Playing pretend with Glenn Beck

There is NO moderate Muslim......only a moderate person who professes to believe in Islam hence not a true Muslim.

The true Muslim is a Jihadist and a warrior for Allah's cause.

You know, how do you convince some one who denies that their ass is on fire even as the flames are clearly visible to him?

Some people will never get it until it is too late.

"Glenn Beck does some good reporting about the Islamic jihad threat, but he doggedly plays pretend, assuming repeatedly that Islam is a religion of peace, the Qur'an is a book of peace, etc".

He's like John Derbytrotter in that regard. There's no difference between the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad-right, Derbtrotter? There's nothing in the doctrines of Islam that sanction violence with Muslims. Right, Derbytrotter? You don't play the "devils advocate"-you play the fool Derby. You are full of crap.

Thanks for that post. I do listen to Beck, on occasion. And almost every time, during his show, he will chime in with that "twisted version of islam" rhetoric. At which moment, I turn his show off. The man is obtuse.

Beck could yet prove to be a canary in a coal mine. If the day were to come that he flipped, we would know for certain that the tide of the battle had turned. Unfortunately, it would probably take about 50 million dead to get him to flip. Some canary.

In the past, Beck was a bit more realistic regarding his view of Islam. Then, around the ending of last year, his views seemed to become more liberal- for want of a better word. I suspect he got a spanking from his CNN overlords and had to dial back some. The only positive spin is that Beck still does play MEMRI videos on the show, which have to be an unpleasant shock to the 'islam is a religion of peace' crowd.

"If we all pretend that the jihadists have no real leg to stand on in regard to Islam texts and teachings, we may all feel very good about ourselves for being tolerant folks, but the jihadists will continue to use various Islamic texts and teachings to recruit terrorists from among peaceful Muslims, and their efforts will go unchallenged -- because we can't even admit that that is what they're doing"

Interesting. Let's assume the majority of the muslims read Robert's books and agree that the root cause is the Islam, and try to 'reform' Islam. How do you suppose they should go about doing it? By abrogating verses and saying this is the correct Islam? Let's even assume they do come out with a peaceful version of Islam, and a new Quran, and most of the scholars declare this as the one true Islam and issue fatwas against people who dont follow it. Everyone who doesnt follow this peaceful Islam is labelled as not a true muslim.
Do you believe the Jihadists then embrace this new Islam and give up their violent ways? Or do you think that most of them will say the Islam that we follow is the One true religion, the majority is wrong, and continue recruiting terrorists the same exact way they are doing now?
Your solution leads us back to where we are.

I receive both Beck and Jasser's newsletters.

I have no reason to believe that Beck is pretending to believe that 'Islam is a religion of peace' or that 'radical Muslims are stealing the faith'.

He says these things so often and with such apparent conviction, I suspect he, like so many others who should know better believes what he's saying.

I'm particularly annoyed by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, as well.

His main thrust seems to be that Islam's biggest problem is 'political Islam', without ever noting (that I'm aware of) that his Qur'an reads the same as Usama bin Laden's.

Dr. Jasser has even played the 'I read Arabic' line.

Well, so does the House of Saud. And they DO amputate the hands of unrepentent thieves in strict accordance with Qur'an 5:38.

To make a real difference, Beck and Jasser need to explain just how 'radical' Muslims have twisted a Islam.

I really like Glenn, but he doesn’t want to know the truth about Islam because it would make him responsible for speaking and behaving accordingly, and this may be rooted in his Mormonism. He has probably never even heard about the more surreal doctrines that Smith and Young taught, and probably believes that only “anti-Mormons” twist and pervert his faith. This should make voters think twice about electing Mitt Romney to be our premier defender against jihad.

By the way, regarding my 7:35 post, I meant his radio show. As s pointed out, he may be on a short leash with his tv show, in fact, i must suppose that he is. Anyway, when comes to his steadfast refusal to recognize (at least openly) that islam is a problem, i can only take him at his word, and presume he does not get it.

While I think Glenn Beck is great for the most part, I find his squeamishness on calling Islam what it truly is both disheartening and willfully ignorant. True, he calls it out when the creeps come out to threaten, but fails to realize or recognize the bigger picture.

I have to wonder if it's not due to the fact he's a Mormon, considered to be at the fringe of Christianity, if not an outright cult. Thus, he doesnt' want to denigrate the whole for the actions of "a few." Although 10% of 1 billion is a hell of a lot of people.

It's exactly this sort of wishful thinking - that essential moderation will be unleashed if only eccentric extremism is defeated - that has underpinned our fantasy-based foreign policy and led to so many dead ends.
I like what Barry Rubin of jpost.com said, that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans appease the "moderates" while the Democrats appease the "radicals". Barry advises that we appease neither, and instead make demands.

By the way, regarding my 7:35 post, I meant his radio show. As s pointed out, he may be on a short leash with his tv show, in fact, i must suppose that he is. Anyway, when comes to his steadfast refusal to recognize (at least openly) that islam is a problem, i can only take him at his word, and presume he does not get it.

It's exactly this sort of wishful thinking - that essential moderation will be unleashed if only eccentric extremism is defeated - that has underpinned our fantasy-based foreign policy and led to so many dead ends.
I like what Barry Rubin of jpost.com said, that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans appease the "moderates" while the Democrats appease the "radicals". Barry advises that we appease neither, and instead make demands.

So glad this has been posted at Jihad Watch. After listening to Glenn Beck last night, I e-mailed him and politely but firmly indicated that deception (taqiyyah)is a feature of Islam and that he needs to know this. Frankly, I've gotten a little tired of Beck lately where the matter of Islam is concerned. He's beginning to serve as a useful idiot for Mohammed's creed, although I know his heart is in the right place. But that's not enough.

By the way, is there anyone out there who reads this who could tell me something I've not quite been able to ascertain with certainty and it is the following: Does "taqiyyah" play a bigger role in Shiite Islam than the Sunni variety, or is it about the same for both sects?

I watch Glenn Beck, too and I love his sarcasm and self-deprecation which Bill O'Reilly et al are severely lacking. He did a special last year using MEMRI translation comparing what islamist say in English vs arabic, farsi, etc. He back-peddled on islamic rhetoric after talking on his radio broadcast about how his personnal security has been changed for himself and his family since doing that show.
I had a friend recently ask me if I would be willing to be martyred for my faith, and I replied "No, I still have young children I want to be around to raise" So, given the fact that muslims will go after whoever they perceive as impeding the advance of islam and there's not alot of support out there in PC Land, I don't blame him for adding the disclaimer. At least he's trying to bring some attention to what the rest of MSM completely whitewashes. He is a good jumping off point for people who mainly use tv news as their info source.

Another thing, he is the only media person with an audience I've heard talk about the mahdi and why that makes Ahmadinnerjacket that much more vile and dangerous in regards to nukes.

Since the Quran is the immutable word of Allah, that is forever, I don't see how one muslim, a group of muslims, or lots of groups of muslims, are going to change that. As long as muslims maintain the supremacy idea of the 'Perfect' god Allah, the 'Perfect' Quran, and 'The 'perfect man', Prophet Mohammad, there is no improvement or changes needed. How can you improve perfection?
Then there is the problem of a muslims personal relationship with Allah. Who is going to say to Allah...'I don't like some of the things you said in your book, so I am going to change some, eliminate some, and ignore others.' I hope you don't mind too much...Allah, what are you going to do with that thunderbolt!!!
I think I may have said this before, but the question keeps coming up. The answer is always the same. There may be some muslims who would like to find a way of ending violence, but they have no method. As long as they cling to the 'Perfect Trinity of Islam', Allah, Quran, Mohammad, they are not going to get a method. So nothing will change. Jihad will continue as it has for the last 1400 years...unless it is recognized for what it is and stopped.

I think that Glenn Beck has a huge voice. He is nationally syndicated and is also on *cough* CNN. He can't realistically go straightforward on the American public, but he's certainly doing a good job at getting sleepy Americans to finally read the koran, ahadiths and sira.

Give it time. It took these filthy jihadis over 25 years to infiltrate our societies quietly, like snakes. It will take more than 5 or 6 years to fix this problem that we welcomed to our shores.

And, how will we ever get past the phrase, "islam is the religion of peace"? Whoever coined that phrase should be covered in honey, and hung by his toe nails beneath a festering hive of rabid African bees.

And, I had no clue that Glenn Beck was a Mormon. I thought he was a Christian. Not that it really matters... source?

I remember in my college days how Maxists and Communists hated liberals because they would produce fog over issues. Glenn Beck, from the few times I've seen him, blows fog over the theological Muslim prescriptions for Jihad. He causes more harm then good and when push comes to shove, he will run with his tail between his legs like most of the MSM journalists and will not take a stand. This guy is an entertainer and an impostor.

I really like Glenn Beck - he is an entertaining person and has his heart in the right place. But he is just not "all the way there yet", so to speak. He still has to answer to media big whigs and that seems to restrict what he can truly say. But I'd rather have someone like Glenn Beck than a true dhimmi any day of the week. He has done much more in terms of informing people about the issues with Islam than 99% of all other media figures in the US.

Laughs_at_Silly_Jihadis

"And, I had no clue that Glenn Beck was a Mormon. I thought he was a Christian. Not that it really matters... source?"

Just watch his show, I think he mentions he's a Mormon about twice a week.

He's also a former alcoholic, and he mentions that about 3 times a week.

upon reflection, i conclude that mr. beck may have, in fact, understood the trouble with islam. however, being very much a humanist, he worries that if word gets out, that there will be violence. and he does not want to be in any way responsible for violence. i would say that the risk is otherwise; the longer it takes for word to get out, the worse the risk of violence. the best thing would be for the West to wake up and deal with the problem now, firmly, and as humanely as possible. my great worry is that my children will be faced with an onerous chore, because we refused to admit the truth, while there was still time.

why do you keep deleting my posts today?

i merely mentioned that glenn beck is part of a cult, the same way he lamely denounces the other "m" cult.

jihadwatch is getting all paranoid lately about law suits.

please stop with teh censorship.

not even southpark censored their mormon episode.

and please dont tell me my post was off topic. ive read all the "eagle" postings for the past week which have had nothing to do with any of the posts.

thank you

Although there may be substantial, perhaps even profound disagreement, that separates those such as myself that have studied under Mr. Spencer, Mrs. Ye’or, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Pipes, Mr. Bostom, etc., from those who have not, such as Mr. Derbyshire, Mr. Beck, and Mr. Hitchens, we must find enough common ground in order to jointly fight this clear and common threat. Does not the Whahabist Sunni find enough common ground with the Shiah to join against the common enemy? Did not ultra-capitalist states unite with ultra-Marxist states in order to defeat the common enemy? If such things as this are possible, should we not learn from this ancient military wisdom? Do we not both cherish civilization and freedom? I believe that freedom of conscience alone is enough for us to shoulder arms in the same ranks. We must find a way to overcome our factionalism. This is a battle between barbarism and civilization. If we do ally with one-another, darkness will envelope the earth.

Yes, Beck is all over the fricken' place.

Sometimes he reports that jihad and terror aren't marginal to islam, but very much mainstream.

Other times he's as bad as you can get, reporting that the problem isn't the "majority of peaceful muslims" but rather those who have "hijacked a great religion."

Somebody needs to tell Beck to cut the crap, fish, or cut bait, s&*t, or get off the pot.

It's either one or the other.

Jihad is either mainstream and obligatory, or it isn't.

But we can no longer continue this ridiculous pretense about islam.

Lives and civilizations are riding on the ability of men and women to look at the facts, and speak the truth.

"Though the heavens fall.........."

I never liked Beck; because I always knew that he was just playing a game.

the only reason that glenn beck doesnt chuck a mental on air like michael savage is because he has to walk a fine line with CNN's reputation.

he's useful idiot to CAIR.

It's exactly this sort of wishful thinking - that essential moderation will be unleashed if only eccentric extremism is defeated - that has underpinned our fantasy-based foreign policy and led to so many dead ends.
I like what Barry Rubin of jpost.com said, that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans appease the "moderates" while the Democrats appease the "radicals". Barry advises that we appease neither, and instead make demands.

Yes, Beck is all over the fricken' place.

Sometimes he reports that jihad and terror aren't marginal to islam, but very much mainstream.

Other times he's as bad as you can get, reporting that the problem isn't the "majority of peaceful muslims" but rather those who have "hijacked a great religion."

Somebody needs to tell Beck to cut the crap, fish, or cut bait, s&*t, or get off the pot.

It's either one or the other.

Jihad is either mainstream and obligatory, or it isn't.

But we can no longer continue this ridiculous pretense about islam.

Lives and civilizations are riding on the ability of men and women to look at the facts, and speak the truth.

"Though the heavens fall.........."

I never liked Beck; because I always knew that he was just playing a game.

It's exactly this sort of wishful thinking - that essential moderation will be unleashed if only eccentric extremism is defeated - that has underpinned our fantasy-based foreign policy and led to so many dead ends.
I like what Barry Rubin of jpost.com said, that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans appease the "moderates" while the Democrats appease the "radicals". Barry advises that we appease neither, and instead make demands.

Notice the same blindspot in Beck's understanding of islam.

He fawns over "good" muslims - believing that we will be doing good by listening and getting others (including muslims) to listen to "good"
muslims, and they play him like a violin.

Because they can. Beck is ignorant about fundamental islam.

Disgracefully and unwarrantedly ignorant.

What a shame.

And Beck.

If you get to read this.

The single most important point that you should note.

You are ignorant about fundamental islam

You are ignorant about fundamental islam.

You are massively and pitifully and shamefully ignorant about fundamental islam.

In this you do a disservice to your audience.

In this you do a disservice to the West. And it is believed that this would trouble you.

duh_swami
"So nothing will change. Jihad will continue as it has for the last 1400 years...unless it is recognized for what it is and stopped."
Two questions
a. Stopped by whom?
b. How?

Once again Robert hits the nail squarely on the head!

When Glen Beck talked about last night and tonight about the mahdi stuff that president nutjob of Iran was talking about, I got the sense that he is starting to turn the corner, but more needs to be done. This is coming from someone who likes Glen Beck and is the reason I will click to CNN to do so, otherwise I would not touch CNN at all.

The terrorists haven't corrupted their religion, Islam has corrupted them.

“This principle of excellence is one which Americans seem to be losing, and at a time when the Nation stands in need of it. A lack of excellence implies mediocrity. And in a society that is willing to accept a standard of mediocrity, the opportunities for personal failure are boundless. Mediocrity can destroy us as surely as perils far more famous.”
-Hyman Rickover

An excellent scholar is one who studies the root texts of a subject, makes honest theory-to-practice observations, and comes to unbiased conclusions, regardless of who it pisses off.

Robert Spencer and Company are excellent scholars of Islam. Glenn Beck is a mediocre scholar of Islam. It’s a shame, given his platform.

http://www.limes68.blogspot.com/

The terrorists haven't corrupted their religion, Islam has corrupted them.

cerebate,

you wrote:
"Two questions
a. Stopped by whom?
b. How?"

Howzabout you provide some suggested answers -- your views?

Yes, I would be interested in hearing cerebate's prescription as well.

@ CapitalistGig"

I could not care less what Mormons believe unless they're out to kill me for not being one of them.

@ cerebate

So far as I know there's only one "religion" in the world today (sadly, a very large one) which inspires thousands of its most fervent followers to kill those who are not of same belief, and millions more to approve of such fanaticism. >>> Islam.

Can you name another?

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” Thomas Paine, American Crisis

Somebody is being a “summer soldier” or a “sunshine patriot”. The most important cause of our times and Beck, Rush, O’Reilly, and Hannity are sitting it out. The war is not in Iraq. It is not about this or that Muslim dictator or the hearts and minds of Muslims or to find the mystical moderate Islam. The war is here and in this land. This war is a struggle over the ignorance, treason, and cowardice of the leadership in the west. Oh and here is another shocker: it is not all the goofy liberals fault either. The leadership of the GOP has done enough damage to sink us without any liberals to help. Their sell out of America to the Arabians is one of the greatest strategic blunders in world history. Here we are with the greatest military power on earth and we don’t use it. Why? Because somehow if we just spend money on the Islamic world or if we let Muslims into our lands. Presto! They will become westerners who eat at McDonalds and become Adam Smith capitalists! They will even lower our taxes because it is part of their faith! Wow! That is why we are in Iraq and that is why Muslims are coming into our nation. The same idiotic fantasies drive both. I was watching the military channel yesterday and they had a Marine officer saying they are liberators in Iraq. What are we liberating? The “people” you say! Who are those “people”! Why Muslims are being liberated you say! What do you think liberated Muslims do? Unless you liberate the people from Islam as it exist today then you have liberated these people to behave as Muslims not as free men because no Muslim is free and as slaves they must do what their master teaches. What does their master teach? So on and so on...

The number of GOP leaders that get it I can count on my two hands which is more then the Dems who get it which is none. This is why I am so hard on the GOP because they should get it. Yet they continue to drag their feet kicking and screaming. Some do it because they just don’t have the ability to accept something this large and thus it frightens them (Beck). Some do it because they care more about the world economy then about American national interest (Cheney). Some do it because they are just stupid and never should have been given any power in the first place (Bush). Some do it because they have convinced themselves that liberals are somehow more dangerous then Islam and worse that Islam is good and we need more Islam in our lives (D’Souza).

This is an "American Crisis" because our leaders who fought Communism and our so called loyal Americans are NOT getting it this time. Enough with politics! I don’t give rat’s ass in hell if you are a loyal member of the GOP. That does not impress me. I want a fighter of freedom and of Western Civilization. I want a dam American like Samuel Adams who was raising hell on the street corner! Of course we do have a Spencer, a Pipes, a Hirsi Ali, and many others who are forging ahead. Now those are fighters. Those are the ones we must follow in this struggle that is coming. The fight of our lives and of our times. Not those sunshine anti-jihadist who still accept Islam as the ROP.

duh_swami
"So nothing will change. Jihad will continue as it has for the last 1400 years...unless it is recognized for what it is and stopped."
Two questions
a. Stopped by whom?
b. How?

While the questions were directed at duh_swami, here is my stab at it.

Answers
a. Stopped by all of us non-muslims who need to unite together and accept Islam for what it really is (and always has been) a totalitarian political ideology that aims to subjugate everyone.

b. Closely following the preaching in Islamic mosques, restricting the influx of muslim immigrants and completely discrediting Islamic theology; standing up to the Islamic thugs with all our military might.

Is Beck a disappointment? Sure. However, lets keep things in perspective. Beck covers Jihad better than anyone else on TV. If Beck was taken off the air, it would be a loss for us.
To classify him as a useful idiot is unfair.

Jasser is also an interesting case---a rare example of a Westernized Muslim. He is the only person of his kind that has any level of exposure. However, unlike other so called "moderates"---Jasser takes on CAIR, argues against the Minnesota cab drivers, argues for surveillance of mosques, etc. In other words, Jasser stands up against Sharia and otherwise does what we would like Muslims in the West to do.

It is possible that Jasser is actually making us worse off by reinforcing the moderate Muslim hope? Sure. But people seem to have that deparate longing anyway---even people who have never seen or heard of Jasser.

As far as I can tell, Jasser is genuine. He is uniquely situated to fight domestic Jihad and provide cover against the politically correct forces that want to preclude effective security measures. I say let Jasser play his part.

Leon,

My post was also deleted, here, and on another thread. I guess people do not want to see the similarities between Islam and Mormonisn, there are many. That doesn't mean Mormons are bad, just wrong.

As for Zuhdi Jasser, he is an anti-Semite, does not believe in Zionism, and we all know how "moderate" that is.

Laughs_at_Silly_Jihadis

Have no fear- Glenn is doing great work for our side. He had "Epicenter" Joel Rosenberg on today about the Twelvers and Ahmadinijhad, the Shiite Mahdi and whether he is the Anti Christ. Hardly normal radio fare. Very serious discussion on the Muslim "end times" theories and how Shiite Muslims must bring chaos to hasten it

Yes Glenn is doing very good work. I base this on his radio show which I listen to ~3 times per week. Robert has a 100% understanding of Islam and Glenn 85.

But Glenn has a much greater impact. He is truly doing the Lord's work.

pez:
Thanks for linking to the Hyman Rickover piece; powerful stuff.

By the way, are you 'Limes'? I've wondered this for some time - and I also suspect that we might be relatively near neighbors. It would be good to have a JW badge or some other form of mutual recognition - I'd hate to pass you in the street and not say 'Hi'!

Kate

Beck is in CYA mode. If you attack ISLAM itself, you risk losing your show. Does Michael Graham's name ring a bell?

Please people, just hit "post" once.

Looks like the site is having technical difficulties tonight so don't be so quick to assume that posts are being deleted.

Glenn Beck talks about the "End of Days". Most appropriate.

"Your Lord would never destroy any cities without first sending to the chief of them a messenger to recite Our Signs to them. We would never destroy any cities unless their inhabitants were wrongdoers." (Surat al-Qasas: 59)

Does Ahmadinejad think of himself as this messenger? Has he now fulfilled this prerequisite for the destruction of our cities?

My apologies for the multiple comments. Is anyone else having technical problems?

This site needs a total revamp. It is always painful and tedious to post here. You can get a free blog where posting will go through faster and w/ less glitches.

If Glenn is a 5 out of 10 on Islam then this site is a 2 out of 10 for posting

As other have stated different ways we have no leadership on this issue. You can call it ignorance, lack of will power, indecision, political correctness, etc. It is also the failing of both parties as well. The verse below kind of sums it up IMO. We have not King/leader.

Judges 12:25
In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

قضاة 25/12
في تلك الايام لم يكن هناك ملك في اسرائيل. الجميع فعل ما هو صواب في بلدة العيون.

I am having some difficulties posting. My comment is that Beck has to cover his backside when talking about Islam. Does anyone remember Michael Graham.

Kate; Yes, a small green citrus morphed into a small square candy. A Google thing. Drop by the Brickoven site anytime. Thanks for the nice word.

Tired of waiting for your post to process?

Try what I do. Hit "post" and then zip to the top of the page and click on JW or DW, whichever you're not posting on at the time. Browse the sister site and post there too if you like, then click back to where you were before and your first post will have appeared while any other other posts you might make are also processing.

A bit distracting, yes, but much better than sitting there waiting for a post to process before you can do anything else.

Robert's commentary on Beck is 100% accurate.

Whatever his real intentions are is irrelevant. I for one do not believe that he is an intentional Islamist apologist, but unfortunately his current media position and/or his general lack of Islam compels him to do so.

Glenn is guilty, historically, of calling Islam a "religion of peace". He is also guilty of pulling numbers out of his ass in regards to the percentage of Muslims worldwide who are "radical". if I recall correctly, he stated 10%. Thats's a big problem assuming over 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide, in my estimation, and I am no math whiz for sure.

The main problem with Beck, and he has many sub-problems, is that he has cowed to public pressure, both from his media masters and the obligatory death threats he has received from Islamists. It comes with the territory dealing with Islam and it's adherents. I always thought Robert lives in a "secure undisclosed location" strictly for self-preservation purposes and not because he is anti-social. Just a guess on my part.

When Glenn regularly employs people like M. Zuhdi Jasser (yeah, I am wondering what the M stands for, like you are as well), people who attempt to successfully ride the fence regarding Islam, one has to be suspect. Is Zuhdi really a moderate Muslim, intent on reforming Islam? His words belie that he is not, for in Zuhdi's estimation, the problem is not Islam, but rather, Islamism. To me and the rest who dwell in the world of the sane, there is no difference, semantics aside.

This semantical argument takes place outside of JW/DW often. Mostly on wordpress.com blogs. Elric66 and Shiva, along with myself, currently frequent these blogs to point out the errors in the host's thinking. We are regularly labeled Islamophobes and racists, with typical baseless ad hominem arguments against our comments. The common denominator I have personally experienced on these blogs, from the host's point of view is that the problems we experience today from the Jihadidts has NOTHING to do with Islam, but rather "Islamism" or "Islamic fascism" or "Islamic terrorism" or whatever the term du jour is regarding Islam.

This is disingenuine, as I believe Jasser is being. As Robert aptly pointed out early in the posting, how can you reform what you cannot identify as needing reform?

It is a tricky question. In that regard, Jasser and Beck are valueless, whatever the reasons for their words and actions may be.

Robert's point has and continues to be, to bring to light the correlation between the Islamic texts, the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Sira and the actions of the Jihadists who continually evoke them as their impetus for their actions.

It is not a difficult concept to grasp, but the reality is, that those like Beck, Jasser and the wordpress.com bloggers show, as well as the current US administration and countless maasses in the West show, it is quite difficult indeed.

a. Stopped by whom?
b. How?"

I have many Mormon friends who are, without exception, assets to their community. The joke goes:

Q: Why do you always take two Mormons fishing?
A: Because if you only bring one, he’ll drink all your beer.

Mormons assimilate well. Muslims refuse to assimilate and work against the community. America-2007 is essentially a business that pays people off to get along. That money will run out. When it does, those who are not here to assimilate will make themselves known.

Is this declaration outrageous?

"…open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this State ... the Muslims must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description."

Not really, it is actually the text of the ‘Extermination Order’, issued against the Mormons (substitute ‘Mormon’ for ‘Muslim’ in the declaration), issued by the State of Missouri in 1838. Things in modern times would probably be much more humane due to modern airlift capacity, which could end the issue in a week.

So I predict:
a. The indigenous people surrounding Islamic population centers will stop Islam when the money runs out.
b. With superior organizational skills, small arms, airplanes, and a good deal of sacrifice that could have been avoided if our politicians just did their jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order

Jasser may not be helpful to the underlying question, but he is a good guy to have around when the flying imams file a lawsuit, Minnesota cab drivers turn away seeing eye dogs, U of M installs special bathrooms, and CAIR otherwise sticks up its nasty serpent head.

It seems like he does walk the walk on every concrete domestic issue, and nobody can call him Islamophobic.

There are many roles to be played. Not everyone who helped bring down the Soviet Union was against socialism. We should take people as allies when possible.

I was very suspicious of Jasser at first, but it seems like he takes the anti-CAIR position every time.

To everyone:

A simple way to avoid these technical difficulties after hitting 'post' is to either hit 'back' or 'refresh'. Maybe visit another thread, and after some seconds, come back to that page and hit 'refresh'. By then, your post should be there.

Simple patience ;-)

Glenn Beck is a coward. Not just an intellectual coward, but a full-faced coward. Add to him the self-satisfied likes of Bill O'Reilly and what you have is a shit-pile of cowardice. And the East Asians are laughing their asses off as we choke on our yellow-bellied cowardice. More about them later.

There is no countenance for the bull-crap these people are pushing. Doesn't make any sense. Bull-crap=cowardice.

Let's stop kidding ourselves. Let's shut down the networks. The problem is on the airwaves. Or, properly put, on the zeros and ones transmitting the worthless crap of O'Reilly & Beck over the cable.

It's one thing to be a moron. Another to be a rich self-worhshipping moron. But it's bad medicine to be an extremely dangerous moron. Beck. O'Reilly. Russert. Dangerous. Mortally irresponsible. There will be blood from this.

"....peaceful Muslims will never be able to stand up to the jihadists until they have the courage to formulate a radical reinterpretation of the core Islamic sources, acknowledging the violent and supremacist elements within them and explicitly rejecting them."

Yes, I agree; but then there's the problem with the violent passages in the Qur'an that generate terrorism. Should Muslims abandon those passages by removing them altogether from the Qur'an?

"And, I had no clue that Glenn Beck was a Mormon. I thought he was a Christian. Not that it really matters... source?"

Just watch his show, I think he mentions he's a Mormon about twice a week.

He's also a former alcoholic, and he mentions that about 3 times a week.
Posted by: GuitarBob

OT

According to AA, there are no former alcoholics, but alcoholics who don't drink. A label a lot of us wear with pride. You are never more than one drink away.

('Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones." -- Bukhari 4.56.829

Ironically, while spreading the utmost brutality and destruction, the followers of abomination also spread the final gesture of love and self-sacrifice of one of the millions nameless victims of islam. Even in the darkest hours people can resist evil.

The question is will we stand in stupor, so that our children and grandchildren will only have such gestures of final humanity and love in the face of their ruthless masters, or

will we confine the "divinely" sanctioned murderers to their homeland deserts until they learn to live and let live.

Hello Glen, read this single hadith and see the perfect example in action. Maybe then while your body is still safe, you will lean with your speech to shelter our daughters from the stones.

This news segment in from the land of Durkastan!

"Looks like we'll have to fight in the shade..."
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m209/davidusrex/AmhedinejadXerxes.jpg

(/sarc)
;-)

According to AA, there are no former alcoholics, but alcoholics who don't drink. A label a lot of us wear with pride. You are never more than one drink away.

Perhaps you could equate moderate Muslims to alcoholics.

You are never more that one verse away.

Only one thingI have with that little neanderthal...

Boo's don't bother him...
...and booze don't bother me, either!
(/sarc)

I dont get Glenn, he comes off as a smart guy. I dont know why he buys into that mantra. At least he doesnt say this.

Muslim seems to be the new “black”. Was it right what we did to Japanese Americans during WW2?? How about how Black Americans were treated through out our history, for no other reason than the color of their skin. Now we repeat history, but this time it is Muslims. It wasn’t right then, and it’s not right now.

http://eaglespearlsofwisdom.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/

excommie -

great comment.

I too saw what you saw, when I read that terrible hadith. That was the image that has haunted me ever since.

Robert - what do the Muslim commentators say about this hadith?
I would be very, very surprised if they even deigned to notice the courage and love of that nameless Jew, shining in the midst of a bleak desert of Mohammedan cruelty.

a. Stopped by whom?
b. How?

Posted by: cerebate

a. people who will be willing to do whatever it takes to stop the violence...

b. violently...(when it comes to Muslims, treaties, peace agreements, appeasements, truces, attempts at mutual reconciliations, attempts to establish religious plurality acceptance, attempts at harmonious relationships, attempts at peaceful co-relationships, and other civilized attempts to establish a friendly multicultural relationship have all failed...Muslims have systematically eliminated all Non Muslims from the land in which Muslims become dominant)...violence is the only thing Muslims clearly understand....as each day passes the world is becoming increasingly more willing to meet Muslim violence with violence....The world is becoming increasingly anti-Muslim...mostly because it is the Muslims who are making it happen...the world wide Muslim terrorist organizations proudly boast it is Islam they worship and it is the Islamic teaching as given in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira the Muslim terrorists use as Justification for what they do..

....what is an Infidel to think....or do....The Muslims give the Infidel a choice...convert or die...

...there,of course, is a third choice...fight and survive...

....I choose fight...

Ban Muslim Immigration....

Glenn Beck informed many many people about the muslim attack on the schoolchildren of Beslan.

Most Americans had no idea that this horrific event took place.

His work in the mainstream media is crucial to turning public opnion against muslims and islam. At this point its not so important that every citizen understand the nuances of islam, only that they begin to develop unfavorable opinions about islam and muslims. That is the overall goal. To define the Enemy.

Most people don't even know who the enemy is at this point and finding out that is was muslims waging jihad who killed all those children in Beslan is shocking for many people.

Re: deleted comments

Press "post" once. It really does go through, even if the page times out.

I've also deleted a few comments about Beck and Mormonism in order to keep the thread from becoming clogged with critiques of the particulars of Beck's religion rather than discussing how he portrays Islam on his shows.

Many Mormons recognize the jihadist threat and stand with us in opposing it, including a few commenters on this site. So, please extend the same courtesy as you would like others to do concerning your own beliefs.

I wish Beck would simply read the Koran.

He seems to think that it is somehow as flexible a text as the Bible of post-Reformation Christianity, where the violent verses can be ignored as morally outdated or historically obsolete.

The stoning recommendation in the Torah was over-ruled by Jesus "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" the Christ.

Beck fails to grasp, as Robert notes, that it was not renounced or denounced by Mohammad the pedophile.

The Koran's violence cannot be ignored.

Until it is expunged from Mohammedan texts, (as the ancient Jewish laws' violence like stoning, et al, was expunged from Christian belief), Islam is fundamentally poisonous.

Glenn needs to ask Muslims to remove the terroristic calls from the Koran.

And say -honestly and strongly- that Islam is utterly incompatible with America, and the secular West, until it renounces homicide as a theological value.

He's also a former alcoholic, and he mentions that about 3 times a week.
Posted by: GuitarBob

OT

According to AA, there are no former alcoholics, but alcoholics who don't drink. A label a lot of us wear with pride. You are never more than one drink away.

**************
I'm an "insider" which means that I subscribe to his radio show on the internet. I have listened to his radio show for about a year.

He calls himself an alcoholic, not a former alcoholic.

He does not have a a college degree either.

He is almost there. Unfortunately, to be 'there', you have to call 1 billion people insane, or demon possessed (which we pretty much do!)

Glenn Beck is a Mormon, but he is without a doubt a Christian. The biggest difference between Mormonism and what we know as Christianity is what they believe will happen in the afterlife. Christians aren't very picky about that, really. The Bible is the standard and it is pretty low on specifics.

Hey, his heart is in the right place, he knows that our main enemy is Islam. I think that he is more an anti-Koran-but-like-the-apostate-Muslim sort of guy, looking at the Islamic population to rid their religion of it's main points, namely jihad and kafir type messages. I think deep down he knows it is hopeless, but he still tries to convince the apostate Muslims that it is better than being wiped out by the secularists, Jews, and Christians.

What makes Beck different is that he exposes government corruption, media corruption, and the globalist agenda in all this. We have to face the fact that this wouldn't be happening if there wasn't some deep corruption going on in high places. And he holds the politicians feet to the fire on his program.

"Robert's point has and continues to be, to bring to light the correlation between the Islamic texts, the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Sira and the actions of the Jihadists who continually evoke them as their impetus for their actions.

It is not a difficult concept to grasp, but the reality is, that those like Beck, Jasser and the wordpress.com bloggers show, as well as the current US administration and countless maasses in the West show, it is quite difficult indeed." ~ awake

I truly believe the difficulty in grasping the concept, the outright self-denial, is due to what the acceptance of reality vis-a-vis islam would mean: That we are facing a religious war being waged against us world-wide. Far too many believe that, since we have gone beyond religious wars, everybody else has, too, everybody wanting the same things, multi-culturally speaking. To admit to oneself that we are in a centuries old struggle with an enemy who has not changed, nor can it according to islamic canons, is frightening to contemplate. islam being the 'religion of peace' is so much easier to swallow. Jimmy Carter failed the first test in this new struggle, allowing islamic theocracy to rear its ugly head. No Western leader wants to be responsible for the impending cataclysm by being the first to draw a line in the sand, any line. Instead, we appease. And that is a failure of historic proportions.

P.S. Glenn Beck is not the only TV/radio personality to soft pedal Islam, or refer to the "problem" as only radical islamists. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are all conservatives who preface their remarks about Islamic terror in this manner.

Glenn Beck has done a lot more than most commentators to expose Islam. The fact that CNN lets him produce that show is a miracle (his ratings probably help). I am sorry that he uses Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. Google Jasser and you'll see why.

CapitalistGig:

I googled Jasser and didn't find anything negative. Pipes is definitely a fan. If you are aware of something specific, why not provide the link?

Please do share.

I have a client in 5 minutes but Malkin had this also: an interview with M. Zuhdi Jasser (M stands for?)wherein Jasser repeatedly refers to Israel as the occupied territories. Occupied by whom?

I couldn't find anything unfavorable on Malkin's site (the search only turned up one reference which involved the Flyiam Imams). I am off to a client meeting myself, but if you could please send me a link, I would love to see it.

Thanks.

JSobieski:

Atlas Shrugs has interview audio:

www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/05atlas_on_the_ai.html

If this doesn't work go to her website achives.

I know everyone wants to like this guy, but if you had family members killed in Israel by "Palestinians", you'd feel differently.

Maybe you should read the whole thing elric. Then again, never mind. You continue to be part of the problem, where others attempt to be a part of the solution. That post said a lot of stuff and only you would find fault with it.

OT:

Kay --

You stated, "The biggest difference between Mormonism and what we know as Christianity is what they believe will happen in the afterlife."

Well, that isn't the only difference. Christians and Mormons have two VERY different beliefs about Jesus Christ! This link clearly shows that these two faiths are miles apart where Jesus is concerned:

http://www.macgregorministries.org/mormons/morchristjesus.html

One of the fundamental differences between Mormonism and Christianity has not so much to do with what happens in the afterlife as to how one gets there. Christians are faith based, meaning that it is Grace and Grace alone that allows one into heaven. John 3.16 says that God so Loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believed in Him should not perish but have eternal Life. Mormonism says that the entrance to Heaven, (and one's place in it), is predicated by deeds committed here on Earth. Hence, Mormonism is not Christianity nor an offshoot. If Beck is one or not is neither here nor there.
Glenn is an affable man. He's likable in that "everyman" sense, and comes off well to his demographic. He is supposed to be CNN's response to O'Rielly. The problem is that one doesn't get the sense that he fervently has a lot of conviction in the views he expounds upon. It's like he's running beliefs up the proverbial flagpole to see who salutes. In this sense he's very much like a six-year-old with a loaded handgun. He's delighted with the sense of power but frighteningly (for others) doesn't understand the consequences of its misuse. It is in this sense that he's perfect for CNN. If he were better educated/read, he'd be dangerous to the liberal MSM principals eschewed there. Whenever you watch him, remeber this is the same station that thinks Nancy Grace has something of value to say...
Shalom,
Theosebes

I entirely agree with Mr. Spencer’s statement

“that peaceful Muslims will never be able to stand up to the jihadists until they have the courage to formulate a radical reinterpretation of the core Islamic sources, acknowledging the violent and supremacist elements within them and explicitly rejecting them.”

But unless I have misunderstood, Mr. Spencer seems to suggest that non-Muslim misunderstandings about Islam, such as those propagated by Mr. Beck, somehow hinder a potential reformation of Islam. As Mr. Spencer has indicated ad-infinitum, any effort at reform must take place within Islam itself. So, I do not understand how important our encouragement, or lack thereof, could be more than just peripheral to this reformation. This is not to say that some of Mr. Beck’s non-factual statements do not have a negative effect. They certainly do lead many non-Muslims to misunderstand the nature of the enemy. This weakens the efforts of non-Muslims to counter the jihadists for it is far more difficult to effectively fight an enemy that you do not understand.

I have read all of Mr. Spencer’s books, except for the two most recently published. These arrived just the other day. I hope Mr. Spencer will explain in greater detail how “encouragement” of reform minded Muslims, from non-Muslims, is so important to defeating this enemy.

JSobieski,

Try the link below for Jasser's position. It is consistent with "riding the fence", in my opinion.

Semantical arguments are not partuclualry helpful by professed moderates looking for reform.

http://familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=989002

Zuhdi Jasser may be a splendid fellow. On the other hand, he has claimed in the past that there are "7 milliion Muslims in America" which is just the sort of claim made by CAIR, exaggerating the numbers by a factor of three, to make it seem that Islam is on the march, and must be appeased. He uses the terms favored by Muslims when they describe the "occupied territories" rather than the territories possessed by Israel, and to which it has a considerable -- overwhelming, in fact -- legal, historic, and moral title. Perhaps Zuhdi Jasser has not gone into this; the very last thing for a Muslim "reformer" to let go of is that deeply-ingrained inability to see that Jews and other non-Muslims might, in the Middle East, have a claim to a land of their own, and not to exist merely as dhimmis subservient, within a Muslim state, or in a dhimmi-state that exists not by right but on Muslim sufferance (which is what the "moderates" may have in mind -- and remember that just as "protected peoples" could lose their protection overnight, and be subject to massacres, so too would a "dhimmi-state" of Israel reduced still further, and its vulnerability increased beyond the endurance of its permanently besieged, if astoundingly brave, citizens).

A few years ago, to great fanfare and self-promoting publicity, Jasser organized a "march" in Phoenix against "terrorism" which attracted a few hundred people, of whom all but 50-100 were non-Muslims. He has made a name for himself and, I suspect, also a living, or a handsome addition to his living.

It would require a good deal more for me to let down my guard and wholeheartedly approve the likes of Zuhdi Jasser. He's no Wafa Sultan or Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I don't think one needs to accept substitutes.

It would require a good deal more for me to let down my guard and wholeheartedly approve the likes of Zuhdi Jasser. He's no Wafa Sultan or Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I don't think one needs to accept substitutes.

I'm sorry, but I think it is completely demeaning to Wafa Sulatn and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to even compare Jasser to him. I find Jasser's attempt at reforming Islam as a total joke meant more to pull wool over the eyes of non-muslims than to create an actual change. One cannot reform Islam if one refuses to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with the Koran and with Muhhammad the prophet of Islam.

OOps. Sorry the first sentence should read:

I'm sorry, but I think it is completely demeaning to Wafa Sulatn and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to even compare Jasser to them.

Marisol, are you a Mormon whom I have offended? Again you remove my post regarding Mormonism, yet you allow those who are ignorant of Joseph Smith's belief system to post.

You said that posts were going OT due to the Mormonisn dimension. A better way to understand a person is to look at his belief system, if he indeed embraces one. Glenn Beck mentioned just last evening that he "belongs to a church."

I've given it to you on Zuhdi Jasser, so please tell me where I am incorrect about Mormonisn. I have read critical commentary on JW regarding ELCA Lutherans, Episcopalians, Christian Fundamentalists, Reform Jews, Catholics, and atheists. Why were these posts allowed?

CG,

I'm not speaking for Marisol but if you go to the "twisted interprestations" topic there is a direct opening for you to address Mormonism whereas here there was only a tangential link.

Glenn Beck's religious beliefs are of no consequence here. He is a self-professed Mormon, so what. This is a non-secterian site and any discussion about the differences of sects in Christianity quickly devalue the topical relativity of the thread. This is also seen when the debate between Christian believers and atheists, occur.

Glenn could worship fast-food for all I care. It is irrelevant. His position, coupled with his shortcomings in the comprehension of Islam and the spokepeople he uses, like Jasser, is all that matters.

The Two Faces of Al Qaeda
advertisement
Article tools By RAYMOND IBRAHIM

When the September 11 attacks occurred, I was in Fresno, Calif., researching my M.A. thesis on the Battle of Yarmuk, one of the first yet little-known battles between Christendom and Islam, waged in 636 A.D. That battle, in which the Arab invaders were outmatched and yet still triumphed, would have immense historical repercussions. A mere four years later, Egypt and Mesopotamia, and all the land between, would become Islamic. A century later, all the land between southern France and India would be added to the House of Islam.

The next time I came across any reference to this pivotal battle was four years later, as I was translating the words of Osama bin Laden. Surprisingly, an event that seemed so distant, almost irrelevant, to the West was to bin Laden a source not only of pride but of instruction. For him it was not mere history but an inspiring example of outnumbered and underequipped mujahedin who, through faith-inspired courage, managed to defeat the Western empire of Byzantium. When the Arab and Afghan mujahedin, including bin Laden's nascent Al Qaeda — outnumbered and underequipped — defeated the Soviet invaders, history was repeating itself.

Yet why would this band, so reminiscent of their seventh-century forebears, attack the United States, its onetime ally against the Soviets, and in such a horrific manner? What was its motivation?

Finding answers seemed easy enough. From the start, the Internet — unregulated, uncensored, unfettered — has been Al Qaeda's primary mouthpiece. Then, as now, whenever Al Qaeda has wanted to communicate with the West, it has posted videotaped messages, some complete with English subtitles.

After the events of 9/11, my increased interest in Arabic language and history led me to enroll in Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. Before and during my studies at Georgetown, I avidly read any and all posted Al Qaeda messages. The group's motivation seemed clear enough: retaliation. According to its widely disseminated statements, the West in general, and the United States in particular, had been — overtly and covertly — oppressing and exploiting the Islamic world. The accusations included: unqualified U.S. support for Israel at the expense of Palestinians; deaths of Iraqi children due to U.N. sanctions; U.S. support for dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world; and, most recently, Western occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Every single message directed to the West by Al Qaeda includes most of these core grievances, culminating with the statement that it is the Islamic world's duty to defend itself. "After all this, does the prey not have the right, when bound and dragged to its slaughter, to escape? Does it not have the right, while being slaughtered, to lash out with its paw?" bin Laden asks.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Even the 9/11 strikes are explained as acts of reprisal. After describing the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, where several high-rise apartment buildings were leveled, reportedly leaving some 18,000 Arabs dead, bin Laden, in a 2004 message directed at Americans, said: "As I looked upon those crumpling towers in Lebanon, I was struck by the idea of punishing the oppressor in kind by destroying towers in America — giving them a taste of their own medicine and deterring them from murdering our women and children."

Soon after relocating to Washington in order to attend Georgetown, I landed an internship, which later evolved into a full-time position, at the Near East Section of the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress, where thousands of new books, serials, and microfilms arrive yearly from the Arab world.

Numerous Arabic books dealing with Al Qaeda passed through my hands in this privileged position. A good number contained not only excerpts or quotes by Al Qaeda but entire treatises written by its members. Surprisingly, I came to discover that most of these had never been translated into English. Most significantly, however, the documents struck me as markedly different from the messages directed to the West, in both tone and (especially) content.

It soon became clear why these particular documents had not been directed to the West. They were theological treatises, revolving around what Islam commands Muslims to do vis-à-vis non-Muslims. The documents rarely made mention of all those things — Zionism, Bush's "Crusade," malnourished Iraqi children — that formed the core of Al Qaeda's messages to the West. Instead, they were filled with countless Koranic verses, hadiths (traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), and the consensus and verdicts of Islam's most authoritative voices. The temporal and emotive language directed at the West was exchanged for the eternal language of Islam when directed at Muslims. Or, put another way, the language of "reciprocity" was exchanged for that of intolerant religious fanaticism. There was, in fact, scant mention of the words "West," "U.S.," or "Israel." All of those were encompassed by that one Arabic-Islamic word, "kufr" — "infidelity" — the regrettable state of being non-Muslim that must always be fought through "tongue and teeth."

Consider the following excerpt — one of many — which renders Al Qaeda's reciprocal-treatment argument moot. Soon after 9/11, an influential group of Saudis wrote an open letter to the United States saying, "The heart of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is justice, kindness, and charity." Bin Laden wrote in response:

As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone." So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Allah Almighty's Word to his Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: "O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell — an evil fate!" Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.

Bin Laden goes so far as to say that the West's purported hostility toward Islam is wholly predicated on Islam's innate hostility toward the rest of the world, contradicting his own propaganda: "The West is hostile to us on account of ... offensive jihad."

In an article titled "I was a fanatic ... I know their thinking" published by the Daily Mail soon after the London and Glasgow terrorist plots, Hassan Butt, a former jihadist, helps explain the Islamist dichotomy between the propaganda of reciprocity and the theology of eternal hostility toward the infidel: "When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network ... I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and 7/7 was Western foreign policy."

One is reminded of the captured video showing bin Laden laughing and gesticulating soon after the 9/11 strikes, boasting that many of the hijackers weren't even aware that they were on a suicide mission. Butt continues:

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology. ... As with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today program, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."

Whatever position one takes as to why Al Qaeda has declared war on America, one thing is clear: We must begin to come to terms with all of Al Qaeda's rhetoric, not just what is aimed specifically at Western readers. We must particularly come to better appreciate the theological aspects that underpin radical Islam. As Butt puts it:

The main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever — and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.

When news of The Al Qaeda Reader leaked to the press in 2005, some on the left questioned whether the book would be a pseudoscholarly attempt to demonize Muslims. Others on the right worried that unfiltered exposure to the radical beliefs and propaganda of bin Laden and his cohorts might unintentionally lead to more converts or sympathizers.

My reply is simply this: Whatever one's position in regard to the "war on terror," understanding the ideas of our enemy is both a practical necessity in wartime and a fundamental liberal value. It is my hope that both sides in this bitter debate will profit from a deeper acquaintance with these works. In any case, it simply will not do to dismiss Al Qaeda as an irrational movement without ideas.

Raymond Ibrahim is editor and translator of The Al Qaeda Reader, recently published by Broadway Books. All translations in this article are from the book.

I.P.

The back button also suffers from the same delays (at least with Firefox) and refresh doesn't speed up postings (i.e. you still have to sit there and wait). But the scroll function always responds and allows for rapid escape and transport to other topics.

hmmm... this time I tried the back button after posting and it worked right away. Sometimes I have delays on that too.

I do agree with Awake about what such inter-Christian squabbling does for our cause here, i.e. nothing at all.

CapitalistGig--

No, I'm not a Mormon. But I don't see what Mormons' not acknowledging "the kingship of Christ," as I believe you put it in an earlier posting, has to do with jihad.

And yes, we do take issue with church organizations when they are not helpful in the anti-Jihad effort, and alsoreport when they are, and comments relevant to that are most welcome.

For example: Jihad Watch has criticized Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, more than once. But that criticism stems from his acting/commenting on behalf of his faith, while we can't say for sure what Beck's religious convictions may have to do with his stance, one that is unfortunately shared by members of many other denominations.

Taking that example further, we criticize Williams on the basis of his actions that are related to jihad and dhimmitude, and not, say, concerning apostolic succession or eucharistic theology.

Glen Beck has never read the Qur'an or he wouldn't be so obtuse. That book is laced with statements which PREACH and INSIST on deception.

Having met some "very pleasant" friendly Muslims, whose company I enjoyed, I wanted to scream when I read Qur'an 3:28 which tells Muslims to show friendship to disbelievers outwardly never INWARDLY. Deception, deception, deception! Don't all Muslims read the sme Qur'an? Glen Beck, take note!

Thank you Robert for "Islam Unveiled" the first book I have read of yours. Couldn't put it down.

Back in May the familysecuritymatters.org site posted one of Mr. Jasser's essays, entitled "Islamism, not Islam is the Problem".

Well, I wrote the President of the site, the keeper of the blog and Mr. Jasser to both disagree with the basic premise of his essay and to send along rebuttals to the ideas that a) moderates are going to be the solution b) non-political Islam can co-exist and thrive in systems of governance like those found under the United States Constitution.

Here's what I said along with attaching the letter and article:

Dear Ms. Taber, Ms. deGraffenreid and Mr. Jasser,I strongly disagree with the a priori assumptions on the Islamic mindset and agenda that I find in M. Zuhdi Jasser's essay: Islamism, not Islam is the Problem.

Islam is a more than a religion - it's a total regulation of life. It's a cultic fascism that justifies itself through religion but allows just about any behavior so long as this furthers the Islamic agenda.

Please read the following attachments if you would. The first is a 330 word essay on why it's futile to misplace hope in the myth of Moderate Muslims and the second is an essay which contrasts Islamic law (shari'a) with the principles found in the US Constitution.

if you're interested in the articles:

Misplacing hope in the Myth of the Moderate Muslim
http://a-plague-on-both-houses.blogspot.com/2007/06/moderate-unicorns.html

Sharia vs. US Constitution
http://a-plague-on-both-houses.blogspot.com/2007/06/one-cannot-serve-two-masters.html

Correction! Did I say "scream"? I should have said "wring their collective necks!"(If that sounds too harsh, double up on "scream!")

Jasser repeatedly refers to Israel as the occupied territories. Occupied by whom?

A year or so back Hugh Fitzgerald wrote an essay that did an excellent review of how the Jews came into possession of Israel. As I recall, didn't the Jews purchase most Israeli property from absentee Moslem landlords? And then Moslems fled the Holy Land en masse in the hopes that the united front of Moslem armies would destroy Israel.

Plague,

I linked that article by Jasser on this thread at 1:35 pm. Here it is again for all to read.

http://familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=989002

CG,

I fail to see what you seek to achieve with this line of thinking.

In the late 1970's, right around the time of the Shah's exile, I was riding my bike headed downtown, in NYC's Upper West Side. From the far right corner which I just passed, I heard a man shouting "Allah! Allah! and then a skidding sound behind me. I was going slowly enough to be able to turn around and see a Mideastern-appearing man standing on that corner and shouting, and a large kitchen knife spinning and skidding behind me. Needless to say, I was terrified and ran inside the first store I came to. I might have easily been an early civilian U.S.A. casuality in the modern Jihad surge, or maybe it was some unrelated lunatic action. Nevertheless, it was scary!!!

I believe I read the Hugh Fitzgerald piece you refer to, Alarmed. Didn't it have a point regarding how many generations one's group could get away with being called a refugee? And Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian.

I have listened to Dr. Jasser on several occasions and he comes off as sincere and likeable, but that oocupied territories comment is telling. Also, the interviewers never pin him down on the Qu'ran or hadith exhortations which direct violence upon everyone from wives to non-believers. I'd much rather listen to a Muslim apostate. They know where all the bones are buried, literally.

CapitalistGig,

How do you define a Christian?

With so many "Christian" denominations worldwide, is there no difference in all of their individual detailed beliefs about Christ?

Suppose you were to narrowly define a Christian solely on the name of his church, wouldn't Mormons (real name I think is The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints) be Christians?

Burden of proof is on all who profess to believe in Christ, to prove they are Christians through there faith and works. James 2:17-18.

Capitalist Gig:

Please keep on topic. This site is Jihad Watch. It is not about Mormonism, or about whether or not Mormons are Christians. At this point there are few enough anti-jihadists; we need to unite rather than emphasize our differences. The jihad would overwhelm us all.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

CapitalistGig,

For as much as the jihadwatch community decries ignorance of truth, you might want to check your facts.

Yeah, if your entire knowledge/world view of Mormons comes solely from doing a google search of "What Mormons believe", than you are probably right.

FYI:

The name of the Church hasn't changed since it was formed in New York in the 1830s.

Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and that He, as stated in John 14:6, is the way, the truth, and the life, and that nobody comes to the Father but through him.

Warren Jeffs is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon).

Therefore, if I have a question about what Buddhists believe, why would I ask, let's say, a jewish person?

I am sad to see that my previous appeal to overcome factionalism has had little impact on many posters here.

patagoniaplato

Do you have any ideas as to how Islam could be reformed?

del , alexon
Yes as of today, you are right , Islam is probably the one which has the most violent followers.

However the commonly held notion on this forum of let's reform Islam , will only lead us back to where we are today even if we succeed . The jihadist's aren't going to buy in to the reformed Islam.

My solution?
stop concentrating on islam as the problem and start concentrating on the radical/violent/extremists as the problem(again related to my belief that the religion is as the followers do as opposed to the followers are as the religion does). Identify and eliminate the myriad cause's that allow young adults to be brainwashed. Including and not restricted to poverty, loss of loved one's, hate. Make education a top priority. Stop antagonising moderates (this site is an example of how to antagonise them) and work with them. Stop insulting them and their religion at every turn . And a lot more things that are easy to state and damned difficult to implement.

Let me tell you a story.
Years back, In India, the Hindu fundamentalists decided that a spot housed a temple that was destroyed and a mosque built in its place and that said temple should be rebuilt. No one really bothered except the stupid extremist muslim's who said no way. The hindu fundamentalist political party seized this as an election issue and campaigned aggressively, The muslim fundamentalists met its aggression as expected. people who didnt give a damn one way or the other, now got polarized. The hindu's felt we are a majority here, why the heck shouldnt we have a temple where we want.. this is an example of the goverment bending over backwards for the muslims. The muslims felt we are a minority so the hindu's want to oppress us and shove their religion down our throats. The political party seeing its chance of power, razed the mosque. Expectedly there were riots. The hindu's pointed to examples where Hindu Women, Children and innocents were raped and killed. That incited other hindu's to riot. The muslims pointed to examples where Women, Children and innocents were raped and killed. That incited other muslims to riot. Old scores were settled (this female spurned my advances, rape and kill her). Poor people with nothing to lose looted stores and stocked their homes.The politicians on either continued hate filled tirades. The law officers sided sometimes with one side sometimes with the other. Finally the army was called and they said we shoot anyone we see rioting, hindu or muslim. It forced a stop but kept the people angry and hatred. Those who had lost someone blamed the other side. The effects are still felt today

Some muslims have killed people later using the same old suicide bomb/other bombs way and using the above incident as the excuse.
Is Islam at fault? Or is it a combination of ignorance, hatred, loss, frustration, poverty, politics and religion. If it truly is Islam's fault what did the hindu fundamentalists rely on?
Ask any hindu fundamentalist what caused the riots and try to find any differences in what he says with what gets posted here regularly on jihadwatch, you wont find any.

Razdan

"a. Stopped by all of us non-muslims"
Which basically boils down to us v/s them or 5 Billion people against the 1 Billion. assuming the rest of us do unite. What next, drop a nuclear bomb on every muslim majority area? This way almost certainly leads to war. If you had any inkling of what war is like, you would not advocate any solution that leads to war.

b. ...restricting the influx of muslim immigrants and completely discrediting Islamic theology; standing up to the Islamic thugs with all our military might
And what do you do to the people already present?
Again us v/s them. Again full scale war.
Again a high chance of lots of loss of innocent life.(on both sides)
I can lay bets that you have neither served nor have any close one serving in the army, otherwise you wouldnt be so gung ho on conflict.

CapitalistGig,

Please show me the definitive authority that lists and details all Christian beliefs, that all "Christians" subscribe to/agree with, including yourself. You seem to speak for Christians (all or some, I'm not sure?)

King James Version says:

New Testament:

Matt. 3:17 - And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

And from the Old Testament:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty GOD, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

And from the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 7:27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the GOD, the Father of all things,

Now I am confused, Father, Son, or both?

One Qur'an, many sects of Islam?

One Bible, many sects of Christianity?

exsgtbrown
"....I choose fight..."
I'd tend to believe you if you are in the army or have any plans of doing so. Can you confirm?

"Ban Muslim Immigration...."
And the people who are already here? And what of those born american who decide to convert? Or are you stating that the constitution be changed to prevent conversion to Islam?

Oh and I repeat my Asimov quote
"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent"

Im curious are you a christian?

CapitalistGig--

I asked you to stay on topic. Robert asked you to stay on topic. I see you won't take a hint. That's enough.

TO CapitalistGig

Those of us who have read Mr. Paul Fregosi’s brilliant history know that the Tanzimat reforms forced upon the Ottoman Empire did nothing to stop the slaughter of over one million Armenians. When one reads Mrs. Ye’or, one learns that this culture has been very stagnant vis-a-vis dhimmi-muslim relations for a very long time. Because I have read the Qur’an, portions of hadith, and Mr. Bostom's incredible compendium on jurisprudence, I strongly disagree with those who say that OBL is a “bad” Muslim. And, I agree with Mr. Spencer that “true” reform of Islam must come from within.

But, I am highly skeptical that non-Muslims can do anything to reform Islam short of a war to conquer, and this is definitely not something that I would recommend. Also, it seems to me that there is no significant awareness within Islam that their faith is in any need of reform and I do not understand how non-Muslims can possibly convince Muslims otherwise.

I fear that the best we can do is to continue to educate the populace as Mr. Spencer and others are doing. Second, we must convince others that our civilization is preferable to barbarism and therefore worth defending. Finally, we must choose our battlegrounds very carefully.

If someone claims to have faith in God, then I think that it's hard to separate oneself from your particular faith and how it interacts with your view of other theologies/other religions; especially with how ones indivual belief system interacts with Islam, since this is what Jihad Watch is all about. I know this is true for me, so I imagine that it is true of most people.

Even atheists are placing their faith in something. Not being an atheist myself I cannot speak for what they put their faith in, but there must be SOMETHING that they place their faith or confidence in -- maybe it's themselves.

Anyway, I would think that the same holds true for Glenn Beck, and that his faith may have something to do with how he views Islam; and since he has made his particular brand of faith widely known, then in my opinion, it DOES have it's place on this thread since Glenns particular faith probably affects how he views Islam.

For instance, I am a Christian, and as a Christian I am a monotheist: One God. Which in all honesty puts me in a very closed network of believers because I hold to the belief that the Father/Son/Holy Spirit make up the One God I mentioned. Secondly, it puts Islam in a separate faith category for me that is completely outside of the realm of possibilities for, one that I would never even embrace.

Hang with me.....

Glenn Beck says that he is Mormon, and Mormons are polytheist: Many gods. Which might, and I mean MIGHT, explain why he appears to be so naively open minded to what Islam is all about because Mormons embrace many gods. Maybe "SOME" Mormons think that allah belongs in the "many gods club", and perhaps that's why it's hard for Glenn to see Islam for what it is.

I'm not saying that all Mormons are naive -- not at all -- I'm only offering a possible explanation as to why Glenn holds this view about Islam.

And I'll be the first to say that I'm full of crap, so guess what, I beat you to it :)

Just makin' conversation.

CapitalistGig:

Thanks for the follow-up on Jasser. I can see why the comment about "occupied territories" would make someone suspicious of Jasser or otherwise conclude that he is insincere.

I definitely support Israel and I do think that the fate of the West is tied to Israel and vice versa. That being said, it was my previous understanding that the phrase "occupied territories" comes from international law/norms regarding war. A country can either annex territory that it obtains from war (whether the war is defensive or offensive) or it can merely occupy it. I was under the impression that Israel decided NOT to formally annex what is referred to as the "occupied territories" because that would mean giving enemies of Israel a much larger block of votes from which to dismantle the country from within. I have heard many U.S. politicians use the phrase "occupied territories" and presumed that was the basis of the phrase. In any case, I will definitely keep an open ear for any future statements by Jasser regarding Israel.

You will however note that my praise of Jasser was limited to domestic issues in taking on organizations such as CAIR and actively speaking out against the Minnesota cabies, UofM Dearborn washrooms, and Sharia generally. I do think Jasser can be accurately classified as anti-Jihad.

While I think that you have a realistic view of what is immediately possible, many who comment on this site do not. For example, to decry Beck as "valueless" is short sighted. Were he to disappear from the airwaves, its not like CNN is going to replace Beck with Robert or Hugh. Are we better of with Beck or without him? I think the answer is clearly that we are better of with him on the airwaves. My wife is starting to plug into this issue, and Beck's show was critical to that.

We all want the West to be victorious. How is victory achieved? By keeping what you already have and building upon it further. People like Beck, Limbaugh, and even Jasser are not valueless in this conflict, even if they don't fully get it.

If the battle against Soviet Communism enlisted only those who wanted the opposite of Soviet Communism, we would not have prevailed. Our alliance included European socialists who from an economic perspective, were closer to communists than capitalists. We need to keep things in perspective if we are going to win this struggle.

"Israel chose to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention voluntarily and did not annex the liberated territories (except for eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) out of demographic concerns and to keep alive the hope that neighboring Arab states would make peace."

http://www.think-israel.org/grief.occupation.html
A very interesting read.

I agree that "disputed territories" is a better phrase than "occupied territories" because Palestine did not exist, and thus cannot truely constitute an occupied territory. Of course "liberated territories" is the best and most accurate phrase.

Glenn Beck's Mormonism is very pertinent to this conversation because it shows why he thinks Islam can "reform".

Mormons believe that Christianity needed reforming when Joseph Smith came along.

In the same way, he thinks that 'secular' Muslims can do the same thing. Take out all the jihad, all the political and civil law.

I'm not saying it can be done, but I can see where Beck gets the idea that it can be done.

By the way, I've heard him say many times that Jesus Christ is his personal savior. He doesn't believe that he needs 'works' any more than the rest of us do.

Kay:

I agree with your conclusion but disagree with the reasoning. Mormons end up defending their faith to others and thus are more reluctant to challenge the faith of another. For Beck to challenge Islam itself as opposed to "radical" Islam is to make him that much more vulnerable to attack on him for his Mormonism. He will have ceded away the defense of challenging someone for their faith per se (as opposed to the personal character of a person in how they implement their faith).

I agree with Robert's admonition above---the forces against Jihad must unite, not divide. We must not lose what is good out of frustration that it could be better.

Jasser may be an open question, but we are better off with Glenn Beck's programs than without them. We need media voices willing to take on this difficult subject. Who else shows the MEDI clips on tv?

JSobieski..

"I agree with Robert's admonition above---the forces against Jihad must unite, not divide. We must not lose what is good out of frustration that it could be better."

************

I suppose so, but as I said earlier, the problem with doing so is that we (and yes, I include myself!) end up declaring 1 billion people either completely insane, demon possessed or both.

I think that is what Beck is trying to avoid, true as it may be!

Kay:

I think you are right. Moreover, your explanation also speaks more highly of Beck (e.g. motivated by a desire to save others than his own convenience).

Oh no. It isn't his convenience. He isn't at all PC. A couple of weeks ago, he had Chertoff on to discuss the border situation. He caught Chertoff in a flat out lie, on the air. Luckily, has enough pull to get Duncan Hunter on the phone to prove it within just a couple of minutes. Then, Beck called Chertoff back to discuss that with him and the guy refused to talk on the air. It was pretty funny.

No, he's not a career guy, in fact, he might lose what he has before too long, he's that 'in your face'.

I can see his side of this 'reform Islam' issue, though. If 'Mormonism' can start a new 'sect' of Christianity, in their eyes 'reforming' it, then why couldn't Islam do the same? Yes, I can see the reasoning. Mormons tossed out quite a bit of Christianity's main concepts, and here they are, flourishing 150 years later, so I can see why Beck thinks it can be done again.

As for me, I don't see why anyone would want to convert to Islam without the radical "take-over the-world-and-all-it's-booty" belief system.

Their 'god' is so impossible to please, that you end up martyring yourself to please this unpleaseable god, who wants to dictate every moment of every day of your life... and still you are live in poverty, in a backward country, holding to a religion that hasn't accomplished anything to benefit mankind for centuries, if ever.

What else is there except the hope you can steal prosperity, all the while saying Allah is handing it over as a blessing? I don't see much benefit.

Still, I suppose there are men who enjoy the multiple choice of bedmates, the temporary marriage, the 'shoot and loot', the dictatorial rights of the man of the house, the total control of woman and children, to the point of abasement.

What is in it for women, though, I'll never comprehend!

BB, Go Away.

cerebate,

I haven't followed any of the arguments you've had with others on this site. I've only caught glimpses.

I do respect that you give it a try, i.e. offering a semblance of "solution" to the serious problem that even you acknowledge exists in Islam today.

Unfortunately this thread is probably not the place to explore those ideas further. It's already bloated with other angles (Mormonism etc.) and well over the 100 post mark. Soon it will be way down the page and out.

Where else do you post? I would be willing to take up some of these issues with you in a civil way.

Well--thanks for the censoring of my 9:39PM post by JW staff. I can read the rationale such censorship--going OT, irrelevance, etc.

For the record--I believe the unorthodoxy of mormonism is relevant to this thread as we are trying to understand what is going on with Beck miss-ID'ing truth. Mormonism is also a cult from hell, only dressed differently than islam and the facts about it are not known by most people. I still allowed that mormons make better citizens than muslims.

Go ahead and delete me. I stand with JW even when censored.

Thank You, Mr Swaggart...that will be all.

Thank you mal123. Very insightful stuff. I look forward to seeing more of your views here in the future.
Shalom,
Theosebes

alexon
Other than JW? http://eaglespearlsofwisdom.wordpress.com
Nice to see someone on JW :) willing to have a civil discussion

cerebate,

What?, I am not civil? Why do you go out of your way to hurt my feelings?

ok cerebate, I followed your link and went to eagle's site. I'll register there (if nec) and post on the "hate" topic. see you there.

awake
"What?, I am not civil? Why do you go out of your way to hurt my feelings?"
Yawwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

cerebate,

C'mon, I was being civil. Get one poster here to agree with your positions, and I will apologize.

Eagle is easy, easilly confused that is. I am not surprised you have managed to overcome all three posters at his site, the guy who went from Islam is evil to anyone who cites that certain aspects of Islam is a problem, as a bigot and a hater, all in less than three months time.

LOL. That is all I can say.

Hmmm... I must've missed the good stuff. The topic I'm posting on there is pretty tame. Not enough disagreement actually. So you two have had it out before?

I have to defend Beck.

This man produced his own version of "Obsession".

He calls out the Democrats for what they are.

He calls out Bush for everything stupid that Bush does (the border, immigration, etc..)

He goes against Man-made Global Warming

He firmly believes the Jihadis are going to nuke us.

He's only one man.. with a family.

What's the objection? He's not anti-Islam enough for some people? Sorry folks but no one working for CNN is going to get away with being 100% pure enough for you. No one is going to have such a large radio audience while being completel 100% ideologically strident.

Would you perfer he say nothing about it all?

Do you think his audience is stupid?

Do you think people watch/listen to him go on and on for hours about the dangers and then hear that one magic statement that everything is not hopeless and forget all the rest of it?

Get a life.

Amen to that...his sect of Christianity is not the reason he watches what he says...it's all about the militant politics of the network that is ALL that's important and the ONLY reason he has to watch what he says. The commie news network won't have anyone dissing their partners-in-crime on their own home turf...period.