David Horowitz, of whose Freedom Center Jihad Watch is a part, has alerted me to an ad in the Emory University campus newspaper, the Emory Wheel. While their statement makes serious -- one might say defamatory -- charges claiming that our ad “aims to intimidate, threaten, or reductively portray a religious group with the intent to antagonize or demean its members,” it fails to explain how our ad does this, or in what way it is inaccurate. This kind of undocumented smear constitutes a kind of hate speech itself.
Our ad notes that “the goal of jihad is world domination,” that “jihad demands the suppression of all infidels,” that its battle cry is “death to America,” and that it is a war against Christians, Jews, women and gays. Does the Emory Religious Life Staff deny that all around the globe there are movements – united under the banner of “jihad” – devoted to exactly these goals? We are well aware that there are within Islam other understandings of jihad, but that does not negate the fact that those who are pursuing the agenda we outlined call what they are doing “jihad.” It is demeaning, not empowering, to peaceful Muslims to deny or minimize this fact, for denying it robs them of an opportunity to work for reform within their own community, refuting the understanding of jihad put forward by bin Laden, Nasrallah, and their ilk. One cannot address a problem while simultaneously denying the existence of that problem.
Like the letters that appeared in the Emory Wheel after the publication of our ad, the Religious Life Staff ad contents itself with impugning our motives, without offering even one specific rebuttal of anything our ad asserts. Likewise, a Muslim writer who claimed to find my letter to the Wheel "full of glaring errors" was unable, in several windy posts, to come up with even one -- and showed himself to be utterly dishonest in framing his alleged refutation.
If anyone in the Emory community is willing to discuss the specifics of the problem of jihad terrorism and what can be done about it in a mutually respectful manner, dealing in substance rather than in disingenuousness and defamation, I would be happy to do so.
People who study politics, or group dynamics generally, know that within any extremist movement, there are gradations of extreme, all the way down to what could be called 'moderates'. They also know that when push comes to show, those 'moderates' lose every time, because they are not as willing to use violence to achieve their ends.
Thus, the debate about the existence or absence of other meanings of jihad is, in the realm of history, the equivalent of the debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in the realm of theology.
We don't have time to debate academic issues.
From that multi-authored rebuttal letter to the Emory Wheel: "It is our very Islamic beliefs that command us not to threaten or transgress against our fellow man, but rather to be productive members of both the Emory and greater human communities. No Muslim at Emory is proud of Al-Qaeda, but at the same time we can distinguish between the religion and those who exploit it for political motives."
Sure, these muslims "can distinguish between the religion and those who exploit it for political motives," but they don't do a damned thing about it. Except complain when someone like Robert Spencer points it out. So if violent, aggressive jihad is a religious belief for some/many muslims (sacrosant from any criticism), then, yes, I'll gladly condemn such 'beliefs'. Call me an islamophobe.
This is the sad state of "intellectualism" on our college campuses. Some, like these Emory religious scholars, who make their living through teaching and scholarship, are so uninformed, lazy and politically correct that they are neither willing, nor able to study the issue for themselves.
It makes one wonder why students should then be required to take a course in relgion when the professors themselves do not clearly understand the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam, or are not willing to disseminate the truth.
The ad simply factually (verbatum)re-stated the statements made by jihadists. So who's doing the intimidating and threatening?
In the west and elsewhere, it is unbecoming to shed light on the enemy (or even to name the enemy).
Our Kool Aid sipping and spineless populace will destroy us first. The jihadists will just mop up whats left.
When the professors don't even understand the basics of rational debate that is scariest of all.
These substanceless objection(s) perfectly illustrate the old saying
the truth hurts
Leon the pig farmer - you got a nasty comment by one "Mary" in response to your comment on the LSU Reveille (lsureveille.com) on the Muslim writer's ridiculous column. sounder - did I see you there, too?
Leon, it's very nasty. You might want to refute it!
This response displays that Mr. Spencer has hit a nerve.
Perhaps it is time to consider funding another billboard project.
Re: "This kind of undocumented smear constitutes a kind of hate speech itself".
Absolutely. Dennis Prager recently made the point that there are about 7 words used to silence debate (sexist, racist, homophobic, islamaphobic, etc.) that are appeals to emotion and not to facts and reason. These bumper-sticker "arguments" are often part of an attempt to silence and demonize people who raise questions.
The good news is that people are getting savvy and seeing that Dennis is right. He is right.
I'd like to get a billboard like that here in Minnesotastan. Seems to be regarded as a melting pot for Somalians and spinless Scandinavians.
You can forward this story to the disinterested parties
Chris Megerian
Editor in Chief cmegerian@emorywheel.com
Rachel Zelkowitz
Executive Editor rzelkowitz@emorywheel.com
Meg McDermott
Managing Editor mmcdermott@emorywheel.com
Susan McMillan
News Editor smcmillan@emorywheel.com
Eric Betts
Editorials Editor ebetts@emorywheel.com
Jordan Jakubowitz
Sports Editor jjakubowitz@emorywheel.com
Emily Millen
Sports Editor emillen@emorywheel.com
David Marek
Entertainment Editor dmarek@emorywheel.com
Caroline Duncan
Arts & Living Editor cduncan@emorywheel.com
Brooke Marshall
Features Editor bmarshall@emorywheel.com
Steven Stein
Magazine Editor sstein@emorywheel.com
Matthew Steinberg
Online Editor msteinberg@emorywheel.com
Sze (Jimmy) Zhou
Photography Editor szhou@emorywheel.com
Salvador Rizzo
Assistant News Editor srizzo@emorywheel.com
Leisha Chi
Assistant News Editor pchi@emorywheel.com
Chris French
Assistant Entertainment Editor cfrench@emorywheel.com
Benjamin Wald
Director of Information Technology bwald@emorywheel.com
Matthew Steinberg
Associate Director of Information Technology msteinberg@emorywheel.com
Patricia Dodson
Business Manager pdodson@emorywheel.com
Eric Snyder
General Manager esnyder@emorywheel.com
Leon the pig farmer - you got a nasty comment by one "Mary" in response to your comment on the LSU Reveille (lsureveille.com) on the Muslim writer's ridiculous column. sounder - did I see you there, too?
Leon, it's very nasty. You might want to refute it!
Posted by: darcy at April 26, 2007 09:14 AM
Yes darcy, Sounder left a post there. And check this out, a poster called Perspective posted this:
"However, I would ask people to refrain from making senseless statemtns about islaam and Qur'aan. NOWHERE AND NO RELIGION allows senseless killing of innocent civilians, not in the Qur'aan and not in Islaam."
Now how's that for "Perspective". Must be wearing welding goggles.
That post@: http://www.lsureveille.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=af20fc07-2a81-4b78-ba04-1a90a98ce2f7
It seems to me that, even at the university level (or should we say 'especially' at that level), the propagators of Islam believe they can get away with sophomoric tactics that are reminiscint of Bagdad Bob and Ahmedinajad.
Undergrads are eager to formulate their worldview, so these guys fill the void. What the kids don't understand is that what they really need is a method to evaluate the dribble they are subjected to. True critical thinking is that method ... but unfortunately, this is only developed when something YOU believe in is attacked, and you have to employ it yourself. Hence, readers of the Wheel are easy fodder for those Islamists who successfully use the 'ignorance' tactic.
I'm hopeful that, as more good information is spread, more mainstreamers will not blindly repeat the the "tiny minority of extremists" and "hijacked a religion of peace" script.
... but I'm an optimist :/
It wont be long untill we are all in prison for telling the truth about Islam.
Congress is putting on fast track a bill HR1592.
A discriminatory measure that criminalises thoughts and emotions, mostly to protect gays, but it wont be long before it includes any statement, or revealed thought, that bumps into PC. That would include any statement, fact or not, that makes a muslim 'feel bad'. (see Worldnetdaily.com lead story).
I thought the good book said that the 'meek' would inherit the Earth and now we discover that it is the 'weak'who are inheriting it. Weak minded, spineless politicians who want to be our parents, and tell us what to think and say, under penalty of punishment.
A few years ago some guy started a movement called throw the bums out. Lets bring that back and take the garbage out...
Yes, sounder, and did you read crissy's response to perspective? (some "perspective, lol!) Another Muslim ignoramus.
Goes to prove that one doesnt need commen sense to attend or teach at a university
darcy, wow, yes crissy really let "Perspective" have it with perspective!
I am convinced not one of these islamic sympathizers ever read one single word in the koran or islamic teachings.
Ignorance is bliss. Bliss is a liberal.
sounder - why don't you go and let "perspective" have it too? Power in Numbers!
Kudos for the ad.
Many of these campi are filled with vacant zombies unwilling to face their most apparent enemies.
Even the psychotic killer Cho knew enough to take on his arm tattoo the islamic enemy reference (the enemy of my enemy etc)
In this political correctness these people couldnt find their own behind with both hands in their back pockets.
Twould be no problem except they could get us killed as well.
Twould be no problem except they could get us killed as well.
Posted by: dgene at April 26, 2007 11:21 AM
Thats the main problem. These leftist elitists are as much, if not more targets of jihad than we are. For some reason, they think that the jihadists will go along with their liberal utopia.
"Those that cannot do, teach."
Unfortunately, the negative context of that old saying is truer than the positive on most of our university campuses.
Do Islams prophligates ( apologists) who attack those who promote Islamic awareness suffer from the ignorance of Islam that muslims "demands" others are suffering from or are they ideologically connected at some unknown level that they want to hid?
Do Islams prophligates ( apologists) who attack those who promote Islamic awareness suffer from the ignorance of Islam that muslims "demands" others are suffering from or are they ideologically connected at some unknown level that they want to hid?
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 26, 2007 11:33 AM
My therory is that the left apologists are in line with jihad to destroy Western culture and find jihad their proxy for destroying it. But being lefties, they are short sighted and dont realize that they will not get Islam on board with their liberal vision of a new Western utopia. Something tells me Muslims wont go along with the lefts pro-gay, pro-alcohol, pro-drug, pro anything goes attitude.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268640,00.html
U.S. LIEUTENANT COLONEL WHO COMMANDED BAGHDAD DETENTION CENTER CHARGED WITH 'AIDING THE ENEMY'
Thursday, April 26, 2007
BAGHDAD
A senior U.S. officer has been charged with nine offenses, including aiding the enemy and fraternizing with the daughter of a detainee while he commanded a military police detachment at the American detention facility where Saddam Hussein had been held, the military said Thursday.
Army Lt. Col. William H. Steele was the commander of the 451st Military Police Detachment at Camp Cropper on the western outskirts of Baghdad when he was accused of giving "aid to the enemy" by providing an unmonitored cell phone to detainees.
And of course there is also Woody Allen's magnificent formulation: "Thsoe who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml?s=us
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Bombshell Cripples Case Against Haditha Marines
Philip V. Brennan
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Baseless Charges
Although the prosecutors said they needed more time to prepare their cases, there is much more to the story than that NewsMax.com has learned, and it paints a shocking picture of a prosecution that should never have been pursued.
In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence officer dropped a bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when he revealed the existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have been obtained by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and withheld from the prosecutors.
This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as one of the best and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine Corps, was in possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute narrative of the entire day's action — material which he had amassed while monitoring the day's action in his capacity as the battalion's intelligence officer. That material, he says, was also in the hands of the NCIS
read the whole thing what did murtha do!!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/26/80005.shtml?s=ic
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:56 a.m. EDT
Haditha Marine Officer Up for Bronze Star Medal
Even as the government was investigating whether a Marine officer failed to probe the death of 24 Iraqi civilians, he was being recommended for a Bronze Star medal partly for his actions the day of the killings, his attorney said Wednesday.
AGAIN READ THE WHOLE THING THEN ASK YOURSELF WHAT DID MURTHA DO AND WHY??
I am not surprised at the response to Freedom's Center's ad. l just read in the arlice of a loca newspaper about some muslm scholar saying jihad was not about terrorism.. blah blah. .inner peace, blah blah..
l felt like saying to these muslim appologists, you dont need to talk to us (West) ,but to your terrorists brothers who are doing the killings. tell them how "they" are reading the koran wrong. good way to point the blame back onto the coward islamist terrorists .
Spen.cer.o.pho.bi.a [spen.ser.uh.foh.bee.uh]
- noun
1. The fear of having the Islamist agenda exposed.
2. The abnormal fear of being killed or mistreated for being Muslim while the Islamist agenda is being exposed.
3. The feigned fear of (2) above.
4. The fear of not appearing multicultural enough while the Islamist agenda is being exposed.
Mr. Spencer, you are making two mistakes:
1. You are debating Islam and they are debating bigotry like Jimmy Carter against their financial power backers.
2. You are debating Islam and they are promoting Islam as an alternative to Christianity which they despise on two fronts.
A. They hate Christians because they vote Republican and not liberal socialist democrat.
B. They hate Protestant Christianity as it adheres to the Bible which they wish to void as it exposes their character flaws.
The correct debate to shut this down is simple. The Nazi's were a diverse order of which some of them helped Jews escaped, a majority turned a blind eye and a segment like Islam was putting them into detention to work them to death.
There are good Nazi's just like there are good Muslims...the problem is the good are rare like winning a lottery.
Debating Islam will fail as they are not debating Islam. They have to be debated on their issue as Spencer is from Mars and Emory is from Venus.
I'm still wondering how Hugh Fitzgerald feels about Jihad Watch's organic relationship with the 'David Horowitz Freedom Center'....considering his previously expressed contempt for Mr Horowitz on these pages.
I like to judge these things for myself, but I could not find, within a reasonable time-span, a link regarding this statement by the Religious Leaders at Emory on the Emory Wheel pages.
Eteraz has posted the statement from the religious leaders:
http://eteraz.org/story/2007/4/24/184038/177
If someone has a link to the original statement* in the Emory Wheel, please provide it. Thanks in advance.
*"A Statement by Emory University Religious Leaders"
As for the goal of Islam being to establish Islamic law in Islamic countries, on average 65% to 71% of Muslims sampled across Morocco, Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan agree with this at least somewhat. [Source]
Based on various polls in the west, about one third of Muslims want sharia law to be established in western countries. [Refs here] In regards to specific issues such as freedom of expression, most Muslims in the west oppose this, with 68%-78% of British Muslims for example saying that those who criticize or "insult" Islam or Muhammad must be legally punished. (The type of punishment was not specified in the question, but note that about 31% of British Muslims state that apostates should be given the death penalty. I would guess that there is less leniency among Muslims in regards to punishing "blasphemers").
Muslims who would deny that the goal of Islam is to bring the whole world into compliance with at least some of the important Islamic laws are in the minority.
Lame Cherry observed:
"Debating Islam will fail as they are not debating Islam. They have to be debated on their issue..."
That's exactly what I have been saying all along. PC multiculturalism is systemically and structurally resistant to a debate on the level on which Robert Spencer engages it. (And, of course, this would not be the paramount problem it is were PC multiculturalism not dominant and mainstream.)
While there may be a trickle of individuals currently under the dominant and mainstream thrall of PC multiculturalism who will, under the patiently calibrated attrition of Spencer's otherwise fine and noble strategy, become persuaded to open their minds to the Problem of Islam, the vast majority seem irretrievably stuck in the logical cogs of the mechanism of PC multiculturalism.
These logical cogs function in a manner that is relentlessly impervious to all debate and discussion on Spencer's level -- indeed, they feed off the substance and form of his arguments, so that, the more Spencer persists in presenting and representing his evidence and interpretive framework, the stronger the PC multiculturalist mechanism becomes. And the mechanism does this because, as Lame Cherry observes, its cogs are geared to detect, analyze and oppose bigotry: meanwhile, an adjunct mechanism in the PC multiculturalist machine that dovetails with the aforementioned mechanism functions to perceive all attempts at implying vilification of Islam itself (and of the vast majority of Muslims) as bigotry. No matter that Spencer may reasonably object that he is not intending to vilify Islam itself (and the vast majority of Muslims): the very substance and form of his arguments (at least in their superficial structure) are already wired into the programming software of the PC multiculturalist machine under the label of "bigotry", and as long as Spencer does not move from the level on which he is engaging the debate, to the level on which the PC multiculturalists are rigidly situated, they will be talking past each other -- and worse still, by persisting on his level of debate, Spencer will be effectively feeding the PC multiculturalist mechanism that perceives his agenda as "bigoted".
P.S.: I haven't hoped so dearly that one of my "hobbyhorses" is incorrect as I do hope now -- that, to wit, Spencer's own strategy will in fact (contrary to my pessimism about the systemic and mainstream dominance of PC multiculturalism) succeed in the long run, and that this long run will not prove to be too late for thousands, or hundreds of thousands of innocent Infidel lives.
Emory University has now seemingly turned into the Emory Islamic Institute for the Overthrow of US democracy. The Emory Wheel staff should be sued for libel-- immediately.
One wonders just how much revenue Emory is taking in from Middle eastern countries annually. I'd say it is probably plenty and shows why Americans urgently need to ban US colleges, universities and other learning institutions from accepting monies from enemy states and organizations of the United States. These schools are in fact jeopardizing not only America but also their own existences (and prosperity which will vanish along with them). And they are facilitating the destruction of democracy here and abroad by Islam.
Parents should pull their student children out of Emory University pronto, I say. The sooner they do so, the better off America will be.
Islamists, if they ever successfully pull off a coup d'etat in Washington DC, will shut Emory down in a heartbeat, execute the 'infidel' professorial staff and take back the money they gave to it along with whatever else suits their fancy. A high price indeed for corruption, but isn't that always the case?
There is a difference between freedom of speech and libel. When someone like the not-so-good folks at the Emory Wheel steer their journalistic practices towards defamation and libel and the use of untruths they have departed from the freedom of expression granted by the Constitution and have set a grievance in motion. The court system should be invoked here to ensure that the truth remains in full view of the people. Something is clearly rotten in the state of Emory (but not only Emory to be fair)! In this case, the entire public has a grievance with the Emory Wheel (even if most people are unaware of what it did or what is signifies).
The United States of America was indeed founded in part on the concept of redress of grievances. And when someone like those folks at the Emory Wheel resort to tactics such as libel and slander a legitimate grievance for those who have been targeted exists and it is up to the legal system in this nation to hear it, address it, and correct it. It would appear that Jihad Watch and the public have a clear, strong, and legitimate grievance with the Emory Wheel staff.
A very important and relevant document that needs to be more widely broadcast to the American public is the "Islamic 20-point plan to overthrow the United States government" (I last saw it at the Religion of Peace blog--if it still there I recommend everyone here unfamiliar with it download it and print it). The Islamic
20-point plan includes tactics that target US universities and institutions of learning and turning them into islamic propaganda centers. No surprise when incidents like the printing of this defamtory ad in the Emory Wheel transpire.
ps-too bad Emory U. ISN'T TEACHING the fact that Islam teaches first degree murder to its students!
Our brother El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X)said it the best: "There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That’s a good religion." Allahu Akbar
Off topic from Amsterdam:
School Scraps Nature Course As Pigs Enrage Muslim Pupils
Ummah News Links
remote,
1. Can you give me an example of this other level of debate which you envision? Are you suggesting that there is in fact a way to get through to the PC multiculturalists using evidence, reasoning, or some other kind of verbal/written persuasion? Please give me an example of this superior form of communication.
2. I don't believe that the statement by the "Religious Leaders" was motivated by Spencer's reply. I believe it was partly owing to the over-the-top frantic tone of the original (video with music) ad placed in Emory Wheel, not only due to ignorance of Islam's goals or violation of PC taboos. Unfortunately, the Religious Leaders' statement is worded vaguely enough that that distinction might not be clear.
Sorry to bust up the Spencer bashing, but did you read the title of the thread?
"Another substanceless objection"
Sure, Robert could devolve to their level. But that would lead directly to the "substanceless" debate they would like. He's going to redefine "bigotry" to the entire ossified multicultural PC lobby, and will have spent his 15 minutes doing exactly what?
Secondly, these people know a real bigot when they see one. Khatami can get an invite to Harvard, but Robert et al can't place an ad in a school newspaper. The multicultural PC gibberish is just window dressing for those ignorant of the Islamist threat, to KEEP them ignorant, because it suits their agenda. That is to keep those recycled Saudi petrodollars flowing into the MESA nostra. Not unlike why the government has all but repressed electric cars, because of the tax revenues on fossil fuels (now their are looking at "mileage" taxes).
whataboutpepsi:
Stating simple facts makes Muslims suffer. And your religion, you say, gives you warrant to kill for that "suffering." Excrement!
What about Pepsi: I'm for it.
Where do I stand on Jihadis: the neck.
The solution to all of this is simple. We must prove Allah does not exist or protect and guide Muslims. How do we do this? The example of Roman Legions against Carthage.
memo to 'whataboutpepsi':
"and when the forbidden months have ended, slay the unbelievers everywhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, prepare every strategemof warfare against them; levy the poor tax upon their conversion to the ways of la-lah."
A quote from the Kuran, book of Surah. Muhammad.
This Kuran doctrine is prescribing to Muslims the committing of first degree murder. First degree murder against "unbelievers" I might add. How respectful is THAT!!??!
And we all know by now that Malcolm X was hired to indoctrinate the ghetto with jihadism and Islamic ideology.
Muslims are only taught to be respectful to other Muslims and that's IT! "Unbelievers" are NOT included in this -- and YOU know it. You are under the false impression we do not know this about your 'religion'. We do however.
You have given us pure Islamic propaganda here without missing a beat! Great taqiyya! Muhammad would have loved you.
Only no one here is going to be fooled, as we know all about Islam's ideological and jihad practices.
So you might as well hop on out of this blog since you can't fool us.
Suggestion for Rougie:
You can use teachings from the Kuran to destroy Islam. So you really don't even need to print anything out.
All you need do is read some of the Kuran's lethal prose to schoolmates. There are literally hundreds of passages to choose from (like the famous one I quoted which is the teaching of first degree murder) that teach violence and murder against unbelievers.
So--go to your nearest library and check out a Kuran; read some passages carefully, determine what they mean (usually they are inciting Muslims to violence against "unbelievers") talk to your friends and acquaintances and teachers about what you have reaed, show them the passages and get started!
There's plenty in the Kuran that jihadists use to support their violent activities. Find it and work with it. That's all you need to do! get going, there is no time to waste Rougie.
Still hopeful?
from ummahnewslink (above)
Asscher told newspaper De Volkskrant: "A primary school in Amsterdam-Noord has decided no longer to teach about living on a farm. Various pupils began to demolish the classroom when the pig came up for discussion. Apparently it has gone that far. These children, 9, 10 years old, have not been given even the most elementary rules at home about why they must go to school."
BYE BYE EURABIA!
"A Plague On Both Houses" - I read your 2 fabulous comments in reply to that Muslim idiot on The Reveille! (lsureveille.com)
Great! Your lengthy documentation from verifiable sources should kick him to the curb!
wow, pythagoras a lot of fire in the belly. We could be here all day debating about what is being said in all the holy books, all the peacefull passages as well as the ones which are being taken out of context to justify hatred for others, and passages that can be translated into a million different ways, Cherry picking does not work. Iam a muslim and iam proud to be one. nothing can change that, not even your hatred for others who don't believe your ideologies. Only Allah can judge us, nobody else, and that's it.
And please don't make me tap into the wastfull resources of christian crimes that have been accumulated over the years.
Once again I repeat:
Our brother El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X)said it the best: "There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That’s a good religion." Allahu Akbar
The Ignoration of a Muhammadan
1. What's wrong with pigs
a: Quran says they're dirty.
2. What's wrong with Jews
a: Muhammad hated Jews
3. What do you believe in?
a: Allah.
4. Why
a: Muhammad and the Quran tell me I'm going to hell if I don't.
5. Why do you believe Muhammaad.
a: he's the prophet of islam.
If people want to read Plague's comments they can look for "Zack Highstreet" on the "Media" column in the Forum at lsureveille.com.
And comment too, as well.
Hey Plague, you around?
LOL, there is NO "Allah," you dimwit duped Muslim!
The Muhammadan says:
"Our religion teaches us to be intelligent."
It teaches you that Arabs are the superior race.
It teaches you to worship a black rock ("al-hajar al-aswad")
It teaches you FIRST DEGREE MURDER
It teaches you that Jews are the descendants of pigs and monkeys
It teaches you that the sun sets in a muddy pool
It teaches you Muhammad squirted semen all over his clothes and had his 9-year-old bride clean his semen with her spit. Want proof?
Show me one intelligent Muslim...
I'm waiting...
And please don't make me tap into the wastfull resources of christian crimes that have been accumulated over the years.--Whataboutpepsi
Go right ahead. It's a waste of time and energy, though. Pointing out awful things done in the name of Christianity 500-800 or so years ago doesn't change the fact that Islam is the world's most violent, troublesome religion now. You and other Muslims look ridiculous when you try to cover up all the evil caused by your religion in the modern day by pointing to examples of Christian violence in medieval times. Just because Islam is stuck back in the dark ages ideologically doesn't mean the rest of us haven't moved on. Are Christians still persecuting and killing unbelievers? Is there a Christian army attempting to conquer the Holy Land at the urging of the pope? No, and no. Talk about Christian "crimes" all day long, it doesn't mean squat. I'm not defending Christianity, either; I'm an agnostic and I'm well aware of what has been done in the name of Christ--hundreds of years ago. I'm just sick of seeing Muslims try to cover up their own evils by pointing to those of others in history. Two wrongs don't make a right. What one religion did centuries ago doesn't negate what another is doing now.
darcy - yes, I'm in and out of jihadwatch today.
Who needs substance when you're defending third-world, oppressed people? How can such poor shleps espouse a fascist creed?
The JW ad must be advancing some uncomfortable notions.
"Only Allah can judge us, nobody else, and that's it."
Posted above
Oh, not really true. Actually, Allah is a two dimensional, internally conflicted false god, with a contradictory and contrived, ahistorical, and poorly plagiarized "revelation", trumpeted by a self-serving, maliciously appropriating, consciously pretending false prophet.
It is actually Yahweh who judges you, but not only him, us also. We judge you when you murder without remorse and feel righteous, beat your wives and feel justified, degrade others and feel superior, lie and experience no pain of conscience, sate your hedonistic desires and claim piety, etc.
You only refrain from judging yourself because your consience is seared, cold and dead.
hey! Your comments are fantabulous, Plague!
Ynkedoodl, I believe you spelled "Ignoration" wrong.
Ask not only the muslims, but the jews and hindus what they think about pigs.
Muhammad(s.a.w)didn't hate the jews, he viewd them as allies and the people of the book.
What does jesus and the bible tell the people if they don't believe in god and the holy scripturs?
"You will go to hell", looks like we got someting in common here.
Nice try tough
Oh, really? Find the quote in the New Testament you're referencing, please.
"Muhammad(s.a.w)didn't hate the jews, he viewd them as allies and the people of the book. "
Then why did he write 98:6 and 5:51, etc.?
Darcy - thank you. Never give up.
To paraphrase Hoyt Axton:
Well, I've never been to heaven
but I've been to Baton Rouge.
They say that I was born there
but I'll never be a dhimmi stooge.
:))
Can muslim husbands beat their wives with 'baton rouges'? Or do the sticks have to be green?
Robert:
This shouldn't come as any surprise...classic taqqiyah at its best, along with their unholy alliance members such as the multicult crowd prodded along by the likes of none other than good ol' georgie "the capo" sor@$$.
Follow the money there.
Hit them with Koran and Hadith quotes.
Know their "abrogration" tricks and sidestep them quickly.
And hit them with the Koran and Hadith quotes some more.
Don't get sidetracked into cul de sacs of theological aracana.
Their own religion's cruel and bizarre words will convince any reasonable person to be repelled by Islam.
There's no time for fancy philosophical footwork in a fight to the death.
Hit them with the Koran's brutality, misogyny, intolerance, violence and ignorance ("Yawning is from Satan..."; "...dip a fly that falls into your waterglass in the water again, since one wing has a cure for the poison on the other..." ad absurdum).
It is not a pretty dogma.
The more it is exposed, in the raw, the less it will charm the fatally naive.
Don't accept phony groundrules.
Use the very sayings of the pedophile "prophet" to overthrow him.
"Satan stays in the upper part of the nose all night."
Who can take such a "prophet" as anything but a loopy crank?
profitsbeard:
You forgot "pedophilic bandit chieftain from southern jordan whose real name is ubu'l kassim"...but it's ok, as we both know there are many ways to call a fraud a fraud.
^5s
omg, darcy, are you serious.
"You will go to hell" was my quote, nither the Quran or the Bible use the EXACT quote "You will go to hell", they explain it differently but the message is the same.
whataboutpepsi - it's a tasty drink
whataboutIslam - smells like puke.
Yes, I'm serious, find the exact quotation, why don't you? Got a "NT" handy?
LOL, Plague, no I'll never be a dhimmi, either.
Concerned Citizen, 5:51 says that CERTAIN Jews and Chritians can not be alies, don't cherry pick but also read 5:57 which states exaclty wich Jews and Chritians shouldn't be the allies. Which Jews and Christians shouldn't be allies? "those who mock and ridicule your religion".
98:6 refears to people who don't believe in god and who worship more than one god.
Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit
Mohammed - Just smells
"...but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That’s a good religion." --from a poster above.
The statement bears relevance to the main thread, in which "glaring errors" were purportedly found in Mr. Spencer's letter to the Emory wheel but which went unsubstantiated. So what are the "glaring errors?" Or is the point perhaps to intimidate and distract rather than to uncover the truth?
Similarly, what exactly is the phrase "if someone puts a hand on you" intended to mean? Is this a warning against physical constraint, lawful and unlawful alike? Is this a warning against standing opposed to the goals of the Moslem community, no matter whether those goals are in harmony with the laws of the land? All of this goes unsaid, because the resultant ambiguity allows the greatest freedom to manipulate and placate on one side while advancing Islam's agenda on the other. And that's what the poster claims to be a good religion. Be warned.
Oh, is that it?...I was thinking more along the lines of Kool-Aid, that cool refreshing drink mized with cyanide by the peoples temple of jim jones...another cult that murdered in the name of their god.
darcy, there are over 160 references which warn of hell. here are a few.
Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."
Revelation 20:13-15: "...hell delivered up the dead which were in them...And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
OK A_Plague_on_Both_Houses, i see u like jokes, how about this one.
What's the difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus?
It only takes one nail to hang the picture.
Good one whataboutpepsi...
So you think it was actually Jesus on the cross Or was it a picture of Jesus with three nails in it?
004.157
pepsi
Where in the Old Testament does it say anything about Hell?
SHOW ME ONE SPOT! CHAPTER AND VERSE!
C'MON!
And where is your quote from the New Testament to back up your claim.
pepsi:
"ignoration"
definition:
the process by which a normal person become an ignoramus the minute they revert to Muhammadanism.
Ynkedoodl, i already put the verses up, it's adressed to darcy. go back and read it.
WhatAboutPepsi... by the way I like Pepsi more than death...
Pepsi or Death - the choice of a new Jihadi generation.®
pepsi
Doing things that are abhorrent to God will get you sent to Hell. I believe that as a Christian.
being a blashpeming Muhammadan who follows the anti-christ Muhammad (MHRIHF)* will get you to the front of the line. Hey, you asked for Satan, you got him in the form of the fiend muhammad.
Muhammad tried to take the place of Jesus.
Muhammad was a liar and the father of lies.
Muhammad copied off the Jewish religion and corrupted it to make the Arabs the Masters of the Universe instead of the Jews.
Islam is far, far worse than Judaism.
Muhammad was a polytheist, a murderer, a fiend, a thief, a blaspheming, ranting, devil.
*MHRIHF = may he rot in hell forever.
Whataboutpepsi wrote: "OK Plague_on_Both_Houses, i see u like jokes, how about this one.
What's the difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus?
It only takes one nail to hang the picture."
To whit I reply: Well, at least Jesus died for his beliefs; Moped wants to crucify the entire world for not embracing his manifesto of hate.
If you want to promote Pepsi why not develop a new brand for your target market? Mo-Cola, anyone?
pepsi
Ok, where does it mention infidels going to hell in the Old Testament?
Find me one spot and I will publicly apologize.
@pepsi
The worst joke of all:
Islam
A_Plague_on_Both_Houses, surely only you can ask a stupid question like that. You know exactly what that meant. Nice try bringing 4:157 into this.
"there are over 160 references which warn of hell. here are a few e.g. Mark 9:43-48..." -from above.
Mark 9:42 puts the above quote into context, and in the process would seem to put Mohammed and other revisionists into some difficulty.
Pepsi, being a typical muhammadan moron assumes we are all "cross worshippers" here at JW.
O what a dumbass!
Sorry - too much caffeine in my Pepsi. Of course I'm stupid for asking a question about Allah's commands. Mohammed said: "Allah hates you for asking too many questions." Questions are stupid.
But pepsi's good.
Pepsi or Death - the choice of a new Jihadi generation.®
The Messenger of Allah was a chronic masturbator:
Here's the proof from the "holy" writings of Islam:
(7) Qutaiba b. Sa'id, Ishaq b. Ibrahim, Ibn Abi 'Aruba, Abu Ma'shar, Abu Bakr b. Abu Shaiba, Mansur and Mughira have all transmitted from Ibrahim, who transmitted it on the authority of A'isha's narration pertaining to the scraping off of the (drop) of semen from the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) like the hadith of Khalid on the authority of Abu Ma'shar. (Book #002, Hadith #0568)
(8) 'Amr b. Maimun said: I asked Sulaiman b. Yasir whether the semen that gets on to the garment of a person should be washed or not. He replied: A'isha told me: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) washed the semen, and then went out for prayer in that very garment and I saw the mark of washing on it. (Book #002, Hadith #0570)
(9) Abu Kuraib, Ibn al-Mubarak, Ibn Abu Za'ida all of them narrated from Amr b. Maimun with the same chain of transmitters. Ibn Abu Za'ida narrated as was transmitted from Ibn Bishr that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) washed semen, and in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ibn Mabarak and Abdul Wahid the words are:" She (A'isha) reported: I used to wash it from the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)." (Book #002, Hadith #0571)
(10) Abdullah b. Shihab al-Khaulani reported: I stayed in the house of 'A'isha and had a wet dream (and perceived its effect on my garment), so (in the morning) I dipped both (the clothes) in water. This (act of mine) was watched by a maid-servant of A'isha and she informed her. She (Hadrat A'isha) sent me a message: Whatprompted you to act like this with your clothes? He (the narrator) said: I told that I saw in a dream what a sleeper sees. She said: Did you find (any mark of the fluid) on your clothes? I said: No. She said: Had you found anything you should have washed it. Incase I found that (semen) on the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) dried up, I scraped it off with my nails. (Book #002, Hadith #0572)
Those quotations have nothing to do with "if you don't believe in God (Judeo-Christian), you're going to hell!
However, if a Muslim commits the sin of disbelief in "allah," (and his apostle) they are DEFINITELY going to hell! So saith "allah," but really Muhammed, who made allah up from the pre-islamic Arabian pagan Moon deity, to get people to follow and obey him. That is such a no-brainer.
You've been praying to something that doesn't exist.
Ynkedoodl, I POSTED THE VERSES ABOVE.
"*MHRIHF = may he rot in hell forever". Muhammad(s.a.w.) is already in heaven. Besides it's almighty Allah's decision to decide who goes to hell and who goes to heaven.
Khaybar,
"1. Can you give me an example of this other level of debate which you envision?"
Nothing can be done to begin to get through to those whose thoughts and feelings are guided and structured by the PC multiculturalist paradigm until we can persuade them that --
All the things that concern us about Islam and Muslims pertain to mainstream and traditional Islam and the vast majority of Muslims.
The PC multiculturalist paradigm is the diametrical opposite of this. To counter that paradigm will be extraordinarily difficult. I'm not sure how to do it (though I have suggestions which will become evident below). We are not talking about normally reasonable people: we are talking about people who have preconceptions and prejudices about Islam and Muslims, and who frame their preconceptions and prejudices in a massively effective ideological and rhetorical paradigm that is, furthermore, mutually reinforced and supported on all sides by the society at large which in turn has been fueled by a process going back several decades now, attended by, and dovetailing with, indirectly related processes involving Modern Western Progress.
I don't know how to go about turning these people -- who are in the majority -- around to seeing that Islam itself in its mainstream and traditional capacity (and therefore also the vast majority of Muslims) is extremist, evil and dangerous. Merely adducing facts that indicate otherwise does little good, since every time such a fact is presented to them (whether that fact is an act of violence & intolerant supremacy or an utterance/writing that expresses support of such violence & intolerant supremacy), the PC multiculturalist automatically fits that fact into the slot of his template, by which every bad thing about Islam & Muslims must pertain to a small minority of extremists who are not primarily motivated by Islam (but rather usually by problems stemming from the West's mistreatment of the Third World), while Islam itself and the vast majority of Muslims remain smelling like a rose. Unfortunately, the ostensible facts are on the PC multiculturalist's side, since the majority (perhaps even the "vast" majority) of Muslims are not actually doing bad things, while a slightly slimmer majority (but still a majority) of Muslims are not actually saying or writing bad things (or at least not sufficiently bad things sufficiently clearly such that the PC multiculturalist would be given pause to reflect).
As you've noted before, polls are good data to present to begin to sway this primary paradigm. I would phrase it more strongly: polls are currently the only data we have by which to begin to do something about undoing this paradigm; but polls have problems -- they are not as they stand now a sufficiently smoking gun to turn the gigantic apparatus of PC multiculturalism around.
"Are you suggesting that there is in fact a way to get through to the PC multiculturalists using evidence, reasoning, or some other kind of verbal/written persuasion? Please give me an example of this superior form of communication."
a) Just because someone has no solution to a problem does not mean that problem does not exist as that someone has articulated it.
b) Nevertheless, I would tentatively offer the following four things that must be done to begin to undermine this primary paradigm:
i) Far more comprehensive and reliable polls with intelligently designed questions of Muslim attitudes need to be conducted and published;
ii) An adjunct process of questioning Muslims -- particularly seemingly nice and moderate Muslims -- in public settings (recorded and then published and broadcast widely) needs to be pursued in a widespread and concerted manner, whereby tough intelligent questions are asked of them with clever follow-ups in order to reveal their extremism beneath their mask of moderation;
iii) a definitive and universally agreed-upon Booklet needs to be designed, published and disseminated -- with only two main purposes:
x) guiding non-Muslims on how to do ( ii ) above,
and
y) educating non-Muslims about the historical and traditional extremism of mainstream Islam;
and finally,
iv)Widespread undercover surveillance of Muslims, in and out of mosque settings, needs to be done and published.
As you can tell, all four of these suggestions have as their main aim the unveiling of the mainstream and traditional extremism of Islam itself and of the majority of Muslims. Even if my four suggestions were pursued on all four cylinders, it would still be difficult to undermine the PC multiculturalist paradigm, but at least we would stand a chance.
"2. I don't believe that the statement by the "Religious Leaders" was motivated by Spencer's reply."
It doesn't have to be: everything Spencer says, whether PC people are familiar with Spencer's arguments or not, are already (or would be misunderstood to be already) wired into the software of the PC multiculturalist paradigm with that paradigm's various mechanisms of prejudicial response & reaction already pre-programmed -- ready to be activated at any moment that a politically INcorrect statement or argument is detected by the machine's sensors.
pespi
Muhammad is not in heaven. I saw him yesterday and spoke with him. He is the shape of a baboon, hanging upside down by his ankles over a lake of fire. I took a picture with my digital camera, but I can't post pictures here or I would let you look at him.
He is very sorry that he raped and killed and stole from so many innocent people, but Yahweh will not pardon him so he's shit outta luck.
Go get yourself a real prophet.
I noticed that Jesus was sitting at God's Right Hand. Exactly where His Son should be.
ok darcy so that means atheists will go to heaven. is that your belief?
i have been praying to something that does exist. However you pray to jesus christ who was no god. neither was he the son of god. it is a sin to even belive that god would actually lower himself to the level of a human being. in reality christianity is pagan. now that's a no-brainer.
What about pepsi?
What about it? It can rot your teeth.
Submission to the moon god baal
can rot your brain.
Kafir here chuckles at the believer
who doesn't know his doctrine.
I should like to point out that arguing with Muslims is an exercise in futility. Anyone stupid enough to submit to Islam will not be swayed by fact or logic.
As Robert A. Heinlein said: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
While I have no objection to annoying Muslims, wasting time is a sinful waste of a precious gift. Pistol practice would be far more useful and far more satisfying in the long run.
Ynkedoodl, i found myself the real prophet, Muhammad(s.a.w). Thanks for being so concerned. You comments just prove how ignorant and hatefull christians really are.
whataboutpepsi, hey thats a great name for a muslim, a pepsi, is empthy from the neck up! hey can you read your own koran pepsi? it does not allow you to be friends with Christians, and especially Jews, and of course the Pagans.. hey your a real {"Pepsi" empthy from the neck up.. brainwashed muslim.. go blow away.
Only an idiotic muhammadan would say that "God lowered himself to the level of a human being."
thousands of years before muhammad stole his religion from the Jews, there were many prophecies about the coming of Christ.
Go read the Old Testament prophets and see for yourself.
Your muhammadan background has made you extremely stupid, but if you read the Old Testament carefully, you will experience prophecy first hand and possibly see the light.
What did Yahweh mean when he asked in Proverbs: "Can you tell me my name or the name of my Son"?
Take the Pepsi Challenge:
Show there is such a thing as Allah. Provide one piece of (objective) evidence in all of reality affirming the existence of Allah.
Show one prophecy that Muhammad made to prove he was a prophet. Show one proof of Muhammad's that he was the messenger of someone besides Satan.
Show how Muhammad was a fine, upstanding human being and not a scurrilous and morally rotten human being which is what his own family thought about him. See Siraat-al wasuul.
Prove that The koran is not literary garbage and a set of lies wrapped up as a war manual. Prove that it was "revealed."
What prophacy, Ynkeddol. The chrisian scriptures have been tampered with throughout the history, so it can't be taken seriously. The Quran provides the whole truth, which has never been tampred with, but preserved in it's entirety since it's revelation.
I'll bet Pepsi also thinks that Mohammad was right when he said that the devil breaks wind in fear every time the Muslim call to prayer (5 times a day, times tens of thousands of mosques) is howled by a muezzin? (Bukhari Hadith 1;11;582.)
Ynkedoodl, The Quran is the evidence and answer to all your question. Your use of language, blasphemy, ignorance and the contempt for other beliefs proves only how pathetic you are.
pepsi
It's pretty typical of the cult of muhammad to lie about everyone else and to insult everyone else and to do so in a way that is arrogant and indefensible. Lies and insults are muhammad's stock in trade. But in your case...
You sound so stupid I think you must be a Zionist pretending to be a Muhammadan, just to make muhammadans look REALLY BAD!
You are either a fake or so dadgum ignorant there is no point in continuing.
L'hitraot!
"The chrisian scriptures have been tampered with throughout the history, so it can't be taken seriously"
Where has it been tampered with? Be specific.
The Koran is all nonsense. It is filled with djinns, night journeys on invisible half-donkeys, angels' aversion to dogs, the sun setting in a muddy puddle, the great crucifixion face-changing, a deity who creates creatures only for the fun of destroying them, a deity who refuses to guide certain of his creations, then instructs the ones who are guided to kill the others, et cetera, et cetera.
The sheer corruption of reason required by islamic beliefs is astonishing. It is truly doublethink - they are required to hold many many ideas which are mutually contradictory, and to simultaneously believe them, whilst always ignoring the contradictions.
After all that, ignoring archeological and documentary evidence is just a snap, I guess...
You can see why Muslims are such a ready made audience for any conspiracy theory that comes along. To imagine that the Jews and Christians went through all the trouble of rewriting their sacred texts to exclude any mention of Islam requires a remarkable degree of credulity but also fosters a deep suspicion and scepticism concerning an infidel world where such liberties are taken with the historical record. In this they are, of course, projecting their highly developed culture of dissimulation on to others - what they are taught about other religions must make them think they are only doing as they are done by.
So what are you trying to accompish with this blasphemy and with these lies, Ynkedoodl. You are not fooling anyone. You are not gaining any converts to your beliefs, if anything you are creating animosity and more hatered.
whataboutpepsi look we are not trying to convert any muslim, they have been brainwashed, its only the truly enlightened that can wake up for their horror nightmare is islamiztion can be they be ready to leave their death cult of death. look whataboutpepsi
if you are brave enough to read more about the koran than what any muslim cleric,imman,, what ever, you find out the truth. muhummad got his word from a demon in a dark cave, so driven to depression he almost committed suicide. what God would do that to his messenger you need to ask?
Any word from a God would inspire you to be your best in good works. the false prophet committed
a worse sin, by taking a nine year old girl. he killed and ordered killings in his name.
You just have to comare that with Jesus, who was confident enough, that he gave you the chose to follow him, if you did not it was your free will.
The Christian and Jewish God allow you to have free will, and will not call you an aposate and order you to be killed. only a insecure jealous man such as muhammud and his demon allah would order a killing when a person does not chose his deaht cult of islam.
so whataboutpepsi we dont care what you think about islam, we only care that non muslims learn the truth about islam. be careful if you read more on this site pepsi..only for the brave!
remote,
Thanks for the detailed reply. I was not suggesting that you had no solution, but was genuinely challenging you to provide some suggestions, which you've done above.
I like the idea of using specific pre-tested questions on seemingly moderate Muslims to elict the kinds of responses we suspect are lurking behind the usual facade. We had done that previously with a Muslim convert letter-writer (initials W.C.) in a previous JW thread related to the Emory Wheel ad, where he initially presented himself as moderate, and then was exposed (by his own words) step-by-step, with one surprising revelation after another, in the course of the thread.
These specific pre-tested questions could be developed in conjunction with the Handbook. We could continue this discussion at I-W if you like.
"5:51 says that CERTAIN Jews and Chritians can not be alies, don't cherry pick but also read 5:57 which states exaclty wich Jews and Chritians shouldn't be the allies. Which Jews and Christians shouldn't be allies? 'those who mock and ridicule your religion'."
"98:6 refears to people who don't believe in god and who worship more than one god."
Posted above
Not so fast, Pepsi
I'm not a full time paid agent provocateur like yourself, had a few more important things to attend to than your closed mind.
I read those passages in context, just as have about 1 billion Muslims (I know, most of them don't actually read, but they would agree), and numerous Islamic jurists. Other passages, too. You, know the "ape and the pig" stuff, and the "a Jew is hiding behind me, come kill him" stuff. Funny, we all came to the same conclusion. How many Jewish and Christian friends("allies") do YOU have, by the way? And how many are still Jewish (by faith) or Christian if they agree to the in context portions of suras 5 and 98?
None.
Repeating for emphasis, and thick skull penetration: Jews and Christians who accept Muhammad and Islam are not religiously Jews and Christians. Therefore, your scripture applies to all Jews and all Christians.
That's why WE all agree, you're wrong. The onus is on YOU to find a continuous stream of Islamic jurisprucence that has always said it was OK to have Jewish and Christian friends that were not inclined to convert (oh, and no taqiyya, as in "by way of precaution").
whataboutpepsi
did you know that mohammed once lost a game of
rock-paper-scissors against a monkey,,,???
"So what are you trying to accompish with this blasphemy and with these lies, Ynkedoodl. You are not fooling anyone. You are not gaining any converts to your beliefs, if anything you are creating animosity and more hatered." Posted by: whataboutpepsi
Would you please specify what comments by Ynkedoodl constitute "blasphemy" and "lies"?
Ynkedoodl, i found myself the real prophet, Muhammad(s.a.w). Thanks for being so concerned. You comments just prove how ignorant and hatefull christians really are.
Posted by: whataboutpepsi
Oh, no contest here. Sawing a bound man's head off with a dull knife is so much less hateful than comments.
/duh
Hey, I just figured out why moslems write saw after ole mo's name.
pepsi,
You say:
"5:51 says that CERTAIN Jews and Chritians can not be alies, don't cherry pick but also read 5:57 which states exaclty wich Jews and Chritians shouldn't be the allies. Which Jews and Christians shouldn't be allies? "those who mock and ridicule your religion"."
and
"98:6 refears to people who don't believe in god and who worship more than one god."
Then you later say:
"you pray to jesus christ who was no god. neither was he the son of god. it is a sin to even belive that god would actually lower himself to the level of a human being. in reality christianity is pagan. now that's a no-brainer."
That narrows down the number of "Christians" who will be accepted by Islam, doesn't it? The Koran narrows it even further, by stating in numerous places that believers must accept Muhammad's revelations. And 3:85 is clear: No religion other than Islam will be accepted.
You complain about the context of 5:51. But you neglect 5:55: "Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue*, and bow down (in prayer)."
*alzzakat
How many "Christians" do you know who were ever required to pay zakat under Islam? Instead, Christians and Jews were expected to pay jizya or else be fought or put to death:
9:29. "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute* readily, being brought low."
*jizyata
You are also playing semantic games with the word "God." Muhammad had developed a different idea of who the God of the Jews and Christians was. Muhammad had recast Moses, Abraham, Jesus, etc., all as Muslims:
2:135 And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of the idolaters.
2:136. Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
2:137. And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
2:138. (We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.
2:139. Say (unto the People of the Scripture): Dispute ye with us concerning Allah when He is our Lord and your Lord? Ours are our works and yours your works. We look to Him alone.
2:140. Or say ye that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know best, or doth Allah? And who is more unjust than he who hideth a testimony which he hath received from Allah? Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
If that is not clear enough, this should be:
3:67. Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.
Ma kana ibraheemu yahoodiyyan wala nasraniyyan walakin kana haneefan musliman wama kana mina almushrikeena
In other words, the only "believers" among the Christians and Jews are those who not only accepted Muhammad's revelations in the Koran but also adopted Muhammad's own personal view of "true" monotheism. In other words, they must convert to Islam. If they don't they will be punished in the world and in the hereafter.
More information on this topic is posted here.
Khaybar,
"I was not suggesting that you had no solution, but was genuinely challenging you to provide some suggestions"
My point was that even if I had no solution (or even if the solutions I offer seem wrong or ineffective), that wouldn't necessarily be relevant to whether my diagnosis of the problem is correct or not.
"I like the idea of using specific pre-tested questions on seemingly moderate Muslims"
I think it would only be useful (for chipping away at the PC multiculturalist dominance) if it were done on a widespread and copious basis, with many and sundry Muslims of all walks of life -- the more moderate-seeming and "respectable" the better -- and published widely and regularly. It also shouldn't be anonymous: it should be documented and published with real names. (If anonymity is necessary, the only credibility for PC people would then come from it being published in a mainstream newspaper or magazine or TV news show.)
"These specific pre-tested questions could be developed in conjunction with the Handbook. We could continue this discussion at I-W if you like."
Sure, I'll try to get over there soon. Thanks for your responses.
pepsi,
You wrote:
"The Quran provides the whole truth, which has never been tampred with, but preserved in it's entirety since it's revelation."
According to sahih ahadith (Bukhari and Muslim collections at the very least), the verses of stoning to death for adultery were lost.
Ibn Kathir is also of the view that those verses of stoning were lost:
(Excerpt): "[...]Imam Malik recorded that `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, stood up and praised and glorified Allah, then he said; "O people! Allah sent Muhammad with the truth, and revealed to him the Book. One of the things that was revealed to him was the Ayah of stoning to death, which we have recited and understood. The Messenger of Allah carried out the punishment of stoning and after him we did so, but I am afraid that as time goes by, some will say that they did not find the Ayah of stoning in the Book of Allah, and they will go astray because they abandoned one of the obligations revealed by Allah. Stoning is something that is prescribed in the Book of Allah for the person -- man or woman -- who commits illegal sex, if he or she is married, if decisive evidence is produced, or if pregnancy results from that, or if they confess to it.'' It was also recorded in the Two Sahihs in the lengthy Hadith of Malik, from which we have quoted briefly only the portion that is relevant to the current discussion."
http://www.mquran.org/index.php/content/view/8033/2/
..ah yes, and Muhammad's Farewell Address, which is mutawatir, also mentions that adulterers are to be stoned.
Another source of tampering with the Koran was by a scribe by the name of Abdullah bin Sarh (a.k.a bin Sa'd), who claimed that Muhammad allowed him to change the wording of some verses and, moreover, that he tested Muhammad by changing some verses without Muhammad realizing it. The fact that Muhammad didn't detect the tampering indicated to bin Sarh that Muhammad could not be a true prophet, and so he apostasized.
Much of the demise of the United Methodist Church has taken place at the hands of theologians at Emory, so I find it interesting on one hand, and ironic on the other, that this topic would be considered within their considerable expertise.
Every now and then I mention this book I am working on written by a scholar in the Bible and in Hebrew Greek and Latin. When he went to try and get his book published it was thrown into the trash can for he did not believe in hell. That was not their belif but his translation. He said God did not make man to watch him fail and burn in hell for eternity! God is a loving God! Jesus is proof of that! Jesus restored life again. So now after death we have life.
I had to rescue the book from a family member one saying this book is *******. He studied his whole life was dedicated to Jehweh and Jesus Christ. He did a very good job at writing it so we can understand in our life time, now. Which he wanted to do so much more but let's say the way the system works they did a terri shiavo on him. He was a Reverand and 94 years old. In front of my eyes, I promised him I WILL do this book! He so loved everyone and he wanted everyone to know the true word of God! To love one another and have fellowship so we can have fellowship with God.
Good point Greg:
But actually the biggest factor of their demise was at the hands of the "glaad" gestapo & their glbt stormtroopers with allies within the ranks of the theologians (which is another forum entirely & not a major deal as applied in this thread)...but all in all, your point is quite valid...it IS ironic, lol.
Khybar...not only did SA'd find him out, Mohammad had him killed upon entering Mecca. A cover-up that didn't work because we know about it...
Khaybar Oasis:
Even if there had been no tampering with the Kuran, the historical fact remains that Muhammad was a brutal, mass-murdering lunatic. Following his example could not possibly lead to any good at all (and in fact hasn't).
What about pepsi:
Your taqiyya isn't fooling anyone here.
First degree murder against the 'unbelievers' is taught by the Kuran and is carried out by Muslim followers throughout the world. In fact, there have been over 8000 lethal terror attacks committed by Islam's followers over the past 6 years; this spectacular and horrific record is a direct RESULT of Islamic teachings--and not a direct result of DISTORTIONS of Islamic teachings. The only other religion I am aware of that intentionally killed human beings (as an ideological directive) on a scale comparable to Islam was that of the Aztecs and it has gone extinct (and with any luck Islam will go the same way soon).
No one with a brain need tolerate murder not even at the ideological level (which is what mosques do-- 'teach' murder as a theology). I will never deal with murderers and that is what Islam turns human beings into (Killer-zombies).
By the way, pepsi, you are aware that Islam is a Babylonian human sacrifice cult over 3000 years old, is completely unrelated to Judeo-Christianism, and worships the Mesopotamian moon-god, aren't you?
What prophacy, Ynkeddol. The chrisian scriptures have been tampered with throughout the history, so it can't be taken seriously. The Quran provides the whole truth, which has never been tampred with, but preserved in it's entirety since it's revelation.
Posted by: whataboutpepsi at April 26, 2007 06:46 PM
You call yourself a muslim but you know little about your own religion and you obviously know absolutely nothing about the Bible and Christianity except the lies your imams have told you. The qur'an was written by mortal men many years after your false "prophet" died. It was revised numerous times before the Caliph Uthman standardized it to suit himself. Several early caliphs and some of muhammad's companions insisted that many verses were lost or changed including Abu Bakr, Ali, Ibn Mas'ud, and Ibn Abbas. Uthman was ultimately murdered for tampering with the putative revelation. After Uthman's death the qur'an continued to be read in seven dialects and there is no consensus about which dialect muhammad's delusions came in. Muhammad's child bride Aisha declared that one sura was cut from two hundred verses to seventy-three in Uthman's version of the qur'an, and she also stated that some verses were eaten by a domestic animal who got into the house while funeral arrangements were being made for the satanic prophet.
The only way the islamic clergy can cram islam down the throats of muslims is through fear, lies, and intimidation. The integrity of the Bible far exceeds that of the qur'an; there is no comparison between the two books. The qur'an is an unorganized, incomprehensible, illogical compilation of nonsense and fantasy, and plagiarized material from the Torah that was convoluted and rearranged to coincide with Arab superstitions. Islam is the Arabic version of satanism and if muhammad was a prophet, he got his revelations from the devil himself, not God.
Prove that the qur'an is the immutable word of God and that the original version is in Heaven. Prove that muhammad was God's final prophet. Prove that islam is the only true religion. Just because you have heard these lies from the islamic clergy does not make them true, and just because you believe them does not make them true.
From Robert's Muslim critic:
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.
I think Mr. Spencer’s problem is that he isn’t quite as fancy as his critics. He probably makes judgments on words that are really simple like:
2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2;99 Disbelievers are evil people .
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.
3:73 Don't believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don't be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101 The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don't take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
5:57 Don't choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as guardians.
6:106 Stay away from disbelievers.
8:55 The worst beasts in Allah's sight are the disbelievers.
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
9:28 Disbelievers are are unclean.
9:30 Christians and Jews are perverts. Allah himself fights against them.
Now we all just need to learn to get along. We'll learn to like the 25,000 and counting incoming Iraqi refugees.
I think "fancy" isn't how I'd describe the critics.
The more accurate term would be: "slick", among others.
Push the button, pull the chain, there goes pepsi, down the drain...
I suggest we do the converse. In other words, when the mainstream insists on de-coupling Muslim/Islamic outrages from Muslims/Islam and insist that those are the exceptions, rather than the rules, that we turn things around by asking the following question:
Name one good thing that Islam advocates that is universally followed by most Muslims.
Unlike in other situations where we are the ones forced to explain with copious references on how the outrages above are normative within Islam/Muslims, such a turnaround would force the apologist to explain what's good about Islam. And whereas in the case of the bad things, the answer is Jihad - you see it everywhere, you don't see the 'good' that Islam advocates being universally practiced. There are a few factors worth noting while tackling this:
- Islam does not advocate any good things as forcefully as it advocates the spread of Islam. As a result, one wont find them universally wherever they go;
- Should such a person mention salat, zakat or Ramadan fasting as the good things, question what's so uniquely good about that. Salat - the mandatory 5 times prayer - is in fact disruptive in the work place. Zakat is mandatory - somewhat akin to a Socialist state collecting taxes for welfare distribution. And aside from the fact that Orthodox Christians fast during Lent (dunno about the others) and certain Hindu sects observe fasting on certain occasions, the Ramadan fasting during the day is more than offset by feasting during the night.
- If the apologist starts spitting out imaginary contributions of Islam, such as the number system, there are multiple tracks on which to hit that out of the park. One is to state, "What have they done recently" - noting for instance, the contrasting achievements of South Korea and Egypt since 1950, when the former was a poorer country than the latter. Another is to state that if one is allowed to go back to the 10th century to excavate 'Muslim' achievements, one could just as easily go back and invoke acts of savagery done by the Muslims - first the Arabs, later the Turks and Farsis.
- If the apologists start digging up fringe practices of Islam, such as Sufi, Ahmadiya, Ismailiya, Ibadi, et al, point out that they are by no means mainstream Islam, and between them, they account for a percentage of the ummah in single figures. Point out that this would be a tiny minority of the faith.
Bottom line - any good points about Islam/Muslims that are raised should be comprehensively refuted. Note that this is a lot easier to do, than fending off tu quoque and ego quoque arguments about Christianity, or other Infidel faiths. In this scenario, you've started with a few evil acts of Muslims that are supposedly not representative of Muslims/Islam at large. Turn it around. First of all, force them to enumerate the good things that Muslims always do, and then, have a two pronged refutation of that:- The item in question is not necessarily good;
- Even if it is, it is a lot less prevailent than Jihadi violence, Shariah persecution and Islamic belligerance.
I don't know whether even this would work or not, but it seems to me that it would be a lot more effective, particularly when dealing with people who have a cynical attitude about the West. Adapt that same cynical attutude about Islam and Muslims, and when they turn around and attack you, use those very cynical attitudes against them.It should work
Pepsi
Hindus don't hate pigs
To be quite honest, it would only take a few fingers of one hand to count the number of college professors, in an undergraduate setting, who I can recall, who practiced academic discussion in an academic setting. That, my friends, was long before the Left pretty much had a lockhold on the university setting.
duh swami,
Muhammad ordered the Abdullah bin Sarh (a.k.a. bin Sa'd) be put to death upon the conquest of Mecca, but according to a hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud, and the account in Ishaq's Sira, Uthman--being a close companion of Muhammad and a relative of Abdullah-- requested that Abdullah be pardoned on condition that he reaffirm his allegiance to Islam and Muhammad. Although Muhammad still wanted him to be executed, the order was not given to kill him due to a miscommunication. He was allowed to live, though I'm not sure what happened to him after that.
pythagoras,
Indeed, the Islamic texts themselves show Muhammad's mass murders, rapes, plunder, etc. This information was never covered up much until the recent age of PC and professional Islamic apologetics.
Infidel Pride,
I suggest we do the converse. In other words, when the mainstream insists on de-coupling Muslim/Islamic outrages from Muslims/Islam and insist that those are the exceptions, rather than the rules, that we turn things around by asking the following question:
Name one good thing that Islam advocates that is universally followed by most Muslims.
Well, as you know, there are many passages from the Koran that sound nice and which continue to fool millions of non-Muslims, so they could simply adduce those nice-sounding passages and point to the millions of Muslims who are not doing anything bad and ostensibly following the laws of the land as good citizens and who are smiling and polite and just living life as "moms and pops", as well as pursuing careers of engineering, medicine, etc.
"...whereas in the case of the bad things, the answer is Jihad - you see it everywhere, you don't see the 'good' that Islam advocates being universally practiced."
Actually, you don't really see it "everywhere"; the fact is, out of the 1.2 billion Muslims, probably only 100,000 (at most) are doing bad things at any given time (by "bad" I include everything from actually mass-murdering down to participating in hateful public rhetoric in protests and embassy-burning, etc.): so the vast majority is composed of those who are ostensibly either seeming to be good citizens, or who are doing nothing objectionable (just "getting along"), or who at worst are passively breathing in the atmosphere of objectionable culture, propaganda and sermons, but not actually doing anything bad.
You go on to write:
There are a few factors worth noting while tackling this:
* Islam does not advocate any good things as forcefully as it advocates the spread of Islam.
Again, this opens up a can of semantic worms, since the spread of Islam is propagandized as the spread of peace, justice and good morals -- i.e., "good things". So this has to be unpacked and dismantled before moving on.
Your objections then about salat, zakat or Ramadan would easily be chalked up to bigotry against a minority culture: after all, the enlightened modern world is not supposed to mock or vilify any number of other minority cultures and their religions and rituals (various natives of the Third World), so why should you single out and pick on the Muslims? It would be circular to say that Muslims are worse, since that's the thing we are trying to establish, not assume before we demonstrate it.
* If the apologist starts spitting out imaginary contributions of Islam, such as the number system, there are multiple tracks on which to hit that out of the park. One is to state, "What have they done recently"
Yes, that's a good one -- showing the abysmal record of Muslim countries over the last 1000+ years, and certainly over the 20th century -- but this is always susceptible to the "Western Colonialism and post-Colonialist interference has ruined the Third World" canard, which is a very socially powerful and confusingly subtle canard that requires complex counter-arguments to unpack and refute.
* If the apologists start digging up fringe practices of Islam, such as Sufi, Ahmadiya, Ismailiya, Ibadi, et al, point out that they are by no means mainstream Islam, and between them, they account for a percentage of the ummah in single figures. Point out that this would be a tiny minority of the faith.
That would still leave us the problem of demonstrating that the vast majority of mainline Muslims (Sunni and Shia) are bad.
First of all, force them to enumerate the good things that Muslims always do, and then, have a two pronged refutation of that:
2. Even if it is [ostensibly good], it is a lot less prevailent than Jihadi violence, Shariah persecution and Islamic belligerance.
I don't think the apparent goods are less prevalent, but rather more prevalent -- ostensibly --, for reasons I went into above (to wit, the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are in fact not doing bad things and are just living life as "moms and pops" could be used as indirect proof that Muslims are in fact following the good principles of the Koran).
whataboutpepsi, it's not so hard to argue with the non-experts commenting at a website in their spare time. But how about arguing with specific quotations from Robert Spencer? His work, after all, is the center of this website. But there you would be crushed by logic and facts.
From your comments, it's clear you have read little or nothing of Robert Spencer's work, since you don't deal with his specific arguments and, indeed, you make arguments Spencer has refuted numerous times. You clearly have no knowledge of his refutations, since you don't respond to them. Yet you come here arrogantly spouting off. If your smug, know-nothing attitude is what Islam is about, I don't want anything to do with it. And I'll do everything I can, because of people like you, to stop Islam, wherever I can.
People reading the site without much context should not be fooled by whataboutpepsi's obfuscations.
The only people who benefit from Islam are men willing to do violence in pursuit of their worldly aims. If you are not one of these people, you will gain nothing and lose much from the predominance of Islam.
Period.
The Jihadists want a world wide Caliphate, and will do anything to get it, be it murder, slavery, genocide, oppression or psy ops. This sounds like a typical smear tactic and I would almost laugh if it were not so common, especially among the Arab Studies/Petrodollar funded professors.
Just keep repeating the truth, it's already catching on with most folks in the U.S.
remote_control:
As to your question about how to get through PC defenses, is a specific argumentative strategy, such as you sometimes seem to be seeking, what is required? Or isn't it in the first instance that each of us needs to be much more energetic in becoming as knowledgeable as possible, since energy and knowledge are the main forces of persuasion? As machine-like as people are, even PC culture can be persuaded, but because PC is so deeply ramified and historically rooted, we are talking about a task that can be moved along only by many people working in many different ways -- or perhaps a task that only a genius inside the left would be permitted to accomplish.
The left might only be persuaded of the danger of Islam by a genius from within the left-PC machine, someone who has "correct" left credentials. In some ways, Hirsi Ali is effective because she earns "identity points" with the left: she is a black, third-world woman from the Islamic world. Brigitte Gabriel also seems able to say things more bluntly than many a man could get away with.
Or a brilliant conservative might write, under a pseudonym, a brilliant left-wing apology for Islam. Then when the left and Muslims celebrate the book, the conservative could emerge from anonymity and reveal himself as a conservative, one who has now proved himself fully and brilliantly aware of all the left-wing experiences and arguments. No one could then reasonably accuse him of ignorance of the left's and Muslims' viewpoints. He could then proceed to explain why all he said in his celebrated book was mistaken, and why Islam is in fact a totalitarian threat to be resisted with all our might. This sneaky, judo-like strategy of argument has been used effectively in the past in other contexts.
As for the mom & pops who want a better life, point out how Ayman Zawahiri was also a doctor, Meher Hawash was an Intel VP, et al. Point is that it is more difficult to prove that people are good, as opposed to proving otherwise. You know how difficult it would be if you had to demonstrate the goodness of White Christians, for instance. Similarly, use their tactics and mock anything good they are credited with doing, with things like 'It's just for public consumption'....
You do see it everywhere in the sense that in all Muslim countries, there is strife between different Muslim sects, different ethnic groups, etc. You are claiming that since the bulk of them aren't marauding fanatics, everything seems hunky dory. But anyone who follows footage of demonstrations, say in Pakistan at the Red Mosque, will formulate their opinions from those images. Show how in every Islamic country there is strife, and you have shown that you have friction everywhere. It doesn't have to be the bulk of the populace - for that, show how in places where democracy has had a chance, elections have launched Hamas, Hizbullah, MMA (in Pak), and other fanatical parties. That is your evidence that the majority are vile. But you don't need to go that far - just show how there is friction everywhere there are Muslims and Infidels.No, challenge the person you are debating to demonstrate/prove it. That's my point - put the onus on him/her. It is much more difficult to demonstrate that something is good than bad. Right now, when you try to demonstrate that something is bad, chances are that you would be hit by ego quoque/ tu quoque arguments. Here, you are eliminating that by forcing them to prove that Islam is good - they cannot do it with ego quoque arguments (something that would have to be decoupled from such discussions and dealt with separately).
No, take them one by one. Zakat - point out that it's not voluntary, and that non Muslims are not supposed to receive the benefits of zakat. In that context, you could throw in the tsunami aid that Indonesia got from the rest of the ummah - nil. For Salat, this is an extreme example, but point out how in Saudi Arabia, workhours are regularly interrupted for mandatory prayers, unlike in the Infidel world where prayers are voluntary
I hit post accidentally before I was done. Here it continues...
No, take them one by one. Zakat - point out that it's not voluntary, and that non Muslims are not supposed to receive the benefits of zakat. In that context, you could throw in the tsunami aid that Indonesia got from the rest of the ummah - nil.For Salat, this is an extreme example, but point out how in Saudi Arabia, workhours are regularly interrupted for mandatory prayers, unlike in the Infidel world where prayers are voluntary, like on weekends, and everybody has to do it. Another twist to this could be Malaysia, where you could demonstrate how Salat isn't mandatory, but discrimination against non-Muslims is prevailent, and how Muslims are banned from bailing out of Islam. Ask your interloucer how (s)he would like it if (s)he was forced at gunpoint to attend church every Sunday, and that too by the government.
On the argument that we aren't supposed to pick on minority cultures, take examples that don't involve White Christians, if that furthers your argument. Like take Malays vs Tamils. Or Sudanese Arabs vs Blacks. Or Iranians vs Bahai (where the latter is at least nominally Muslim). Or Pakistanis vs Ahmadiya. There are so many examples where Muslims are the perpetrators of crimes against colored people, and should receive the moral oppobrium of the entire Left - even if they couldn't stand the idea of standing up for Whites or Christians.
It doesn't presume Muslims are worse. It demonstrates it. The most they can do is pin the blame on the other parties, such as the Tamils, the Bahai, the Barbers, et al. And when they do, call them racist, and maybe toss in some choice invectives. (At this point, you aren't trying to persuade them; you are trying to persuade third party observers)
No, large portions of the Islamic world - such as Arabia - were untouched by Western colonialism. When they were not under Arab rule, they were under the rule of the Seljuk or Ottoman Turks, and post WWI, they were taken over by the Sauds. Also, Iran was never colonized by Western countries, and neither was Turkey. The ones that briefly were include Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Libya, Algeria. Afghanistan, which is the hotbed of Jihadi activity, was never under Western rule (and Soviet rule only lasted from the late 70's to the 80's - there was nothing that prevented them from becoming the ultimate Islamic paradise. Now, the counter arguments here aren't complex - point out how countries like Korea, which were always part of Mongol, Chinese or Japanese empires, had no problems becoming a part of the modern world, and how countries that had Western colonization for far longer than the Brits were in Iraq or Egypt, or the French were in Syria or Algeria - be it Latin America, Balkans, East Asia, et al - are better off societally and economically than any Islamic country.No, when somebody brings up the examples of Sufis, etc., it indicates that they have passed on the Sunnis and Shia and implicitly accepted the argument that those two are bad, but the others, like the Sufis, are good. Don't let go of it. Iran is an easy one word example of why the Shia are bad: throw in Hizbullah for completion. As far as Sunnis go, you have Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and even Egypt as premier examples; point out how tolerance (said to be the Sufi hallmark) is only prevailent in countries like Kazakhstan, where there are as many Russians as Kazakhs, and these countries still have Soviet era leaders who crack down on Islam (in Kyghyzstan, where they've let up, that country looks like being taken over by the Jihadis).
Again, it only seem that way because that's an unchallenged assumption. Challenge it. Point out how so many terror suspects, or others arrested for terror related crimes were described by those who thought they knew them in exactly the same terms - moms & pops, nice quiet boy, he used to attend mosque regularly, et al. Nobody thought that Sami al Arian was anything but nice - he could just as easily have passed off as your next door Muslim neighbor. Same goes for Meher Hawash. Pull out these examples.
And then take the pessimist route - point out that given this precedence, there is no reason why the 'innocent until proven guilty' standard should be applied in these cases, given what's at stake here.
OR - just focus on sura 9:29. And demonstrate that it is alive and well and an enduring and central part of Islam.
remote,
"My point was that even if I had no solution (or even if the solutions I offer seem wrong or ineffective), that wouldn't necessarily be relevant to whether my diagnosis of the problem is correct or not."
Please take this in the spirit of constructive criticism. I find your diagnosis lacks precision. One way of making a diagnosis more precise is to focus on ways to solve it. Thus one only targets those aspects of the problem that, when attacked, lead to solution/removal of the problem. You are greatly concerned with PC, referring to it as a larger problem than Islam, but your critique is often vague and couched in obscure philosophical terms. I also find that when we do make suggestions, you often insist that the PC template will simply invert and nullify whatever we throw at it. Thus, it is not unreasonable to ask you for solutions, because, if you really believe there are no solutions, or at best a few minor non-promising solutions (which is the impression I get from your writing), then (from your perspective) why bother? The solutions you mentioned above are already being used, for example, within the Handbook project. You need to present an analysis of the problem (of PC in relation to the Islam problem) that is clear to most people and is supported by empirical research, and followed-up by the all-important proposed solutions. Everyone here knows that PC is problem. The question is how do we solve it.
I think some of what IP suggests above and what has already been instigated in the Handbook are good ideas and should be developed further. If you believe that the vast majority of moderates myth is an important one to tackle--and I agree that it is--why not work on that very problem which is listed in the Handbook Index? If you think our rebuttals are too expansive then do a more concise rebuttal.