than the others. He particularly comments on Islam in Europe.
He is very pessimistic, surprisingly pessimistic, about the survival of Christianity -the Catholic church and the various state churches as well - in secular epicurean Europe, and even about Europe's survival as we know it.
Another writer above suggested that the reason he is not more vociferous as pope regarding the evils of Islam is consideration for the safety, the very lives of Christians who live in majority Muslim lands.
Witness the continous, almost daily (reported here and other websites, not the MSM)persecution of Christians throughout Islam. from Egypt to Indonesia. And the Nun who was martyred by crazed Muslims after his lecture in which he mentioned the description of evil Islam by a Byzantine patriarch.
I wish that he did not have to deal with that consideration - it no doubt wrenches his soul - I am certain it restrains the leadership he could otherwise bring to the problem we have with Islam.