Here is my promised response to "Problems With Jihadwatch's Op-Ed In Emory Univ. Student Paper," by Ali Eteraz at Eteraz.org. Just in case anyone is confused, as always with this sort of thing the blockquoted portions are from Eteraz's article and the non-blockquoted parts are my response.
We can conclude that the politicization of American universities is complete when everyone from Barrack Obama, a popular candidate for President, and Jihadwatch, a blog on the fringes of American conservatism, both feel the need to dive into our intellectual sanctuaries to peddle their opinions. As a matter of policy, politicians and pundits should abstain from entering the academcy unless they are invited.
Yes, that would be great. The academy should be above politics. Unfortunately, the academy has already been politicized. Politically and ideologically motived academics like Omid Safi and Carl Ernst indoctrinate their students into a particular view of my work and that of others, instead of giving those students the tools to come to their own conclusions about the issues at hand. Then, after spreading their propaganda, they refuse to discuss these issues with me. These are just two small examples of the manifest fact that the academy has already been politicized. When Rashid Khalidi can hold a professor's chair at Columbia University and Ward Churchill can become not just a professor, but a hero of the Left, clearly the "politicians and pundits" have already entered the academy. But only one point of view is dominant there; read my friend D'Souza's Illiberal Education or David Horowitz's new Indoctrination U: The Left's War Against Academic Freedom.
This dominance should be challenged, if our universities are going to survive as anything more than propaganda centers.
Recently, Jihadwatch writer Robert Spencer submitted an op-ed full of glaring errors to the Emory Wheel, Emory University's Student Paper. The central premise of this op-ed (which is a shortened version of his earlier post), was this:Unfortunately, however, jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute "Sharia" worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists. Instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology.The article then quotes various legal scholars from Islamic history that purportedly support the thesis of the article. It then, generously, concludes with challenging a college student to a debate.
I make no apologies for challenging a college student to a debate. A person who makes public assertions ought to be prepared to defend them, no matter what his or her station in life. College students should be the last people who are immune from intellectual challenge or debate. I myself have innumerable times invited discussion and debate about what I have written, and have in return, as I noted below, received only abuse. You can see that abuse, including sometimes outright falsehoods about what I actually say, in the print debates I've had with Hussam Ayloush, Asad AbuKhalil, and Khaleel Mohammed.
Well, contrary to myth, my books are not full of abuse, but of documented material. If I am wrong, establish that with evidence. Instead, polemicists have attacked my publishers, my character, my motives, my decency as a human being, predicted I would die lonely and abandoned and damned me to hell, and then called me a polemicist. All's fair in love and war, but they should know that such tactics convince only the credulous, and do not constitute credible refutation of the points I have made -- and what's more, they suggest an inability to respond substantively.
So yes, I'll happily debate that college student. Or Safi, or Ernst, or Akbar Ahmed, or Jamal Badawi, or Ahmed Afzaal, or Mark LeVine, or any of the other academics who have either declined my invitation to dialogue or debate, or never quite gotten around to getting back to me.
Immediately one has to look at the most obvious of errors in this piece.
Good. You, Mr. Eteraz, will be among the first to raise specific objections.
First, none of the scholars Spencer cites to were alive after the year 1406 A.D. The only link he offers between the past and today is the assertion that one of the jurists, Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328), is a "favorite of Osama bin Laden and other jihadists." Yet, on the basis of the fact that one jurist, from more than 600 years ago, is the "favorite" of Bin Laden, Spencer derives his conclusion that Jihad is a "constant" element of "mainstream Islamic theology." One scholar. 600 years removed. One Bin Laden. Can a reasonable person really believe that such a link proves something about "mainstream Islamic theology"? One doesn't have to attend Emory University to be able to answer that.
Mr. Eteraz might have a point were that the only such "link" that could be provided. However, in a piece that has to be kept under 600 words and that must cover a great deal of ground, there will be some inevitable telescoping of material -- and unfortunately, there is a great deal more evidence available to establish that jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers is a mainstream element of Islamic theology and law. By noting that "none of the scholars Spencer cites to were alive after the year 1406 A.D." and complaining that I provide only one "link...between the past and today," Mr. Eteraz gives the impression that I am overlooking 600 years of evolution and development in these areas. And one would reasonably assume, of course, that in any arena of human endeavor, over 600 years there will be considerable change.
That's a reasonable conjecture. However, in this case it founders. Why? Because when bin Laden and other jihadists cite these ancient jurists, they clearly believe that their rulings are still normative for Muslims -- and clearly they also believe that their Muslim audience will recognize this as well. Read through Osama's writings, and you'll find numerous references to Ibn Taymiyya, as well as Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Malik ibn Anas, Ibn Qayyim, and many others. Nor is this something only bin Laden does. Sayyid Qutb, whose writings, as I'm sure Mr. Eteraz would acknowledge, are enormously influential among jihadists today, says that Ibn Qayyim, who died in 1350, “has summed up the nature of Islamic Jihaad.” And Ibn Qayyim does that, he explains, by delineating the three phases of Qur'anic revelation about jihad, about which I have written many times: first, no warfare was permitted, then defensive warfare, and finally offensive warfare, which is to be normative for all time.
Now: why does Qutb, why does bin Laden (and I have plenty more examples of this sort of thing, Mr. Eteraz; if you would like to dispute this point further, I will produce them, but I am not doing so now for the sake of brevity) think that by citing people like Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim, who lived so very long ago, they will convince Muslims today of the correctness of their position? Don't they realize that modern jurists have changed the way Muslims think about these things, and so none of their readers will accept arguments from older authorities?
Unfortunately, they don't realize that, because it isn't so. Because the gates of ijtihad have long been closed, there has not been significant development of theology or law in these areas. (Here is a Muslim scholar explaining what that means, and arguing that these gates should be reopened.) Qutb and bin Laden know that, and they know their audiences will know it. They know therefore that citing ancient scholars is tantamount to citing established and received opinion.
This is illustrated by the fact, which I mentioned in my letter to Emory but which you do not mention in your post, that the Shafi'i legal manual 'Umdat al-Salik, or Reliance of the Traveller, although it was first written centuries ago, was certified by Al-Azhar in 1991 as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy. Al-Azhar didn't say it was an illuminating historical artifact, or an insight into what Muslims used to believe long ago; they said it was a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy today. Yet it too contains material about the obligation of the Muslim umma to wage war against unbelievers in order to subjugate them as dhimmis under the rule of Islamic law.
The next problem is the very use of the term "Islamic Theology." Spencer seems to believe that when he quotes from "jurisprudence" he is automatically speaking about "theology." We see this when he says:Instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. It is affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence.I'm afraid to inform the distinguished New York Times bestselling author on Islam that Islamic Theology is very distinct from Islamic Jurisprudence. Islamic Theology is an altogether different discipline encompassing metaphysics, philosophy and eschatology. It is called Kalam. (One would be well advised to read Profesor Wolfson's Philosophy of the Kalam in order to see how distinct Islamic Jurisprudence truly is from Islamic Theology). Kalam is speculative philosophy which produces theological precepts. Islamic Jurisprudence, as with all jurisprudence, on the other hand, deals with actual legal problems. The word for Islamic Jurisprudence is fiqh. I am very interested in learning how Kalam and Fiqh became one and the same.
Here Mr. Eteraz is just playing "gotcha." Islamic theology is legal; Islamic law is theological. This is illustrated by the fact that the Qur'an and Hadith, which are undoubtedly religious texts, form two of the most significant bases for the formulation of fiqh. And I never claimed that kalam and fiqh were one and the same.
This leads me to some other other problems with the article.Islam is, like Judaism (and unlike Christianity which is what Spencer practices), a juridical religion.
Is that so? Hmmm. A juridical religion? You mean theology and law have some overlap? I thought you just told us they didn't.
The Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet, both contain conflicting verses and narrations. In order to fashion a means of reconciling these conflicts with the changing nature of human life, the earliest members of Muslim community devised a methodological system of law or jurisprudence (fiqh). Spencer is, unlike the average blog troll...
Great. So I'm an above-average blog troll. This is the kind of silly mudslinging that I wish Mr. Eteraz could bring himself to resist.
...actually aware of the juridical nature of Islam, and as such, a dialogue with him is not only possible, but refreshing. He recognizes that the best way of enunciating Islamic Law is to quote Islamic Jurists. For that much, he should be applauded.
Thank you.
However, the problem arises when Spencer then tries to convince everyone from his readers to Muslims themselves, that the only authentic jurists (or most popular jurists) are those from the past from whom he pulls his quotes.
Here Mr. Eteraz commits the common fallacy of attributing to me what I report from bin Laden, Qutb, Azzam, Al-Banna, Zarqawi, and other jihadists. They, as I explained above, cite ancient jurists to support their positions, and obviously assume that their Muslim audiences will find such evidence compelling. I report that they do this, and Mr. Eteraz says that I am the one doing it. Unfortunately, this little problem is in reality far larger than me.
Certainly, people like Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Khaldun were authentic jurists in Islam. Unfortunately, what Spencer doesn't recognize is the fundamental problem of jurisprudence, whether its Islamic or secular: jurists are bound by their context; the world around them.
Oh, I recognize that very well. But, as I explained above, the jihadists don't seem to. One of the biggest problems we have regarding the global jihad today is that jihadists cite Muhammad's example -- in other words, the example of a seventh-century man -- as normative for today. They don't seem to mind in the least flattening out the context and behaving as if Muhammad's example were outside time and normative for all times and places. For example, Mukhlas Imron, mastermind of the Bali bombing, said: "You who still have a shred of faith in your hearts, have you forgotten that to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a deed that has a reward above no other? Aren't you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Muhammad and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities, and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?" Zarqawi responded to criticism of his videotaped beheading of Nick Berg by saying: "The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered [his army] to strike the necks of some prisoners in [the battle of] Badr and to kill them....And he set a good example for us." They do the same kind of thing with these old jurists.
One has only to think of American Jurisprudence. At one point in time, American Jurists like John C. Calhoun argued that "slavery was a positive good" (on the Senate floor no less). Even the founding fathers, jurists the likes of which very few have ever existed, held that a black man was, under the law, only worth 3/5th of a white man (and women were worth nothing). Does this mean that "bigotry is a constant element of American law?" Any reasonable person would conclude no. As such, any reasonable person should also be able to conclude that the world prior to 1406 -- when a Christian Europe and an Islamic Africa/Asia were at war, is a very different world than the post WWII, UN regulated world. The rulings of those jurists -- and a jurist is just a fallible lawyer -- in the past about their politics means no more to me than the jurisprudence of John C. Calhoun on race relations. It isn't just in race relations that American Jurisprudence has changed. Until 1986, the legislators in the state of New York allowed a 15 year old girl to be married. This law was changed when jurists came along and revised their opinion and made it 18.
I believe I have answered this point already.
So, how do we know that most Muslim people do not, and are not, listening to the edicts of jurists from 600 years ago? Well, most Muslim nations are not at war with non-Muslim nations, and where there are tensions these are not on the basis of anyone's religiosity (most are land disputes).
This doesn't establish what Mr. Eteraz wishes it to establish. There may be any number of reasons why Muslim nations are not at war with non-Muslim nations. One chief one is that most majority-Muslim nations today are not ruled solely by Islamic law. Sharia is only fully in place in Saudi Arabia and Iran. So what they do doesn't establish anything about Islamic law. Another reason why they may not be fighting is that most are in no military or economic position to wage war against anyone. So to take their behavior as establishing something about Islamic law is risky at best. And there are other reasons why they may not be fighting today -- Musharraf's regime, for instance, has a shaky alliance with the U.S., which it obviously believes is good for Pakistan to maintain, and for which Muslim hardliners in Pakistan excoriate that regime.
As for the assertion that most disputes between Muslim and non-Muslim nations involve land, not religion, I don't think that holds up on the basis of the evidence. Even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could have been settled long ago were it not for the intransigence on the part of Hamas and Islamic Jihad over their desire to destroy Israel utterly. That intransigence, as the Hamas Charter makes clear, is derived from Islamic principles. And all over the globe, from Indonesia and the Philippines and Thailand to Kashmir, Chechnya, and Nigeria, the Muslim warriors frame these "land disputes" in terms of religion. The evidence for this is posted regularly at Jihad Watch.
The only "Muslim" parties today who engage in killing on the basis of someone being non-Muslim are jihadists; not the "mainstream of Islamic theology." For the most part, jihadists are prosecuted as criminals all around the Muslim world (the Pakistani military has lost close to 2000 men in hunting Al-Qaeda), and jihadist methods and approaches are rejectedby Muslims universally; not to mention giving rise to anti-jihadist fatwas.
There is no doubt that the Pakistani military and other Muslim entities have fought against the mujahedin; I have never remotely asserted anything to the contrary. But here again, this doesn't tell us anything about Islamic law. In Pakistan, Muslim leaders routinely fulminate against Musharraf precisely because of what they regard as his disloyalty to Islam. All over the Islamic world, jihadists recruit among peaceful Muslims by quoting from the Islamic texts and presenting themselves as the exponents of "pure Islam." Most Muslims do reject them, but the jihadists have the intellectual initiative in the Islamic community today; why is that? Why hasn't there arisen a large-scale international movement working on a theological level to refute them, if the refutations were as ready to hand as you suggest they are?
In fact, one will see that Spencer's article cites to a jurist from the Maliki school of law (Khaldun), yet if one compares Khaldun (d. 1406) with this jurist alive today from the Maliki school, we immediately see how the jurist today conceptualize war (very differently from the past). Here is another example, this jurist being a student of scholars trained at al-Azhar university, and concludes this about violence:A. Taking the law into one's own hands amounts to either Fasad fi'l-Ard (creating disorder) or Muharabah (rebellion) -- both of which are punishable by death in Islam.B. The Prophet's saying (sws) usually cited to give credence to the idea that Islam allows an individual or a group the use of force to end wrong is actually related to the use of power within the confines of the social and legal authority.
C. In Islam, there is no concept of Jihad (Qital to be more precise -- that is militant struggle in the way of Allah) or the implementation of punishments without the authority of the State.
I am glad to see this sort of thing, and hope that it gains a wide audience among Muslims, since at least to some degree it does directly challenge the jihadists on Islamic grounds. The core of their disagreement with the jihadists appears to be that they reject the validity of suicide bombing and argue that jihad warfare can only be waged with the permission of the state authority. For instance, Akiti says (in the pdf cited in Eteraz's first link above, on page 22) that "whether one likes it or not, the decision and discretion and right to declare war or jihad for Muslims lie solely with the various authorities as represented today by the respective Muslim states..." The same assertion appears in the one Mr. Eteraz quoted directly, from Asif Iftikhar: "In Islam, there is no concept of Jihad (Qital to be more precise -- that is militant struggle in the way of Allah) or the implementation of punishments without the authority of the State."
One might get the impression from Mr. Eteraz's piece that the positions of Akiti and Iftikhar represent the dominant view among Muslims today, who reject the position articulated by Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Qayyim and the rest. Unfortunately, however, there is a difference of opinion on this question among contemporary Islamic scholars. Some argue that Muslims may wage war in order to establish that Islamic state, and then continue to wage war against unbelievers under its aegis. Others contend that the Islamic state must be established by peaceful means, and only then may Muslims wage jihad warfare. The latter position was held by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, the influential Pakistani jihad theorist who died in 1979 (whose views of jihad I discussed in my book Onward Muslim Soldiers), Sheikh Muhammad Said Ramadan Al-Buti (whose view of jihad I discussed in my book Islam Unveiled), and Sheikh Muhammad Naasir ud-Din Al-Albani (whose condemnation of suicide bombing I note in Onward Muslim Soldiers). The former view is held by Islamic scholars such as Muhammad Amarah and Khair Haykel, as well as by Abdullah Azzam, cofounder of Al-Qaeda, and, of course, other mujahedin today.
It is important to note, however, that Maududi and Al-Buti, as well as others who hold this view, don't reject the idea of jihad against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. Maududi, after all, wrote that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”
So in other words, this is just a disagreement about means, not about ends. The authorities Mr. Eteraz has invoked have not rejected the idea that Muslims must wage war in order to subjugate non-Muslims. In fact, Iftikhar says this in the same article that Mr. Eteraz quotes: "If an Islamic State - or United Islamic States - declared a morally and tactically justified armed jihad against a nation and needed the services of a Muslim, it would be a matter of his faith to render them and a distinct privilege if he ends up laying down his life as a result."
So the Islamic supremacist imperative remains in place. Will Mr. Eteraz kindly produce Islamic jurists who argue that Muslims should not wage war against unbelievers -- as unbelievers -- under any circumstances, but should live with them as equals not just on a temporary basis until they become strong enough to impose Islamic law, but on a permanent basis? I would love to see them.
I therefore want to thank Spencer for providing an opportunity to demonstrate to Muslims and non-Muslims alike that in Islam, changed conditions bring about changes in law. American Law with respect to racism and gender underwent reformation. Islamic Law with respect to violence against non-Muslims has also modified to fit with the world in which it finds itself.
Yet the jurists he cites leave intact the prerogative of the Islamic state to wage war against unbelievers. Is that really a sufficient modification?
I completely accept the usual rejoinder from critics that there are many areas of Islamic Law where today's jurists have simply accepted the opinions of jurists from the past (and done injustice). This includes women's rights, minority rights, and the issue of apostasy, among others.
Quite so. And indeed, this is the usual practice, since the gates of ijtihad are closed.
However, as time passes, more and more Muslim jurists are making up their own minds about these issues. I'm not even a jurist and I am doing my own thinking about these matters.
Good.
Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the high Mufti of Egypt, whom Spencer in another post tries to paint as an extremist because Gomaa (like John Ashcroft) does not allow graven images in statues...
Cheap shot. Ashcroft supports no terrorist groups, although since Mr. Eteraz equates Dick Cheney with Stalin, he may disagree.
...recently allowed women to get hymen reconstruction surgery, as well as allowing women the right to political leadership. Other major jurists today have allowed women the right to lead prayer. Even al-Azhar University, by no means a bastion of reform, has taken a strong stance against Female Genital Mutilation which it once used to permit. Islamic Law changes. I hope that is obvious by now. The way islamic jurisprudence evolved to make rules limiting violence serves as a model of how islamic jurisprudence will evolve to give rights to women, minorities and non-Muslims. I wish that Spencer would recognize this and leave Muslim reformists from having to correct his errors.
Ali Gomaa, according to the New York Times, supports the jihad terrorists of Hizballah. I'm glad he opposes genital mutilation and the rest, but when Hassan Nasrallah shouts "Death to America!" and Ali Gomaa approves, pardon me if I am underwhelmed by his moderation.
And anyway, as I have repeated ad infinitum, I wholeheartedly support genuine Muslim reformists. My friend Tashbih Sayyed, editor of Muslim World Today, is on the Jihad Watch Board. But there are many who are styled reformists who either deny that Islamic texts and teachings have ever been used to justify violence, which is a flagrant falsehood, or whose reforms dissolve upon inspection, such as Akiti and Iftikhar above.
In conclusion, jihadists, whom Spencer tries to link to the Islamic schools of law are actually deniers of Islamic legal methodology, preferring to circumvent Islamic Law altogether.
This assertion is, to put it mildly, unproven by anything Mr. Eteraz has said in his piece.
This actually confirms a point I've made previously; namely, the problem within Islam is a problem of intellectual anarchy which I provide one way of how to address.And this problem is not alleviated when a group claiming to watch the jihadis is looking in all the wrong places.
I want to thank Emory students Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem who articulated their response to Spencer. I also want to bid kudos to Emory sudent Ammara Abbasi for writing this wonderful article on the moral and ethical principles that underlie the spiritual jihad. While I am heartened to see American students articulate their disagreements in such a positive manner, it is somewhat problematic that young adults who should be studying for their mid terms and enjoying going to parties are put in the absurd position of having to defend their faith from someone outside the academy who already have careers writing about Islam.
As I noted here, Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem did nothing but attack me personally. They provided no evidence whatsoever that anything I said was false. Neither did Ammara Abbasi. If Mr. Eteraz thinks this is a valid method of discourse, the prospects for his actually convincing Muslims that his version of Islam is the correct one are dim, for they will not be convinced by personal attacks and invective in lieu of rational arguments any more than anyone else will be.
In closing, the idea that it is "somewhat problematic that young adults who should be studying for their mid terms and enjoying going to parties are put in the absurd position of having to defend their faith from someone outside the academy who already have careers writing about Islam" is absurd. College ought to be a place where people are learning to think, and doing things precisely like defending their faith. I was responding to assertions of fact made by an Emory student. In response, I made other assertions of fact. The five students who then responded were under no obligation to do so, and indeed, as I have already noted, offered no substantive refutation of what I wrote, but only venomous characterizations and vicious accusations. That Mr. Eteraz would then hold them up as being somehow victims is beyond absurd. I find it very funny, and telling, that Aneel Naeem dismisses as "outside agitators" the commenters who took him and his cowriters to task at the Emory Wheel site for not dealing with substance of what I said but just indulging in ad hominem attacks. "Outside agitators" -- where have I heard that term before? Oh yes, that's what Southern segregationists called the Northerners who came South to support the struggle for racial integration. Well, I am happy to be an "outside agitator," agitating against this false claim of victimization and base personal attacks passing as intellectual discourse.
Dear Eteraz and Esmay ...
Since you're here until I can hopefully get you banned, I will now challenge you. And I do this from the point of view of having had Muslim friends for 35 years and also from being a STAUNCH supporter of moderate Muslims.
First, some really obvious things:
(1) Americans were attacked on 9/11 by radical Islamists quoting us the Qur'an.
(2) Radical Islamists, quoting the Qur'an have terrorist cells in 60 countries.
(3) Muslims quoting the Qur'an blew up a train in Spain and attacked buses and trains in London, set up massive bombs in Bangladesh, beheaded and burned civilians in Thailand, bombed a night club in Bali and burned 202 people to death, routinely carry out suicide attacks on Israelis, routinely bury IEDs while hiding behind children. Of the 16,990 civilian deaths in Iraq this year, 16,719 were the result of "insurgency" (read: terrorist) bombings of civilian market targets or "collaborators" (people who dont' want their country taken over by terrorists). The other 271 were collateral damage of American RESPONSE to those attacks or the deliberate killing of terrorists (thank you, GIs!).
(4) The general habit of Muslims, who believe THEY are superior because they believe their religion is superior, is not ever to criticize each other publicly. This does NOT hold true for brilliant Islamic theorists like Mustafa Akyol. This also does not hold true for Sheikh Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, the bravest man in Iraq, who is a Sunni tribal leader fighting the Saudi/Syrian Sunni "Insurgency" (read: terrorist war) in Iraq. However, it DOES hold true for virtually all of the Muslim "pundits" in America.
(5) My theory is that the Muslim "pundits" in America are actually (a) cowards and (b) opportunists and (3) supremacist manipulators. Why do I say that? Because America isn't the enemy of its Muslim population. It protects its Muslim population. The real enemy of Islam -- which cowardly Muslims are too spineless to right -- is the radical ulema in the United States bought and paid for by the Saudis for the 28 years. But you guys try to find a way to ex-communicate those guys or get the eight madabhib to set standards that exclude -- standards that would quite obviously exclude from the Qur'an those verses that are inimical to those of other religions, that create a Dar-al-Islam vs. a Dar-al-Harb, that are inimical to women's full rights in Islam and Islamic countries, that call for the dhimmitude or murder of non-Muslims, that incorporate desert tribalist hudud punishments (amputations and stonings) for criminal and non-criminal acts.
(6) Meanwhile, the opportunism runs on: Instead of solving these problems, American Muslism set up US Airways to try to get profiling stopped. Profiling will stop (or should stop) only when the next bomb that goes off doesn't have a Qur'anic attached to it by people you will not throw out of your religion. The British did not bring Gerry Adams to the table by strip-searching Norwegian grandmothers at the airport as an attempt to prove they were not "profiling". Of course they're profiling. And it's working, because there hasn't been a major attack in this country since 9/11.
(7) The bottom line is that it is NOT our reponsibility to listen to your endless whining that you're not being treated "good enough." It is not our responsibility to take care of your every whining alleged grievance -- which are actually GRIEVANCES THAT YOU ARE NOT BEING TREATED AS SUPERIOR BEINGS. No sale.
(8) It is a testament to the undying willingness of Americans to try to be fair that they give a hearing to this crap, but even that needs to stop. Put up or shut up. In fact, this is your SOFT TERRORISM -- the use of Americans' goodnesses and fears to try to carve out in America special privileges, a relativist subculture over which you have control above the reach of US law (in your treatment of Muslim women, for example), using US civil codes to protect the hate speech and incitement to war and violence that goes on in US mosques, and to bully the US government and US businesses into giving you special treatment that now Christian, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Confucian, Buddhist, native American Great Spiritualist, or New Age metaphysician could get. You don't want equality. You want to be BETTER THAN, which is the whole problem here.
(9) And you blew the choice. You had a choice to stand up against the terrorists and win. You could have won in a WEEK had you put 3 million Muslims on the National Mall to decry Al Qaeda and Radical Islamism. Had American Muslims done that, it would have echoed the 100,000 Iranian citizens who went into the street with candles in the night to tell Americans how sorry they were that the attacks had occurred. And these are people who are flayed to death for standing up to the mullahs in the country where the live. American Muslims could have done what Queen Rania did when she hit the streets of Amman, Jordan, in blue jeans and a sweat shirt with 80,000 Jordanians to protest the attempted chemical attack on the Jordanian capital several years ago. It so angered Al-Zarqawi that he sent attackers from Iraq to punish the Jordanian people -- Hashemite Sunnis for whom the Wahhabis have no love as they fear they will again rule Mecca and Medina (and dear God I do hope so!) -- for standing up against terrorism. But you have never followed these examples, nor the examples of the Bangladeshis who writing hilarious letters to the editor ridiculing the very people who threaten to bomb them, calling them "space aliens" for their little Wahhabi hats and their drag-the-ground Wahhabi beards, which even Azzam the American has made a valiant attempt to grow. We'll have you know that it appears he's making progress, but his brain is still melting.
So you blew it. Instead of being the brave Muslims we see standing up as they can in some of the most dangerous place in the world -- and DYING FOR IT -- you do nothing but try to manipulate the American people into backing down because "you feel insulted."
Well, get this: I don't give a damn if you feel insulted. YOU are insulting. YOUR game is insulting. The only Muslim I know who has a kid if Iraq fighting the Sunni terrorist war is Ali Alyami, the Saudi Ismaeli dissident who gets his life routinely threatened. You guys can't even stand up for fellow Muslims like Zudhi Jasser when he speaks out SOLIDLY that Islamic terrorism has to go, and says that shari'a law must NEVER replace civil law in any country. What happens when he says that. The little Wahhabi rats' nests and anthills down in Arizona treat him and his family to accusations of apostasy and blasphemy, signals in the open press that they are fair game to be murdered by Muslim radicals.
So, in whose hands was the end of Islamic terrorist -- the revitalization of interpretation that would have thrown out the hadith, ALL highly spurious "attestations" that the Prophet said this or that, highly suspect as being politically motivated (certainly the fantastic Ayesha tale made up to buttress Sunni claims over Shi'a claims for the rule of Islam) -- the revitalization of interpretation that would have relegated the hateful verses to historical context only (as Mustafa Akyol suggests) and would have reversed the weight of interpretation to favor the PURELY TRANSCENDENTAL, SPIRITUAL VERSES OF THE QUR'AN TO SOLE IMPORTANCE AND GOT RID OF THE REST.
But that's too gutsy for you guys. Then again, protecting Islam from being destroyed by the people of the Nejd (as prophesied in the Qur'an) is not your issue. Your issue is seeing how much pity you can get, how many special treatments you carve out of American culture -- this is the ego of manipulation, the game being to prove you are smarter than Americans by constantly getting them to kowtow to you and back off their criticism of the way you behave and what you preach -- AND GET ATTENTION. SO MUCH OF THIS CRAP IS ABOUT GETTING FACE TIME ON TV.
And D'Souza last manipulation is the most disgusting of all.
D'Souza is trying to placing himself upon the moral high ground by claiming American culture is decadent and that the reason we got attacked is that Al Qaeda was disgusted by our immortal behavior.
What everybody is missing is that this claim is as supremacist coming from D'Souza as any I have ever heard. Because ... D'Souza's unspoken fiat is that MUSLIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS POLICE FORCE AND PUNISH THOSE WHO BREAK THE "RULES" THAT ISLAM HAS SET FOR THEM. THEREFORE, ARGUES D'SOUZA, YOU AMERICANS BROUGHT THIS ON YOURSELF.
NO, YOUR PHILOSOPHY BROUGHT IT ON US, AND IT QUOTES QUR'ANIC VERSES while it beheads, burns, rapes, tortures, incarcerates, stones, and cross-amputates those Muslims and non-Muslims who do not accept the SELF-STATE AUTHORITY OF SUPREMACIST MUSLIMS TO CREATE THE RULES FOR ALL HUMANITY AND ENFORCE THEM ACROSS THE LINES OF SOVREIGN NATIONS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
You're right. I don't accept your "SELF-DECLARED AUTHORITY" DO ANY SUCH THING.
And I find D'Souza "moral superiority" ludicrous and his preaching to the choir -- AMERICAN CULTURAL MODERATES AND CONSERVATIVES ALREADY KNOW THIS, FOR HEAVEN SAKE -- spineless as per usual.
Want to compare?
Americans, due to their civil rights laws defending free speech -- which Muslims routinely use to whine about ALLEGED grievances -- are the same ones that free speech extremists use to defend porn on the internet, in the movies, and in local clubs. Half of the US Congress is trying to deal with the intricacies of protecting freedom of thought, word, and harmless deed while setting rational limits on the rest. But you don't even don't even stand up against the incitement of violence towards Christians and Jews in your own mosques.
But compare the record of America to that of Islam:
(1) Countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran stand in violation of every international human rights agreements on the treatment of women and children.
(2) Hudud punishments of amputation, stoning, beheading and sometimes burning and castration (see Saudi prisons on this) have been banned worldwide as inhumane, yet they routinely carried out by Islamic countries and pan-state terrorists.
(3) Women who are raped are stoned to death for adultery.
(4) Women who are raped must present two to four witnesses to defend themselves -- four in Iran. That is why the gang rape packs move in threes.
(5) Women in Islamic countries are subject to forced marriage to men much older, a form of slavery banned in the Qur'an. But Muslims worldwide do nothing.
(6) Women in Islamic countries are denied education, independent travel and work.
(7) Women in Islamic countries are considered property to be traded for gambling or other debts, a form of slavery.
(8) Temporary marriages allow Muslim men to use women as prostitutes without civil protection for themselves or their children.
OK, it's a partial list, but I have work to do. Others may want to complete this list!
The number of the times the word "women" is used above is an indication of how much radical Islamism is about controlling women for sex and service. Qubt and al-Banna went CRAZY that Egyptian women got rights-- based on the work of an enlightened imam doing enlightened hermeneutics on the PURELY TRANSCENDENTAL VERSES OF THE QUR'AN -- rights to vote, rights to education, rights to property and children. And then, one brave women let herself be photographed without a veil. And it was uphill from there.
Qubt was an obviously sexually neurotic man who claimed he never married because he couldn't find a woman "pure enough." Oh yeah, right. He was a very sick man. Al-banna on the other hand was a violent control freak.
Do I hear you guys railing about this violence in Islamic countries, this inhumanity, this enslave of women and children?
No, I hear you whining about whether you can have special privileges at an airport in the Midwest or whether you can set up US Airways and then sue them, shake-down style, for money and laws that make Americans ignore the IEDs Muslim terrorists set off in markets full of women and children and your crafty little shoe bombs and the bomb-belts Palestinians place as toys around the waists of Muslim toddlers in the Gaza Strip.
And why do you do this? Like Bill Clinton, "becuase I could get away with it."
While the world burns down with Muslim violence, American Muslims play dirty little manipulation games as acts of soft terrorism -- which they know they can only effect because standing behind them is a terrorist who may enforce their demands with debased violence.
American Muslim manipulation runs on the veiled threat (pun intended) that if we do as you demand -- and listen to your insufferable and utterly specious moral preaching when Muslims violence has taken moral breach down to a level unknown since the Gestapo -- there will be more violence. You preach appeasement to us and you get it to fly because when we see good people like Daniel Pearl beheaded on television, when we see a woman stoned or shot in the head for being raped, WE ARE STILL NORMAL ENOUGH TO RECOIL IN DISGUST AND EMPATHETIC PAIN. Momentarily we lose our ability to close a fist and say, "Fuck you, you despicable animals!"
And that may be a fault of ours, but know this: Not all of us have lost the ability, and America's slumber won't last forever on this one.
Meanwhile, what do our Muslim American compatriots do? They whine about their civil rights. They assert their self-proclaimed "moral supremacy." Don't make me laugh.
What is really going on with you guys is the most egregious mass act of opportunism in the history of the United States. You whine about "racial incidents" when more racial incidents occur against WASPS than any other group in America (per capita percentage), with the Jews coming a close second. As Stephen Schwartz -- Muslim -- has pointed out, anti-Muslim incidents are so far down the list as to be negligible.
You strut around campuses pretending to be victimized. You whine and bitch and piss and moan constantly, while American service people overseas try to straighten out the mess made by Islamic radicalism on the one hand and Islamic cowardice on the other.
And it's spineless yellow-bellied cowardice. And why? For the same reason human rights organizations decry American rights abuses -- which they should where they exist -- but never mention the torture and gang rapes in Saudi prisons, the torture and rape and amputations carried out in Iran, the beheadings and live burnings and breast amputations (for not wearing cover) that occurred in Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Fallujah before the US went in and cleaned out the cockroaches that had taken over the city.
Why don't they? Because when you whine to an American about your ALLEGED "disenfranchisement" Americans give you a lolly pop, put their arm around your shoulder, and try to make it all better.
When you complain to a Muslim publicly about his violence toward his own or others, he kills YOU, your family, and your friends. Or he kidnaps your daughter and rapes her.
You're cowards. And you're dirty opportunists. You're the best-educated, richest, most powerful group of Muslims in the world, and you could FORCE the ulema to deal with this problem and you will not.
Instead, when people like Zudhi Jasser, Mustafa Akyol, and others point out the problems and LAY OUT THE SOLUTIONS, they are attacked.
And those of you who claim to be the "peaceful" Muslims REALLY following Islam don't defend those guys. You do not defend Muslim women becuase you tacitly agree with the position they should keep the place desert tribalist crafted for them. And when women start talking to you on boards -- Anne Crockett comes to mind -- you tell her to shut up, but you don't say that to men on this board, do you?
YOU WILL NOT DECIDE FOR ME WHAT MODERATE ISLAM IS. YOU WILL NOT DECIDE FOR ME OR MY COUNTRY WHAT A MODERATE MUSLIM IS.
NOW THAT MUSLIMS HAVE ATTACKED US, CONTINUE TO ATTACK US, PROMISE TO ATTACK US, DEMAND THAT OTHER MUSLIMS ATTACK US, I WILL MAKE THAT DECISION FOR MYSELF, BECAUSE I MUST THE DECISION ABOUT WHAT MUSLIMS I WILL AND WILL NOT SUPPORT.
So you claims that you will do it for me fall on dear ears. D'Souza's claims that he will be the moderator of American morality BECAUSE HE IS A MUSLIM AND MUSLIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO POLICE MORALITY FOR ALL THE WORLD falls on deaf ears over here.
FOR ME ...
A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO BELIEEVES IN THE EQUALITY OF ALL HUMANITY, FOR ALL RELIGIONS, AND FOR MEN AND WOMEN AND *** STANDS UP FOR THOSE RIGHTS ***. As do, I point out, American Christians and Jews.
A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO OPPOSES THE IMPOSITION OF ANY FORM OF SHARI'A LAW ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD SO LONG AS SHARI'A EMPLOYS HUDUD PUNISHMENTS AND BEARS ENMITY AGAINST THOSE NOT OF ITS RELIGION AND NOT MALE.
A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO FIGHTS ISLAMIC TERRORISM OPENLY AND PUBLICLY.
A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO FIGHTS TERRORIST HATE SPEECH AND INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE AND WAR IN HIS OR HER MOSQUE.
A MODERATE AMERICAN MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO DEFENDS THE LAWS OF AMERICA IN PUBLIC AND IN PRIVATE.
Truncated list, but hey, duty calls.
To sum up here, Muslims are failing Islam and will be the reason it is destroyed. While you posture and do your little moral preaching numbers to people who frankly don't need, Islamic terrorists and mantling biological, nuclear and chemical weapons. The next time they pull a big one, my guess is that it's going to be "all she wrote." All over the world, Muslims who have a spine (that would not be you guys) are voting Islamists out of office -- with GAM prime minister elected in Aceh, with Badawi elected in Indonesia, with that dirty, lying, sleaze-bag Mahathir thrown out in Malaysia. The Iranians would do it if they could. Abdullah would get rid of the Wahhabis if he could. In Nigeria, extreme shari'a wasn't voted in, it was AMPUTATED in. Etc. Etc. Etc.
It's AMERICAN Muslims who HAVE NO SPINE AND PLAY THESE GAMES.
And what don't you like about Robert? He keeps quoting THE SAME QUR'ANIC VERSES THAT BIN LADEN DOES.
He doesn't agree with Bin Laden. What Robert is saying is that until you deal with these verses a "peaceful" Islam that IGNORES them is not enough. You have to get rid of them, becuase over and over again in your history those verses -- ON WHICH AN UN-ELECTED BIN LADEN RUNS A WAR, ON WHICH THE UN-ELECTED SALAFISTS RUN A WAR, ON WHICH THE UN-ELECTED TALEBAN RUN A WAR must be changed -- have led to war against and enslavement of all Muslims you do not agree with and all non-Muslims period.
Now, either you have the spine to deal with the REAL PROBLEM -- which is NOT alcohol in a cab in Minneapolis -- or you don't.
And so far, you don't.
That is why Robert Spencer et al. have to be the ones who do your job for you. And what do you do?
You whine that he is insulting you.
Oh, poorest possible you! Oh, poor little kids! They want another lolly pop.
No. Get off your fat, rich, spoiled American opportunist asses and get your butts overseas and solve these problems. And if you're spineless and whiny for that, at least support the Muslims who DO have the spine and stop playing games that embarrass and destroy the religion you say you love.
Grow up. And stop manipulating.
And what does Al Qaeda say when they read your next vitriolic little rant of "blasphemy" screed?
They just say, "Attaboy, Eteraz. Attaboy, Esmay."
It's not Robert who is doing Al Qaeda's work -- if he were it's unlikely that Azzam the American would have "invited" (ha!) him to convert to Islam with a copy of "The Truth about Muhammad" in his hand, don't you think?
It's YOU who are doing Al Qaeda's work, though I'd agree it's not because you necessarily want to be a terrorist. You just want to be important.
So be important. Transform Islam into TRANSCENDENTAL SPIRITUAL ISLAM. That's your job. Get about doing it.
For Esmay and Eteraz:
Excellent quote from Zodiac from other post:
Equating Spencer (railing against radical Islamism) and Bin Laden is like equating Churchill (railing against Nazism) and Hitler.
Completely specious, malevolent, and dishonest argument. Spencer is doing the job you're too spineless and yellow to do. Period.
Robert wrote:
"That Mr. Eteraz would then hold them up as being somehow victims is beyond absurd."
But, Robert, don't you understand. Anything but total support for whatever a Muslim says is unacceptable. Of course they're victims. Anybody who defines themselves as "insulted" when you bring up that they are tacitly supporting the most debased violence with the Nazis is, of course, A VICTIM!!!
Robert, why can't you get that? I'm shocked! Shocked! [weg]
Keep up the good work. It brings these termites out of the woodwork where it's plain for all to see that they're busy eating the house.
And I iterate: NO MODERATE MUSLIM WORTH THEIR SALT PRETENDS TO BE "INSULTED" THAT YOU DECRY THE VIOLENCE IN ISLAM. THEY DECRY IT, TOO.
Sounds like Robert Spencer is getting under the craw of liberal and muslim thinking...good job, Robert! Keep up the good fight. Truth is truth and no amount of liberal and muslim squirming can change that.
I'm still waiting for these fatwas denouncing Muslim imperialism, dhimmitude, jizya, and jihad. Where are they? Why don't Muslims cite them and denounce jihad?
"Even the founding fathers, jurists the likes of which very few have ever existed, held that a black man was, under the law, only worth 3/5th of a white man (and women were worth nothing)".
The so-called 3/5 "Federal ratio" was put in the constitution at the instance of anti-slavery forces. The south, for electoral purposes, wanted all slaves considered in any census and for representative and electoral vote purposes. The anti-slavery forces wanted slaves not counted at all until they were free. The compromise was reached to avoid a melt-down of the constitutional convention. But people like Hamilton warned that the issue (correctly)would eventually be settled by war.
This guy does not know what he's talking about. It's the same old attempt to shame crap. Islam is just another historic rationalization that permits the domination and economic exploitation of some lately "indigenous people" (it's being done in darfur today). The Arab empire and Ottoman empire were typical of this pattern in history. Anyone who thinks this pattern is unique to any group (Western, Aztec, Arab, America, etc.) is a liar or a fool.
Islam is just another rationalization for a historic pattern of exploitation and conquest in the name of "religion" or ideology. The shame game crap has to end.
Whoa, Morgaan
Great post. You basically said what all of us (including Robert) want to say but can't for reasons of politeness. I think Robert should say something like that the next time he debates a spineless apologist.
UNBELIEVABLE!!!
"Even the founding fathers, jurists the likes of which very few have ever existed, held that a black man was, under the law, only worth 3/5th of a white man (and women were worth nothing)".
YES, AND WE FOUGHT A WAR TO END ALL THAT. WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS FIGHT A WAR THAT ENDS YOUR OWN INSTEAD OF FIGHTING US FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP RIGHT ON SAYING THAT:
A woman's testimony is worth 1/4 of a man's?
A woman's life (in terms of retribution paid) is worth that of a man's ONE LEG.
You are doing that NOW. We made John C. Calhoun eat his words!!!
And answer this:
WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WAR IN DARFUR IS ABOUT??? IT IS AN ***ARAB*** RACIST AND RADICAL ISLAMIST WAR AGAINST BLACK AFRICANS, CHRISTIANS, AND MODERATE MUSLIMS.
You argue so filthy that it's hard even to read what you write. You're not discussing anything.
YOU ... ARE ... JUST ... MANIPULATING ... FOR ... ATTENTION.
And you're destroying any chance for Islam in the future by doing so.
Etaraz says the founding fathers considered a black man worth three-fifths of a white man. His false statement is worth correcting, in case readers of JW think that he has scored a point against Mr. Spencer.
The allusion is to the Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution when it was written in 1787. The Compromise had to do with how many Representatives a state was to have in Congress. The slave-state delegates wanted the basis for the count to be the whole population. The free-state delegates wanted it to be just the free population. The slave-state proposal would have given the slave-owners almost twice the number of Congressmen that they'd have obtained under the free-state proposal. To prevent the Union from splitting into two countries, the two sides compromised. Only 3/5 of the slaves were counted in the enumeration to determine a state's representation in the House, all of whom were, of course, slave-owners. So the Three-Fifths Compromise LIMITED the slave-owners' clout in the federal government. Of course, everyone knew that the problem was being postponed and not solved. But it had nothing whatever to do with regarding anyone as "three-fifths of a person."
Mr. Etaraz is as unethical in his invocation of U.S. history as he is in his invocation of Muslim history to discredit Mr. Spencer.
The 3/5 "Federal ratio" had nothing to do with any judgement re the value of blacks. It was a compromise between those who wanted slavery abolished (and slaves not counted for representation purposes until slavery was abolished) and slaveholders who wanted the slaves fully counted for representative and electoral college purposes. There were many (George Mason of the South, Hamilton in the north) who warned that this issue was eventually going to result in civil war. On 4/12/1861 it did result in civil war. 600,000 soldiers (about 400,000 from the North) died to undo the "federal ratio".
What eludes me is how someone as intelligent and Libertarian-at-heart as Ali Eteraz obviously is can still be indoctrinated so fully into the lie that is the cult of Islam. We live in the Communications Age, so there is less and less excuse for being incapable of seeing that Islamic mythology is no longer something to be passed on to further generations, at least, not in its its current, virulent context.
Islam is a lie. Someone challenge me on that. I dare you.
Aileen ...
Yup, and the other part of this is that THESE LAWS NO LONGER EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES. During the same period of time, what was happening to women in Pakitan and Arabia?
WHAT ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING THIS MORNING TO WOMEN, MINORITIES, HINDUS, BUDDHISTS AND CHRISTIANS IN SAUDI ARABIA WHERE CONVERTING GETS YOU THE *** DEATH PENALTY ***.
And how come I never heard from these Muslim guys any examples about how Muslim WOMEN are treated? Hmmm??? Whassamatta guys, cat got your tongue?
Guess they're too busy telling Anne Crockett she should shut up.
Back into that burqa, Anne, you've forgotten who you are what you're not (a human being).
Foehammer ...
Because Eteraz is a Muslim first and a liberal second and a card-carrying member of the SUCK UP TO THE MUSLIMS WITH BUCKS brigade.
Do you know the kind of points he gets for this kind of attack on a guy like Robert Spencer?
Do you have any idea how much money there is in that?
ESMAY AND ETERAZ:
PLEASE PUBLISH ON YOUR WEBSITES TODAY ALL THE MUSLIM PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE DONATED MONEY TO YOU.
ALL OF THEM.
WITH AMOUNTS, DATES AND CONTACT PEOPLE.
@ Morgaan: Hehe. I have no idea how much these Islamists and Liberals take in as donations, but I can disclose how much I've ever received through Foehammer's Anvil:
$0
And yet I still fight on.
As I stated yesterday to Esmay, but in slightly less words, it's a matter of having superior convictions and if more on the Left would show me character strengths worth emulating, I might give them a greater portion of my attention.
But don't anyone hold your breath.
I fight because I know I'm right and because I know that I'm not here on Earth just to breathe the air, drink the water and collect gray hairs on my head.
Morgaan Sinclair says "a moderate Muslim" is this, that, and a dozen other things, all in hysterical caps. He forgot to add one more thing that "a moderate Muslim" is: a half-Muslim.
QUOTING ETERAZ:
...recently allowed women to get hymen reconstruction surgery, as well as allowing women the right to political leadership. Other major jurists today have allowed women the right to lead prayer. Even al-Azhar University, by no means a bastion of reform, has taken a strong stance against Female Genital Mutilation which it once used to permit. Islamic Law changes. I hope that is obvious by now. The way islamic jurisprudence evolved to make rules limiting violence serves as a model of how islamic jurisprudence will evolve to give rights to women, minorities and non-Muslims. I wish that Spencer would recognize this and leave Muslim reformists from having to correct his errors.
CLOSE QUOTE.
*** NOT GOOD ENOUGH ***
Sharia law should be fought everywhere on the planet and should be institute NO WHERE -- as should no other religious law -- in the place of secularly held constitutional rights.
*** AND THE WHOLE PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S NOT UP TO SOME MAN WHO IS, BY VIRTUE OF CANNON AND POSITION, DENYING WOMEN RIGHTS ALREADY TO TELL THEM WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE. ***
And even those "changes" -- oh, boy, we get to have a hymen reconstructed while the men go free of the rapes they commit, the honor killings they perform, and the female genital mutilation they force -- are by select imamic fatwa, and tney are NOT embraced by eight madabhs that run Islam, whose ulema have NEVER spoken out against violence against women or terrorism or violence toward non-Muslims.
Do you think we're all stupid? Do you think we can't read?
Do you know how INCREDIBLY STUPID AND TRANSPARENTLY MANIPULATIVE YOU LOOK???
What can you expect from a center of higher education, if the written word will not even be acknowledged.
If Islam reformed itself in the 1920's to the views held as being as they were say, 700 years ago. Would it not follow that any Jurist notions would adjust itself as well? Are the proof of such notions not personified in the former Talliban Goverment in Afganistan?
Where are all the Peaceful Muslims? Who are they, where are they, and how many of them are there?
Why do we only hear from the Socialists and the Communists that Muslins are "peaceful". I would imaging that if there were really peaceful Muslims that number in the high majority. Why hasn't the Left lined them up in numbers every day, day after day, telling us how wonderful they are?
How long do you expect "progressives" to carry your water bucket befor you have to put somehing in it?
Muslims suffer fron Infidelobia. They need treatment.
I found the commentary by Ali Eteraz a bit sad. Argument by name calling is easy and very effective to the home audience (after all Muslims use the 'crusader' label long after the body of last crusader has turned to dust).
Whatever the difference between Islamic law and Islamic belief, it must be pointed out Islam is more about practice than belief (Orthodox Judaism shares that). The rulings of legal scholars are not just minutiae that are filed away to be read by scholars. They are instructions on how to act today. The websites of many well known Muslim scholars include Q&A sections that are designed to answer day to day questions.
In the last 40 years or so religious conservatism has been a growing trend in many religions. We see an appeal to roots not just in Islam, but in Hinduism and Christianity. The terrorists have learned very well how to couch their rhetoric fo the same appeal.
What is annoying is the inability of Muslims to be honest about what Muslims believe. Whether it is a wealthy Saudi saying he is not a Wahhabi but a Salafi (sp?), or Tarig Ramadan claiming that Sayed Qutb shared none of his grandfather's beliefs. Westerners like myself grow tired of this kind of sophistry. The call to violence based on Islam appeals to somebody and those somebodies are not little old ladies in Christian churches.
Aileen, I'm a woman. I know it's hard to get with the name, but I'm a woman.
I hold out the hope that a moderate Islam can be crafted, because I know a great many Muslims who have lived on by the Meccan, spiritual verses and chuck the rest.
That has to be formalized. That is our best hope, the one that will result in the fewest lost lives.
But that is a fight that only Muslims can wage. I support their doing so.
If they don't do it, they will likely force us into a worldwide, hot nuclear confrontation. With so many people on the planet, it's possible that humanity and the ecosystem itself won't be able to survive that on a global level.
So I'm always for encouraging Muslims to stop this crap on the hope they won't force the kind of confrontation that will be coming if they continue to play it so hard and fast. Sadly, it doesn't look promising.
But I will continue to support moderate Muslims who are trying to reform Islam -- AND ETERAZ AND ESMAY ARE ***NOT*** AMONG THEM. Eteraz and Esmay are shuck'n'jive artists who are in it for the fame.
I'm sorry you don't like my use of caps. If people are skimming, they tend to read the part in caps. Which is why I use them.
And I know plenty of full-blood Muslims, most in foreign countries, who are standing up daily to this and holding their own. Most are intellectuals on an international level, and they are brave indeed. I won't be bringing in racial balances as part of the arguement as I believe the argument is purely ideological, except that the Arabs are fighting a racial cleansing war in Darfur that is actually a race war sold on ideology to get the Saudis to fund the NIF, of which they are 100% sponsor.
"NO MODERATE MUSLIM WORTH THEIR SALT PRETENDS TO BE "INSULTED" THAT YOU DECRY THE VIOLENCE IN ISLAM. THEY DECRY IT, TOO."
from a posting by Morgaan Sinclair
It would be nice if these moderate Muslims raised their voices above a whisper. If they're not willing to speak loudly and often, as Robert does, then what good are they?
Why shouldn't I believe that they will simply follow the strong horse? They're waiting to see which side wins and they'll go along with it. If that means Islamism, they'll accept it with no protest.
Morgaan Sinclair-
The infantile and Pharisaical finger pointing ("we good, you bad") nonsense misses the whole issue of how peoples use "religion" or ideology to rationalize conquest, domination, exploitation and often the extermination of some recently "indigenous" people. The Aztecs did it to the Toltec, the Spaniard arrived and did it to the Aztecs, and before that the Arabs did it to the Spaniards. It's a pattern in history in the establishment of every nation and empire. Islam (as Hugh has correctly pointed out) was the engine of the advance of the Arab empire and Arab imperialism. We are witnessing a resurgence of this typical pattern of history today within Islam.
The problem is that this pattern is now becoming a danger to the whole species on the planet because of technological advances. We cannot tolerate this infantile nonsense anymore. We have to stop being Pharisaical on how humans use "religion" and ideology to conquer, exploit and kill what Waffa Sultan has called "the other".
Every group rationalizes its will to power and perfumes the skunkiness of human nature by pretending to be innocent victims. Islam is perfect at doing that.
(BTW, three cheers for Robert for having the guts to address the real problem. But that problem is finally a human problem.)
There are few more important debates that must be held on all Western canpuses than the challenge of islam.
One can recall when the islamic supremicist bullies and pukes, and their toxic socialist supporters at Concordia U, in Montreal, created the most vile conditions on campus.
Why were they there ?
The very desideratum at a university is an open mind.
Yet there they were, trying to shut down free debate, intolerant of other views, the very death nell of openness and freedom.
Oh, those pesky Americans!
You tell them to shut up, and they just won't do it. How annoying, eh, Mr. Esmay? Mr. Eteraz?
As a matter of policy, politicians and pundits should abstain from entering the academcy unless they are invited.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the leftists liberals educators want total control of the education system so they can continue to pollute the minds of our next generation with the failed policies of the elitists, leftists and liberals...........
The Texican.
Live free and die free.
God Faimly America Freedom the only choice at any cost.
And I iterate: NO MODERATE MUSLIM WORTH THEIR SALT PRETENDS TO BE "INSULTED" THAT YOU DECRY THE VIOLENCE IN ISLAM. THEY DECRY IT, TOO.
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 3, 2007 10:54 AM
++++++++++++++++
please edify me and show me where i can find any info on moderate islam/muslims condemning radical islam/muislims.............
IT DOES NOT EXIST.............
REMEMBER, MUSLIMS WILL LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING TO INFIDELS...........
war with the cult of islam is inevitable for the cult of islam only wants peace through conquering the world................
prepare be armed be ready.............
The Texican.
Live free and die free.
God Faimly America Freedom the only choice at any cost.
This debate again highlights the trouble with mislabeling our fight against Islamic supremacism as a "war against terror."
As Robert's post implies, if Akiti and Iftikhar had any significant influence, it might help stop Islamic "terrorism" (non-state violence against civilians)--certainly an improvement over today's situation--but it would do nothing to stop the steady "peaceful" marches toward Islamic rule across the globe (via demographics and "democracy"). And it's the latter that should worry any non-Muslim much more than terrorism.
Terrorism is a "means" to unspecified ends. Sharia is a very specific ends.
Mr. Eteraz and Mr. Esmay,
The people on this forum are already pretty sure that they are dealing with radical Islamist apologists.
But we're willing to entertain the possibility we are wrong:
(1) Do you agree with the assessment made by the imam on the Dispatches UTube videos that "Allah created woman defective. Even if she has a PhD, she is defecitive" ... "it's hormones."
(2) Source: Ibid: If a girl is 10 and refuses to wear cover, she should beaten.
(3) Do you believe it's OK for Muslim websites to call on Muslims to kill Westerners, Christians?
(4) Would you like to see shari'a replace the Constitution of the United States?
(5) Do you believe that Buddhists are evil?
(6) Do you believe that Muslims are justified in commiting violent acts against non-Muslim majority cultures if they deem them to be "decadent" or "immoral".
(7) If yes to #6, on what authority do Muslims act as the world's international "muttawiyyah" (religious police)?
(8) Do you believe that Christians and Jews are "infidels"?
(9) Do you believe that Muslim women should answer first to the imam who tells them how to dress, how to make love, how to wash, how to pray, and how to be in relationship to her husband ... or do you believe she has a right to avail herself of the civil liberties granted her under the U.S. Constitution?>
(10) Are you OK with arranged marriages without the consent of the women?
(11) Do you agree with the Muslim division of property that gives women less property than men?
(12) Do you believe in denying women the right to vote based on gender?
(13) Do you believe in denying women the right to education, equal food and medicine, based on gender?
(14) Do you believe women should have the right to drive and hold jobs?
(15) Do you believe that "honor killing" is justified?
(16) Do you believe that Islam gives a man the right to beat a woman?
(17) Do you believe that islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by sword?
(18) Do you believe that Islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by deception, manipulation and threat?
(19) Do you believe that Sufis are apostates?
(20) Do you believe in the death penalty for apostasy?
(21) Do you believe in the death penalty for adultery?
(22) Do you believe, as Al Sistani said in a fatwa last week, that homosexuals should be killed "in the worst possible way"?
(23) Do you believe that hudud punishments -- amputations, cross-amputations, lashings, stonings, burnings, and beheadings -- should be allowed in Islamic countries?
(24) Do you believe that sanctions should be imposed on any Islamic country that does not follow ALL human rights intenrational agreements?
(25) Do you believe that the US should stipulate that 1/2 of the 10,000 student visas just granted to Saudi Arabia should go to women?
(26) Do you believe that shari'a should be banned until it is solidly human rights based, giving equal rights to minorities, religious "others", and women?
(27) Do you object to "shake-down" manipulations such as the one played against US Airways?
(28) Do you object to the "shake-down" manipulations for special treatment run by the cabbies in Minneapolis?
(29) Do you believe that Muslims should rise up and decry the death threads made against Robert Spencer and his family by Muhammed Soulja of Great Britain?
(30) Do you believe Muslims should openly protest against Al-Zawahiri when he demands that Muslims rise up against Americans and others?
(31) Do you believe that the school system in the Palestinian Territories should be forced to stop preaching jihad to elementary school kids?
(32) Do you believe that HAMAS should be required to remove its terminology of exterminating the Jews or be barred from power?
(33) Do you believe that homicide bombing is an acceptable form of social and political protest?
(34) Do you believe that CAIR should wait to defend Muslims until the verdict is in. Examples: the 22-year sentence given Ismael Royer for material support of terrorism and waging war against the sovreign State of India (Americans aren't allowed to wage their own private wars against other countires). Alamoudi, 23 years for material support of terrorism. Al Arian, deportation on a plea bargain (he should have got life), after turning in all his friends. Please answer this question in some detail.
(35) Do you believe that Saudi Arabia has the right to put to death those who convert to Christianity?
That'll do for a start. I have another 65 pertinent questions, but I don't want to tire you out since you minds are so weak to begin with.
Thank you for answering. We're all waiting.
Or are you going to play your usual lying, manipulative, cowardly, spineless, yellow-bellied gambit of "we're morally superior -- just cuz we said so!!!!!"
Waiting with baited breath. Not really. Muslims never answer questions like this, becuase doing so exposes them as not being the moderates they claim to be and would like us to believe they are.
.....................
If you'd rather do a short one: just tell us which hadith and violent verses YOU would be willing to remove from the Qur'an.
After all, I'm sure that you really want the rest of us in the world to feel safe and loved -- and that it's not REALLY the case that it always has to be ALL ABOUT YOU.
That's not true, is it?
Corrections: BAD Muslims never answer questions like the ones above because answering always exposes how moderate they're NOT.
I conclude Mr. Eteraz deserves a loving pet name of RAZ as all he does in life is raz other people.
Raz is a nobody who is like those twits who go around getting autographed pictures of celebrities, hang them on the wall and think they are important in knowing someone who doesn't know them.
Raz goes around and picks fights with Mr. Spencer and get attention. Raz is not a Muslim at all, but a low self esteem twirp who chose Islam as it was an easy venue for him to gain attention. Islam for him is Britney Spears shaving her head. She had the sense to seek rehab, but Raz only feeds his addiction.
As of yesterday on Mr. Spencer's public feed, Raz's "site blog" generated a whopping TWO hits as a referring site. BOY A WHOLE TWO PEOPLE WERE ON HIS SITE and cared enough to come here and look at what was happening.
So Raz is getting his 15 minutes of fame making fun like a bigot of Mr. Spencer not speaking Arabic like an Arab and proving to the world it is not Islam he is speaking about, but his own addiction of worthlessness.
What should be done is D'Souza, the Big Double D and Raz should be locked into a room together as D has enough pompous ego to feed a sponge like Raz as they both debate like parrots the things they do not know, but have heard someone else has lived.
please edify me and show me where i can find any info on moderate islam/muslims condemning radical islam/muislims.............
IT DOES NOT EXIST.............
From a posting by Texican
Thomas Haidon, the Chief Legal and Policy Advisor of the Free Muslim Coalition and a member of its Board of Advisors, says that moderates are unable to speak out because of Islamic laws against apostasy.
To quote Mr. Haidon:
"The laws of blasphemy under orthodox Islam are fairly well established, embedded and have generally remain unchanged over centuries. In most Muslim countries, moderate Muslims cannot speak on this issue out of fear of being accused of apostasy.
In 2005, Sheikh Al- Qaradawi issued a legal ruling on moderate Muslims who challenged the Islamist orthodoxy. His solution to this problem was to declare them "intellectual apostates", subject to death. Moderate Muslims are under siege in these countries."
(There's a lot more in the 12/1/06 Frontpage symposium on the pope and Islam, available on JW.)
That tells me that non-Muslims looking for like-minded people in the Islamic world are out of luck, at least until someone in the Muslim community decides to get a backbone. There are no Patrick Henrys in the Muslim world and there will be no reform until several are born. Therefore peace will remain elusive.
Esmay has "drawn a line in the sand", and if you have any thoughts outside of his brainwaves, you are not welcome to post. How intelligent of him.
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1172621961.shtml
“The Quakers were the first group in America to attack slavery. In his book Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes, John Woolman contended that no one had the right to own another human being. In 1758 the Philadelphia yearly meeting said that slavery was inconsistent with Christianity, and in 1775 Quakers played a dominant role in the formation of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, the first antislavery society in America.”
http://www.csusm.edu/Black_Excellence/documents/pg-s-a-revolution.html
All men are created equal and endowed with the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The beginning of the end for Western slavery?
“One of the earliest voluntary organizations in Britain which was devoted to a single cause was the anti-slavery movement. In 1787 a committee of twelve was appointed, including six members of the Society of Friends (Quakers). The Quakers had set up a committee of their own in 1783 in order to obtain and publish "such information as may tend to the abolition of the slave trade." Two other members of the committee were Thomas Clarkson and Granville Sharp. These men in particular went to great lengths to collect evidence, finding out precisely how little space was allotted to slaves on the ships and similar details. They began to publish pamphlets to stir public opinion against the trade.”
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/antislavery.html
1758, 1776, 1787, 1833, 1865.
All men are created equal and endowed with the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Morgaan and I don't agree on some things, but her comment today is outstanding.
PMK, moderate Muslims are probably the majority, but they have a number of things against them:
(1) They rightly fear incarceration, torture and death, for themselves and their families, if they speak out, because the RULING elite always use conservative religion to control them ... and the country. See Nigeria, quotations by prime minister on how he DELIBERATELY used Islam to control the population.
(2) They speak out, and they are hit at once from both sides: Muslims accuse them of blasphemy and apostasy, and unreasonable anti-Islamists for whom there CAN BE no moderate Islam EVER, smash them even harder than they smash the true bad guys.
(3) Peace doesn't get press. If you get a moderate Muslim who wants to go on TV and talk about it, they're out of luck. Fox helps a bit, but they'd much rather pit a radical Muslim against a radical "nuke Mecca" ranter because it makes for better TV.
(4) CAIR makes sure they are the only voice of Islam in America. They are ROLLING, ROLLING, ROLLING in money. After Qatar lost the bid to control US ports, the government of Qatar gave CAIR $50 million dollars "to improve the image of Islam in America." That's a lot of money. But where there is money, there is influence of the media. Prince Alwaleed bragged that because he owns part of Fox News (actually a big chunk) he got the coverage "toned down" -- in the same way Champ wants to control the vibrancy of the language -- so Islam doesn't sound so bad on TV as you roll the film of the last child's decapitated head on the streets of Falluja, blown off by a market bomb.
(5) The US government is appeasing American radical Islam, so the moderates getting no support from the government. They have no big, monied legal fund to fight CAIR and others for harassment.
(6) Many moderate Muslims just feed themselves the line that they didn't do it, so it really isn't Islam that did all this stuff. Yes, it is, and that is denial.
(7) And then you have the suck-up-to-Al-Qaeda cowards and opportunists who know what the problem is and either won't deal with it or actually are making careers out of sucking off the problem like vampires.
Carolyn2 ... thanks. We are actually much closer than you think, but the specific things I've commented on so far are the ones on which we divererge most significantly. However, I'm see us well past 95% in agreement and enjoy your posts. I make sure I read them all in their entirety.
champ-
They will not answer her and not because of strong feeling, though they might pretend that is the reason. But questions do make people think even when they are left unanswered.
Morgaan Sinclair:
Allow me to compliment you on your passionate and impressive comments.
Do not be discouraged to do; so take the floor and use that podium at will my friend.
Regards
Mackie
Does anyone besides me see a hole between this and...
Big enough to drive a Mac truck through? Mr. Eteraz acknowledges that by quoting the right scholars from more than 600 years ago Mr Spencer is doing EXACTLY what is needed, islamically speaking, to draw accurate conclusions about mainstream islamic jurisprudence.
The latter remark is very gracious (even with the "troll" jab), and sets Mr. Eteraz apart from many of the polemicists we see ragging at Mr. Spencer. It is nice to see an apologist who is prepared to offer the sort of concession of respect for his opponent as Robert routinely does, which keeps the tone of this dialogue much higher than we are accustomed to seeing.
But small graces do not spare one from scrutiny in the matter of consistency: you cannot acknowledge, on the one hand, that your opponent is using correct methodology and, on the other hand, try to bring down his argument on the basis of that same methodology.
The gracious quote also leaves me wondering what the point of the foregoing grade-school lesson on the difference between jurisprudence and theology is for. Clearly Etaraz doesn't think he needs to educate Spencer on this point, though the lesson seems an expansion on the attempted "gotcha" that precedes it. Then he concedes that Spencer isn't in need of such a lesson. Perhaps the whole thing is just an aside to the reader, whom Eteraz doesn't credit with this knowledge. Fair enough.
But I can't escape the feeling that it is not Mr. Spencer, but himself, with whom Mr. Eteraz is really debating. If so, I hope he eventually wins.
I mean loses ... whatever.
"But I can't escape the feeling that it is not Mr. Spencer, but himself, with whom Mr. Eteraz is really debating. If so, I hope he eventually wins. I mean loses ... whatever."
Well said, Archimedes. Well said, indeed.
America's universities are not so much being "politicized" as they are being subverted into propagandistic indoctrination centers for Communist and Islamic ideology. This situation really stinks, I might add.
Universities are supposed to prepare American citizens for life. That can only be done through their teaching valid material to their students in earnest. If a school is going to teach a subject to thousands of it had better pony up with the cold facts of that subject in the lecture halls. Fabrications, distortions, and bogus political and moral analogies (such as equating Dick Cheney with Josef Stalin---a man who murdered tens of millions of Russian people under the banner of Communist ideology) being palmed off as facts by professorial quacks such as Ward Churchill (and Eteraz) and countless others are a true insult to the intelligence of the millions of Americans who went to colleges (often struggling to pay the tuition by working nights), worked hard, and who made earnest use of their degrees and what they learned through obtaining them.
One thing that no one will EVER learn from Islam, however, (in any form it takes) is RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE. Even in its spiritual incarnations (such as Sufism), extreme violence normally reigns supreme. This is built into the very fabric of the faith itself; I don't see this aspect of Islam changing at all.
Without life itself, there could be no ideology to guide, run, or ruin it. Muslims can not and certainly would never be willing to comprehend this reality as they continue to pretend that ideology can take precedence over life itself. I therefore send Muslims and Islam-apologists to wear a dunce cap and sit in the corner until further notice. That especially goes for Emory University and its Islam-apologists in its student body and faculty!
ps 'Champ'- you unknowingly provide a case in point of the failure of higher education in America; "gutts" is spelled "guts." What are "gutts"???
Morgaan,
As valid as your points are, they don't get past the fact that the threat we face comes less from CAIR and more from WITHIN the Muslim world.
If "moderate" Muslims are unwilling to speak up and they're unwilling to form any kind of resistance or do anything that might get them a fatwa (remember Salman Rushdie) then they can't fight the radical islamists. What good are they to us? They won't help us. Either their own freedom means nothing to them or Islam means more. Which is it?
From the symposium posted on JW:
"Sudanese reformer Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Taha (editor of Al-Wikaf in Khartoum) was beheaded by Islamists sympathetic to Al Qaradawi for the crime of apostasy because he merely printed an article which dared question the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) ancestral lineage, despite the fact that he disagreed with the content of the article. This does not bode well for moderate Muslim voices. A second primary reason for the "silence" of moderate Muslims is the lack of a unified voice. There are many moderate Muslims in the West and in the Muslim world. However they often speak as lone voices. Moderate Muslims do not have a collective power base to be able to speak, in security, in a unified voice."
Do these moderates care about their future or their children's future? (Silly question considering how they offer them up for suicide!)
We can handle the people here who want to destroy us. The people around the world who want the same thing (I say they want it, since they refuse to condemn it. Fear is not an option.) are another matter. Do we close the country to all Muslims of all nationalities? Do we bomb them to the stone age in an act of preventive war? Will we be allowed to destroy a country the next time because "a few radicals" destroyed a major city in America?
Get real.
THERE ARE NO MODERATES.
IF THERE WERE, WE WOULD HAVE HEARD A WORLD-WIDE CRY OF ANGER AND DISBELIEF BY NINETY NINE PERCENT OF ALL MUSLIMS AT WHAT NINETEEN PEOPLE DID TO OVER THREE THOUSAND OFFICE WORKERS.
INSTEAD WE SAW PEOPLE DANCING IN THE STREETS! WE SAW BIN LADEN LIONIZED, NOT CONDEMNED. MODERATES SUPPORT BIN LADEN! MODERATES CALL OUT FOR JIHAD AGAINST ISRAEL. MODERATES APPLAUD THE DEATHS OF NON-MUSLIMS. THEIR SILENCE CAN BE DESCRIBED IN ONE WORD: DEAFENING!!!!!!
Morgaan
Bravo!
I want to back you up in your perception that, distilled down to some kind of "essence," Islam is about controlling women's lives, and, distilled even further, their sexuality.
Qutb is clear evidence of that.
Theodore Dalrymple noted that, in his practice as a physician for inmates in a London prison, many young men from Muslim families did not practice Islam at all--they didn't pray, they did drugs, they didn't eat halal, they committed all sorts of crimes--but they had one thing in common: an obsession with their sisters' sexual purity.
D'Souza's appreciation of some nebulous, never thoroughly explained Muslim "patriarchal family values" in his latest book seems to be about the same issue, control of women's sexuality and freedom. When he talks about the left's depraved culture, it's always about what women do--or are allowed to do--in America, and, by extension, in Western culture. Britney Spears is utterly repugnant, I agree, but so are Hillary Clinton's attempts at removing children from family control and put them under the state's, one of the goals of communism.
The notion of victimhood at the hands of various entities--leftists, democrats, colonialists, imperialists--is not a conservative position. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Nobody held a gun to the head of the 9/11 terrorists. They freely chose to do what they did. They had free will, as all humans do, unless their thinking is impaired by disease or psychiatric disorder, and there's no evidence that has been the case in any of the Jihadist attacks since 9/11. Over and over again, we have evidence of a coherent, reasoned program on the part of the terrorists to attain a certain goal.
PMK ...
Well, I know how you feel and it's frustrating. And angering. I'm really angry now at AMERICAN Muslims, almost as angry as at the shooting jihadists.
But I also know that across the world EVERY TIME the jihadists yell for Muslims to rise up and strike at the "infidel" they are met with crushing, deafening silence.
That's because, I think, most really don't agree and don't want to kill everybody else.
The problem is that because they don't scream bloody murder about what the radicals are doing, the well-funded jihad keeps chipping away at province after province in Muslim-majority countries.
Nigeria is a good example. The STATED goal of the Saudi-financed "Taliban" of Nigeria is to take 19 provinces so that they can declare shari'a law over all 36 in the country.
So far they have 14. Five more, and they've got the whole country.
Are people standing up? Yes, they are? They are fielding candidates to run against the people who are claiming the Islamic right to kill them for apostasy as soon as they put their names on the ballot.
The first targets of radical Islam are MUSLIMS. It is much harder for them to stand up than you might think, becuase the minute they do, they are dead.
In Iraq if a Sunni stands up against the insurgency, they're dead. Six men were killed this morning for "speaking with Shia's".
This is the extranational Islamic "police force" in action. Scores of Iraqi police are killed every week, but they keep trying.
These people deserve our support. The terrorist attacks on the West are just "entrainment hits" designed to make us back off.
What they should not do is divide us from Muslims who ARE fighting the radicals. Our support is crucial to them, so that making all Muslims the same is not only unwise, but unfair.
But we can do both at the same time: We can say, yes, you have to deal with the reform of this religion, because it predisposes it to violence against its neighbors, minorities, and women.
But even though we can say Islam must be reformed, we cannot say there are no Muslim moderates. There are. But most of the decent ones ARE NOT Americans.
The American Muslim community is the worst Muslim community outside the directly jihadist, terrorist supporting states like Iran and Syria, and groups like HAMAS and Hizbollah.
The American Muslim community is manipulative, spineless, hostile, whining, woman-subjugating, greedy, fat, self-righteous and addicted to rock star limelight mentality. It is the worst, most iresponsible Muslim community in the world, allowing Saudi riyals to buy its imamry and consenting to the most debased violence on earth by its unwillingness to stand up, even in an environmental the safety of which exists nowhere else on earth.
For me, the people like Konca Kouris and Abdel Kareem Soliman, the Egyptian blogger who was sentenced to four years in prison, and the 75-year-old Islamic feminist who just had a price put on her head by Al Azhar University imams, are people we should support. These whining, yellow, male chauvinist American Muslim limelight addicts aren't.
Period.
And, I understand how you feel. Notice, though, that the people dancing in the streets were Palestinians stoked on by HAMAS. When the twin towers fell, 100,000 Iranians hit the streets with candles and flashlights -- light so bright it could be seen from the Space Shuttle -- to tell us how sorry they were we had been attacked. Then the Iranian government had Cuba block the satellite signal of the Iranian expatriate TV station in Los Angeles that was bouncing of a Cuba ground station.
I will continue to do both things: support the real moderates (Esmay and Eteraz NOT being among them because they don't ahve the SPINE to be among them) and I will make sure that speak my mind as I see fit and encourage other to do so, also in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.
Morgaan Sinclair-
You are not a bully. The mind is a bully, not the heart. It's this calculating "gotcha" kind of thinking that is at the core of bulling and entrapment. It's that always watching, needing to control mind, that inventor of rules, that one-upmanship attitude, that is the bully. The mind is a monster without the heart. It must control "the other" because of insecurity. (There is something to this yin/yang stuff.)
Yup, Ovidius_naso ... that's the dead giveaway. PATRIARCHAL FAMILY VALUES.
That's how D'Souza is trying to appeal to conservative Christians. Now, it gets dicey here, because some Christians will actually think that fits fairly well with their point of view. And some VERY conservative Christians (like the Baptists in Texas) are turning women out of professorships on the basis of a Christian text that says "women shall not teach men". Overall, Christianity still bars women from the priesthood.
So D'Souza is hoping that based on these similarities of Islam with the MOST EXTREMIST EDGE OF CONSERVATIVE CHRISTANITY he can make a case for Christians to embrace Islam.
Of course, in most moderate and conservative Christian theology, barring of women from he priesthood notwithstanding, there is NOTHING LIKE THE KIND OF HOSTILITY AND ENSLAVEMENT OF WOMEN THAT GOES ON IN ISLAM.
And hopefully, the Christians will be smart enough NOT to take this gambit in order to tone down the raging moral and ethical equivalency that is taking down a whole family structure so that who winds up raising the country's children are poverty-stricken women who get no help from me.
But what nearly everybody is missing is that radical Islam is now working both sides of the question to try to neutralize American resistance to radical Islam:
On the left, they have been using the socialist international community, which is, as per usual, so lacking in ethics it's willing to sell out women worldwide and civilization in order to take down the USA as the principal power on the planet. Little do the Michael Moores of this world realize that once it's accomplished they'll be the first beheaded to get them out of the way. They're apostates because they have no religion. Just as one famous Muslim pundit told me I had "no religion" because I do not belong to an established church.
On the right, they are now trying to make a case that Christians should embrace Islam as a co-religional force for morality, knowing full well (as some Chrsitians don't seem to realize) that the end of this journey is forced conversion to Islam -- and a PATRIARCHAL FAMILY VALUE that includes stitching up a woman's vagina to prevent sexual intercourse, FGM in some cases, honor killings, incarceration in the home, forced marriage, loss of rights over child custody, inheritance, voting, driving, and education. And that rape goes unpunished except that you kill the woman who was raped because her family is now dishonored.
No Christian should buy this gambit. The endgame of this little chess game is forced conversion.
Gotta run. I leave this in your capable hands, Frank, PMK, Carolyn2, et al. I have to get some work done.
Thank you for the conversation and the support. I appreciate it.
pythagoras --
"Gutts" is urban slang for "guts". I sometimes you urban spelling in my posts :)
Back On Topic:
Robert's respectful rebuttals To Eteraz' gratuitous, unsubstantiated attacks, in Robert's traditional way of providing Islamic sources to validate his point, rather than faulty conjecture, is paramount to the discussion at hand and all subsequent discussions on the subject of Islamic ideology.
One need only have attended an institution of higher learning in the US, to have seen the adulteration of education first hand, ahistorical and manipulated to assist in the spread of leftist propoganda. My time spent there was nearly 20 years ago, and what I know now, comparative to what I was told then, is like night to day. With the further spread of the malaise of PC Multiculturalism, in the last twenty years, one can only conclude that the problem has gotten worse.
Mr. Eteraz, in his attempt to represent himself as a reformist, an admirable quality if true, falls short on the substance of his arguments. He speaks of reformation taking place, but as Robert points out, words not supported by meaningful action ring hollow and leaves one underwhelmed by the quality of reform currently taking place.
This site is aptly name Jihad Watch, for it is the central point, how jihad is derived directly as a mandate from the immutable texts of Islamic ideology, and applied by Islamists with little to no resistence from the so-called reformists within the Muslim world. Saying Robert is mistaken on this point without providing a substantiated winning argument otherwise, is just another example of empty dialogue bereft of any real value.
Once the re-clarification of putting Islam and it's influence properly back at the source is accepted, before commenting on the words and actions of the individual Muslim, only then can meaningful dialoge and debate resume.
Indeed, jihad against the unbelievers is mandated in the Qur'an. This ideological belief was not properly abrogated from the texts of Islam, and continues to exist and thrive in the Muslim world today because of it. The gates of ijtihad are indeed closed currently and have been for about 1000 years now. These gates do need to be opened again for Islam to undergo it's necessary reformation and to not be considered the "enemy" by all things outside of Islam.
When one considers that the texts of Islam have not been "meaningfully" altered in about 1000 years, altered to renounce the mandate of jihad against all non-Muslims, Robert's referential sources, Islamic scholars from 600 years ago, and how they shaped Islam as applied today, it really isn't a stretch at all, now is it?
"politicians and pundits should abstain from entering the academy...."
-- from Ali Eteraz, quoted above
Ah, The Academy. The Sacred Groves of Academe. Where quiet scholars, free from the hustle and bustle of life, conducting their disinterested study of the past, especially when it comes to Islam and the Middle East, quietly convey to students the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, with nothing left out, nothing extenuated, and then go on to lay out the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest, Islamic suppression of all the non-Muslim peoples who, in their own lands now conquered by Islam, they were killed, or forcibly converted, or made to endure the status of dhimmi (for the Hindus, at least, this was an improvement over being killed, by the tens of millions over several hundred years, or forcibly converted -- their descendants are the Muslims of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, not to mention those who have made it to the non-Muslim lands of Great Britain, Canada, and the United States), that is the condition of deliberately inflicted humiliation, degradation, and permanent physical insecurity, "protected peoples" who were to be most imperfectly "protected," if they acquiesced in such status, from the Muslims themselves.
"The Academy..."
Rashid Khalidi. Joseph Massad. Hamid Dabashi with his Ode to Edward Said (google "Hamid Dabashi" and "Edward Said"). A thousand others, including Sells with his carefully-bowdlerized (wouldn't want to scare the women and children) Qur'an, inflicted on unsuspecting freshmen at the University of North Carolina by another apologist, Carl Ernst.
"The Academy..."
With the so-called "Arab feminist" Abu-Lughod's praise of the burqa as "portable seclusion." With others denouncing in their so-called archeological works the Israelis for daring to discover -- just imagine -- archeological evidence of the Jewish presence in Israel. With a thousand others, all of them members of MESA Nostra, providing the kind of misinformation and disinformation about Islam, and everything connected to Islam, including the various Lesser Jihads in and out of the Middle East, who populate "The Academy" -- at least in those parts of it devoted to Islam and the MIddle East-- of which Eteraz would like us to be, perhaps himself is, so impressed.
For more on this particular subset of "The Academy" google "MESA Nostra." You may even enter the "MESA Nostra Contest" -- new entries are now being accepted.
The human mind is the creator of systems and mind is good when it in touch with reality and feeling and does not become ruled by feeling. However, it becomes a monster when all that matters is the system, the calculation, the control. I guess the yin/yang has to be in balance. I don't know a lot about that, but the yin/yang concept(intuitively) strikes me as being true.
Islam is the control principle in overdrive. It's the face of the Ayatollah Khomeini saying "don't do that" and pointing to some rule. (I'm sure Khomeini was a real fun guy, good company for humor.)
Islam is what you get when you cross the Cosa Nostra and religion ("you paya the jizya or we breaka you face"). The MESA Nostra is what you get when you cross Islam with Academia.
It's Robber Baron ethics: Steal enough money and you can join respectable company.
I wish I was back in school just so I could raise Hell against the Islamist propaganda groups.
Morgaan Sinclair,
Very well said!
The problem these Islamic apologists have with Robert Spence isn't that he not telling the truth about Islam, It's that he is telling the truth, and it hurts theit ears.
I think "give em hell" harry Truman said it best":
"I don't give anyone hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell".
Frank --
You make a very interesting point about the human mind and it's connection with the heart, and how Islam is mind control in "overdrive".
It's an important relationship to consider (the one between the mind & heart) as we explore one of the many 'dysfunctions' within Islam: Brainwashing.
Good point!
Morgaan,
You're a better person than I am.
I see "moderate Muslims" in Iraq declaring Islam is the state religion and that all others are subordinate. Is that what American soldiers gave life and limb for - to see people like themselves given second class status in a "new" Iraq?
I've probably become too cynical, but the many pictures of Iranians SINCE 9/11 screaming death to America make me forget all about those who supported us. Amil Imani keeps saying we need to support Iranian "moderates" against the mullahs. He wants the US to fund them, much as we did some anti-Communist groups in Europe during the Cold War.
I say again: what are Iranians themselves doing to get rid of that government? Nothing. Sure they can run for local office and the local imam might or might not allow them to run. That doesn't change the fact that the mullahs hold all the power. Every time I hear that the majority of Iranians oppose this government my first thought is: prove it. Get out in the streets the way you did against the Shah. Those protest rallies they had last year weren't to oppose the government, they just opposed the government cutback of aid programs. None of these people were against the theocracy.
I hear from Imani and others how Iranians really love America but actions speak louder than words. They were the ones who hailed Ayatollah Khomeini and who cheered the students who invaded our embassy in an act of war. Until Iranians themselves prove me wrong I have to believe they like Islamic rule and they won't give it up and they want to impose it on everyone else.
Similar to Dinesh D'Souza's argument that condemning the actions of Muslims makes the moderates turn radical, we hear that any condemnation of Iran makes the people more supportive of their government. This mindset is best summarized in what an American leader said about a dictator during the Cold War: he's an SOB, but he's OUR SOB.
You say there are moderates. Well seeing is believing. One here, one there does not a movement make. They have to do the hard work of organizing their fellow Muslims and persuading them that the Islamist movement is not the right one, even though it promises to return Islam to its former glory. Do they have the will? They have to renounce the violent verses in the Koran and start a new branch of Islam. Will they?
I say no. Instead, they want to have it both ways. Get rid of one or two despots but keep Islam and all its tenets intact.
They're not willing to discard the Islamic dogma of world dominance. Can you imagine a non-Muslim setting foot in Mecca, bible in hand and a crucifix around his neck? It will never happen without a total rewrite of the Islamic faith and that is what is needed before progress is made.
Excusing the Palestinians for cheering, saying they were "stoked on by Hamas" is pretty lame. They VOTED for HAMAS. HAMAS is an Iranian organ. If they demonstrated only because they were stoked on by HAMAS then that doesn't make me feel any safer. What ELSE will they do if cajoled or threatened by HAMAS? They may be unwilling, but they're no less dangerous.
If they really want change, then it's up to them. Until I see it, I won't believe it. Faith has been broken. Trust is gone. You trust them. I don't. Just saying you're a moderate Muslim will never again be enough.
Quoting myself:
Thought that'd cover it.
Morgaan,
Am agog at how well you wield the hammer of righteous truth,
Bless you.
Bless the West.
Jihadwatch can be characterized as a blog on the "fringes of American conservatism" only because it's content and that of similar blogs is not widely known in the public discourse. For those who believe that Evil is a legend that has passed out of existence in the modern world the Truths we espouse will never be accepted.
Sites like Jihadwatch and MEMRI are staffed by heroes of liberty and decency, in my opinion, and one would do well to spend a human life telling the Truth about the Islamic agenda which threatens us all and will surely define the coming decades.
www.savecivilization.org
Thanks, dgene ... These are the issues we need to demand that people like Esmay and Esteraz answer instead of attacking people like Robert and getting away with it.
It's very clear that once Robert landed a couple of heavy ones on D'Souza (see video) Eteraz and Esmay rushed in to try to deflect Robert, wear him out and wear him down. Take up all his time, and then do what others pointed out they did on Coulter's site: take it over and split it.
So, thanks. Clip and use anything you think you can use.
As posted by Mr. Eteraz in another thread:
Ali Eteraz and argument by abuse
(Link: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015482.php#comments )
i have started the modernist quran distribution project to challenge saudi translated qurans infiltrating the united states and uk.
i've started the photography and poverty prjoect to get more muslims aware of the rampant poverty in the muslim world
i have publicized the work of authors critical of the saudi regime
i've written letters to ayatollahs in iran asking them to repeal their fatwas against muslim publishers that published the danish cartoons
i launched an anti stoning campaign (in iran) that was picked up by 92 blogs including instapundit
i've promoted the work of authors who oppose the jihadist argument for killing Israelis
my project is not about interfaith yuppie love or apologetics. that might make cair happy but not me.
All well and fine Mr. Eteraz, it would certainly seem to establish your credentials as a moderate Muslim. Let's see if this is borne out in your further responses to Mr. Spencer.
Robert Spencer: All over the Islamic world, jihadists recruit among peaceful Muslims by quoting from the Islamic texts and presenting themselves as the exponents of "pure Islam." Most Muslims do reject them, but the jihadists have the intellectual initiative in the Islamic community today; why is that? Why hasn't there arisen a large-scale international movement working on a theological level to refute them, if the refutations were as ready to hand as you suggest they are?
[Emphasis Added]
This remains the crucial question which so many Muslims, moderate or otherwise continue to avoid answering. It destroys what little hope Western people might have for any arrival at a peaceful resolution to Islam’s current predations.
Robert Spencer: Will Mr. Eteraz kindly produce Islamic jurists who argue that Muslims should not wage war against unbelievers -- as unbelievers -- under any circumstances, but should live with them as equals not just on a temporary basis until they become strong enough to impose Islamic law, but on a permanent basis?
Another vital question that is in dire need of answering.
Ali Eteraz: … recently allowed women to get hymen reconstruction surgery …
Sheikh Ali Gomaa has “allowed” women to seek reconstructive surgery? Isn’t this most telling of all that a woman’s right to elective medical treatment still must be “allowed” by some male authority figure? The same sheikh has “allowed women the right to political leadership”. Why is a woman’s fundamental human right to control her own (political) destiny in the hands of some Egyptian mufti? What Mr. Eteraz holds up as putatively progressive mentality is still utterly beholden to Islam’s policy of abject gender apartheid and therefore represents no progress at all. That Ali Gomaa condones Hizballah’s campaign of violent jihad against non-Muslims totally shreds his ostensibly moderate position.
Ali Eteraz: The way islamic jurisprudence evolved to make rules limiting violence serves as a model of how islamic jurisprudence will evolve to give rights to women, minorities and non-Muslims.
Considering that this relatively minor evolution in Qur’anic law has required so many centuries to come about bodes not at all well. Such a glacial pace is in direct opposition to the swift and thorough reformation needed for Islam to avoid a violent head-on collision with Western culture’s law giving.
Ali Eteraz: In conclusion, jihadists, whom Spencer tries to link to the Islamic schools of law are actually deniers of Islamic legal methodology, preferring to circumvent Islamic Law altogether.
All taqqiya, all the time.
Ali Eteraz: I want to thank Emory students Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem who articulated their response to Spencer.
Ali Eteraz, why are you thanking those who only managed to insult Mr. Spencer without having “articulated their response” with actual fact? These individuals have not even responded to a challenge that they support their assertions via honest debate. Either you do a great injustice to your own putatively enlightened attempts at Islamic reform, or merely ally yourself with reactionaries for the sake of refuting any criticism proffered by non-Muslims. Which is it?
Ali Eteraz: While I am heartened to see American students articulate their disagreements in such a positive manner, it is somewhat problematic that young adults who should be studying for their mid terms and enjoying going to parties are put in the absurd position of having to defend their faith from someone outside the academy who already have careers writing about Islam.
Again, Mr. Eteraz, you seem to absolve these individuals from having to actually validate their position when they have gone to great lengths in publicizing them. How does this promote good scholarship? How does this prepare students for the real world that awaits them with demands for concrete ideas backed by factual information?
PMK: If "moderate" Muslims are unwilling to speak up and they're unwilling to form any kind of resistance or do anything that might get them a fatwa (remember Salman Rushdie) then they can't fight the radical islamists. What good are they to us? They won't help us. Either their own freedom means nothing to them or Islam means more. Which is it?
PMK, you make a vital point with respect to moderate Muslims. Their existence and putative protests amount to nothing if they wilt in the face of threats from their radical counterparts. All over the world fanatical Islamists are giving up their lives to perform mass murder and doing so in the name of their religion. Yet, moderate Muslims cannot bring themselves to risk their own lives in the name of saving their religion. The beggars the question of whether Islam is even worth saving at all.
The upshot is that moderate Muslims still refuse to interdict Islamic radicals with force of arms and vociferous public denunciation. By default, the moderates allow Islam to continue its current deterioration through a downward spiral that inevitably leads to commission of an atrocity so egregious and heinous that a Muslim holocaust will be the only permissible outcome.
With their continued and deafening silence, moderate Muslims are assuring Islam’s demise every bit as much as the radicals who disfigure it.
Morgaan Sinclair, it is fairly obvious that Ali Eteraz has no intention of responding to your well-made points. This is a sincere pity in that, as a woman, you are nonetheless a strong proponent and defender of enlightened Islam. The inability of supposed moderates like Ali Eteraz to adequately engage you in proper debate reconfigures their own position into one of extremism, regardless of their own protestations to the contrary.
The fact that you have a child who is engaged in fighting terrorism overseas gives you a degree of moral authority that your critics simply do not possess. I urge you to please proofread your posts with a bit more care, as it would remove occasional (and obviously unintentional) mistakes that slightly cloud your arguments. Your strident tone is something that I cannot and will not criticize. As a woman, you have significantly more at stake in repulsing the onslaught of Islamic domination. The cowardice and spinelessness you allude to is just that, cowardice and spinelessness. In the glaring absence of even a single reply by Ali Eteraz, I am unable to reach any other conclusion.
Champ, your attempts to criticize Morgaan Sinclair ring hollow. As another woman, you too should be galvanized by the blatant taqqiya that Ali Eteraz spews at this board. Instead, you elect to berate someone who has taken a significant amount of time to expose the perfidy of yet another supposed moderate Muslim. Please remember how the blatantly misogynist Australian imam Taj (“catmeat”) al-Hilaly was widely considered to be a moderate as well. Finally, Champ, you have sought to chide me over my practice of bolding user names. I’ll close by saying that in well over 20,000 or more Internet posts made by me, you are the only person who has ever done so.
Dear Eteraz and Esmay ...
Since you're here until I can hopefully get you banned, I will now challenge you. And I do this from the point of view of having had Muslim friends for 35 years and also from being a STAUNCH supporter of moderate Muslims.
First, some really obvious things:
(1) Americans were attacked on 9/11 by radical Islamists quoting us the Qur'an.
(2) Radical Islamists, quoting the Qur'an have terrorist cells in 60 countries.
(3) Muslims quoting the Qur'an blew up a train in Spain and attacked buses and trains in London, set up massive bombs in Bangladesh, beheaded and burned civilians in Thailand, bombed a night club in Bali and burned 202 people to death, routinely carry out suicide attacks on Israelis, routinely bury IEDs while hiding behind children. Of the 16,990 civilian deaths in Iraq this year, 16,719 were the result of "insurgency" (read: terrorist) bombings of civilian market targets or "collaborators" (people who dont' want their country taken over by terrorists). The other 271 were collateral damage of American RESPONSE to those attacks or the deliberate killing of terrorists (thank you, GIs!).
(4) The general habit of Muslims, who believe THEY are superior because they believe their religion is superior, is not ever to criticize each other publicly. This does NOT hold true for brilliant Islamic theorists like Mustafa Akyol. This also does not hold true for Sheikh Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, the bravest man in Iraq, who is a Sunni tribal leader fighting the Saudi/Syrian Sunni "Insurgency" (read: terrorist war) in Iraq. However, it DOES hold true for virtually all of the Muslim "pundits" in America.
(5) My theory is that the Muslim "pundits" in America are actually (a) cowards and (b) opportunists and (3) supremacist manipulators. Why do I say that? Because America isn't the enemy of its Muslim population. It protects its Muslim population. The real enemy of Islam -- which cowardly Muslims are too spineless to right -- is the radical ulema in the United States bought and paid for by the Saudis for the 28 years. But you guys try to find a way to ex-communicate those guys or get the eight madabhib to set standards that exclude -- standards that would quite obviously exclude from the Qur'an those verses that are inimical to those of other religions, that create a Dar-al-Islam vs. a Dar-al-Harb, that are inimical to women's full rights in Islam and Islamic countries, that call for the dhimmitude or murder of non-Muslims, that incorporate desert tribalist hudud punishments (amputations and stonings) for criminal and non-criminal acts.
(6) Meanwhile, the opportunism runs on: Instead of solving these problems, American Muslism set up US Airways to try to get profiling stopped. Profiling will stop (or should stop) only when the next bomb that goes off doesn't have a Qur'anic attached to it by people you will not throw out of your religion. The British did not bring Gerry Adams to the table by strip-searching Norwegian grandmothers at the airport as an attempt to prove they were not "profiling". Of course they're profiling. And it's working, because there hasn't been a major attack in this country since 9/11.
(7) The bottom line is that it is NOT our reponsibility to listen to your endless whining that you're not being treated "good enough." It is not our responsibility to take care of your every whining alleged grievance -- which are actually GRIEVANCES THAT YOU ARE NOT BEING TREATED AS SUPERIOR BEINGS. No sale.
(8) It is a testament to the undying willingness of Americans to try to be fair that they give a hearing to this crap, but even that needs to stop. Put up or shut up. In fact, this is your SOFT TERRORISM -- the use of Americans' goodnesses and fears to try to carve out in America special privileges, a relativist subculture over which you have control above the reach of US law (in your treatment of Muslim women, for example), using US civil codes to protect the hate speech and incitement to war and violence that goes on in US mosques, and to bully the US government and US businesses into giving you special treatment that now Christian, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Confucian, Buddhist, native American Great Spiritualist, or New Age metaphysician could get. You don't want equality. You want to be BETTER THAN, which is the whole problem here.
(9) And you blew the choice. You had a choice to stand up against the terrorists and win. You could have won in a WEEK had you put 3 million Muslims on the National Mall to decry Al Qaeda and Radical Islamism. Had American Muslims done that, it would have echoed the 100,000 Iranian citizens who went into the street with candles in the night to tell Americans how sorry they were that the attacks had occurred. And these are people who are flayed to death for standing up to the mullahs in the country where the live. American Muslims could have done what Queen Rania did when she hit the streets of Amman, Jordan, in blue jeans and a sweat shirt with 80,000 Jordanians to protest the attempted chemical attack on the Jordanian capital several years ago. It so angered Al-Zarqawi that he sent attackers from Iraq to punish the Jordanian people -- Hashemite Sunnis for whom the Wahhabis have no love as they fear they will again rule Mecca and Medina (and dear God I do hope so!) -- for standing up against terrorism. But you have never followed these examples, nor the examples of the Bangladeshis who writing hilarious letters to the editor ridiculing the very people who threaten to bomb them, calling them "space aliens" for their little Wahhabi hats and their drag-the-ground Wahhabi beards, which even Azzam the American has made a valiant attempt to grow. We'll have you know that it appears he's making progress, but his brain is still melting.
So you blew it. Instead of being the brave Muslims we see standing up as they can in some of the most dangerous place in the world -- and DYING FOR IT -- you do nothing but try to manipulate the American people into backing down because "you feel insulted."
Well, get this: I don't give a damn if you feel insulted. YOU are insulting. YOUR game is insulting. The only Muslim I know who has a kid if Iraq fighting the Sunni terrorist war is Ali Alyami, the Saudi Ismaeli dissident who gets his life routinely threatened. You guys can't even stand up for fellow Muslims like Zudhi Jasser when he speaks out SOLIDLY that Islamic terrorism has to go, and says that shari'a law must NEVER replace civil law in any country. What happens when he says that. The little Wahhabi rats' nests and anthills down in Arizona treat him and his family to accusations of apostasy and blasphemy, signals in the open press that they are fair game to be murdered by Muslim radicals.
So, in whose hands was the end of Islamic terrorist -- the revitalization of interpretation that would have thrown out the hadith, ALL highly spurious "attestations" that the Prophet said this or that, highly suspect as being politically motivated (certainly the fantastic Ayesha tale made up to buttress Sunni claims over Shi'a claims for the rule of Islam) -- the revitalization of interpretation that would have relegated the hateful verses to historical context only (as Mustafa Akyol suggests) and would have reversed the weight of interpretation to favor the PURELY TRANSCENDENTAL, SPIRITUAL VERSES OF THE QUR'AN TO SOLE IMPORTANCE AND GOT RID OF THE REST.
But that's too gutsy for you guys. Then again, protecting Islam from being destroyed by the people of the Nejd (as prophesied in the Qur'an) is not your issue. Your issue is seeing how much pity you can get, how many special treatments you carve out of American culture -- this is the ego of manipulation, the game being to prove you are smarter than Americans by constantly getting them to kowtow to you and back off their criticism of the way you behave and what you preach -- AND GET ATTENTION. SO MUCH OF THIS CRAP IS ABOUT GETTING FACE TIME ON TV.
And D'Souza last manipulation is the most disgusting of all.
D'Souza is trying to placing himself upon the moral high ground by claiming American culture is decadent and that the reason we got attacked is that Al Qaeda was disgusted by our immortal behavior.
What everybody is missing is that this claim is as supremacist coming from D'Souza as any I have ever heard. Because ... D'Souza's unspoken fiat is that MUSLIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS POLICE FORCE AND PUNISH THOSE WHO BREAK THE "RULES" THAT ISLAM HAS SET FOR THEM. THEREFORE, ARGUES D'SOUZA, YOU AMERICANS BROUGHT THIS ON YOURSELF.
NO, YOUR PHILOSOPHY BROUGHT IT ON US, AND IT QUOTES QUR'ANIC VERSES while it beheads, burns, rapes, tortures, incarcerates, stones, and cross-amputates those Muslims and non-Muslims who do not accept the SELF-STATE AUTHORITY OF SUPREMACIST MUSLIMS TO CREATE THE RULES FOR ALL HUMANITY AND ENFORCE THEM ACROSS THE LINES OF SOVREIGN NATIONS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
You're right. I don't accept your "SELF-DECLARED AUTHORITY" DO ANY SUCH THING.
And I find D'Souza "moral superiority" ludicrous and his preaching to the choir -- AMERICAN CULTURAL MODERATES AND CONSERVATIVES ALREADY KNOW THIS, FOR HEAVEN SAKE -- spineless as per usual.
Want to compare?
Americans, due to their civil rights laws defending free speech -- which Muslims routinely use to whine about ALLEGED grievances -- are the same ones that free speech extremists use to defend porn on the internet, in the movies, and in local clubs. Half of the US Congress is trying to deal with the intricacies of protecting freedom of thought, word, and harmless deed while setting rational limits on the rest. But you don't even don't even stand up against the incitement of violence towards Christians and Jews in your own mosques.
But compare the record of America to that of Islam:
(1) Countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran stand in violation of every international human rights agreements on the treatment of women and children.
(2) Hudud punishments of amputation, stoning, beheading and sometimes burning and castration (see Saudi prisons on this) have been banned worldwide as inhumane, yet they routinely carried out by Islamic countries and pan-state terrorists.
(3) Women who are raped are stoned to death for adultery.
(4) Women who are raped must present two to four witnesses to defend themselves -- four in Iran. That is why the gang rape packs move in threes.
(5) Women in Islamic countries are subject to forced marriage to men much older, a form of slavery banned in the Qur'an. But Muslims worldwide do nothing.
(6) Women in Islamic countries are denied education, independent travel and work.
(7) Women in Islamic countries are considered property to be traded for gambling or other debts, a form of slavery.
(8) Temporary marriages allow Muslim men to use women as prostitutes without civil protection for themselves or their children.
OK, it's a partial list, but I have work to do. Others may want to complete this list!
The number of the times the word "women" is used above is an indication of how much radical Islamism is about controlling women for sex and service. Qubt and al-Banna went CRAZY that Egyptian women got rights-- based on the work of an enlightened imam doing enlightened hermeneutics on the PURELY TRANSCENDENTAL VERSES OF THE QUR'AN -- rights to vote, rights to education, rights to property and children. And then, one brave women let herself be photographed without a veil. And it was uphill from there.
Qubt was an obviously sexually neurotic man who claimed he never married because he couldn't find a woman "pure enough." Oh yeah, right. He was a very sick man. Al-banna on the other hand was a violent control freak.
Do I hear you guys railing about this violence in Islamic countries, this inhumanity, this enslave of women and children?
No, I hear you whining about whether you can have special privileges at an airport in the Midwest or whether you can set up US Airways and then sue them, shake-down style, for money and laws that make Americans ignore the IEDs Muslim terrorists set off in markets full of women and children and your crafty little shoe bombs and the bomb-belts Palestinians place as toys around the waists of Muslim toddlers in the Gaza Strip.
And why do you do this? Like Bill Clinton, "becuase I could get away with it."
While the world burns down with Muslim violence, American Muslims play dirty little manipulation games as acts of soft terrorism -- which they know they can only effect because standing behind them is a terrorist who may enforce their demands with debased violence.
American Muslim manipulation runs on the veiled threat (pun intended) that if we do as you demand -- and listen to your insufferable and utterly specious moral preaching when Muslims violence has taken moral breach down to a level unknown since the Gestapo -- there will be more violence. You preach appeasement to us and you get it to fly because when we see good people like Daniel Pearl beheaded on television, when we see a woman stoned or shot in the head for being raped, WE ARE STILL NORMAL ENOUGH TO RECOIL IN DISGUST AND EMPATHETIC PAIN. Momentarily we lose our ability to close a fist and say, "Fuck you, you despicable animals!"
And that may be a fault of ours, but know this: Not all of us have lost the ability, and America's slumber won't last forever on this one.
Meanwhile, what do our Muslim American compatriots do? They whine about their civil rights. They assert their self-proclaimed "moral supremacy." Don't make me laugh.
What is really going on with you guys is the most egregious mass act of opportunism in the history of the United States. You whine about "racial incidents" when more racial incidents occur against WASPS than any other group in America (per capita percentage), with the Jews coming a close second. As Stephen Schwartz -- Muslim -- has pointed out, anti-Muslim incidents are so far down the list as to be negligible.
You strut around campuses pretending to be victimized. You whine and bitch and piss and moan constantly, while American service people overseas try to straighten out the mess made by Islamic radicalism on the one hand and Islamic cowardice on the other.
And it's spineless yellow-bellied cowardice. And why? For the same reason human rights organizations decry American rights abuses -- which they should where they exist -- but never mention the torture and gang rapes in Saudi prisons, the torture and rape and amputations carried out in Iran, the beheadings and live burnings and breast amputations (for not wearing cover) that occurred in Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Fallujah before the US went in and cleaned out the cockroaches that had taken over the city.
Why don't they? Because when you whine to an American about your ALLEGED "disenfranchisement" Americans give you a lolly pop, put their arm around your shoulder, and try to make it all better.
When you complain to a Muslim publicly about his violence toward his own or others, he kills YOU, your family, and your friends. Or he kidnaps your daughter and rapes her.
You're cowards. And you're dirty opportunists. You're the best-educated, richest, most powerful group of Muslims in the world, and you could FORCE the ulema to deal with this problem and you will not.
Instead, when people like Zudhi Jasser, Mustafa Akyol, and others point out the problems and LAY OUT THE SOLUTIONS, they are attacked.
And those of you who claim to be the "peaceful" Muslims REALLY following Islam don't defend those guys. You do not defend Muslim women becuase you tacitly agree with the position they should keep the place desert tribalist crafted for them. And when women start talking to you on boards -- Anne Crockett comes to mind -- you tell her to shut up, but you don't say that to men on this board, do you?
YOU WILL NOT DECIDE FOR ME WHAT MODERATE ISLAM IS. YOU WILL NOT DECIDE FOR ME OR MY COUNTRY WHAT A MODERATE MUSLIM IS.
NOW THAT MUSLIMS HAVE ATTACKED US, CONTINUE TO ATTACK US, PROMISE TO ATTACK US, DEMAND THAT OTHER MUSLIMS ATTACK US, I WILL MAKE THAT DECISION FOR MYSELF, BECAUSE I MUST THE DECISION ABOUT WHAT MUSLIMS I WILL AND WILL NOT SUPPORT.
So you claims that you will do it for me fall on dear ears. D'Souza's claims that he will be the moderator of American morality BECAUSE HE IS A MUSLIM AND MUSLIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO POLICE MORALITY FOR ALL THE WORLD falls on deaf ears over here.
FOR ME ...
A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO BELIEEVES IN THE EQUALITY OF ALL HUMANITY, FOR ALL RELIGIONS, AND FOR MEN AND WOMEN AND *** STANDS UP FOR THOSE RIGHTS ***. As do, I point out, American Christians and Jews.
A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO OPPOSES THE IMPOSITION OF ANY FORM OF SHARI'A LAW ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD SO LONG AS SHARI'A EMPLOYS HUDUD PUNISHMENTS AND BEARS ENMITY AGAINST THOSE NOT OF ITS RELIGION AND NOT MALE.
A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO FIGHTS ISLAMIC TERRORISM OPENLY AND PUBLICLY.
A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO FIGHTS TERRORIST HATE SPEECH AND INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE AND WAR IN HIS OR HER MOSQUE.
A MODERATE AMERICAN MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO DEFENDS THE LAWS OF AMERICA IN PUBLIC AND IN PRIVATE.
Truncated list, but hey, duty calls.
To sum up here, Muslims are failing Islam and will be the reason it is destroyed. While you posture and do your little moral preaching numbers to people who frankly don't need, Islamic terrorists and mantling biological, nuclear and chemical weapons. The next time they pull a big one, my guess is that it's going to be "all she wrote." All over the world, Muslims who have a spine (that would not be you guys) are voting Islamists out of office -- with GAM prime minister elected in Aceh, with Badawi elected in Indonesia, with that dirty, lying, sleaze-bag Mahathir thrown out in Malaysia. The Iranians would do it if they could. Abdullah would get rid of the Wahhabis if he could. In Nigeria, extreme shari'a wasn't voted in, it was AMPUTATED in. Etc. Etc. Etc.
It's AMERICAN Muslims who HAVE NO SPINE AND PLAY THESE GAMES.
And what don't you like about Robert? He keeps quoting THE SAME QUR'ANIC VERSES THAT BIN LADEN DOES.
He doesn't agree with Bin Laden. What Robert is saying is that until you deal with these verses a "peaceful" Islam that IGNORES them is not enough. You have to get rid of them, becuase over and over again in your history those verses -- ON WHICH AN UN-ELECTED BIN LADEN RUNS A WAR, ON WHICH THE UN-ELECTED SALAFISTS RUN A WAR, ON WHICH THE UN-ELECTED TALEBAN RUN A WAR must be changed -- have led to war against and enslavement of all Muslims you do not agree with and all non-Muslims period.
Now, either you have the spine to deal with the REAL PROBLEM -- which is NOT alcohol in a cab in Minneapolis -- or you don't.
And so far, you don't.
That is why Robert Spencer et al. have to be the ones who do your job for you. And what do you do?
You whine that he is insulting you.
Oh, poorest possible you! Oh, poor little kids! They want another lolly pop.
No. Get off your fat, rich, spoiled American opportunist asses and get your butts overseas and solve these problems. And if you're spineless and whiny for that, at least support the Muslims who DO have the spine and stop playing games that embarrass and destroy the religion you say you love.
Grow up. And stop manipulating.
And what does Al Qaeda say when they read your next vitriolic little rant of "blasphemy" screed?
They just say, "Attaboy, Eteraz. Attaboy, Esmay."
It's not Robert who is doing Al Qaeda's work -- if he were it's unlikely that Azzam the American would have "invited" (ha!) him to convert to Islam with a copy of "The Truth about Muhammad" in his hand, don't you think?
It's YOU who are doing Al Qaeda's work, though I'd agree it's not because you necessarily want to be a terrorist. You just want to be important.
So be important. Transform Islam into TRANSCENDENTAL SPIRITUAL ISLAM. That's your job. Get about doing it.
QUOTING ETERAZ:
...recently allowed women to get hymen reconstruction surgery, as well as allowing women the right to political leadership. Other major jurists today have allowed women the right to lead prayer. Even al-Azhar University, by no means a bastion of reform, has taken a strong stance against Female Genital Mutilation which it once used to permit. Islamic Law changes. I hope that is obvious by now. The way islamic jurisprudence evolved to make rules limiting violence serves as a model of how islamic jurisprudence will evolve to give rights to women, minorities and non-Muslims. I wish that Spencer would recognize this and leave Muslim reformists from having to correct his errors.
CLOSE QUOTE.
*** NOT GOOD ENOUGH ***
Sharia law should be fought everywhere on the planet and should be institute NO WHERE -- as should no other religious law -- in the place of secularly held constitutional rights.
*** AND THE WHOLE PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S NOT UP TO SOME MAN WHO IS, BY VIRTUE OF CANNON AND POSITION, DENYING WOMEN RIGHTS ALREADY TO TELL THEM WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE. ***
And even those "changes" -- oh, boy, we get to have a hymen reconstructed while the men go free of the rapes they commit, the honor killings they perform, and the female genital mutilation they force -- are by select imamic fatwa, and tney are NOT embraced by eight madabhs that run Islam, whose ulema have NEVER spoken out against violence against women or terrorism or violence toward non-Muslims.
Do you think we're all stupid? Do you think we can't read?
Do you know how INCREDIBLY STUPID AND TRANSPARENTLY MANIPULATIVE YOU LOOK???
Morgaan:
I feel that the conflict we are experiencing with Islam; is a war for western civilization.
I hold only with Dinesh D'Souza in the fact that he seems to tote the conservative line. His book is a joke. Getting rid of Britney Spears' exposure will reduce the suicide/homicide rate of Jihadsts.
Since I feel that we need to, without exception, face the reality that Islam is counter to the western ethics of self dicipline, hard work and thriftiness, I aplaud your use of elevated emphasis on the points you are making. It is no different that the emphasis worship leaders use in churches every sunday across the country.
"So Lay on McDuff, and Damned be him that holds back." Willie Shakespere(ed)
Credit Man ...
You know, I can't remember who said this, but one writer actually framed the argument as a war between civilization and barbarism, and I'd agree with that. I think that's exactly what is happening.
And Christians will have made a great mistake if they believe that the "conservative values" D'Souza talks about are the same "conservatives values" that we have.
D'Souza isn't toeing the conservative line that exists among Western Christendom. He's toeing a line he hopes will save the Muslim male's utter domination of women. That's waht "PATERNALISTIC family values" means.
The lure is out there, though. Hannity said the other night, when a female teacher comes up on charges of sleeping with young male students: "Hey, is THIS what you feminists were after with your equal rights demands." That's probably not a perfect quote, but it's exactly what he said.
Of course not. The open, kind, equal treatment of women that is the hallmark of Western Christian government and society is far, far, far from the shocking abuse Islam heaps on women.
No paralle should be drawn there. None exists.
"As far as my comment about you "highlighting usernames", I want to take this opportunity to apologize for saying that."
Apology accepted, no harm, no foul. Civility is crucial to keeping this board's tone at the sort of professional level which maximizes its impression upon newcomers and those who might assist in reshaping public awareness of Islam. That said, at times it is nigh well impossible to remain civil to those who excuse or appease Islam. I will ask all involved to please consider Morgaan's own request that this thread have its focus centered back upon the fetid taqqiya being spewn by Ali Eteraz.
All in favor, say "aye".
"I don't think grammarians are the best fighters of the War on Terror"
And the Oscar for "Best Use of Understatement in a Snarky Reply" goes to ...
Morgaan:
I have long thought that the women of Islam is the real key to its demise. Think about it this way, if the women of Islam became infertile, there would be no Islam.
To let women become anywhere near "equals" to men in Islam would be a revolution of cataclysmic proportions. Could it be that we may be preaching to the wrong crowd? Maybe we should undermine Islam through their women? Perhaps continuous broadcasting of say, the View to Islamic nations would make the difference? I truly don't know and my weak attempts at tongue-in-cheek humor to make my point seem rather frugal at best. But, I do feel that one of the largest weaknesses of Islam is through their women and their treatment.
As a poster from above observed, here is a hole that I believe through which a Mack Truck could be driven.
… one writer actually framed the argument as a war between civilization and barbarism …”
That would be the superb critic of Islam, Dr. John Lewis:
“No Substitute for Victory” — The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
(Link: www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp )
This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash between civilization and barbarism. Until civilized people assert themselves with a depth of moral confidence exceeding that projected by those who submit to the “will of Allah,” America will remain permanently on the defensive, in a state of moral dhimmitude, and the war will continue to its logical conclusion: a mushroom cloud over America.
[Emphasis Added]
Dr. Lewis' article is an absolute MUST READ for anyone who is unfamiliar with it.
Actually, Credit Man, I think that giving Muslim women more freedom, which many are fighting for, would transform Islam in a positive direction. But I have to say, I really don't think Muslim men are going to give up the ownership and enslavement of women easily.
When West-learning monarchs in Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey in the first part of the 20th century tried to modernize with Western constitutions much based on the Belgian model, they lasted for awhile. For example, in Afghanistan Queen Soraya was photographed all over the world, the Princess Di of her day, in Western clothes, no veil, hem up to the knees. The Iranian constitution of 1920 gave women more rights than they had in the United States. And in Turkey, Mustafa Kamal cuts the beards off all the Wahhabis and made Islam a state affair in an attempt to control Islamic radicalism.
Decades later, you find Khomeni selling radicalism on the basis of controlling women, you find a burgeoning Turkish movement that we hope doesn't go radical, and in Afghanistan you find the Taliban taking over right after the Russians left.
It all just went underground, and the first victims were always women. Always.
If we can effect a human rights blockade on Muslim countries, we can change Islam. If we refuse to trade with Islamic countries that abuse women and children under an apartheid shari'a penal code, then we might get somewhere.
But it means getting off foreign oil. Not all oil, just foreign oil. Just enough that we are no longer in harm's way if they hardball us about it.
But that's the only way. The only really effective war in the long run is the economic one based on human rights demands.
To do that, we have to have our own energy INSIDE this country or among those we deeply trust. But most of the world's oil is in the hands of Muslims.
And that is why we are stymied. Woolsey is right. We have to deal with oil, or we don't have a chance of avoiding a HUGE, hot shooting war, probably with nuclear weapons.
That's my take.
Robert,if you ever get tired of the GLAMOROUS authors life ( lol ) you could always be a 'custodian technician'. You mop the floor marvelously with liars and morons and really bad magicians and illusionists.
I would like to add that yes there is some sort of feeling of shame for my countries past and the ignorance it had in certain subjects.BUT i hold my head high and embrace it for it overcomming it's past failings.I only can wait now for the day the abuse of those feelings stop being used against my nation. Thats why i am here in this forum is to help do my part not to roll back the clock to those days again,by anyone.
There are a lot of people homeless these days what with all the stone throwing and glass houses.It's also a shame it takes decades for genocide and crimes against humanity to be reckognized.
I'll bet the best part of mopping the floor with these guys was the wringing of the mop.
I hope you feel good over it,you should.
And all that jazz
Thanks, Zenster. It is John Lewis, and it's an excellent characterization.
One big problem here is that so many Muslims are illiterate that they can't read for themselves and believe everything the imam tells them. You'll notice there's no huge attempt at pan-Islamic literacy education, either. The imams like it this way. In African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries where TV is controlled by HAMAS or English language programming isn't even an option, they just think everything they're told is true. It's a big probem.
Morgaan,
You say you have moderate Muslim friends and you gave a wonderful list of definitions of a moderate. There's just one problem: just about all of those definitions run counter to Islamic law and teachings. How do your Muslim friends reconcile the two?
You and Zenster are right when you say that Islam is destroying itself and the moderates bear most of the blame. These moderates present us with one major problem: How many of us will be swallowed up by the flames as Islam incinerates itself? How many of us will they take with them as they search for seventh heaven or the hidden imam or whatever?
I say moderates because, if you believe the numbers, they are the overwhelming majority of Muslims. To my mind over one billion Muslims would call themselves moderate. They, your friends included, are the ones who will have to initiate change.
How many of them will walk out of the mosque if the imam preaches death to the West or sanctions any type of violent jihad against civilians? This would also include Muslims who currently wage war on one another. They're not ALL radicals. Many believe they are abiding by the Koran and being true to their religion.
How many of them refuse to go to a mosque whose leaders preach subjugation of women and children?
How many refuse to give to an Islamic charity that has any ties to HAMAS or Islamic Jihad?
They need to look in the mirror and see what type of Muslim looks back at them. Is it one filled with a sense of his own superiority and his belief that Islam must rule the world or one who wants to live in peace with others?
PMK, my Muslim friends are the ones who believe that all the hadith have to go, and that all the verses inimical to women and those of other faiths also have to go. That's how they square. I think that's the ONLY way you CAN square it, you know?
But they're real scared of the radicals. They really are. And that's not stupid, becuase the radicals play for keeps as Daniel Pearl found out.
But they're still brave, still speak out for reform.
Oh, and BTW, BurgerBoy, there's been found NO link between Talovic and the Islamists. Now perhaps there will be in the future, in which case I'm happy to have him castigated for it. I just want there to be evidence about it.
And ... the other thing I think I said is that under no circumstances should Kosovo be administered by the people who tried to exterminate its citizens. I won't be taking that back, either.
PMK --
You raised a very good point between the moderate and radical Muslims, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you concerning your comment.
I've been posting here on JW for over a year now, and in the beginning, I used to defend the "moderate" Muslim because they seemed so innocent, and because they were not visibly involved with the radical jihad movement.
I changed my position when I discovered how quiet the moderates are; and that's when I realized that silence isn't golden -- it's dangerous.
Think about it, if there are suppose to be MORE moderates than radicals, then wouldn't there be more of a public outcry by the moderates?
Instead, their silence is deafening; and in my opinion, that speaks volumes. No, they are not visibly involved with jihad -- it's the fact that they're invisible that I take issue with.
Morgaan
Other than the Bosnians and Albanians, are there any other Jihadi campaigns that you morally support? Here are some where I suspect you may be on the other side:
- Chechnya
- Kashmir
- Mindanao
- Myanmar
- S Thailand
- Uzbekistan
- Algeria
- Nigeria
This thread is easily the most boring thread, starting with Robert giving a troll mouth to mouth, and then you doing the same here. What happened - Esmay banned you?Uhhhhh, anyways....
Ali Eteraz said
Here Eteraz is falsely equating Islamic Jurisprudence with American Jurisprudence. Islamic Jurisprudence is based on the immutable word of Allah, dicatated to Muhammad (the Perfect Man). American Jurisprudence is not. It is based on the imperfect opinion of (wo)men at the time (ie. in Islam-speak, it is a heretical corruption and is against the will of Allah). It changes over time, keeping pace with philosophical, social, and scientific changes. Islamic Jurisprudence will never change, because the words of Allah written in the Qur'an do not change, they are there forever. And as others have mentioned, the particular example of "3/5 of a white man" was a political compromise. In Islam, there is no compromise, there is only the word of Allah. And by the way, Allah (and His Prophet, Muhammad) say that slavery is a-okay. That means today, next year, next century, next millenium.
This is what was most disheartening. "Radical" Muslims threaten, in writing, to rip Robert's spine out. "Moderate" Muslims blame Robert for the actions of the jihadists. This is the best we can hope for, this is the help we can expect from the "moderate" Muslims: that we infidels will be blamed for the violence of the jihadists. This will not lead to a happy resolution, in my opinion.
In a self-fulfilling tautology, Eteraz seems to narrowly define a "jihadist" as those who pick up a weapon and actively kill an infidel. So the person who drives the bomb-vest-wearer to the target is part of "mainstream Islamic theology". So is the person donating money at their local mosque to the "humanitarian aid" organizations that are actually fronts for Hezb'allah and Hamas. So is the person putting a poster of a smiling OBL on the wall of his car-repair business. Or the hundreds or thousands of people in Waziristan who know exactly where OBL is, but won't turn him in, even for millions of dollars of reward money, because in their heart they agree with him. Or the thousands of mullahs who refuse to speak out and refute what the jihadists point to in the Qur'an as justification. They are all "mainstream" Muslims.
In the best case, Eteraz greatly overestimates his and the few other "reformists"' influence on mainstream Islam. They know that their fellow Muslims are not listening, so why should we? In the worst case, they are intentionally acting as the smooth-talking front men, placating and distracting us while their co-religionists go about their business.
"moderate Muslims are probably the majority" -- Morgaan Sinclair
Claims -- particularly enormously important ones -- should not be made that cannot be substantiated with evidence.
A better way to phrase that claim would be:
"We do not, and probably cannot, know whether moderate Muslims are the majority among the total Muslim population world-wide."
Then, following that, we can proceed to other facts that we logically extrapolate from that, such as:
Most of the time, we cannot tell the difference between a putatively harmless moderate Muslim, and a Muslim who is dangerous in one way or another -- whether as a passive enabler of dangerous Islam, or as a more active supporter of dangerous Islam, or all the way up to an active facilitator and perpetrator of Islamic jihad.
The rephrased claim, then, and its logical extrapolation, lead us to the sad, sober but inevitable conclusion that the symbolism moderate Muslim is not only (for the most part with only extremely rare exceptions that prove the rule) pragmatically meaningless; it is also, when employed too loosely, downright dangerous for our safety and for the preservation of our civilizational virtues.
In conclusion:
If we are to have a workable concept of a harmless, truly friendly Muslim -- which we can call "moderate Muslim" or some other better term -- that concept, and the actual Muslim human beings who are to be appropriately christened under its rubric -- must pass a rigorous litmus test. Some of the necessary ingredients of such a litmus test may be gleaned from a reading of the unfortunately melodramatic and rather disjointed pyrotechnics of Morgaan's first, extremely long, post (repeated for some reason later on).
Caveat:
However, even after we might agree upon a single definitive litmus test by which to define this species of the Acceptable Muslim, we must be prepared for the likelihood that the population that passes muster will be very small -- too small to be of pragmatic relevance in our exigent task of managing the global problem of Islam and of doing all that we must do to ensure our collective Infidel safety and to preserve our civilizational virtues.
”You and Zenster are right when you say that Islam is destroying itself and the moderates bear most of the blame.”
Minor quibble, PMK. The majority of blame truly resides with Islam as a whole. Its current doctrine is simply too violent and intolerant to coexist with any other cultures. Islamists are next in line with respect to responsibility. They have willfully forced the situation into becoming the train wreck it is today.
That said, amongst the Muslims who have any hope of salvaging their faith, moderates alone stand any real chance to do so. Their consistently inadequate response to radicalism’s threat can only signify a complete and total failure in this admittedly onerous task. As the only ones with such a chance, moderates are indeed most to blame in that respect. In know that this seems needlessly convoluted, but Islam itself bears true responsibility for what shall befall it. Both clergy and ummah have stolidly refused to reject the Koran’s hostile teachings and must suffer the consequences. At best, moderates represent the relatively innocent Islamic baby that is about to be thrown out with the malarial jihadist bathwater.
Their silence is dangerous....that's why "moderate Muslims" need to be scrutinized. They are either for jihad, or OPENLY against it.
I support Marisol's attempt to tone down the personal attacks.
That sign of support should not be taken as a personal attack on anyone else, and lead to personal attacks against me.
The Crux of this Thread
The crux and bottom line of this thread is to be located at the nodus where Robert Spencer cogently refutes Eteraz's defense of a couple of more "modern" Islamic jurists who, in Eteraz's words,
"conceptualize war (very differently from the past)."
The definitive death blow of Spencer's response is in this statement:
"...this is just a disagreement about means, not about ends. The authorities Mr. Eteraz has invoked have not rejected the idea that Muslims must wage war in order to subjugate non-Muslims."
With this crux in mind, we have the necessary component of a litmus test by which to exclude Eteraz from the status of a "moderate Muslim". We do not need any further components by which to exclude him. What Spencer exposed and refuted, as articulated above, is sufficient. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't give Eteraz a chance to wiggle his way out of that exclusion -- but, of course, should Eteraz see fit to attempt to do so, we should be ruthlessly eagle-eyed in our rigorousness in adjudging his attempt.
remote_control, your last post was spot on. It almost makes me regret my previous post. You made a valiant effort to get this thread back on topic. Thank you for doing so.
I have a “Moderate” Moslem friend, of course he is a “Palestinian” yet he holds a Jordanian passport, go figure? The one thing I found really interesting was he didn’t support OBL, but if I was to bring up Israel, he has know problem admitting that all Jews in Israel should be and are targets, he even claims he will pay you to go to Israel to kill some Jews. Thus, I now call him the anti-Semitic, Semite.
I have to say, lunch time conversation has never been, shall I say boring, except maybe for the bystanders.
What was ridiculous, was me quoting the Qur’an and Hadith, I would get this look of bewilderment, I guess he never read the Hadith or the Qur’an.
Nothing feels stranger then appearing to know more about the text then the who claims to follow the text.
Zenster,
Point taken.
I blame the moderates because the Islamists couldn't function without them. They provide the materiel, human and otherwise, for attacks. They facilitate them by hiding people, transferring money, averting their eyes at key moments, etc. This allows them to claim victimhood after the inevitable counterattack. Fallujah is Exhibit A.
Moderates are Islam's silent majority. I would take President Bush's famous statement and reword it slightly: either you actively combat jihadist Islam or you support it. There's no middle ground but that is what too many apologists try to stake out.
remote_control ...
Trying to determine what's really happening isn't easy. I read online newspapers from host countries, in English (which is not preferable, I realize).
Here's what I notice.
All majority Muslim countires are under siege from Islamists. There's NOT ONE that is not feeling a sword at its neck to turn radical.
Over the last more than half-century a lot of the Muslim world has been moving toward Westernization, liberalization, and secular democracy. That has happened with a tremendous upleveling of safety and security and economic well-being. It is against this trend, willingness adopted by most of the world's Muslims, that the ones in control of the religion want to stop.
So I would have to say that given the voluntary secularism toward which the Muslim world drifted for much of the 20th century, most Muslims were in favor of it.
In the 1950s Afghanistan had women walking the streets in Western clothes and women in every area of government and professions. Same with Iran. Same with Turkey. Same in Egypt.
What happened? The radicals came in and tried to destroy it, aiming at women first. What's scary is how fast they were able to effect it, and how deep the damage ran.
In the Middle East and Central Asia, almost every country that experienced a radical backslide into fundamentalism, not by the vote of its people, but by the oppression and debased violence of its imamry.
In Southeast Asia it was different. Pancasila in Indonesia and the Malaysian consituttion of 1947 (I think, don't have time to look it up!) was adopted with overwhelming support by its multinational but majority Muslim populations.
Then, in Malaysia, Mathathir nearly sold out the country to Islamists in a powersharing debacle to keep control of the country for himself. He's a Mussolini kinda guy and one of the worst anti-Semites on the planet. He was driven out of power by the vote of Muslims there in 2003, with Badawi the new prime minister jeering at suggestions by Islamists that he make Islam the state religion. Badawi is a Muslim himself and flatly told them he would not sell out any Christian or Buddhist or Confucian living in the country.
In Indonesia, also 2003, 78% of the country voted for Yudhoyono, who promised to wipe out Al Qaeda if elected. It's Yudhoyono, not the Indonesian people, who is giving the country away to radicals by letting them overtake the school system.
Anyhow ... the point I was making is that it's the AMERICAN MUSLIM COMMUNITY, fat, rich, and cowardly, who are actually the worst Muslim community on earth as they have a choice (unlike many now) and use their power for opportunistic gain and face time on TV.
Gotta run.
It's time for black velvet, pearls, and high-heeled shoes and a good time with intelligent and good friends, all of them oceanographers and divers who plan to stay dry forh the night. I'm off to a fine bash in Boston.
"What was ridiculous, was me quoting the Qur’an and Hadith, I would get this look of bewilderment, I guess he never read the Hadith or the Qur’an.
Nothing feels stranger then appearing to know more about the text then the who claims to follow the text."
Burger Boy:
Does your friend know Arabic? I understand from many sources that non-Arabic speakers have no idea what the Koran actually says. They just recite the words. They have no clue what they are espousing until they read the Koran in another language. You are an educator. Keep it up.
But here i go again being facetious again.
And all that jazz
Misrepresentations of American law and history, especially by Islamic Apologists, make my blood boil. When Apologists misrepresent American history to prove their falsehoods, I’m ready to bite nails.
"Even the founding fathers, jurists the likes of which very few have ever existed, held that a black man was, under the law, only worth 3/5th of a white man (and women were worth nothing)."
This needs to be explained, my core temperature will not drop to 98.6 until I finish straightening out this big lie.
The fact that "a black man was worth 3/5th of a white man" had nothing to do with true worth. It was only in effect during slavery anyway and had no applicability after Reconstruction. The entire issue of slavery was finally resolved with the end of the Civil War. Until then, the politics of slavery was one compromise after another in order to keep the balance in Congress so that slavery would be preserved. The Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri into the Union as a slave state, and Maine into the Union as a free state. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was another effort at compromise. The big issue was the apportionment of Representatives based on the census. The Southern delegation obviously wanted every slave to count as a free person so that the population would be greater and thus would garner more congressmen and more congressional votes to preserve slavery. In some areas of the South slaves outnumbered non-slaves two to one. The Abolitionists for opposite and justifiable reasons wanted slaves not to be counted at all. So, the 3/5th compromised was reached. For congressional apportionment only were three slaves counted as five freemen. After Reconstruction, blacks were counted equally.
So, there.
Pelayo, one point here is that Esmay and Eteraz want to throw the 3/5 black thing around as some kind of moral equivalence to what Islam is doing.
As you know, there is a big "recruitment" number going on among blacks in America, and the people doing it just REALLY want to convince blacks they are still unequal under the law, in the society, etc.
But the point is that WE FOUGHT A WAR TO END THAT, AND WE ENDED IT.
But apartheid -- gender, racial, and religious -- is still rampant in Islamic countries and they have fought no war to rree and equalize their own.
Some long lost sayings of Confucious:
-- Confucius say moderators like peeping Tom--enjoy watching cheeky women get screwed.
-- Confucius say man who do business with Muslim beware of evil in tent.
-- Confucius say man who don't ride transcendent elevator travels
on camel in carnal caravan.
"I thought you were a "fair" and balanced poster. At least you've always struck me as being that way."
Thank you for your generous appraisal, Champ. As a recent arrival, I'm going to bow out of any further participation in the personal exchanges that have gone on here. Regardless of fault, they derailed this thread in a terrible way.
"I blame the moderates because the Islamists couldn't function without them. They provide the materiel, human and otherwise, for attacks. They facilitate them by hiding people, transferring money, averting their eyes at key moments, etc."
Truly well-written, PMK. You have deftly encapsulated a core issue that I am still trying to resolve adequately.
At one time I was a staunch advocate for moderate Muslims. Five years of near total inaction by these moderates has obliged me to undergo a reassessment of that position.
In all that time and from all appearances, moderate Muslims have continued to play one central role with respect to jihadism, namely: "They provide the materiel, human and otherwise, for attacks. They facilitate them by hiding people, transferring money, averting their eyes at key moments, etc."
If this is truly the case, and there are mountains of evidence back up such an assertion, then it may well be moderate Muslims who are most to blame for Islam's pending demise. My inability to refute your logic forces me to concede that you may well be right. I'll leave it for others to contribute evidence one way or the other.
One thing remains without doubt, in the event of a Muslim holocaust it is highly unlikely that moderate Muslims will be shown any mercy. Unless they rise up against their warmongering clergy, and rise up d@mn soon, they will not deserve any either.
PMK
He speaks Arabic.
He tried that old Moslem argument that has been seen here a hundred times, since I can not read or speak Arabic, I didn’t know what I was talking about, of course out of the 5 people sitting at the table, he was the only one that thought such, everyone else thinks I am some kind of Islamic expert, which I do not even pretend to be, but that is what the typical American who knows nothing about Islam thinks. Now I explained to my Moslem friend that OBL speaks Arabic and also thinks the text read this way, so its not something I dreamed up.
I don't want Islam to conform to me or I to Islam. Everyone should be allowed to exist and be respected as fellow human beings, traveling through this world of life. There should be laws on people that annoy others.
No one has the right to declare they have the answers to Life, and don't make them up, I won't believe them.
Morgaane - somewhere up there you lit into what you loosely referred to as over the top anti-Islamists who don't know a true moderate when they see one. But it's not entirely clear to me at this point what Eteraz has actually posted, substantively speaking, either here or on his own site, that would disqualify him from the "moderate" category. But maybe you know something about him that I don't. If you know what that is, I would appreciate some information that he is not in fact the sort of moderate that one would hope to encourage, no matter how futile one might think his efforts. I am also somewhat confused by an earlier post in which you appeared to mistake D'Souza for a Muslim, when it's quite clear that he is a Christian. I could re-read through all of what you said in order to post verbatim quotes but I am a little short on time so you will hopefully forgive me if I have mistated anything here. (And BTW - I certainly wouldn't want to be mistaken for a 4th grade "hall monitor" but neither would I want to be hit in the head by the 4th grader sitting behind me in class.)
In terms of the substance that Eteraz posted,
Eteraz: "For the most part, jihadists are prosecuted as criminals all around the Muslim world (the Pakistani military has lost close to 2000 men in hunting Al-Qaeda), and jihadist methods and approaches are rejected by Muslims universally; not to mention giving rise to anti-jihadist fatwas."
That only seems to be the case when the jihadis are going after Muslims themselves. I'm not aware of too many Muslim countries prosecuting jihadists who went after infidels. They seem to get pretty light sentences (the Bali bombers come to mind) or they conveniently escape en masse from prison (I believe that happened in Yemen or some such place) or the Muslim world (including the so-called moderates) makes a big to-do over Gitmo, demanding us to close it down, when if Eteraz's statement were true, the vast majority of Muslims would presumably have no problem with Gitmo, since we're not even executing them there. We're merely incarcerating Muslims who have acted outside of the apparent mainstream Muslim understanding of legitimate jihad, as Eteraz presents it, especially in the following quote from "his own private Maliki jurist":.
“A. Taking the law into one's own hands amounts to either Fasad fi'l-Ard (creating disorder) or Muharabah (rebellion) -- both of which are punishable by death in Islam.”
Well if that is the prevailing understanding, then why aren’t all these jihadis actually being executed left and right when they return from the jihad to their mostly Muslim countries? It’s not like average Muslims have much difficulty in exacting mob vengeance when they believe it is warranted. And why are all the clerics who loudly ask Muslims to join the jihad still walking the streets, if it is indeed mainstream Muslim understanding that they are violating basic tenets of Islam. Aren't those who deviate from real Islam declared apostates and executed? So if what you say - that Spencer is merely quoting "dead clerics" and mistaking that for mainstream modern Islam, then please explain why it is that it is the Muslim progressives who are quickly executed all over the Muslim world, rather than these misguided jihadis.
Muslim, Book 004, Number 1062:
Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon hlmg) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind and the line of prophets is closed with me.
I am “the” prophet.
God told me.
Terror is good.
Stealing is good.
Spread Islam.
All mankind must submit.
I am “the” prophet.
Universal and eternal, resistance is futile.
Political correctness kills, but the spirit gives life.
Morgaan, was going to use your fine arguments, even w/o your permission (but I would never say they were produced by anyone else) because of what's in the balance.
A la Dickens : it is the worst of times, it is the best of times.
And for fighters, there are just so many rich targets.
Whoa, is this the real Jihad Watch, or has someone hijacked it and crossed it with a methlab?
One of the reasons I love this site is that the posters here (for the most part)avoid personal attacks and hyperbole. Given the gravity of the threat to all that we of the West hold dear, this is appropriate. This is neither the place, nor the time, for hot-heads.
Let's leave that kind of damnfoolishness to our enemies.
If we are to win against the madness we face we must do it with cool heads, meeting the invective of the enemy, not with more invective but with calm recitation of the facts and a polite invitation to the enemy to refute them.
It is important to remember that we are not hurling grenades between trenches here. The battle we fight on sites like this is for minds.
Had I come upon this site for the first time today and read the comments after Robert's excellent post, I would have dismissed it as just another rant site and never come back.
I know I'm regarded as a lightweight here. Time constraints and daddy duties leave me little time to do more than offer a short ditto or a gentle jape at Hugh's voluminous eloquence (enlightening as it is). This is probably the longest comment I've logged.
I do so for this reason: I believe that this site is too important to the cause to let it devolve into another internet pissing match.
We have a mighty task ahead of us. Let us not lose our heads ahead of that task.
Malinois:
I`m not PC and I think people should be able to say what they want short of threats or calls for genocide.
But that kind of joke is silly and makes you (and probably JW) look bad.
Fact is, Confucious was a great man and is one of the real contenders for the title of "example of all time," the others being the Buddha and Jesus. He never owned slaves, never killed anyone and never amassed a fortune of gold and flesh.
Check out a wiki article on him.
I know, your intent is to mock Islam in a lighthearted way, but still, think about it.
Just sayin.
Caroline ...
Just read what Robert wrote about this. And note that when I ask Esmay and Eteraz to answer a few questions, they FLEE the forum.
Meanwhile, MDL (my dearest love) is standing in the doorway in a tuxudo and given this is an extraordinary circumstance, I think I had better take his arm and be off to the party. Can't waste this black velvet on any more of this tonight. I have spent the whole day making a case to Esmay and Eteraz, which they do not answer.
If they are moderates, why do they attack Robert Spencer? If they are moderates, they are desperate to reform Islam and Robert keeps giving them the templates that need to be dealt with. That does not make him the enemy. It makes him a realist. That's all.
Moderates, as I know them, STATE FIRMLY THEIR BELIEF THAT THE HADITH AND THE WAR VERSES AND THE VERSES INIMICAL TO THOSE OF OTHER RELIGIONS AND WOMEN HAVE TO GO.
They don't live by them anyway, and they have no trouble saying the truth about it, though they are right to be afraid to death of what will happen to them when they do.
Esmay and Eteraz are not in this place.
Gotta run. I'd love to stay and get silly with you guys for the rest of the night. But there is this gentleman standing in the door, patiently, kindly, and I think I will now just go out with this remarkable man.
GONG!
tokyobk - It's time for you to resume your Buddha nature.
Morgaan,
"the voluntary secularism toward which the Muslim world drifted for much of the 20th century, most Muslims were in favor of it."
How do you know this "secularism" was "voluntary"?
Secondly, this process of "secularism" in the Muslim world would seem to have more to do with Western Colonialism -- one of the most beneficent movements in world history -- than with anything in the orbit of Islamic culture. Put with brutal succinctness: the superiority of Western culture on all levels as it penetrated the Muslim world beginning in the 17th century and through to the 20th century, insinuated and imposed sociopolitical forces into and onto the Muslim world, giving untold numbers of Muslim peoples in various places for the first time some human oxygen to breathe (see, for example, Hugh Fitzgerald's posts about how the French Colonialist influence on Algeria did this, for a brief time before Islam began to resurge again, due mostly to the disastrous Western movement of dismantling Western Colonialism).
Caroline,
"it's not entirely clear to me at this point what Eteraz has actually posted, substantively speaking, either here or on his own site, that would disqualify him from the "moderate" category."
See my post above, titled "The Crux of This Thread".
Robert,
Thanks for the response. I only now read it. I will respond in a reasonable period of time and drop you a line.
Ali Eteraz said
One has only to think of American Jurisprudence. . . Even the founding fathers, jurists the likes of which very few have ever existed, held that a black man was, under the law, only worth 3/5th of a white man (and women were worth nothing).
Several posters have already pointed out that the 3/5 rule was a compromise aimed at getting the Southern states to approve the Constitution, by giving free southerners extra voting strength in the House of Representatives and Electoral College. But no one has yet noted that the charge that "women were worth nothing" is completely false. They were worth just as much as the men, whether they could vote or not. The same with children. For that matter, in the early days of the Republic, many men did not meet the property or confessional requirements for voting. But all were counted in the census, which determined a state's representation in the HoR and EC.
Morgaan Sinclair-
Holy cow, you are prolific. You have style-mind and heart.
Thanks champ. My "litmus test" will be up on my blog, hopefully within the next 48 hours. I'll try to let you and others interested know when it's there.
OK -- Is there a link to your blog?
US Beast wrote:
Had I come upon this site for the first time today and read the comments after Robert's excellent post, I would have dismissed it as just another rant site and never come back.
I know I'm regarded as a lightweight here. Time constraints and daddy duties leave me little time to do more than offer a short ditto or a gentle jape at Hugh's voluminous eloquence (enlightening as it is). This is probably the longest comment I've logged.
I do so for this reason: I believe that this site is too important to the cause to let it devolve into another internet pissing match.
We have a mighty task ahead of us. Let us not lose our heads ahead of that task.
Posted by: USBeast at March 3, 2007 08:17 PM
Quoted for Emphasis.
Malinois,
No Buddha, I. Just a run-of-the-mill kaffir.
But I do believe Buddha and Kon Fu Tsu are two guys who could be given the term al-Karim.
I also think non-Muslim Asians are by and large positive additions to societies to which they emigrate.
So that Charlie Chan routine strikes me as silly and makes you look the same, which does not bother me, but also makes this site look cranky, which I do mind.
champ, it used to be automatically a part of my name. I'll try again so you can click on my name and get there.
Thanks remote. Please let me know when it's up.
Caroline said
I agree. Just because one group of Muslims is fighting another group of Muslims, I wouldn't assume it is because one group is the "moderates" and they are going after the "radicals". I wouldn't presume to know all the reasons that Muslims fight each other. As you say, the government is going after the "radicals" in Pakistan because those "radicals" tried to assassinate Musharraf, not because those "radicals" might cross the border into Afghanistan and attack the infidel occupiers (that's us). The "radicals" in Waziristan may be from a rival tribe from Musharraf's, or from a different sect of Islam, or they blame Musharraf for their goats dying of polio, or whatever. But I would not presume that the government of Pakistan is our "staunch ally", as Eteraz does, because the Muslim government is killing some Muslim citizens.
remote: "See my post above, titled "The Crux of This Thread"."
Very well, remote. I've seen it. But there is surely a great deal of difference in addressing Eteraz's arguments in terms of whether what he presents actually provides the substance for what we might actually be searching for in the "moderate Muslim", versus the wholesale character assassination with regard to his motives, which has been reflected in some of the posts here. What I was asking for was any evidence that would lead us to suspect his motives. It's not enough to cite his apparent rudeness in addressing Spencer. We've seen that before, e.g. in the rude exchanges between Auster and Spencer and yet I never questioned Auster's motives. What I was asking was - what is the evidence that Eteraz's motives are nefarious? Obviously the substance of his post is fair game. But the criticism by some posters has simply gone over the top IMO, in terms of impugning his actual motives, and I feel that that sort of vitriole requires some further explanation or at least evidence.
special_guest: "I wouldn't presume to know all the reasons that Muslims fight each other. As you say, the government is going after the "radicals" in Pakistan because those "radicals" tried to assassinate Musharraf, not because those "radicals" might cross the border into Afghanistan and attack the infidel occupiers (that's us)."
Exactly. Much of the actual condemnation of terrorism that goes on in the Muslim world appears to be indignation by Muslims at being labeled "takfir", and hence "fair game". Once you read between the lines of that sort of condemnation of terrorism (parsing their language), there appears to be little to no condemnation of terrorism directed towards the infidel.
Caroline said
It's not about rudeness. It's about intellectual dishonesty. When Esmay makes false claims about what the core beliefs of Islam really are, that can be attributed to lack of knowledge. But Eteraz is intelligent and knows Islam, and yet he makes claims that he must know are not true: that "modern" Muslims have stopped following the violent exhortations of the Qur'an, that Muslims ruled over the Hindus in India peacefully and respectfully, that the jihadists are treated with scorn by "mainstream" Islam. If he were truly a "moderate", he would be spending his time proving the "radicals" wrong, showing how their claims about the Qur'an arae false. But he doesn't do that, he instead comes here and tells us infidels how the jihadists' motivation have nothing to do with Islam, regardless of what they themselves proclaim, and tells us how we are misinterpreting the violent sections of the Qur'an, and that in fact, our examining the Qur'an is what is motivating the jihadists.
I suspect his motives. I would love to be proven wrong.
The truth is we can talk forever about the reforming Islam and what schools of Islamic jurisprudence need to be followed or changed BUT it all misses the point. Most Muslim nations are either dictatorships with the approval of the Islamic clergy OR are close to a pure Islamic state directly run by Islamic clergy. Only Turkey (even less so Indonesia as anyone who reads the news out of there) is a majority Muslim state that comes even close to something resembling secular but even that is false secularism.
How can our civilization live in peace with another civilization that is based on a religious theology that is historically, theologically and legally hostile to our civilization?
It is a clash of civilizations and in truth I don't see how any reforming can be done unless whole sections of the Quran are done away with AND secular governments win the day.
Did we reform Nazism? Did we reform Communism? Islamic doctrine is not much different when you get down to it.
Sometimes you have to hunker down and accept that this is one of those issues that might have to be settled on the field of battle. Many in the abolitionist movement wanted a peaceful resolution of slavery in this country during the 1830s to early 1850s but by the late 1850s it was clear that peaceful solutions were not in the cards. I understand the need to try and I respect those who push this and it is my hope they are successful.
I feel their time is running out however....
Mr. Spencer - there is one thing you left out of your rebuttal and that was to point out that defensive jihad is always an individual duty of Muslims everywhere even in the absence of the caliph or the state - something you have pointed out many times. It's obviously no accident that the jihadis whip up the sentiment that Islam is everywhere under attack so that even in the absence of the formal authority for waging offensive jihad, they can justify their actions on defensive terms. This appears to be the prevailing rhetoric of jihad ever since the end of the caliphate. Sometimes I wonder whether Muslims always portrayed themselves as victims so shamelessly, or whether that is a more recent rhetoric which sidesteps the reliance on authority for waging jihad. It's certainly something we see everywhere today - Muslims warning us that if we continue to attack Islam, even verbally, then they will need to "defend" themselves with aggression and that it will be our fault for their need to do so.
Unless something changes psychologically in Muslims, whereby they can come to honestly see the difference between offense and defense, it's hard to see how the progressives will be able to fix that fundamental flaw in what is at heart a militaristic faith, bent on dominating the world, no matter how they have to twist their reasons for their actions around, from our perspective. Where Eteraz seems to me to get it wrong is that modern jihadis, although they might be technically violating the letter of the law in the absence of a caliph - they are nonetheless adhering to the fundamental "spirit of the law" as laid down by Muhammad. I can't help but think it's because the jihadis are adhering to the basic "spirit of the law", grounded in Muhammad's example, that so many Muslims actually turn a blind eye to the strict legality (from an Islamic perspective) of what modern jihadis are doing all around the globe.
Everytime the discussion here is derailed with "personality" conflicts the devils work is done.
Isnt that what the enemy wants?
dms said
Please stop with the false accusations and the namecalling.
champ
FPM = FrontPage Magazine
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
The have a comments secton there.
”it's not entirely clear to me at this point what Eteraz has actually posted, substantively speaking, either here or on his own site, that would disqualify him from the "moderate" category.”
Caroline, permit me to share the following material posted elsewhere by Ali Eteraz that Robert Spencer cites in this thread:
Please note specifically that Ali Eteraz finds nothing at all offensive about how the Egyptian mufti, Ali Gomaa, allows women such grand privileges as reconstructive surgery and “the right to political leadership”. The monumental condescension involved in granting what are intrinsic human rights belies any putative claim that Ali Eteraz might make to being a moderate Muslim. His words connote tacit and wholehearted acceptance of male dominated society. This, despite his claims of seeking some sort of reform within Islam.
I ask that you consider the words of Winston Churchill:
From: The River War 1899
From Ali Eteraz:
I will ask you note as well how Ali Eteraz seems to excuse Islam’s thoroughly glacial evolution towards such fundamental human rights as: Freedom of religion, equality for women and abandonment of violent conversion.
Champ, You are welcome
Caroline
I think it's fair to state that any Muslim who supports the goal of Islamic domination, even if (s)he rejects the violent means (be it with/without the prerequisite Caliph), should not be regarded as a moderate, at least by us. Of course, in the real world, you have Ayatollah Sistani, Presidents Musharraf and Mubarrak, Kings Abdullah (of both Saudi Arabia & Jordan), Mohammed Khatami, all regarded as moderates. But that's different from what we mean when we use that term, right?
So far, from what I've seen, Haidon and Amir Taheri are the only moderate Muslims I've ever read of. Haidon openly acknowledges the bad stuff in the texts, even though he wants us to wait and see whether the heavily outnumbered moderates ever succeed, even while the Jihad rages on. Taheri, OTOH, is one who doesn't seem to share the goal of wanting us all to fold under Islam, which is more than can be said about the average Muslim. In case one doubts that, just ask your average Muslim friend whether they'd allow a relative to marry an infidel and then convert out of Islam.
Robert is on record as spelling out that anybody who supports the goal of domination of Islam even by peaceful means, as opposed to violent jihad, can't be regarded as compatible with Western values. I would think that would be a minimum litmus test that one could use in determining whether a Muslim is genuinely moderate. I don't know if that's the same litmus test that Remote had in mind, or whether he had instead some phenopthelyn solution (the other surefire test for acidity).
"... in the real world, you have Ayatollah Sistani, Presidents Musharraf and Mubarrak, Kings Abdullah (of both Saudi Arabia & Jordan), Mohammed Khatami, all regarded as moderates. But that's different from what we mean when we use that term, right?"
Despite your admirable specificity ... no.
Caroline,
"But there is surely a great deal of difference in addressing Eteraz's arguments in terms of whether what he presents actually provides the substance for what we might actually be searching for in the "moderate Muslim"..."
My post was just pointing out one thing he supports or defends which I argued is sufficiently damning to put him outside the pale of being called a "moderate".
"...versus the wholesale character assassination with regard to his motives, which has been reflected in some of the posts here."
My post was not indulging in that.
"What I was asking for was any evidence that would lead us to suspect his motives."
By his own words, Eteraz supports or defends interpretations of jihad which Spencer effectively showed do not differ from the jihad you and I believe is evil and dangerous. Surely that's enough to damn Eteraz as a non-moderate, and by inference it's enough for us to suspect his motives (or to suspect his sanity), inasmuch as Eteraz keeps insisting he is a harmless and even helpful moderate.
"It's not enough to cite his apparent rudeness in addressing Spencer."
My post didn't mention any rudeness.
"What I was asking was - what is the evidence that Eteraz's motives are nefarious?"
See above.
Zenster
In that case, on a sliding scale of 1-10, 0 being Osama and 10 being Ibn Warraq, I'd put Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Qaradawi and Ramadhan at 1, the above leaders at 2, the Ayman Nours and the Assads at 3, the Islam Karimovs at 4, the Irshad Manjis of the world at 6, the Thomas Haidons or Amir Taheris at 8, and the Tashbih Sayyeds at 9. All those who make the leap out of Islam - Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, et al - a perfect 10.
Now, on this sliding scale, where do you start defining moderates?
Eteraz (E) starts out his post with this strong claim:
E: “Jihadwatch writer Robert Spencer submitted an op-ed full of glaring errors to the Emory Wheel, Emory University's Student Paper.”
Note the phrase “full of glaring errors.” That’s a strong charge. Will Eteraz demonstrate that these alleged errors of Spencer are indeed errors?
E: “First, none of the scholars Spencer cites to were alive after the year 1406 A.D. The only link he offers between the past and today is the assertion that one of the jurists, Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328), is a "favorite of Osama bin Laden and other jihadists." Yet, on the basis of the fact that one jurist, from more than 600 years ago, is the "favorite" of Bin Laden, Spencer derives his conclusion that Jihad is a "constant" element of "mainstream Islamic theology." One scholar. 600 years removed. One Bin Laden.”
1. There is a valid point in here in regards to the lack of more recent references from up-to-date Islamic jurisprudence. However, this is not uniquely a limitation of Spencer’s prestentation in the Emory Wheel letter, but is a limitation I see in almost all presentations (including in my own posts), be they by critics or apologists or reformers. What is the reason for (what seems to me as a non-expert to be) the conspicuous absence of those other up-to-date texts?
2. In the above paragraph quoted, Eteraz seems to be losing track of the numbers of scholars. Spencer had cited multiple scholars/jurists (at least 4; and he cited at least 4 schools) to support the claim that Jihad is a constant element of mainstream Islamic ideology. Yet above, after noting there were multiple sholars/jurists cited by Spencer, Eteraz just a few lines later has the number of scholars supporting Jihad ideology down to one.
E: “Can a reasonable person really believe that such a link proves something about "mainstream Islamic theology"? One doesn't have to attend Emory University to be able to answer that.”
One must provide the support for one’s claims. Spencer had already provided the Reliance of the Traveller (which was recently approved by Al-Azhar) and the Hidaya (which though not as recent is certainly more recent than 1406 A.D.).
It must be noted that Spencer, and not Eteraz, has provided the more recent sources, of Islamic legal texts. Below, Eteraz himself provides no legal texts whatsoever, but rather two jurists’ vaguely-worded personal opinions about Islamic laws.
E: “American Jurists like John C. Calhoun argued that "slavery was a positive good" (on the Senate floor no less). Even the founding fathers, jurists the likes of which very few have ever existed, held that a black man was, under the law, only worth 3/5th of a white man (and women were worth nothing).”
Here Eteraz slips in an irrelevant topic, in the form of a tu quoque, in an apparent attempt to try to score points against the West. I see that other posters above have already addressed this issue about the black man’s worth under old American laws, laws that have been abolished completely. Perhaps Eteraz ought to research the worth of the slaves under the Islam which sold them to America in the first place.
E: “It isn't just in race relations that American Jurisprudence has changed. Until 1986, the legislators in the state of New York allowed a 15 year old girl to be married. This law was changed when jurists came along and revised their opinion and made it 18.”
There is a big difference between 15 and 6 (Aisha’s age when the 50-something Muhammad married her). Indeed, the Koran puts no lower age limit on marriage to pre-menstrual child-brides. In some Islamic countries today the marriageable age is less than 15.
E: “So, how do we know that most Muslim people do not, and are not, listening to the edicts of jurists from 600 years ago?”
One way is to look at recent polls re some of the policies that have been implemented throughout Islamic history.
[Source for British poll; sources for the other results below available on request]
About 31%-36% of British Muslims believe that apostasy from Islam should be punished with death.
68% of British Muslims believe that those who insult Islam/Muhammad should be criminally prosecuted and punished.
51% of British Muslims believe that a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man.
About 40% of Indonesian Muslims say that they personally would use violence against anyone who insulted Islam/Muhammad.
And in regards to support for bin Laden, which a naïve reader of Eteraz’s letter might take to be a miniscule or marginal phenomenon, note that 49.9% of Arabs say they support bin Laden (poll taken in fall of 2006, sample size about 45000).
E: “Well, most Muslim nations are not at war with non-Muslim nations, and where there are tensions these are not on the basis of anyone's religiosity (most are land disputes).”
Assertion without support. Please show evidence to support your claim that these tensions or conflicts are not based on anyone’s Islamic religiosity.
E: “The only "Muslim" parties today who engage in killing on the basis of someone being non-Muslim are jihadists; not the "mainstream of Islamic theology."”
You have failed to provide any evidence that the jihadists are not part of Islamic mainstream ideology. Thus Spencer’s evidence still stands.
E: “…and jihadist methods and approaches are rejectedby Muslims universally; not to mention giving rise to anti-jihadist fatwas.”
1. There are also pro-jihadist fatwas.
2. Jihadist methods are not universally rejected by Muslims. That is a blatant error of fact on Eteraz’s part. Recently a poll found that 12% of Canadian Muslim thought that the recent terrorist plot to kill Canadian civilians and politicians was “justified.” There are numerous polls showing support among Muslims for terrorist attacks (e.g., see the PEW surveys; in some cases, e.g., Pakistan, 2002, support for terrorism has been over 50%).
E: “In fact, one will see that Spencer's article cites to a jurist from the Maliki school of law (Khaldun), yet if one compares Khaldun (d. 1406) with this jurist alive today from the Maliki school, we immediately see how the jurist today conceptualize war (very differently from the past).”
Eteraz cannot merely cite one or two jurists and thus imply that war is conceptualized differently today. He would have to take a survey of a large sample of the jurists today, and the results would have to support his implied claim that there are some significant major differences in how jihad is conceptualized today as compared to in the time of Khaldun. That would obviously be a large and expensive undertaking (if that information is not available); hence it may seem unfair of me to expect Eteraz to do that. But it isn’t unfair to expect that, because Eteraz is the one who made the sweeping claim. If he doesn’t have the support—and he doesn’t show us here or at either of the links—he should not have made the claim. Having failed to support the claim, he should either withdraw the claim or at least put it on the shelf as undecided.
E: “Here is another example, this jurist being a student of scholars trained at al-Azhar university, and concludes this about violence: A. Taking the law into one's own hands amounts to either Fasad fi'l-Ard (creating disorder) or Muharabah (rebellion) -- both of which are punishable by death in Islam.”
That is misleading. Muslims are certainly allowed to take the law into their own hands in self-defence. In addition, there is no penalty for certain forms of vigilante actions such as killing apostates, according to the Reliance of the Traveller.
E: “B. The Prophet's saying (sws) usually cited to give credence to the idea that Islam allows an individual or a group the use of force to end wrong is actually related to the use of power within the confines of the social and legal authority.” “C. In Islam, there is no concept of Jihad (Qital to be more precise -- that is militant struggle in the way of Allah) or the implementation of punishments without the authority of the State.”
Eteraz has quoted/presented above what are merely two Islamic jurists’ public remarks or comments about Islam and Islamic law. They are the jurists’ opinions. They are not Islamic law. They are not authoritative statements, as found, for example, in the recently-approved Reliance of the Traveller, which Spencer cites. The Reliance of the Traveller is clear that jihad is to be fought against the non-Muslims. To counter Robert’s claim, Eteraz must provide at least the equivalent: a legal text of equal or greater status and up-to-date. Eteraz does not provide this, yet support for his claim requires it.
Eteraz’s whole analogy here was based on the premise that as American law has changed over the past couple of centuries, so has Islamic jurisprudence changed in some significant way, such that, specifically, Islamic law no longer states that Muslims must wage jihad against non-Muslims. (That was the primary issue at hand). Eteraz has failed to support his case in two important ways:
1. He has failed to show any difference, any clear rejection of jihad against non-Muslims (as Spencer has already pointed out). There is shown no contradiction of the former policies.
2. He has failed to cite the appropriate evidence. He has substituted a couple of opinions about Islamic law on jihad in the place of Islamic laws on jihad. Moreover, the statements he cites may in fact be mere public-relations statements with no weight, no consequence whatsoever.
E: “Islamic Law with respect to violence against non-Muslims has also modified to fit with the world in which it finds itself.”
The underlying assumption there appears to be that modification is beneficial. How do we know we will not get something worse?
E: “Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the high Mufti of Egypt, whom Spencer in another post tries to paint as an extremist because Gomaa (like John Ashcroft) does not allow graven images in statues ..”
Spencer didn’t “paint” Gomaa as extremist. Gomaa has expressed support for Hizballah, has pushed hard with Tantawi and others to have the international laws imposed restricting criticism of Islam, and has refused to recognize the Bahai. He should be questioned in regards to his opinions of various harsh rulings in Shafi’i jurisprudence, in regards to major issues such as the death penalty for apostasy (as is stated in the Reliance of the Traveller).
E: “…recently allowed women to get hymen reconstruction surgery, as well as allowing women the right to political leadership. Other major jurists today have allowed women the right to lead prayer. Even al-Azhar University, by no means a bastion of reform, has taken a strong stance against Female Genital Mutilation which it once used to permit.”
In regards to the latter, I believe he has declared it un-Islamic, probably because the hadith to support it was weak. I also do not recall him specifying a penalty for those who carry out FGM, so what good is this declaration? Also, what if the hadith to support it had been strong? What if the statement had been in the Quran? Thus, we see the major fallacy of Islam, to rely on authority and hearsay without examining the contents of the policies according to moral principles.
E: “Islamic Law changes. I hope that is obvious by now.”
What matters is ‘Has it changed significantly on major issues?’ There are still penalties for blasphemy (i.e., insulting, mocking or criticizing Islam or Muhammad), there are still penalties for apostasy including death, there is still the policy of aggressive jihad to establish Islamic rule and a loose and flexible concept of defensive jihad.
E: “The way islamic jurisprudence evolved to make rules limiting violence serves as a model of how islamic jurisprudence will evolve to give rights to women, minorities and non-Muslims.”
In modern non-Islamic countries, women, minorities, and Muslims and non-Muslims have these rights. Why, then, do you (reformers) need Islam? What in Islam cannot be found elsewhere in better form?
E: “I wish that Spencer would recognize this and leave Muslim reformists from having to correct his errors.”
1. You have not shown that Spencer made any errors. That was your primary claim. You failed to show even a single error on Spencer’s part.
2. Reformers should welcome Spencer’s criticism if they are truly interested in fixing the problems which he identifies.
E: “In conclusion, jihadists, whom Spencer tries to link to the Islamic schools of law are actually deniers of Islamic legal methodology, preferring to circumvent Islamic Law altogether.”
Again, Spencer does not try to link them with Islamic law; they link themselves to it. They quote Islamic law and they quote Quran and Sunnah—whatever suits their purpose. To stop them and future generations from using those texts, the texts themselves must be rejected.
---------------------------------------------
Next Topic...
The quote below addresses the original statements in Emory Wheel that sparked this whole debate. A Muslim wrote in (Feb. 16), initially stating that Horowitz’s claim (or, at least, a claim apparently approved by Horowitz) in an ad that the goal of jihad was for Islam to dominate the whole world was not only false but an example of “hate” in Horowitz’s part. That, and other statements about the goal of jihad, prompted Robert to respond with a corrective, and hence the ensuing debates.
Regarding that point, I will add that Qaradawi, the popular, influential, and still living Muslim scholar, who consults with the current top scholars of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, writes:
[Source
; note that this is supported by tafsirs such as Ibn Kathir’s; the same sentiment is also supported by Islamic law, in the Reliance of the Traveller].
correction:
I wrote: "the Hidaya (which though not as recent is certainly more recent than 1406 A.D.)."
-should say "certainly more recently-approved of and used"
-the original Hidaya is older than 1406 but is still in use today.
Morgaan,
I only have a few minutes myself, but I want to echo the poster above who said, "Again, I emphasize that I very much appreciate your firey and outstandingly knowledgeable contributions on Islam and the problems the West faces with Islam. I hope that fire stays focused toward Islamic supremacism and away from innocent bystanders."
Khaybar Oasis ...
What a FANTASTIC post. I just read it three times and wanted to say that I am deeply appreciative that you took the time to lay it out so clearly. It's absolutely unassailable and completely true.
Your point about Qaradawi is incredibly salient. This man's influence is IMMENSE.
When the so-called 176 imams met in Jordan supposedly to issue a joint fatwa against terrorism there were 10 imams who wrote it. They were the heads of the eight madabhs plus two others. And one of those "two others" was Qawadiri.
When it came out, only the summary was printed in the Western press. But the summary was written by Abdullah II of Jordan, not by the imams. I have been trying to find a translation of the whole thing, and can't find it anywhere in English.
But the thrust of the decision was that these imams made it "illegal" for anybody but a formally ensconced imam to issue a fatwa. That robbed Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri of the right, but it also consolidated power among the elite. In other words, it made it impossible for Muslims to create a ninth madabh that addressed some of the problems they're facing. So, it means there can be no reform movement without an accusation of apostasy.
Touted by Reza Aslan and others as a Muslim fatwa against terrorism, it did not principally even address terrorism as far as I can see. And the full text of the fatwa is unavailable in English anywhere in the world, and it may be unavailable period.
Qawadiri is the heart and soul of the Muslim Brotherhood, a virulent opponent of women's rights (an attitude on which the MB was founded), and a total jihadist.
Anywhere he goes, something is wrong. And it's a very, very bad sign he was invited as one of the top 10 authorities at a conference such as the one in Amman. Also, if you read the summary it isn't about the rights of the world to be safe from Islamic terrorism. It's about Muslim rights. Only about Muslim rights, until you get to Abdullah's "summary" (which is HIS view) that Muslims should not be involved in violent jihad.
Anyhow, thanks for bringing this up and for such a clear explanation of all the other points, too.
Khaybar Oasis ...
Do you mind if I make a copy of your post above? I would like to print it out to give to a friend who is doing research in this area?
There's a wrinkle: If he uses it in a paper, how does he cite you?
Implicit in the very concept of a "juridical religion" is the notion that it is proper to initiate the use force against those who do not comply with the religion's edicts. And THAT is the premise that damns Islam.
As Mr. Spencer and the commenters have brilliantly shown, the "reforms" being touted by Ali Eteraz and others are, in practice, an illusion. Denying the right to jihad by the individual while declaring it his duty when it is ordered by the state is merely substituting dictatorship for anarchy. The fundamental premise of initiating force against non-believers has not been challenged, it has simply been centralized.
Thus, their idea of “reformed Islam” is a benevolent dictatorship which “permits” greater freedoms, such as women being allowed to live as human beings, but which reserves the right revoke such freedoms -- anything it can permit, it can also deny -- and reserves the right to order jihad whenever it likes.
This is not reform; this is the consolidation of power wrapped in the trappings of the state.
Real reform means abandoning Islam’s juridical ambitions and accepting the complete separation of church and state. Are there any Islamic authorities advocating that?
Michael, I don't know any authorities who are advocating the separation of church and state, because they CAN'T. As soon as they do that they are in a state of blasphemy.
There are some commentators and theorists who advocate it, most notably Mustafa Akyol (www.thewhitepath.com) who is the op-ed editor of Turkish Daily News. He believes (happily) that shari'a should not be instituted anywhere because as it stands it is discriminatory toward women, minorities and non-Muslims.
But there's a real problem structurally with the religion, because it is interwoven into politics, home life, and everything else. It is socially reinforced five times a day. It is the most self-sustaining system I've ever seen. It regenerates itself on a daily basis. And that's great if what you're regenerating is love and tolerance, but it's a disaster if you're generating hate and jihad.
See post to Khaybar Oasis above about the 176 imams. It's dictatorial power they are wielding here, and they assume (D'Souza) that their authority exceeds that of any state for all Muslims, and that that have the god-given right to punish across all state boundaries, as evidenced by the honor killings and fatwa deaths of "apostates" and "bad women" that occur across the world.
I think that the writers of "Radical Islam's Rules: The Worldwide Spread of Extreme Shari'a Law" (Freedom House, 2005) nailed it when they talked about the totalitarianism and the difficulty in fighting a political system that thinks it is "ordained by God." This is a GREAT book, BTW, on the state of major Islamic countries, the best I've ever seen. Absolutely amazing achievement.
And that is the danger. And that is why we MUST hold on the utterly equal (no special treatment) civil codes in this country. Because, despite the propaganda to the contrary, this jihad has little or nothing to do with us. It is political supremacy using "god ordainment" to take rights, property, liberty and life.
RADICAL ISLAM'S RULES can be found at Amazon right here:
http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Islams-Rules-Worldwide-Extreme/dp/0742543617/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1712240-7735344?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173018326&sr=8-1
Mr. Spencer.
I have a response to your reply to the emory editorial post.
http://eteraz.org/story/2007/3/4/65215/02266
have a good day.
Hysterically funny!!!
Eteraz declares himself victor! ROFLOL!
He lost every single point, but he declares himself victor. Well, that's a self-styled pundit for you.
I would suggest for anybody who wants a perfect example of circular thinking fraught with failed citation to visit the link Eteraz (in ongoing self-advertisement) posted above.
And ... oh, yes ... have a good day!
Mr. Eteraz ...
SINCE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY LURKING OVER HERE, GROW A SPINE AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. Here they are again:
Mr. Esteraz and Mr. Esmay,
The people on this forum are already pretty sure that they are dealing with radical Islamist apologists.
But we're willing to entertain the possibility we are wrong:
(1) Do you agree with the assessment made by the imam on the Dispatches UTube videos that "Allah created woman defective. Even if she has a PhD, she is defecitive" ... "it's hormones."
(2) Source: Ibid: If a girl is 10 and refuses to wear cover, she should beaten.
(3) Do you believe it's OK for Muslim websites to call on Muslims to kill Westerners, Christians?
(4) Would you like to see shari'a replace the Constitution of the United States?
(5) Do you believe that Buddhists are evil?
(6) Do you believe that Muslims are justified in commiting violent acts against non-Muslim majority cultures if they deem them to be "decadent" or "immoral".
(7) If yes to #6, on what authority do Muslims act as the world's international "muttawiyyah" (religious police)?
(8) Do you believe that Christians and Jews are "infidels"?
(9) Do you believe that Muslim women should answer first to the imam who tells them how to dress, how to make love, how to wash, how to pray, and how to be in relationship to her husband ... or do you believe she has a right to avail herself of the civil liberties granted her under the U.S. Constitution?>
(10) Are you OK with arranged marriages without the consent of the women?
(11) Do you agree with the Muslim division of property that gives women less property than men?
(12) Do you believe in denying women the right to vote based on gender?
(13) Do you believe in denying women the right to education, equal food and medicine, based on gender?
(14) Do you believe women should have the right to drive and hold jobs?
(15) Do you believe that "honor killing" is justified?
(16) Do you believe that Islam gives a man the right to beat a woman?
(17) Do you believe that islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by sword?
(18) Do you believe that Islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by deception, manipulation and threat?
(19) Do you believe that Sufis are apostates?
(20) Do you believe in the death penalty for apostasy?
(21) Do you believe in the death penalty for adultery?
(22) Do you believe, as Al Sistani said in a fatwa last week, that homosexuals should be killed "in the worst possible way"?
(23) Do you believe that hudud punishments -- amputations, cross-amputations, lashings, stonings, burnings, and beheadings -- should be allowed in Islamic countries?
(24) Do you believe that sanctions should be imposed on any Islamic country that does not follow ALL human rights intenrational agreements?
(25) Do you believe that the US should stipulate that 1/2 of the 10,000 student visas just granted to Saudi Arabia should go to women?
(26) Do you believe that shari'a should be banned until it is solidly human rights based, giving equal rights to minorities, religious "others", and women?
(27) Do you object to "shake-down" manipulations such as the one played against US Airways?
(28) Do you object to the "shake-down" manipulations for special treatment run by the cabbies in Minneapolis?
(29) Do you believe that Muslims should rise up and decry the death threads made against Robert Spencer and his family by Muhammed Soulja of Great Britain?
(30) Do you believe Muslims should openly protest against Al-Zawahiri when he demands that Muslims rise up against Americans and others?
(31) Do you believe that the school system in the Palestinian Territories should be forced to stop preaching jihad to elementary school kids?
(32) Do you believe that HAMAS should be required to remove its terminology of exterminating the Jews or be barred from power?
(33) Do you believe that homicide bombing is an acceptable form of social and political protest?
(34) Do you believe that CAIR should wait to defend Muslims until the verdict is in. Examples: the 22-year sentence given Ismael Royer for material support of terrorism and waging war against the sovreign State of India (Americans aren't allowed to wage their own private wars against other countires). Alamoudi, 23 years for material support of terrorism. Al Arian, deportation on a plea bargain (he should have got life), after turning in all his friends. Please answer this question in some detail.
(35) Do you believe that Saudi Arabia has the right to put to death those who convert to Christianity?
That'll do for a start. I have another 65 pertinent questions, but I don't want to tire you out since you minds are so weak to begin with.
Thank you for answering. We're all waiting.
Or are you going to play your usual lying, manipulative, cowardly, spineless, yellow-bellied gambit of "we're morally superior -- just cuz we said so!!!!!"
Waiting with baited breath. Not really. Muslims never answer questions like this, becuase doing so exposes them as not being the moderates they claim to be and would like us to believe they are.
.....................
If you'd rather do a short one: just tell us which hadith and violent verses YOU would be willing to remove from the Qur'an.
After all, I'm sure that you really want the rest of us in the world to feel safe and loved -- and that it's not REALLY the case that it always has to be ALL ABOUT YOU.
That's not true, is it?
A REAL HUMDINGER FROM ETERAZ'S WEBSITE. The excruciating BS that the new Qur'an is progressive on human rights for women!
What a crock!
Here's why. You'll notice in the clip below that the word "beat" is still in there as a man's right. The new translation does nothing for that. Eteraz CLAIMS that the right to beat a woman only applies if she's committing adultery, but there is NO REFERENCE to that.
On balance, what this translation gives is permission to beat with PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY that the person is a Muslim if he's caught doing it. Where have we heard that before?
AND ... you're gonna love this ... he's trying to raise $30,000 to buy 1,000 of these to distribute to WESTERN mosques, educational centers, etc. Why? Because it's whitewashed disinformation, because in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., they're still going to use the most anti-female Qur'an they can find, and this one in Western LIBRARIES just gives a version to Americans that can make Islam appear softer than it does to the people who are trying to destroy our civilization.
Read it and weep. This is incredible BS. Unbelievable. This does NOTHING for women's rights and it is completely disingenuous for Eteraz to claim that it does. No matter how you try to spin this it still gives the right to beat a woman, claim it's on accusation (not proved) of adultery, without giving her ANY recourse to civil law.
BEGIN VERBATIM QUOTE:
Quran Comparison: Beating Wives
By Ali Eteraz
Posted on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:27:03 PM EST
Tags: quranproject (all tags)
For the sake of our Muhammad Asad Quran Distribution Project I was comparing the Saudi Noble Quran with the Muhammad Asad Quran on the issue of beating one's wife in verse 4:34.
Here is how the Saudi Noble Quran translates 4:34:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders to guard ( e.g. their chastity, their husband's property). As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against the means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.
There are no footnotes. No commentary.
Now compare how Muhammad Asad translates 4:34:
Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!
Note, both* of the Qurans contain a prescription to "beat" women in the event of adultery.
However, the reason the Asad Quran is more valuable than the Noble Quran is because it offers a comprehensive commentary at the bottom of the page which The Noble Quran does not, and in that commentary, beating is invalidated.
It is this commentary, running throughout the Asad Quran, which is the reason for our support of the Muhammad Asad Quran. It is probably a good idea to expose more Muslims to commentary on Quranic verses, instead of letting them figure out what a verse means on their own, since more knowledge is better than less.
By reading the commentary in the Asad Quran, the reasonable Muslim will become convinced that beating is not a good idea. Meanwhile, The Saudi Noble Quran, which has no commentary, leaves the average reader with the impression that beating is OK. Here is the commentary at the bottom of the page from the Asad Quran:
Fn.4 It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn 'Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum). When the above Qur'an-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars ( e.g., Ash-Shafi'i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem.
The average Muslim believes in two sources of Islam, the Quran, and the Sunnah, the practice of Muhammad. Both are of equivalent weight in Islam because the Quran asks us to affirm the Sunnah. The Asad Quran, in the first sentence of its commentary, makes it very clear that beating a woman is "detested" by the Sunnah. Most Muslims are very unlikely to do anything that would offend the Prophet's sensibilities. The Asad Quran speaks up. The Noble Quran stays silent.
Finally, Asad's commentary quotes the Prophet's sermon where the Prophet states that beating should be allowed only when a woman has become guilty in an obvious manner. Jurists have historically taken this to mean that only an Islamic court of law can determine cases of adultery. Thus, Asad's Quran also points out the role of the state, while The Noble Quran makes no mention of this fact.
* There is a recent Quranic translation, by Laleh Bakhtiar, in which the Arabic verb translated as "beat" by Asad and others, is translated as "to go away." However, Ms. Bakhtiar's translation is not even out yet. Furthermore, being a "feminist" Quran, it is not likely that many conservative institutions, which is what we are targetting, would embrace it. Personally, I do find Bakhtiar's translation of the term compelling. Until this translation comes out and becomes more accepted, please, abide by the Prophet's Sunnah. Also, people should realize that a person who already thinks that beating a wife is against the Prophet Muhammad's Sunnah, is more likely to accept Bakhtiar's argument that the word does not mean beating at all.
END QUOTE
***********************
Note: Bakhtiar's translation isn't compelling and is a desperate attempt by Islamic feminists to try to get away from the fact that these verses are going to have to be excised completely from accepted Islamic practice if women are to be safe.
Eteraz sums up by asking for money to buy these new Qur'ans.
Suggestion: Somebody put together a Trancendental Qur'an, excising all hostile, inhumane and warlike verses, and effect a SCHISM. Will you be accused of apostasy? Yes. Could you die? Yes. Is it harder for you to die than it was for the people aboard Flight 93 to die? No. So stop whining and do it.
So Mr. Eteraz has now defined "action" to include "inaction", so that the silence of Muslims regarding jihad is a protest of that jihad.
When we reach that stage, the debate is truly over.
By the way Mr. Eteraz, Martin Luther King most certainly did not, as you cliam, work for change by remaining silent about discrimination. The whole notion is preposterous.
It wasn't the silence of the abolutionists that brought about the anti-slavery movement. It wasn't the silence of Abraham Lincoln that finally ended slavery in America. And it wasn't the silence of Martin Luther King and the blacks that ended the Jim Crowe era in the south.
To Michael Smith:
Yup, SILENCE GIVES CONSENT.
Thank you americaningermany!! Hugs!!
I liked Michael Smith's comment above about action = inaction.
To appreciate Mr. E's point that muslim silence = action against the jihadis, this thought occurred to me:
Imagine the shock (shock!) of all the white southern supremacists who (for about 100 years) were utterly silent in the face of KKK style Jim Crow laws to learn (by historical revision) that they were acttively engaged in protesting against discrimination against southern blacks.
Does everyone feel better today knowing that, according to Mr. E, the silence from the majority muslim community proves they actively want to co-exist in peace with the infidel and are opposed to the agenda of the "extremists"?
Now, does ANYBODY have anything to say about THIS CRAP that Eteraz and his minions just posted on eteraz.org
This is a test. Can you stay on topic or not?
QUOTING:
2 – Mr. Spencer makes a very good point which I think bears amplification. Namely, that jihadists don’t seem to acknowledge being bound by context. He says:
One of the biggest problems we have regarding the global jihad today is that jihadists cite Muhammad's example -- in other words, the example of a seventh-century man -- as normative for today. They don't seem to mind in the least flattening out the context and behaving as if Muhammad's example were outside time and normative for all times and places.
I completely agree. Since we agree, what does Mr. Spencer propose we do? I would be most keen to hear his ideas since I’ve never once read him propose a way out of this, our, problem. My guess is that he would say that Muslims should do away with following the example of Muhammad. Not sure that one is going to fly.
END QUOTE:
Eteraz then launches into how beautiful Muhammad's life was and sums up an idea that traditionalists should provide some theological help here.
WHAT ABOUT DIRECT PROTEST OF TERRORISM, JIHADIST VIOLENCE, BY MUSLIM PEOPLE SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER ON THE NATIONAL MALL?
Does anybody want to comment about this drivel from Eteraz or not?
Mr. Eteraz ...
SINCE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY LURKING OVER HERE, GROW A SPINE AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. Here they are again:
Mr. Esteraz and Mr. Esmay,
The people on this forum are already pretty sure that they are dealing with radical Islamist apologists.
But we're willing to entertain the possibility we are wrong:
(1) Do you agree with the assessment made by the imam on the Dispatches UTube videos that "Allah created woman defective. Even if she has a PhD, she is defecitive" ... "it's hormones."
(2) Source: Ibid: If a girl is 10 and refuses to wear cover, she should beaten.
(3) Do you believe it's OK for Muslim websites to call on Muslims to kill Westerners, Christians?
(4) Would you like to see shari'a replace the Constitution of the United States?
(5) Do you believe that Buddhists are evil?
(6) Do you believe that Muslims are justified in commiting violent acts against non-Muslim majority cultures if they deem them to be "decadent" or "immoral".
(7) If yes to #6, on what authority do Muslims act as the world's international "muttawiyyah" (religious police)?
(8) Do you believe that Christians and Jews are "infidels"?
(9) Do you believe that Muslim women should answer first to the imam who tells them how to dress, how to make love, how to wash, how to pray, and how to be in relationship to her husband ... or do you believe she has a right to avail herself of the civil liberties granted her under the U.S. Constitution?>
(10) Are you OK with arranged marriages without the consent of the women?
(11) Do you agree with the Muslim division of property that gives women less property than men?
(12) Do you believe in denying women the right to vote based on gender?
(13) Do you believe in denying women the right to education, equal food and medicine, based on gender?
(14) Do you believe women should have the right to drive and hold jobs?
(15) Do you believe that "honor killing" is justified?
(16) Do you believe that Islam gives a man the right to beat a woman?
(17) Do you believe that islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by sword?
(18) Do you believe that Islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by deception, manipulation and threat?
(19) Do you believe that Sufis are apostates?
(20) Do you believe in the death penalty for apostasy?
(21) Do you believe in the death penalty for adultery?
(22) Do you believe, as Al Sistani said in a fatwa last week, that homosexuals should be killed "in the worst possible way"?
(23) Do you believe that hudud punishments -- amputations, cross-amputations, lashings, stonings, burnings, and beheadings -- should be allowed in Islamic countries?
(24) Do you believe that sanctions should be imposed on any Islamic country that does not follow ALL human rights intenrational agreements?
(25) Do you believe that the US should stipulate that 1/2 of the 10,000 student visas just granted to Saudi Arabia should go to women?
(26) Do you believe that shari'a should be banned until it is solidly human rights based, giving equal rights to minorities, religious "others", and women?
(27) Do you object to "shake-down" manipulations such as the one played against US Airways?
(28) Do you object to the "shake-down" manipulations for special treatment run by the cabbies in Minneapolis?
(29) Do you believe that Muslims should rise up and decry the death threads made against Robert Spencer and his family by Muhammed Soulja of Great Britain?
(30) Do you believe Muslims should openly protest against Al-Zawahiri when he demands that Muslims rise up against Americans and others?
(31) Do you believe that the school system in the Palestinian Territories should be forced to stop preaching jihad to elementary school kids?
(32) Do you believe that HAMAS should be required to remove its terminology of exterminating the Jews or be barred from power?
(33) Do you believe that homicide bombing is an acceptable form of social and political protest?
(34) Do you believe that CAIR should wait to defend Muslims until the verdict is in. Examples: the 22-year sentence given Ismael Royer for material support of terrorism and waging war against the sovreign State of India (Americans aren't allowed to wage their own private wars against other countires). Alamoudi, 23 years for material support of terrorism. Al Arian, deportation on a plea bargain (he should have got life), after turning in all his friends. Please answer this question in some detail.
(35) Do you believe that Saudi Arabia has the right to put to death those who convert to Christianity?
That'll do for a start. I have another 65 pertinent questions, but I don't want to tire you out since you minds are so weak to begin with.
Thank you for answering. We're all waiting.
Or are you going to play your usual lying, manipulative, cowardly, spineless, yellow-bellied gambit of "we're morally superior -- just cuz we said so!!!!!"
Waiting with baited breath. Not really. Muslims never answer questions like this, becuase doing so exposes them as not being the moderates they claim to be and would like us to believe they are.
.....................
If you'd rather do a short one: just tell us which hadith and violent verses YOU would be willing to remove from the Qur'an.
After all, I'm sure that you really want the rest of us in the world to feel safe and loved -- and that it's not REALLY the case that it always has to be ALL ABOUT YOU.
That's not true, is it?
Morgaan,
TIME OUT!!!!
Can I ask you just two questions about your posts?
1. You said that your "Muslim friends are the ones who believe that all the hadith have to go, and that all the verses inimical to women and those of other faiths also have to go."
So if they reject parts of the Koran and the hadith then how can they be considered true Muslims?
2. "Suggestion: Somebody put together a Trancendental Qur'an, excising all hostile, inhumane and warlike verses, and effect a SCHISM. Will you be accused of apostasy? Yes. Could you die? Yes. Is it harder for you to die than it was for the people aboard Flight 93 to die? No. So stop whining and do it."
So what are your Muslim friends doing? Have any of them considered undertaking such a project? If they're really so offended by what is happening in Islam today they should jump at the chance to do something about it.
The thread preceding this one is titled “Argument by Abuse”.
In that thread Mr Spencer was asking the question, why cant we have dialog without it degrading into name calling.
I completely agree, it’s the golden rule: threat others as you like to be treated.
All this venomous drivel, just makes us look uneducated and is the kind of suff that goes on daily at places like KOS, I think it should stay there, I don’t want to be associated with it, if this site keeps going that way, it will be far to embarrassing to associate with this site anymore.
Now Morgaan claims to Mr Spencers friend, but I don’t think true “friends” treat friends with such disrespect.
Eteraz and Esmay are shuck'n'jive artists who are in it for the fame.
That'll do for a start. I have another 65 pertinent questions, but I don't want to tire you out since you minds are so weak to begin with.
Or are you going to play your usual lying, manipulative, cowardly, spineless, yellow-bellied gambit of "we're morally superior -- just cuz we said so!!!!!"
with “friends” like that, who needs any enemies!
Mr. Eteraz ...
Since you and your folks are lurking over here I'd like to ask again for you to answer my questions. I think they're fair questions.
Here they are the questions again. My fear is that any Muslim that answers them honestly in favor of a NON-jihadal philosophy puts himself or herself in harm's way. So I understand it may be difficult.
But given the fact that Americans are PROMISED their destruction by radical Islamists, I would like you to answer these questions so we can determine if you are the moderate you are.
Thank you:
(1) Do you agree with the assessment made by the imam on the Dispatches UTube videos that "Allah created woman defective. Even if she has a PhD, she is defecitive" ... "it's hormones."
(2) Source: Ibid: If a girl is 10 and refuses to wear cover, she should beaten.
(3) Do you believe it's OK for Muslim websites to call on Muslims to kill Westerners, Christians?
(4) Would you like to see shari'a replace the Constitution of the United States?
(5) Do you believe that Buddhists are evil?
(6) Do you believe that Muslims are justified in commiting violent acts against non-Muslim majority cultures if they deem them to be "decadent" or "immoral".
(7) If yes to #6, on what authority do Muslims act as the world's international "muttawiyyah" (religious police)?
(8) Do you believe that Christians and Jews are "infidels"?
(9) Do you believe that Muslim women should answer first to the imam who tells them how to dress, how to make love, how to wash, how to pray, and how to be in relationship to her husband ... or do you believe she has a right to avail herself of the civil liberties granted her under the U.S. Constitution?>
(10) Are you OK with arranged marriages without the consent of the women?
(11) Do you agree with the Muslim division of property that gives women less property than men?
(12) Do you believe in denying women the right to vote based on gender?
(13) Do you believe in denying women the right to education, equal food and medicine, based on gender?
(14) Do you believe women should have the right to drive and hold jobs?
(15) Do you believe that "honor killing" is justified?
(16) Do you believe that Islam gives a man the right to beat a woman?
(17) Do you believe that islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by sword?
(18) Do you believe that Islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by deception, manipulation and threat?
(19) Do you believe that Sufis are apostates?
(20) Do you believe in the death penalty for apostasy?
(21) Do you believe in the death penalty for adultery?
(22) Do you believe, as Al Sistani said in a fatwa last week, that homosexuals should be killed "in the worst possible way"?
(23) Do you believe that hudud punishments -- amputations, cross-amputations, lashings, stonings, burnings, and beheadings -- should be allowed in Islamic countries?
(24) Do you believe that sanctions should be imposed on any Islamic country that does not follow ALL human rights intenrational agreements?
(25) Do you believe that the US should stipulate that 1/2 of the 10,000 student visas just granted to Saudi Arabia should go to women?
(26) Do you believe that shari'a should be banned until it is solidly human rights based, giving equal rights to minorities, religious "others", and women?
(27) Do you object to "shake-down" manipulations such as the one played against US Airways?
(28) Do you object to the "shake-down" manipulations for special treatment run by the cabbies in Minneapolis?
(29) Do you believe that Muslims should rise up and decry the death threads made against Robert Spencer and his family by Muhammed Soulja of Great Britain?
(30) Do you believe Muslims should openly protest against Al-Zawahiri when he demands that Muslims rise up against Americans and others?
(31) Do you believe that the school system in the Palestinian Territories should be forced to stop preaching jihad to elementary school kids?
(32) Do you believe that HAMAS should be required to remove its terminology of exterminating the Jews or be barred from power?
(33) Do you believe that homicide bombing is an acceptable form of social and political protest?
(34) Do you believe that CAIR should wait to defend Muslims until the verdict is in. Examples: the 22-year sentence given Ismael Royer for material support of terrorism and waging war against the sovreign State of India (Americans aren't allowed to wage their own private wars against other countires). Alamoudi, 23 years for material support of terrorism. Al Arian, deportation on a plea bargain (he should have got life), after turning in all his friends. Please answer this question in some detail.
(35) Do you believe that Saudi Arabia has the right to put to death those who convert to Christianity?
Thank you.
Eteraz: "One of the biggest problems we have regarding the global jihad today is that jihadists cite Muhammad's example -- in other words, the example of a seventh-century man -- as normative for today. They don't seem to mind in the least flattening out the context and behaving as if Muhammad's example were outside time and normative for all times and places.
I completely agree. Since we agree, what does Mr. Spencer propose we do? I would be most keen to hear his ideas since I’ve never once read him propose a way out of this, our, problem. My guess is that he would say that Muslims should do away with following the example of Muhammad. Not sure that one is going to fly."
When one has to hope that the faithful of a religion ignore the example set by it's prophet (and how are the jihadis theologically wrong in their contention that they were ordered precisely by their prophet to follow his example until judgement day?), it suggests that the religion itself is fundamentally flawed. Why this should be Spencer's problem, rather than Eteraz's, isn't entirely clear to me.
PMK ...
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? And that's why I'm saying that I don't think "reform" is possible (especially see the post on the 176 imams above in Amman and what they did to close this door). I think that the creation of a Transcendental Qur'an is a schism, and that any attempt to do it will result in MANY people dead, Muslims. But many Muslims are dying now (in Darfur) for refusing to accept Wahhabism. The moderates who follow the white shari'a of the funj dynasty are all nearly dead now, leaving only the radicals.
So what will happen? Will they be able to do it? I don't know. Konca Kuris tried to effect some of this and Hizbollah took her off her porched, transported her around Turkey squeezed into a sofabed, taped a torture of her that last 28 days, and then killed her. Her brother review all the tapes because her husband couldn't bear it. And that's what happens when somebody tries this.
It's very discouraging. But there are people who are advocating expelling all the hadith and removing all the jihadist verses and those advocating violence and inequality on any level.
And the only place it could possibly be safe enough to do it would be the United States. And you can see where the US Muslims are, which is why I'm so worried that, as you say, it can't be done. But despite that, there are groups that vary across a continuum.
Some, like the Islamic feminists are trying to effect a gender-just interpretation of the Qur'an, basically reversing the ORDER of priority of verses. As Robert correctly points out, the order is now last to first. Reformists claim this is wrong and that the 99% of the problems that occur between Islam and the West would disappear if the hadith were removed, the Medinan verses were relegated to history, and the Meccan transcendental verses became the center of a "mosiac" ... with only those transcendental, rather mystical, all-embracing, loving verses that DO exist being the only **actionable** verses of Islam.
These, ironically, are the verses people like Eteraz throw at you when you complain about violent jihad. But, they say, how about these beautiful verses.
And what the real reformists say is: Great, BUT you have to illegitimize the violent ones or it is meaningless to throw the nice verses at the people who have a target painted on them!
So, basically, they are looking to reverse the order of priority and destroy the elevation of wht they call the "secondary sources" -- hadith, Medinan, jihad verses, War verses -- above the transcendental verses of the Qur'an.
Anybody who tries this is going to be looking over their shoulder for the rest of their life. It's an immediate death fatwa. Only in America could this come to pass, and my "heat" on CAIR, etc., is that they continue to play shake-down games for special treatment rather than to deal with this issue, being, I think, the only ones on the planet with enough cushioning between them and the jihadists to actually get it done.
So, I understand why you stand amazed when I say this. It's a long shot. An incredible long shot. But I continue to bring it up, because doing it may be the only way that we do not wind up at global thermonuclear war.
And it will take DECADES. And during those decades, we'd be having to face the kinds of attacks and threats we are now. And doing this would set the Muslim world on fire and most certainly involve civil wars in many places. It would be terrible. But I don't know what else could stop the ongoing, historically recurrent problem that crops up over and over again.
Caroline wrote: Why this should be Spencer's problem, rather than Eteraz's, isn't entirely clear to me.
My point exactly.
This is consistent with what Ali Sina at FaithFreedom.org has often pointed out, which is that Muslims are triumphalists and claim victory even when they are clearly defeated.
There is a short and instructive article posted by Mr. Spencer this morning at Dhimmi Watch: 25 Iranian women arrested in Iran for vocally protesting against
laws which discriminate against women.
Mr. E (aka RAZ) has acknowledged that shaira law(islamic law) has been fully implemented in Iran. I think we can all agree that the muslim "exremists" would be delighted to have sharia implemented throughout the world.
My question to Mr. E is this: How is it these 25 Iranian women did not understand that to actively protest against the "extremists" (read jihadists) these women merely had to remain silent? How could these women even think that to be "proactive" against discriminatory islamic laws they were required to be seen and heard?
These Iranian women might not be examples of truly moderate and mainstream muslims otherwise we would never have heard from them (to follow the logic of Mr. E) Or does Mr. E put these "vocally active muslim women" in the same category as the "non-vocal and non-active muslim women" (all dedicated to the same end, but using different means)? I don't know what he thinks. We wait for him to respond.
"But even though we can say Islam must be reformed, we cannot say there are no Muslim moderates. There are. But most of the decent ones ARE NOT Americans."
Morgaan,
I guess we'll never agree. I just see you trying to have it both ways - making excuses for your friends who are Muslims and preaching about what Islam needs to do to reform.
There's only one way Islam will reform - it will die. I say this because of fourteen centuries of killing and slaughter and zero change in the Muslim faith even as Christianity experienced the Reformation and Europe the enlightenment.
In all that time Islam was stopped only by people willing to fight back on their terms. Turning the other cheek would have meant the end of our existence. Just look at the 20th century. What kept Islam in check for most of it? It wasn't that Muslims had modernized their dogma. It was that they had no opportunity to put it into practice. They were Mohammaed in Mecca - biding their time. Most Muslims were ruled by dictators or authoritarian governments or they were just plain poor. Those that weren't were afraid of the Soviet Union and so they kept their skirts clean during the Cold War. It suggests that the only way for the West to fight them is by putting its boot on their neck and keeping it there. American Muslims, European Muslims and Muslims everywhere will have to give up their dream of dar-al-Islam. They won't because they can't. They can't because to do so means admitting that that they can't convert or control all mankind. They can't because they would have to give up subjugating all non-Muslims they rule. How do they give up fourteen centuries of history?
If your friends are really reformists then they can never call themselves Muslims, much like the reformers in Europe could never again be Roman Catholics.
Morgaan
"But even though we can say Islam must be reformed, we cannot say there are no Muslim moderates. There are. But most of the decent ones ARE NOT Americans."
Can you define to me what a moderate muslim is?
Is like the traditional muslim D'Souza keeps going on about? Mr. Spencer has stated that cultural muslims are people who don't take the Islamic faith seriously or "word-for-word" and are muslims for id/local reasons only. What is your definition?
GreatCometof1577 ...
I have to go becuase I have an appointemnt I'm already late for, but my anwser ...
(1) They oppose the imposition of shari'a law. This is Pipes' sole definition. This is the MINIMUM definition, but when I asked him this directly at the OCON conference this is what he said. To that, I personally add:
(2) Fully advocates full rights for women, non-Muslims, racial minorities.
(3) Disavows the concept of global supremacy of Islam.
(4) Openly decries violence and violent jihadist groups.
Takes guts. But such are the times. It takes guts for me and you, too.
I think it is ridiculous to think that Moslems who believe the Qur’an to be the word of God and Mohammad to be his prophet, will just remove some parts, particularly to appease infidels.
Its like an Atheist asking a Jew or Christian to remove a bit of the Old testament, just because they don’t like it. Not going to happen.
PMK, Eteraz just addressed me on the Ahmadinejad thread and I answered him. You might find that illuminating. OR, read the first six posts of this thread.
Meanwhile, I'm with Pipes: Radical Islam is the problem; moderate Islam is the solution. But I don't think interpretation is enough and come down with Robert and some Islamic theorists that theological changes must be made.
We might not agree. But I appreciate the way you think about it and enjoying reading what you have to say.
Infidel Pride,
The hope some people put in the "moderate Muslims" to save us from Islam is not utterly fantastic, for history has shown that many people can cling to, construct, or reconfigure beliefs in systems that are logically untenable, and can cling to them almost indefinitely. So while you and I know that a "moderate Muslim" is a thoroughly illogical animal vis-à-vis the unsynthesizable antithesis between Islam and moderation, it is possible that certain Muslims, being human beings, can come to think they can harmonize what really cannot be harmonized and can go on to function quite normally that way indefinitely.
But the problem I have is less with the question of whether it is possible (psychologically and socially) for a certain number of Muslims to come to unproblematically adopt a logically impossible hybrid Islam with no cognitive dissonance at all, in effect happily lying to themselves, than with what I think is ultimately irrelevant to the nightmarishly spectacular mortal danger we all face from multitudes of Muslims whom -- and this is the crucial point -- we usually cannot rationally distinguish from the putatively "moderate" ones. It's all fine and dandy to acknowledge the possibility of "moderate" Muslims existing; it's quite another to be able to tell who they are and where they are, and to tell when they are lying or not. We can't perform these operations of discrimination with sufficient success to ensure our collective safety against horrific attacks that untold numbers of Muslim are right now plotting, planning and aiding and abetting in one form or another all around the globe.
Therefore, the Project of Saving the Few Boatloads of Moderate Muslims Floating in their Life Savers off the Bow of the Disastrously Evil S.S. Islam must take second place to our main concern: ensuring our collective Infidel security and safety -- and taking "second place" means, to put it bluntly, that sometimes we will have to discriminate against and mistreat as collateral damage many otherwise nice and moderate Muslims.
I suspect that the Morgaans and Pipes of the world think we can have it both ways, that we can have the Cake of defending ourselves in the decades ahead, and we can Eat the Cake of coddling all those hundreds of millions of nice moderate harmless Muslims that "must" exist -- and the Morgaans and Pipes of the world achieve this win/win fantasy in their minds by insisting that the only way we can defend ourselves is by enlisting that Mythical Majority of Moderate Muslims whom we can easily distinguish from the Minority of Extremists.
Remote
You are right - and the point you make about the impossibility of distinguishing a genuine moderate from an ingenuous taquiyya artist is undoubtedly correct. My issue is with Sinclair and Pipes claiming, in the absense of any evidence, that those Muslims are the majority (and Pipes actually concedes in 'The Obsession' documentary that it's just an estimate). I'd challenge them to prove that even in the world's top 4 countries - Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and even secular India, a majority of the Muslims are moderates. I can prove to the contrary by pointing out the plight of Christians in Sulawesi and Pakistan, Hindus in Lombok, now Bali and Bangladesh and Buddhist (Chinese) throughout Indonesia, and Bangladesh's Chittagong Hill Tracts, and in India in Kashmir, and also in rest of India, where Muslims get preferential treatment particularly over Hindus due to their being a political monolith. In India, one of the biggest problem Hindus had was with the fact that 'moderate' Muslims never disowned firebreating Muslim imams and politicians who would issue incendiary speeches in mosques, and never brought to account for it.
Morgaan
I think it is a great attempt to find and promote moderate muslims there are however several problems that Robert Spencer has pointed out. Moderates will never have the support of faithful muslims. This is a fact you cannot be a muslim in the true sense of the word without buying into the jihad concept. I have feeling that many cultural muslims when pushed and shoved will either accept the jihad ideology OR will simply do away with Islam for something else.
Islam at its core is a very rotten tree with very shaky foundations. Moderates in Islam just don't have any theological bases to make arguments despite what the so called refomers claim. Unless you fix the roots the ideological founder of the faith it is doomed to fail. Muhammad is nothing like the founders of the other faiths. You cannot compare him to Jesus, Buddha, Abraham, or any of the various people/gods associated with Hinduism like Rama. The God of Islam is no Vishnu or the god Jesus was talking about. With the other faiths you could find ways to live in peace with one another as equals and view the faith as a personal search. Using the methods that have moderated these other faiths appear not to work with Islam. So what do we do?
That is a 1400 year old question.
This is not OT; it's a post I read in another context and yet . . . .
--quote--The issue of the economic efficiency of slavery is a very contentious issue. The initial research was that slavery would of died eventually for economics reasons but the research of Robert Fogel, Noble prize in economics in 1993, indicated that slavery was economically profitable.
The Royal Navy policed the African Coast to stop the slave trade although they also used bribery to force other nations to give up the slave trade too. One of the major motivations was to maintain the "economics competitiveness" of their Caribbean colonies. The British used some military force to stop the Brazilian slave trade.
In P. J. O’Rourke’s book, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS, there’s a sentence that gave me pause. He says, speaking of slavery, that economic self-interest did more good than the abolitionists.
I don’t know about that. My impression is that what brought about the end of slavery was force, and that the force was deployed in good measure as a result of the work of the abolitionists in exposing the moral wrong that was slavery.
In the US, certainly, the Southerners didn't just decide, “You know, those free-market economists are right! We’d all be better off, even financially, if we got rid of slavery!”
WE got rid of slavery when Lincoln lowered a big Monty Python boot on them in the form of the Union war machine. --quote--
The North and the South did it the hard way! Will Americans and
Muslim-Americans do it the easy way?
Infidel Pride,
My point though is that even if we concede that the majority of Muslims are moderate, it still does us no good, since our ability to distinguish them from the dangerous extremists in their midst, dispersed throughout the globe, and receiving a melange of passive and active support from another indeterminate "minority" chunk of millions or hundreds of millions of ambivalent Muslims (whom we also can't sufficiently distinguish from the putatively moderate majority of Muslims) puts us in a position of being forced -- for the sake of our collective safety in the face of the very real and constantly imminent potential for random, unpredictable and spectacularly horrific attacks on us -- of treating all Muslims en masse as potentially dangerous. In this situation, we should of course try to do everything we can to spare the discomfort and lives of any genuinely harmless moderate Muslims that might exist out there -- but we should never let this concern get in the way of our #1 priority: the safety and security of Infidels.
Bottom Line: Better for us to err on the side of being ready at the drop of a fez to inconvenience, insult, harm and even kill indeterminate numbers of Muslims who, unbeknowst to us, happen to be harmless moderate Muslim, than to err on the side of not doing enough to protect ourselves -- insofar as, and at any given juncture when, these two pose a dilemma.
remote_control --
OK -- I clicked on your name and found your blog, so I'll keep an eye out for your "litmus test" information as soon as you have it available.
Ever since I wrote you yesterday I've been trying to FIGURE OUT what it is, so I'm really curious what you've come up with.
I've set the bar pretty high -- actually -- the bar may be set too high when it comes to moderates, because in my opinion, the burden of "where they're at" should be placed on them. In other words, don't tell me you're a moderate. Show me.
Am I warm?
"Rosie O'Donnell".....LOL!!
Morgaan,
I've read your posts. You just refuse to confront what it is you are saying.
1. You want a new Islam. Wonderful. Well that is not what Islam is today. There is no moderation in authentic Islam. Show me a Muslim, any Muslim (name a name), who will accept what you think should be done (wipe out large parts of the Koran and the Hadith) and still consider himself a Muslim.
2. You find it heartening that Indonesians tried to kill the Bali bombers. Would they have been so determined to kill them if their own child had not died in that blast? For that matter, would the bombers ever have been arrested absent the death of Muslims? What you admire is not a rejection of radical jihad. It is a desire for vengeance, nothing more.
3. You excuse the Palestinians, saying they were stoked on by Hamas. Well if they could cheer the deaths of thousands of innocents (what happened to that idea that killing one innocent is as if killing the whole world?) AGAINST ALL TENETS OF THEIR RELIGION, what else will they do? Why should I trust them? Hamas is not a secular group. It claims its legitimacy by its adherence to Islam. These people who cheer on terrorists are following their religion.
4. The radicals couldn't function without the moderates in their midst. They are the ones who provide the materiel, human and otherwise. They know who is building the bombs and planning the attacks and they keep silent. I'm sick and tired of hearing how they are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their lives. People from other countries are giving their lives for these people and what are they getting in return? The radicals believe in their own cause enough to give their lives so what about the so-called moderates? It looks like their Islam matters more to them than their freedom or their children's future. If they really outnumbered the radicals like you and others say, they could have crushed these killers long ago. Instead they demonstrate in the streets and call Americans killers. You refuse to face it.
I could go on, but there's no point. "Moderate" Muslims aren't the only ones in denial. You are, too.
I rest my case.
"In that case, on a sliding scale of 1-10, 0 being Osama and 10 being Ibn Warraq, I'd put Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Qaradawi and Ramadhan at 1, the above leaders at 2, the Ayman Nours and the Assads at 3, the Islam Karimovs at 4, the Irshad Manjis of the world at 6, the Thomas Haidons or Amir Taheris at 8, and the Tashbih Sayyeds at 9. All those who make the leap out of Islam - Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, et al - a perfect 10.
Now, on this sliding scale, where do you start defining moderates?"
A truly fine question, Infidel Pride. Five years ago my answer would have been 8, maybe 7. Now it is definitely at the 3 or 2 level. Until I am shown convincing proof to the contrary, moderate Muslims essentially prepresent a tacitly cooperative or merely unactivated resource pool for the radicals.
Examine where so many of the terrorists and bomb vest killers come from. Not radical households, but those of moderates instead. It is exactly the lack of pre-emptive action on the part of moderates that facilitates the conversion of their children into radicals.
"He [Eteraz] has failed to cite the appropriate evidence. He has substituted a couple of opinions about Islamic law on jihad in the place of Islamic laws on jihad. Moreover, the statements he cites may in fact be mere public-relations statements with no weight, no consequence whatsoever."
Such weightless and inconsequential statements could just as easily be construed as taqqiya.
Superb refutation of Ali Eteraz’s false accusations against Robert Spencer. You really gutted his line of bovine fecal matter, Khaybar Oasis. Bravo.
”Your point about Qaradawi is incredibly salient. This man's influence is IMMENSE.”
Which is why I continue to nominate Qaradawi for a swift dirt nap. He is one of the West's most dangerous enemies and needs to be eliminated post haste.
”Yup, SILENCE GIVES CONSENT.”
It goes beyond that. As I have quoted before.
After a while silence is no longer consent. To remain silent is to lie.
When moderate Muslims remain silent about the evil that is terrorism, even if faced with threats of death for apostasy, they become part of the problem and no longer represent any part of the solution. The final proof of this being that should Islam fail to abate the terrorist activities happening at its behest, the entire ummah, moderates and all, will most likely perish in a Muslim holocaust. This world is not going to tolerate Islamic atrocities forever.
” Muslims are triumphalists and claim victory even when they are clearly defeated.”
You mean like Nasrallah with that keruffle in Lebanon?
” we usually cannot rationally distinguish from the putatively "moderate" ones. It's all fine and dandy to acknowledge the possibility of "moderate" Muslims existing; it's quite another to be able to tell who they are and where they are, and to tell when they are lying or not. We can't perform these operations of discrimination with sufficient success to ensure our collective safety against horrific attacks that untold numbers of Muslim are right now plotting, planning and aiding and abetting in one form or another all around the globe.”
Bing-effing-oh, remote_control. I’m going to repost what I wrote about the way that taqqiya irreversibly taints Islam:
Because taqqiya so rightly condemns Islam to a complete lack of credibility, mere reformation will not be enough to salvage it. For the last few years I have maintained that only Radical Reformation can save Islam. If they wish to harbor even the least hope of survival, moderate Muslims must rise up and begin stacking dead jihadis behind their mosques like so much cordwood.
Anything less is highly unlikely to satisfy the West's suspicions. Islam's perfidy has so permeated its reputation that moderation no longer carries sufficient weight to convince an intelligent person of any genuine sincerity whatsoever. A Spanish journalist once said:
After a while, silence is no longer consent. To remain silent is to lie.
The deafening silence of moderate Muslims has forced upon themselves the obligation of pursuing Radical Reformation. That people like Ali Eteraz actually exhort them to remain silent only seals their fate. Silence merely allows the jihadis to play for time as they continue steering Islam towards its final destruction. The silence of moderate Muslims has become the lie of taqqiya and its only destination is the silence of the grave.
OT:
Transactions and Strokes
• Transactions are the flow of communication, and more specifically the unspoken psychological flow of communication that runs in parallel.
• Transactions occur simultaneously at both explicit and psychological levels. Example: sweet caring voice with sarcastic intent. To read the real communication requires both surface and non-verbal reading.
• Strokes are the recognition, attention or responsiveness that one person gives another. Strokes can be positive (nicknamed "warm fuzzies") or negative ("cold pricklies"). A key idea is that people hunger for recognition, and that lacking positive strokes, will seek whatever kind they can, even if it is recognition of a negative kind. We test out as children what strategies and behaviours seem to get us strokes, of whatever kind we can get.
People often create pressure in (or experience pressure from) others to communicate in a way that matches their style, so that a boss who talks to his staff as a controlling parent will often engender self-abasement or other childlike responses. Those employees who resist may get removed or labeled as "trouble".
Transactions can be experienced as positive or negative depending on the nature of the strokes within them. However, a negative transaction is preferred to no transaction at all, because of a fundamental hunger for strokes.
Definition of game
A game is a series of transactions that is complementary (reciprocal), ulterior, and proceeds towards a predictable outcome. Games are often characterized by a switch in roles of players towards the end.
Each game has a payoff for those playing it. The antithesis of a game, that is, the way to break it, lies in discovering how to deprive the actors of their payoff.
Students of transactional analysis have discovered that people who are used to a game are willing to play it, even if as a different actor from what they originally were.
Analysis of a game
One important aspect of a game is its number of players. Games may be two handed (that is, played by two players), three handed (that is, played by three players), or many handed. Three other quantitative variables are often useful to consider for games:
• Flexibility: The ability of the players to change the currency of the game (that is, the tools they use to play it). In a flexible game, players may shift from words, to money, to parts of the body.
• Tenacity: The persistence with which people play and stick to their games and their resistance to breaking it.
• Intensity: Easy games are games played in a relaxed way. Hard games are games played in a tense and aggressive way.
Some commonly found games
• YDYB: Why Don't You, Yes But
• IFWY: If It Weren't For You
• WAHM: Why does this Always Happen to Me?
• SWYMD: See What You Made Me Do
• UGMIT: You Got Me Into This
• LHIT: Look How Hard I've Tried
• ITHY: I'm Only Trying to Help You
• LYAHF: Let's You and Him Fight
• WRETCHED EXCESS - plot involves a Protagonist who, either by choice or by accident, pushes the limits of acceptable behavior to the extreme and is forced to deal with the consequences.
Rackets
• A racket is the dual strategy of getting "permitted feelings" and covering up those which we truly feel, as being "not allowed".
More technically, a racket feeling is "a familiar set of emotions, learned and enhanced during childhood, experienced in many different stress situations, and maladaptive as an adult means of problem solving".
The racket is then a set of behaviours and chosen strategies learned and practised in childhood which in fact help to cause these feelings to be experienced. Typically this happens despite their own surface protestations and hurt feelings, out of awareness and in a way that is perceived as someone else's fault. One covert pay-off for this racket and its feelings, might be to gain in a guilt free way, continued evidence and reinforcement for a childhood script belief that "People will always let you down".
In other words, rackets and games are devices used by a person to create a circumstance where they can legitimately feel the racket feelings, thus abiding by and reinforcing their childhood script. They are always a substitute for a more genuine and full adult emotion and response which would be a more appropriate response to the here-and-now situation.
The first such game theorized was Why don't you/Yes, but in which one player (White) would pose a problem as if seeking help, and the other player(s) (Black) would offer solutions. White would point out a flaw in every Black player's solution (the "Yes, but" response), until they all gave up in frustration.
The secondary gain for White was that he could claim to have justified his problem as insoluble and thus avoid the hard work of internal change; and for Black, to either feel the frustrated martyr ("I was only trying to help") or a superior being, disrespected ("the patient was uncooperative").
Games can be classed as level 1, 2 or 3 according to the stakes played. Level 1 would be lots of small paybacks (the girl who keeps meeting nice guys who ditch her, and feeling bad). Level 3 would be payback built up over a long period to a major level (ie court, mortuary, or similar).
They can also be analysed according to the Karpman drama triangle, that is, by the roles of Persecutor, Victim and Rescuer. The 'switch' is then when one of these having allowed stable roles to become established, suddenly switches role. The victim becomes a persecutor, and throws the previous persecutor into the victim role, or the rescuer suddenly switches to become a persecutor.
The Moderate Muslim -- Myth or An Ideal
I consider the "moderate" Muslim to be a Myth, and those who see it otherwise are striving for an Ideal -- an unattainable ideal.
An unmistakable line was drawn in the sand after 9/11, and that meant a choice had to be made by everyone. A choice to either be for the war on terror, or not.
And most of the "moderates" I have known have been sitting on the fence in silence; and the few who DO speak out have a glaring problem, a glaring handicap -- there own religion!!!
Show me a "moderate", and I'll show you someone who needs to make a choice. It's time to get off of the fence.
Oops..."their"...not there
champ,
I agree the bar needs to be set extremely high, because the stakes of our safety are so high. I'll be posting on my blog by tomorrow. My bottom line for a "moderate Muslim" -- let me back up this truck a second. I think we should throw away this term altogether, but find a different term for something that we can continue to hold out as a possibility. I would call it the "harmless Muslim".
So, getting back to my point: My bottom line for a "harmless Muslim" is that they must abandon all notions of Islamic conquest and Islamic self-defense that are physically violent, and they must do this within the context of an embrace of separation of church and state -- for it is a non-religious, secular state that will provide any Muslim individuals with protection if they need it. If a Muslim can't do this and, as you point out, show that he is doing this, then he's not a harmless Muslim.
remote_control --
Your post makes a lot of sense, and I agree that the term "moderate" needs to change. What if we were to take your idea one giant step further and suggest that "moderates" ABANDON Islam completely.
I suggest that this difficult step be taken because I don't consider Islam to be a true "religion" in the first place. I consider it to be a "system of government", and calling it a "religion" is Islam's store front; but once inside, you realize that the sign posted outside the building misrepresents the actual merchandise being offered inside.
And perhaps that's what you meant when you stated, "they must do this within the context of an embrace of separation of church and state". Maybe you were agreeing with me, or maybe you were saying something else, but regardless, I enjoy hearing what you have to say.
Anyway, thanks for writing back, and I'm still processing this whole notion of the Moderate Muslim in my tentative mind. I'm a tough sell on the idea, but at least I enjoy the stimulating -- and friendly -- conversation you offer. Thanks.
For a while there I was afraid they were going to shut down the comments section altogether; they have threatened to do that several times in the past. I really do enjoy reading the comments section and find them informative and, in some cases quite entertaining. I have learned a lot from Robert and Hugh and although I've read many books on the subject, including Robert's of course, I am not as clever or articulate as some of the posters here. Have a nice day AIG and anyone else who happens to read this.
champ and others,
Ideally, I think most of us would rather see Muslims just become ex-Muslims altogether, and have us all abandon the notion of a "moderate Muslim". But unfortunately, that is too idealistic and unrealstic a goal. A certain number of Muslim in the coming decades might abandon Islam completely, but we can't count on a sufficient number of them doing so such that our problem with Islam will be solved that way. So, as unpleasant as it is, we will have to deal with the concept of a "moderate Muslim". But as I said, I would rather re-name that as the "harmless Muslim". By "dealing with", however, I don't mean we should rely on that concept as a significant part of our solution to this problem. At best, it should be a minor part of our general management of the problem, with the major part being our rationally hostile and suspicious posture with regard to all Muslims (even if we concede that a majority of them could be "harmless").
remote_control --
Thanks for writing, and you are right, it is too much to hope for: that the moderate Muslim might completely abandon his/her own faith. And I like your idea of the moderate modifying what they call themselves -- "harmless" -- because moderate sounds too much like they are on the fence. Like they can't decide where they stand.
You're right, "moderate" sounds too much like, "Gee, I can't decide if I'm for or against jihad". But "harmless" makes more sense, because it tends to REMOVE ALL DOUBT as to where a Muslim is at.
Great idea, remote!!
Remote and others
I view the "moderate muslims" as the epitome of the trojan horse if you get my drift.
Hi American! Maybe we can talk here?
Never mind American -- I just sent you an e-mail.
Take care!!
champ, my "litmus test" is up on my blog now, if you'd like to read it.
dms,
"I view the "moderate muslims" as the epitome of the trojan horse if you get my drift."
I agree: Practically speaking, as far as we Infidels are concerned, that is what any given "moderate Muslim" is -- a potential threat. And it's the fault of the Muslims in various ways (including their inability to protest en masse against their "extremists" and their inability to define, identify, locate and physically neutralize their bad apples) for this situation, not our fault.
If you take a look at my "Litmus Test" on my blog (click my name below), I outline what any given Muslim must do to prove he is a "harmless Muslim". (Of course, even if a Muslim passes a litmus test like this, it doesn't mean we should relax and stop being suspicious of him or her.)
Well done, remote!! Your idea makes a lot of sense, and I hope more posters read it. Have you sent it to Robert? Maybe he will post your blog as a thread. That would be great!
remote_control and all --
You stated, "even if a Muslim passes a litmus test like this, it doesn't mean we should relax and stop being suspicious of him or her"
No kidding!
And I want to add one more thought to my above post as it pertains to your comment. I support your idea of seeing "moderates" convert to "harmless" Muslims more on a NATIONAL level, but it won't work FOR ME on a personal level. For myself, I need to keep ALL Muslims at arms length until -- until I see different results from them.
In other words, I have no immediate plans of making friends with "moderate" Muslims. In fact, the one and ONLY "Moderate Muslim" I have ever known turned out to be a crashing disappointment because he beat his wife, and he was very outspoken about his hatred for Israel, and he called himself a "moderate".
(Moderate how? Well, I beat my wife in moderation, and I hate Israel in moderation. Whatever!)
Anyway....the "moderate" I am referring to was the general manager for our business -- WAS -- because he no longer works for us. We did not let him go because he was a "moderate" Muslim, we let him go for other reasons, for legitimate and legal reasons; but the three years I spent with him left a real impression on me, so I will remain a tough sell for quite some time, but only on a personal level.
But on a national, or on a more public level, I support your idea for change, remote.
Bravo!!
Thanks champ. (I doubt Robert would post anything of mine, since he seems to think I indulge in "hobbyhorses".)
Well, that's too bad, because the only way to bring about reform within Islam is to get ideas, like yours, out there. Your idea is a good one, and it's a shame that Robert has dismissed you in the past. It's a much needed, great idea!
Great PLAN!