Turkey's PM Erdogan: The term "moderate Islam" is ugly and offensive -- Islam is Islam

"Islam is Islam. "

The West needs to GET this..and get this now. The sooner they get this, the less bloodshed of good westerners. The longer we think we can appease or talk this out or understand or embrace it...it will be that much more bloody.

Erdogan is right. That's the problem. Islam is committed to dominate. Should the EU take Turkey in completely it will become the IU.

That says it all, doesnt it!

Moderate Islam, i.e. "peaceful" Islam is ugly and offensive.

I say "Islam is Islam"-- IS UGLY AND OFFENSIVE!!

No it won't be discussed in the Western Media since they are clueless to the threat that ideological and fundamental Islam poses to the Western world.

You are the whistleblower, Robert. Keep speaking out on TV and Radio, you're doing a great job.

Thank you and be safe, my friend.

John
InfidelsAreCool.com

Love what you do Robert, but is it possible that what the prime minister meant to say is that calling some Muslims "moderate Muslims" would imply that the extremists are also practicing Islam. And perhaps what he means is that the moderates are the only ones practicing real Islam, while the extremists are not practicing Islam.

I only ask because this is Turkey, the most moderate Muslim country.

There has got to be a way to push this into the mainstream. A leading Islamic political figure admitting what those of us with our eyes open have been trying to say for years.

There is NO MODERATE ISLAM! Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc are faithfully representing Islam and their prophet.

So who knows Islam best? Muslims in Islamic countries or Western apologists?

I'll go with the Muslims. It's their religion, and their way of life. If they say there is no such thing as "moderate Islam" then they probably are correct.

QUESTION FOR ROBERT SPENCER: From your research, would you say the Koran allows for "moderation"? What would it take for such a thing as "moderate Islam" to become a dominant force in the religion? And is it even feasible?

My apologies if you've already addressed these questions (I bet you have) but this news story certainly raises them (again).

I think part of the confusion has to do with making the wrong dichotomy. If Islam says that Infidels should be subjugated through war, that may sound extreme to Infidels hoping for better treatment, but it is not to fundamentalists, since that's an accurate interpretation. Accuracy is neither moderate or extreme, but it can be mild or harsh, depending on the context. Perhaps that is really what people mean by the distinction. And the fact is, Islam is often very harsh.
A leading proponent of the distinction is Dan Pipes, who calls for barring Islamists, but not other Muslims. How can that possibly be done when, as Erdogan points out, Islam is Islam?

Tapper:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004706.php

Straight from the horse's mouth.

"Which course do you think they'll (Europen leaders) choose?"

On the surface they will continue to deny that there is any problem with Islam.

In secret the European leaders will start taking measures of protection of the core European countries at the expence of the European perfiphery (Serbia, Israel today, further countires and nations tomorrow).

Among other things, plans will be developed, to transfer the growing Muslim populations from countries like Germany to Bosnia and Kosovo, - this way the price of Islamization of Europe will be paid by the Serbs.

And in some not so distant future, USA may start treating the rest of Europe the way EU treated Serbia (siding with Moslems, feeding them with morsels of Christianity, in order to gain an advantage over USA in the Moslem world). The whole Europe will become one huge Kosovo.

Which is exactly the fate Europe has deserved.

There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

I hope Spencer uses this in every talk he gives and every book he writes as Erdogen must surely be considered the current foremost political spokesman for Islam.

PloniAlmoni, obviously I can't speak for Robert, but I would say that there is no chance for a benign interpretation of this statement. On average Turkey is moderate, but the western Turks are calling the shots now, in the political arena, and they are true Muslims. Not at all like the westernized "cultural Muslims" in the east.

East West. Sorry. Lost my compass.

Almost 6 years after 9/11 people in the West are well aware that conflation of Islam with Peace is an oxymoron.

"Peace" in Islam is a stalling tactic for further war in the future.

There will only be "peace" with Islam when it has killed/converted all infidels-- and that is its objective have no doubt.

From the Archives:

September 24, 2006

Fitzgerald: Four questions in search of an answer

"We should also encourage the moderate leaders in the Muslim world -- and they're the majority -- to distance themselves from this extremism..."
-- from Jose Manuel Barroso's comment

Four Questions and No Answer:

1. Define "moderate leaders."
2. Tell us how you know they are in "the majority."
3. Tell us why the attacks on the Pope can be described, without more, as "extremism."
4. Tell us why you think that "the moderate leaders in the Muslim world -- and they're the majority" -- have not once been capable of denouncing those who riot and agitate and utter death threats, not only now against the Pope, but in other incidents, such as those worldwide Muslim protests, presumably from those Muslims not in "the majority," over Danes daring to exercise in Denmark their right of free speech.

The very phrase "moderate Muslim" shows us what we all realize about Islam, even if we choose not to express it to others or even to recognize it ourselves. For a "moderate Muslim" is someone who is not too much of a believer, who may be largely unobservant, who may choose to ignore a large part of what the Qur'an, Hadith, and the example of Muhammad in the Sira all teach. In other words, a "moderate Muslim" is one who takes his Islam but only "in moderation." Ideally, from the viewpoint of Infidels, is that "moderate Muslim" who takes such a low dose of the belief-system that he becomes what one may call the "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim.

What does this tell us? It tells us that if the "moderate Muslim" is the good kind, the kind we wish to encourage, the kind we can work with, the kind we can trust to do battle against "immoderate" Muslims, then those who loudly claim to the contrary are in fact recognizing that there is something terribly wrong with Islam itself. We can only have hope, if we have any hope at all, in those who do not take the teachings of Islam too seriously, too much to heart. It is those who fully accept the teachings of Islam, and are not merely going through the motions out of filial piety or some vague sense of tradition, who are the greatest danger.

But the notion of "moderate" Muslims is too easily invoked and relied upon. In the archives at Jihad Watch (see the articles page) one can find my article "Ten Things to Think About When Thinking About Moderate Muslims." And among the points made in that piece is that those who fail to describe what Islam teaches, in their own attempts to deflect understanding and knowledge of Islam through the exercise of Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque, are not "moderates" in any helpful sense, for they are simply continuing to mislead unwary Infidels. And what is worse, they are more effective at it, smoother at it, than the wild-eyed attendees of the Finsbury Mosque. Omar Bakri Mohammed, when he was the talk of London, was not nearly the threat that the smooth Tariq Ramadan continues to be to Infidel understanding of Islam.

A true "moderate" must be defined as a Muslim who does not mislead in any way about Islam. He may be uncomfortable about telling the full truth, but he should not lie about what Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira teach, and about how those teachings are accepted by a great many, the overwhelming majority, of Muslims. He must not deny the reality of the example of Muhammad, and what that example of uswa hasana, the Model for All Time, means for Muslims -- and more importantly, for non-Muslims. He must not pretend that the many Jihad verses in the Qur'an do not exist, or that they can be interpreted away, or that the doctrine of abrogation is not accepted. He must not confuse Infidels by quoting Hadith that may be pleasing, but are also deemed inauthentic, and he must not ignore those Hadith deemed authentic. He must not selectively quote, with careful ellipses, certain verses in the Qur'an, or mislead as to the meaning of verses which, on first reading, might seem unexceptional.

Those true moderates are only those who admit that there is something naturally menacing about Islam. In order for Muslims to be accepted, or even tolerated, in the Lands of the Infidels, they should have to admit that there is something wrong both in the teachings of Islam, and in the treatment, in time and space, of non-Muslims by Muslims who conquered their lands, and proceeded to islamize, and in many cases as well to arabize, those lands -- and to force those who did not convert to endure the permanent status of degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity that all dhimmis, from Spain to East Asia, found was their common and immutable lot.

How many Muslims will qualify as "moderates" according to the minimal criteria offered above?

Very few."

[Posted by Hugh at September 24, 2006 8:08 AM]

The most "pertinent part" (as the lawyers like to write, like to say) of the previous posting -- the one just above, from the past -- for this thread is the following:

"The very phrase 'moderate Muslim' shows us what we all realize about Islam, even if we choose not to express it to others or even to recognize it ourselves. For a "moderate Muslim" is someone who is not too much of a believer, who may be largely unobservant, who may choose to ignore a large part of what the Qur'an, Hadith, and the example of Muhammad in the Sira all teach. In other words, a "moderate Muslim" is one who takes his Islam but only "in moderation." Ideally, from the viewpoint of Infidels, is that "moderate Muslim" who takes such a low dose of the belief-system that he becomes what one may call the "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim.

What does this tell us? It tells us that if the 'moderate Muslim' is the good kind, the kind we wish to encourage, the kind we can work with, the kind we can trust to do battle against "immoderate" Muslims, then those who loudly claim to the contrary are in fact recognizing that there is something terribly wrong with Islam itself. We can only have hope, if we have any hope at all, in those who do not take the teachings of Islam too seriously, too much to heart. It is those who fully accept the teachings of Islam, and are not merely going through the motions out of filial piety or some vague sense of tradition, who are the greatest danger."

Those two paragraphs may be worth the usual: cut-and-paste, print many copies, make sure one is in the wallet, and another under a magnet on the refrigerator door, especially if you have impressionable family members, who need to have a deep impression made.

I find Erdogan ugly and offensive

Let's try again. East <=> West.

And one more from the Archives:

November 25, 2004

Hugh Fitzgerald:

Ten Things to Think When Thinking of Muslim "Moderates"

1. Not only Muslims, but "islamochristians" objectively promote and push the propagandistic line that disguises the Jihad (evidence of which can be found worldwide), and mislead as to both what prompts that Jihad (not "poverty" or "foreign policy" but the precepts of the belief-system of Islam) and what will sate it (not Kashmir, not Chechnya, not the absurd "two-state solution," not continued appeasement in France and Holland -- there is nothing that will sate or satisfy it, as long as part of the globe is as yet resistent to the rule of Islam). "Christians" such as Fawaz Gerges or Rami Khoury, or someone who was born a Christian, such as Edward Said, are Arabs whose views are colored by that self-perception. Their loyalty to the community and history of Arabs causes them to be as loyal to the Islamic view of things as if they had been born Muslim. They stoutly defend Islam against all of Western scholarship (in Orientalism), or divert attention away from Islam and constantly assert, in defiance of all the evidence, from Bali to Beslan to Madrid, that the "problem of Israel/Palestine" -- the latest, and most sinister formulation of the Jihad against Israel -- is the fons et origo of Muslim hostility and murderous aggression throughout the world. Save for the Copts and Maronites, who regard themselves not as Arabs but as "users" of the "Arabic language" (and reject the idea that such "users" therefore become "Arabs"), many Arab Christians have crazily embraced the Islamic agenda; the agenda, that is, of those who have made the lives of Christians in the Middle East so uncertain, difficult, and at times, imperilled. The attempt to be "plus islamiste que les islamistes" -- the approach of Rami Khoury and Hanan Ashrawi -- simply will not do, for it has not worked. It is Habib Malik and other Maronites in Lebanon who have analysed the problem of Islam in a clear-eyed fashion. Indeed, the best book on the legal status of non-Muslims under Islam is that of the Lebanese (Maronite) scholar Antoine Fattal.
Any "islamochristian" Arab who promotes the Islamic agenda, by participating in a campaign that can only mislead Infidels and put off their understanding of Jihad and its various instruments, is objectively as much part of the problem as the Muslim who knowingly practices taqiyya in order to turn aside the suspicions of non-Muslims. Whoever acts so as to keep the unwary Infidel unwary is helping the enemy.

Think, for a minute, of Oskar Schindler. A member of the Nazi Party, but hardly someone who followed the Nazi line. But what if Schindler had at some point met with Westerners -- and had continued, himself, to deny that the Nazis were engaged in genocide, even if he himself deplored it and would later act against it? Would we think of him as a "moderate"? As someone who had helped the anti-Nazi coalition to understand what it was up against?

Or for another example, think of Ilya Ehrenburg, who in 1951 or so was sent abroad by Stalin to lie about the condition of Yiddish-speaking intellectuals whom Stalin had recently massacred. Ehrenburg went to France, went to Italy. He did as he was told. "Peretz? Markish? Oh, yes, saw Peretz at his dacha last month with his grandson. Such a jovial fellow. Markish -- he was great last year in Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District -- you should see how it comes across in zhargon, Yiddish..." And so it went. Eherenburg lied, and lied. He was not a Stalinist. He hated Stalin. He of course hated the destruction of Peretz, Markish, and many others who had been killed many months before -- as Ehrenburg knew perfectly well. When he went abroad and lied to the editors of Nouvelle Revue Francaise, what was he? Objectively, he was promoting the interests of Joseph Stalin, and the Red Army, and the Politburo. We need not inquire into motives. We need only see what the results of such lying were. And the same is true of those Christian Arabs who lie on behalf of Islam -- some out of fear, some out of an ethnocentric identification so strong that they end up defending Islam, the religion of those who persecuted the Christian Arabs of the Middle East, and some out of venality (if Western diplomats and journalists can be on the Arab take, why not Arabs themselves?), some out of careerism. If you want to rise in the academic ranks, and your field is the Middle East, unless you are a real scholar -- Cook or Crone or Lewis -- better to parrot the party line, which costs you nothing and gains you friends in tenure-awarding, grant-giving, reference-writing circles. There is at least one example, too, among those mentioned, in a situation where an Arabic-speaking Christian, attempting to find refuge from Muslim persecution, needed the testimony of an "expert" -- which "expert," instead of offering a pro-bono samaritan act, demanded so much money to be involved (in a fantastic display of greed) that the very idea of solidarity among Arab Christians was called by this act permanently into question.

2. The word "moderate" cannot be reasonably applied to any Muslim who continues to deny the contents -- the real contents, not the sanitized or gussied-up contents -- of Qur'an, hadith, and sira. Whether that denial is based on ignorance, or based on embarrassment, or based on filial piety (and an unwillingness to wash dirty ideological laundry before the Infidels) is irrelevant. Any Muslim who, while seeming to deplore every aspect of Muslim aggression, based on clear textual sources in Qur'an and hadith, or on the example of Muhammad as depicted in the accepted sira -- Muhammad that "model" of behavior -- is again, objectively, acting in a way that simply misleads the Infidels. And any Muslim who helps to mislead Infidels about the true nature of Islam cannot be called a "moderate." That epithet is simply handed out a bit too quickly for sensible tastes.

3. What of a Muslim who says -- there are terrible things in the sira and hadith, and we must find a way out, so that this belief-system can focus on the rituals of individual worship, and offer some sustenance as a simple faith for simple people? This would require admitting that a great many of Muhammad's reported acts must either be denied, or given some kind of figurative interpretation, or otherwise removed as part of his "model" life. As for the hadith, somehow one would have to say that Bukhari, and Muslim, and the other respected muhaddithin had not examined those isnad-chains with quite the right meticulousness, and that many of the hadith regarded as "authentic" must be reduced to the status of "inauthentic." And, following Goldziher, doubt would have to be cast on all of the hadith, as imaginative elaborations from the Qur'an, without any necessarily independent existence.

4. This leaves the Qur'an. Any "moderate" who wishes to prevent inquiry into the origins of the Qur'an -- whether it may be the product of a Christian sect, or a Jewish sect, or of pagan Arabs who decided to construct a book, made up partly of Christian and Jewish material mixed with bits and pieces of pagan Arab lore from the time of the Jahiliya -- or to prevent philological study (of, for example, Aramaic and other loan-words) -- anyone who impedes the enterprise of subjecting the Qur'an to the kind of historical inquiry that the Christian and Jewish Bibles have undergone in the past 200 years of inquiry, is not a "moderate" but a fervent Defender of the Faith. One unwilling to encourage such study -- which can only lead to a move away from literalness for at least some of the Believers -- again is not "moderate."

5. The conclusion one must reach is that there are, in truth, very few moderates. For if one sees the full meaning of Qur'an, hadith, and sira, and sees how they have affected the behavior of Muslims both over 1400 years of conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, and in stunting the development -- political, economic, moral, and intellectual -- of Muslims everywhere, it is impossible not to conclude that this imposing edifice is not in any sense moderate or susceptible to moderation.

What must an intelligent Muslim, living through the hell of the Islamic Republic of Iran, start to think of Islam? Or that Kuwaiti billionaire, with houses in St. James Place and Avenue Foch and Vevey, as well as the family/company headquarters in Kuwait City, who sends his children to the American School in Kuwait, and boasts that they know English better than they know Arabic, helps host Fouad Ajami when he visits Kuwait, is truly heartsick to see Kuwait's increasing islamization? Would he allow himself to say what he knows in public, or in front of half-brothers, or to friends -- knowing that at any moment, they may be scandalized by his free-thinking views, and that he may run the risk of losing his place in the family's pecking order and, what's more, in the family business?

The mere fact that Muslim numbers may grow in the Western world represents a permanent threat to Infidels. This is true even if some, or many, of those Muslims are "moderates" -- i.e. do not believe that Islam has some kind of divine right, and need, to expand until it covers the globe and swallows up dar al-harb. For if they are still to be counted in the Army of Islam, not as Deserters (Apostates) from that Army, their very existence in the Bilad al-kufr helps to swell Muslim ranks, and therefore perceived Muslim power. And even the "moderate" father may sire immoderate children or grandchildren -- that was the theme of the Hanif Kureishi film, quasi-comic but politically acute, "My Son the Fanatic." Whether through Da'wa or large families, any growth in the Muslim population will inhibit free expression (see the fates of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, and the threats made to Geert Wilders, Carl Hagen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and many others), for politicans eager to court the Muslim vote will poohpooh Muslim outrages and strive to have the state yield to Muslim demands -- for the sake of short-term individual gain. And Muslim numbers, even with "moderates," increases the number of Muslim missionaries -- for every Muslim is a missionary -- whether conducting "Sharing Ramadan" Outreach in the schools (where a soft-voiced Pakistani woman is usually the soothing propagandist of choice), or Da'wa in a prison. The more Muslims there are, the more there will be -- and no one knows which "moderate" will end up distinctly non-moderate in his views, and then in his acts.

And this brings up the most important problem: the impermanance of "moderate" attitudes. What makes anyone think that someone who this week or month has definitely turned his back on Jihad, who will have nothing to do with those he calls the "fanatics," if he does not make a clean break with Islam, does not become a "renegade" or apostate, will at some point "revert" not to Islam, which he never left, but to a more devout form, in which he now subscribes to all of its tenets, and not merely to a few having to do with rites of individual worship?

6. The examples to the contrary are both those of individuals, and of whole societies. As for individual Muslims, some started out as mild-mannered and largely indifferent to Islam, and then underwent some kind of crisis and reverted to a much more fanatical brand of Islam. That was the case with urban planner Mohammad Atta, following his disorienting encounter with modern Western ways in Hamburg, Germany -- Reeperbahn and all. That was also the case with "Mike" Hawash, the Internet engineer earning $360,000 a year, who seemed completely integrated (American wife, Little League for the children, friends among fellow executives at Intel who would swear up and down that he was innocent) -- until one fine day, after the World Trade Center attacks, he made out his will, signed the house over to his wife, and set off to fight alongside the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (he got as far as China) against his fellow Americans. In other words, if fanatical Muslims exist, it does not mean that they all start out as fanatics. Islam is the necessary starting place, and what sets off a "moderate" may have little to do with anything the Infidels do, any question of foreign policy -- it may simply be a crisis in an individual Muslim's life, to which he seeks an answer, not surprisingly, in ... more Islam.

7. Much the same lesson can be drawn from the experience of whole societies. In passing, one can note that the position of Infidels under the Pahlevi regime was better than it had been for centuries -- and under the regime that followed, that of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that position of Infidels became worse than it had been for centuries. "Secularism" in Islamic countries is never permanent; the weight and the threat of Islam is ever-present.

The best example of this is Turkey since 1924, when Ataturk began his reforms. He tried in every way he could -- through the Hat Act (banishing the salat-friendly fez); commissioning a Turkish translation of the Qur'an and an accompanying tafsir (commentary) in Turkish; ending the use of Arabic script for Turkish; establishing government control of the mosques (even attacking recalcitrant imams and destroying their mosques); giving women the right to vote; establishing a system that discouraged the wearing of the hijab; encouraging Western dress; and discouraging, in the army, preferment of any soldier who showed too great an interest in religion. This attempt to constrain Islam was successful, and was reinforced by the national cult of Ataturk.

But the past few decades have shown that Islam does not die; it keeps coming back. In Turkey, it never went away, despite the creation of a secular stratum of society that amounts perhaps to 25% of the population, with another 25% wavering, and 50% still definitely traditional Muslims. Meanwhile, Turks in Germany become not less, but more fervent in their faith. And Turks in Turkey, of the kind who follow Erdogan, show that they may at any moment emerge and take power -- and slowly (very slowly, as long as that EU application has not been acted on, one way or another) they can undo Ataturk. He was temporary; Islam is forever.

8. That is why even the designation of some Muslims as "moderates" in the end means almost nothing. They swell Muslim numbers and the perceived Muslim power; "moderates" may help to mislead, to be in fact even more effective practitioners of taqiyya/kitman, for their motive may simply be loyalty to ancestors or embarrassment, not a malign desire to fool Infidels in order to disarm and then ultimately to destroy them.

9. For this reason, one has to keep one's eye always on the objective situation. What will make Infidels safer from a belief-system that is inimical to art, science, and all free inquiry, that stunts the mental growth, and that is based on a cruel Manichaean division of the world between Infidel and Believer? And the answer is: limiting the power –- military, political, diplomatic, economic power -- of all Muslim polities, and Muslim peoples, and diminishing, as much as possible, the Muslim presence, however amiable and plausible and seemingly untroubling a part of that presence may appear to be, in all the Lands of the Infidels. This is done not out of any spirit of enmity, but simply as an act of minimal self-protection -- and out of loyalty and gratitude to those who produced the civilization which, however it has been recently debased by its own inheritors, would disappear altogether were Muslims to succeed in islamizing Europe -- and then, possibly, other parts of the world as well.

10. "There are Muslim moderates. Islam itself is not moderate" is Ibn Warraq's lapidary formulation. To this one must add: we Infidels have no sure way to distinguish the real from the feigning "moderate" Muslim. We cannot spend our time trying to perfect methods to make such distinctions. Furthermore, in the end such distinctions may be meaningless if even the "real" moderates hide from us what Islam is all about, not out of any deeply-felt sinister motive, but out of a humanly-understandable ignorance (especially among some second or third-generation Muslims in the West), or embarrassment, or filial piety. And finally, yesterday's "moderate" can overnight be transformed into today's fanatic -- or tomorrow's.

Shall we entrust our own safety to the dreamy consolations of the phrase "moderate Muslim" and the shapeshifting concept behind it that can be transformed into something else in a minute?

Get a life Mr Spencer , I have written to you in person also , never got a reply , Im interested in knowing more about Jihad Watch like what do you do for a living and are you making money off Jihad Watch ?

And what Mr Erdogan has said is right , Islam is Islam , whats in it that you cant comprehend

Im interested in knowing more , a dialogue , hope you can up hold the ideals of freedom and liberty that you claim to stand for

Or do you wish to up hold ideals of Christianity and Judisim ? In that case kindly answer the following

Christianity says that if I slap you once you will turn the other cheek ( not you bum cheek that is hahah ) so will you do that ?

And why is it that if some one wants to become a Jew he has to be apporved by a Rabbi in whose appretice ship the convertee has to study for a number of years ? It seems that the Rabbi is the middle man between Yahawa ( or what ever Jews call God ) and Man. How can that be ?

Waiting for answeres

I sent this to my favorite dhimmi blogger. LOL

Hey Erdogan, tell us something we don't know.

It will be interesting to read Daniel Pipes's response to Erdogan's statement. Pipes has been saying, for years, that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. Another prolific commentator who makes distinctions of this sort is Stephen Schwartz, a convert to the Sufi brand of Islam, who blames Islamists' offenses on the Wahhabi sect, thus exculpating all the others. Both Pipes and Schwartz will doubtless say that Erdogan is mistaken or lying.

Pipes is a bright guy but he is mistaken about putting all our hopes in the moderate Muslims. Its 6 years since 9-11, where are they?

Turkey's PM Erdogan: The term "moderate Islam" is ugly and offensive -- Islam is Islam

I could not have said it better myself; this needs to repeated and quoted often.

I have to respect Erdogan; unlike some leaders in the West, at least he is being honest -- and that is a concept that American politicians in particular, just do NOT like and do NOT understand.

BTW -- can I assume that this is related to islam again?

Nothing is clearly stated, but "youth riots" seem to always involve islamic thugs; so I wonder if this article does:

Danish police clash with youths

The makeshift youth centre was demolished in March

Danish police have clashed with hundreds of rioting youths in the capital, Copenhagen.
Protesters threw stones and set cars ablaze. About 25 people were detained as police used tear gas to disperse the rioters in the Noerrebro district.

The unrest came as youths demonstrated to mark the six-month anniversary of the closure of a local youth centre.

Squatters running the centre were evicted from the building by an anti-terror squad on 1 March.

About 650 people were arrested in clashes between protesters and police before Ungdomshuset, or Youth House, was demolished on 5 March.

Police spokesman Mads Firlings said these latest riots had eased by early Sunday morning.

"It's six months since we cleared the house there, and they want to show they've not forgotten," Mr Firlings said.

"Almost immediately they started building barricades and throwing rocks through the windows of shops and banks."

Ungdomshuset had been occupied by youth activists since the 1980s.

In 2000, the local government sold the building to a Christian group that obtained a court order to evict the squatters.

But the activists vowed not to leave, saying the council had no right to sell the building while it was still in use.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6974662.stm

Witness,

Nothing is clearly stated, but "youth riots" seem to always involve islamic thugs; so I wonder if this article does:

Its intentional. Its the BBC's job to mislead, notreport facts.

PackRocks:

Your arrogant, insulting attitude towards Robert Spencer deserves no response from him.

If you want to know more about jihadwatch, it is all here on this website, Robert Spencers Bio. books that he has written,books that he recommends,and years of archives on articles,commentaries,other recommended websites, respected authors, as well as comments.

Turkey's PM Erdogan: The term "moderate Islam" is ugly and offensive -- Islam is Islam

Islam is offensive because of its mandates to deception. (Imagine Jesus recommending deception.) Islam is war to impose Sharia law, to make unbelievers "feel subdued" and for that reason Muslim liars quote "peaceful passages" they know have been abrogated by later chronological verses that mandate war and the killing of unbelievers. If such deception is not offensive then nothing is offensive.

The Quran is set-up longest to shortest verses, but what matters is chronological order and thus later verses that contradict earlier chronological verses (wine is good, alcohol is banned, e.g.) have the later verse abrogate the earlier verse. The last mandate of the Quran (which is allegedly word for word dictation from God) is for Muslims to make unbelievers submit to Islam (convert, be a Dhimmi, e.g.)or kill them. That and Muslim deception are offensive.

General Smedley Butler once said "war is a racket". What he meant by that is that the great masses (Goebbels called them "stupid" and prone to belief) serve the interests of a few who manipulate the many. The average Jihadist is a flunky for people who exploit him for an imperialist system. Islam is a cover for imperialism. At its core Islam is/has been the engine of Arab and Turk Empire Imperialism. Islam is a racket as well as being offensive.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:czIFOoIctSwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler+smedley+butler&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

From Google:

"moderate Christianity": about 666 results
"moderate Judaism": about 93 results
"moderate Islam": about 190,000 results

Isn't it interesting that the phrases "moderate Christianity" and "moderate Judaism" practically don't even exist in our world today?

"The average Jihadist is a flunky for people who exploit him for an imperialist system." Posted by: Frank

I agree. They seem to have an large number of willing, violent dupes at their disposal, for their disposal.

pimf

an = a

@PakRocks,

First as both you being private citizens, Mr. Spencer owes you no explanation of his income. But as a prolific best selling author and a highly in demand lecturer, it’s safe to assume Mr. Spencer has an income outside Jihad Watch. Also given the fact that I’ve yet to see any commercials or advertisements that other web sites tend to use for supporting themselves on Jihad Watch, I doubt Jihad Watch is a moneymaker for Mr. Spencer. It’s more of a forum to allow him to get his views out in the public. After all the PC thought police use almost Gestapo like tactics (CAIR’s lawsuits come to mind) in attempts to silence all those that that don’t toe the party line that the Idiot-in-Chief coined as the “Religion of Peace” tm, so alternative media resources must be used.

As for Mr. Erdogen’s statement that, “Islam is Islam”, well I believe that is something most people are coming to the conclusion to also. Which the CAIR BABIES INC. (AKA TAQQIYA-R-US) is fearful of, as it means their gig is up. For Mr. Spencer it means his real hard work will have to begin, by helping the public as it comes out of its propaganda induce coma.

For you Mohammedan, this is a defeat of one of your many tactics of subterfuge. (I guess you’re the one that doesn’t understand the significance of what has transpired with this statement and what the results will be.)

As for you ignorant reference to the Christian ideal of forgiveness for those that transgress against you, you seem to forget what Christianity and Judaism say about dealing with those that perform evil and will not relent, much less repent. To sit there and watch as my neighbor’s house burns and his wife and daughters are raped as concubines and his son made the eunuch slave to guard your harem is not a Christian act. Perhaps you have forgotten all the passages in the Talmud and Bible that all the Islamofascist apologists love to point at. Most of these speak of how to deal with those people that will not stop in their absolute pursuit of destruction, violence, and hedonistic evil in their ways. (You people fearfully call them Crusaders.)

As for the process of Judaism for converts, they are making sure that the new convert understands the tenants and moral obligations that a convert is accepting. The same can be said of Christianity and how it has steps for conversion. Only Islam wants it’s converts to remain as ignorant as possible, and only Islam threatens with death those that want to leave after learning more about the tenants and principles of it’s faith.

Does that help you PakRocks?

If not, try being an Islamic Troll some more. I’m sure others here will exposes you to some more sunlight. (Referencing “The Hobbit” J.RR Tolkien)

Deception is a form of spiritual violence. To deliberately decieve others is offensive and Islamic mandates to decieve unbelievers is that. Ultimately, the Islamic mandates to decieve, once clearly understood by non-believers, will undo Islam.

Islam is perfectly suited to Hitler-Goebbels style propaganda-what Hitler called "spiritual terror". Maybe it is time to study these propaganda method-tactics since Mein Kampf is so popular in the Muslim world (especially the Mideast).

Hitler (from Mein Kampf) on the methods he learned in Vienna on how to silence critics: "I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous (JW, e.g.), until the nerves of the attacked persons break down (JW and others, e.g.) and, just to have peace again, they (the PC in media and govt) sacrifice the hated individua(s).

However, the fools obtain no peace.
The game begins again and is repeated over and over until fear of the mad dog results in suggestive (PC) paralysis.........Conversely, they praise every (PC) weakling ("Zacary Smith Distinguished proffessor Karl Ernst", e.g.?)on the opposing side, sometimes cautiously, sometimes loudly, depending on the real or supposed quality of his intelligence".

In regard to the "spiritual terror" tactics of Hitler (noted above), William Shirer (page 23, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) said: "No more precise analysis of Nazi tactics, as Hitler was eventually to develop them, was ever written".

PakRocks...I don't know where RS gets all his big bucks. And I don't need to know. It's none of my business. He is entitled to make a living. If he makes a few dollars from this site or book sales, or whatever thats fine with me.

The trolls are restless. The Lone Ranger and Tonto were on a hill and were surrounded by Indians.
"Tonto", said the Ranger, "there are Indians in front of us , behind us , and on each side, what are we going to do"?
Tonto replied, "Whata You meanum 'WE', white man".

It seems that ever since CAIR got into massive trouble, JW/DW, has had an increase in trollinian
excursions across the borders of propriety. I wonder if these attacks, that are obviously aimed at discredit, are a sign of desperation, or a feeble attempt at revenge. How would the muslim trolls that come here to challenge, characterize themselves? Are they 'moderates', or just your average muslims. Erdogan is right. 'Moderates' are a slap in the face to 'real' Islam.
They represent a wedge driven into the word of Allah. Islam is too ridgid for authentic moderates to exist. Some muslims probably have many reasonable bones in their bodies, but there is an unstable, and fine, line between how they express that, and apostasy. Real muslims don't apostate.
They don't reform either. The only way to personally reform Islam is to apostate yourself out of there. It is not the 'real' muslims fault, that Allah created the 'Us against them', requirements, but they are stuck with them. Tonto had it right.
As long as real muslims stick with Allah,, there can never be a moderate muslim....

“A simple question that many in America are now wrestling with: Who is the enemy and what is the U.S. fighting for?”
-National Public Radio

“The enemy is extremism, we think, and it is extremism that comes in various forms.”
-General David Petrarus

Islam is terror and Muslims are terrorists. I once had harsh words with a Shiite stooge of the Ayatollahs, who enjoys tenure at George Washingon U. Seyyed Hossein Nasr is a 4th rate dogma regurgitator, who happens to be the only Muslim whose works have been selected to the Library of Living Philosophers. That designation places his works beyond peer criticism. Library' designates are praised to the hilt by Schlipp and other pretenders and dhimmi beneficiaries. For an exemplary of his unassailed half-whitisisms, see an interview with the Ayatollah puppet in the 2000 publication, A Parliament of Minds (SUNY press). His tunnel vision is obvious. See below.

"...what happened in the Renaissance is that, in a sense, Western man absolutized himself. He took the absolute away from God and put it in himself. Henceforth, every thing human is absolute. Now, it is true that before that also men had domesticated animals, they had donkeys and horses that drew water from wells and so forth and so on - obviously. But the rights of man were not absolute. The rights of God were absolute, and that, to some extent, protected the natural world. Now what happened in the Renaissance made the rights of man absolute, which we will accept, and hence we're destroying all the forests of Oregon in the name of those rights...Now that kind of transformation did not take place in the Islamic world.

MM: But how do we know what God wants? Through Revelation?

Nasr: Through Revelation. But what religion has always taught. Despite the fact that some people in the West blame Judaism and Christianity for the environmental crises because Genesis said that man has domination over the world, it is not religion that is responsible because that man who was given dominion over the world was also the man responsible as God's representative on earth to protect the world. I believe that the idea that we have a kind of absolute right is false. Through a kind of scientistic, not scientific worldview, any future in the spiritual sense has been taken away from us. So all we have is love of this world...

MM: Because there is nothing else.

Nasr: Who says there's nothing else? Since the soul is turned away from all of its spiritual associations and joy and is turned toward the world, people have to acquire more and more worldly things to keep themselves going every day. And yet they're unhappy with themselves inwardly and have to buy things all the time to forget themselves. They have to destroy nature and consume and consume and consume. So this is really a very deep spiritual malaise. And that is not caused directly by Western science. Western science could be developed without even applying it. But, in combination with technology and the concept of man that grew out of the Renaissance, all of these things have combined together, creating a very lethal potion which threatens to destroy us all...

MM: ...is it (Islamic fundamentalism) a defense against this Western influence?

Nasr: Thre are people who use the term fundamentalist; I don't like this term very much, but it's been used now, so we also use it. In the Islamic World, there was not too much awareness of the environmental crisis at the beginning, but there arose forces to defend society against the cultural changes which were coming very rapidly through the radio, through television, through the movies...

MM: And the secularization that came with it?

Nasr: That came with it..

MM: And the absolute-ism of man?

Nasr: The absolutism of man, and certain jarring actions, especially among the young and women, which was too jarring for the societies in question. And, therefore, there was this reaction of trying to protect one's identity. That's what it was. But many of these forms of what we call fundamentalism, then picked up the most violent aspects of Western thought and history. The very notion of revolution, for example, is a Western idea, and nineteenth century Western idea...

MM: So, ironically, by resisting the West, they ended up adopting the methods of the West.

Nasr: Indeed...

MM: And is that where the message will be found that eventually will be rediscovered by the West in those movements?

Nasr: Yes, from those elements which, in a permanent way, have preserved the Islamic form of life and wisdom found in Sufism, Islamic philosophy, and theology, many different currents of Islamic thought which even now have gained many interested parties in the West....

Won't be long before Tayyip claims that he was 'quoted out of context..' -But our dimwits will not even take him up on it, wanna bet?

They seem to have an large number of willing, violent dupes at their disposal, for their disposal.

Posted by: Josephine at September 2, 2007 9:44 AM

You bet. "Bringing in the sheep" (unlike with Jesus)has a different meaning for them in terms of how things turn out for the sheep.

Turkey's use of secularism is similar to the Marxist belief that Communism must be built on socialist structures (creation of a communist society wasn't declared in the Soviet Union, until 1961). That is made explicit in the key document of Ataturk's rule. Between October 15 and 20, 1927 Ataturk explained his rationale for adopting both Secularism and his abandonment of the Caliphate (the Sultanate collapsed in 1922).

In 1982, with the strategic importance of Turkey at an ebb, in context of the Euro missile crisis, Kemalists translated Ataturk's secret talks, as "The Speech." Copies were given only to those who supported Turkey. Within a couple of months, I am going to post the entire work on the internet.

In March 1924, the Grand National Assembly "deposed" the Caliphate by proclaiming laws 429, 430, 431. Was it done in the interests of Turkish Secularism (Layiklik)? With Constantinople (Istanbul) having been occupied by UK troops, as was much of west Turkey, Ataturk opened the assembly in Ankara, on April 23, 1923. Prior to same, he sent a brochure to be distributed to all Turks. How Secular is the following?:

"1. On Friday, 23rd of April, after the Friday Prayers, the Grand National Assembly in Ankara will, God willing, be opened.

2. As the duties of the GNA are of vital importance - and these are to include the preservation of our country's independence and the deliverance of the seat of the Caliphate and Sultanate from the hands of our enemies - a Friday has been chosen for its opening, and the sanctity of this day will be acknowledged by the offering of prayers in the Hact Bayram Mosque. All the deputies will take part in this sacred ceremony, in the course of which the holy illumination of the Koran will be received.

Following this, sacred relics will be taken from the Mosque to the place at which the Assembly is to meet. Before the meeting-place is entered, prayers will be recited and animals will be sacrificed. Troops will line the route from the Mosque to the Assembly Building.

3. In order to emphasize the sacred character of this day, a reading of the whole of the Koran and of the Buhari will begin today in the chief town of the provinces under the supervison of the Vali, and the last portions will be read in front of the building where the Assembly is to meet when the Friday prayers are over.

4. ...when during the Hutbe (prayer)the name of His Majesty, our Sultan and Caliph is pronounced, special prayers will be offered, begging that within a short space of time His country and His subjects may be restored to freedom and happiness. When the Friday prayers are over and the reading of the Koran has been completed, sermons will be delivered in which the importance and sacred character of the national endeavours to liberate the seat of the Sultanate and Caliphate and every part of our country will be emphasized, and the obligation of every person to do his patriotic duty, as given him by the GNA...will be stressed."
-------------
How desperate were the Kemalists? Prior to one attack on Greek occupiers, Ataturk shouted orders, "I am not ordering you to attack; I am ordering you to die." President Bush should not be campaigning for inclusion of the Turkish-Caliphate-in-Waiting, in the EU. President Bush should not be promoting independence for the remnants - Kosovo - of Turk savagery. President should not be leading limited war against a total enemy.

Islam is Islam; cancer is cancer. I new a guy who had a case of moderate cancer; it killed him.

Today I went swimming with my dad:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/09/02/today-i-went-swimming-with-my-dad/

Frank:
You are exactly right: "Moderate Muslims" may be many things to themselves, but to the leaders of Islam they are either the ignorant, the passive, the intimidated, or the self-delusional masses the jihadists use to advance their agenda--literally hiding behind their skirts with a knife until it is time to pounce. In this way Islam is exactly a political and imperialist movement. I'm sure there were a lot of "moderate" Germans goose-stepping before the Fuhrer as well. Moderate Muslims are either tacitly compliant with Jihad or just plain intimidated to do something about it...BECAUSE NOT ONE OF THEM IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. That is one helluva silent majority they've got going there. I think they need some time to work this out--somewhere else. History has shown that where Islam is contained within its own borders it merely turns its venom upon itself.

The lame attempt by PakRocks to use the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek is just another example of this movement's arrogance and guile in using the light and wisdom of the Western ideal against itself. Outrageous and unhuman trickery. That they think we would fall for it is evidence of Islam's weak spot, for Western, Hindu, or Buddhist mind is so superior to this band of gansters and slack-jaws that we must use it. The waters of Islam run fast--but shallow. We are an ocean.

Given that Islam is intrinsically extreme in its call for violent domination, then a modertae Muslim is someone who doesn't take the core doctrine seriously. By that logic, we should encourage moderate White Supremacists, moderate Communists, moderate Nazis, moderate Stalinists, and any other person who takes a laid-back approach to a pernicious doctrine. Uhhh, no thanks.

On this question, let me play devil's advocate and ask some questions.

First of all, do you claim that there is no difference whatsoever between 1) Dr. Zudhi Jasser (spelling?) and Irshad Manji on the one hand, and 2) the Taliban and al-Qaeda on the other? Surely not. Most of you would reply that Jasser and Manji do not practice a form of Islam that is considered normative in the Muslim world today, and I would agree; the cumulative weight of evidence from JW/DW over the years is undeniable unless you're a college professor or reporter. But - you can't deny that Jasser-Manji Islam is different. Surely you would not deny that the world would be a vastly different place if Muslim countries were governed in accordance with Jasser-Manji Islam rather than what exists there now. What's the difference? Don't call them secular; they see themselves as religious. God, I hope they become more popular and successful in the Muslim world. I would say that they could be adduced as examples of "moderate Muslims".

I think this discussion has missed the main point, which is this. Our policy makers, academics and media hasten to assure us that Islam itself is moderate - a "religion of peace" - and that it is the terrorists who pervert it into "radical Islam" or "extremist Islam". As I said above, the painstaking reporting of JW/DW has made it undeniable to anyone with an open rational mind that jihad is a central element of normative Islam. The Taliban and al-Qaeda, among others, fight for goals which are endorsed by majorities or large minorities in polls across the Muslim world, so within the Muslim worldview, they cannot be described accurately as radicals or extremists.

It is this willful blindness of our cognitive elite, our teachers and decision makers, that is so frustrating. Islam as currently understood by majorities or large minorities must wage jihad; that is normative Islam, and will remain so until Muslims repeal the doctrine of abrogation, open the gates of ijtihad, grant equality to women, and repeal all the suras written in Medina. Another kind of Islam could evolve, in theory. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism have evolved - why not Islam? It will take a war to force this to happen, not self-imposed dhimmitude.

moderate muslim = out of ammo

Let’s get a little clearer headed about this.
There is no central authority or caliph over the very un-unified Muslim world. Hence, for all practical purposes there are as many Islams as there are differently preaching imams or mullahs or whatever leaderships there are. The entire spectrum of Islam, therefore, is wide and extends from a few peace-loving mystics to suicide bombers; it’s just that, unlike the also chaotic Judaism or Christianity, most of the Islam’s spectrum is mind closing, violent and inimical to the freedoms and creativity of Western Civilization (not that it’s all blessings) and needs to be eradicated like leprosy. “Islam is Islam” makes no more sense than “Judaism is Judaism” or “Christianity is Christianity”. It’s just that the good of Western Civilization can probably survive the toxicities of the diminishing latter two but not the worse of increasing Islam.

Islam is butt-naked. It makes the West very uncomfortable and so we make fig leaf after fig leaf to hide the inherent violence and expansionist nature of Islam qua Islam. They are insulted by our fig leafs of moderation because moderation simply implies that the Shahada (There is no god but allah) is negotiable. It is not.

"Turkey's PM Erdogan: The term "moderate Islam" is ugly and offensive -- Islam is Islam"

I agree with Mr. Erdogan, we should discard the terms "moderate" and "radical" Islam", for the more accurate term, "the cult of Islam."

Surak- Manji islam is different because she is gay. She is trying to interprete her religion to make it acceptable to her lifestyle. It isn't.

Hi All,

Thanks Robert and Hugh for keeping us informed of these essential topics. Their strength and intensity in responding to falsehoods and nonsense is truly inspiring.

As far as Erdogan's claim that a phrase is "ugly and offensive", there are two possible options. Perhaps we could make a list of words and phrases that offend Muslims, just to show how abusive and manipulative they are. Or, we could make up a list which does not offend Muslims.

Now which would be the shorter list?

Magooey

I welcome the kind of honesty that Erdogan revealed. Spiritual fascism (i.e., Islam) shouldn't be sugarcoated and packaged as something else. Islam is indeed Islam and inimical to the Western way of life in almost countless ways. Would that all Muslims be as transparent as Erdogan. Then opposing the world's most wretched religion would be made easier for those of us who understand Islam for what it really is-------dictatorship over the soul, body and mind of man.

Pentagon has 3-day plan to annihilate Iran's military at 1200 sites:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295529,00.html

Ahmadinejad claims 3000 centrifuges enriching uranium (= 1 nuke per year; IAEA says number is 2000)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295533,00.html

"As I said above, the painstaking reporting of JW/DW has made it undeniable to anyone with an open rational mind that jihad is a central element of normative Islam".-Surak

You nailed the truth in this matter. Unfortunately, the two fellows you mentioned are likely in danger (to one degree or other)in any place where Islam dominates. This whole saga is not going to have a happy ending because the fringe people you mention will never represent the main stream in Islam. I think you wish it were otherwise. I do, too. But Islam and Jihad will end in fire.

Reality is not pleasant. Not really.

'Or do you wish to up hold ideals of Christianity and Judisim ? '

posted by PakRocks...

...do you object to the ideals of Christianity and Judisim or do you just favor the Ideals of the Islamo Nazis.....

Ban Muslim Immigration...

Most "moderate" and "peaceful" Muslims are either ignorant or walk politely among the infidels because they have not been called yet. In this way they are all sleeper cells. If a vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, why the massive deafening silence when they are asked to speak against Islamic Jihad? It's because they know that Islam is NOT peaceful. Their fear and silence betrays their true hearts.
Islam is run by gangsters employing a brilliant strategy really: Send all these "peaceful" Muslims among us, tell them to be fruitful and multiply, and then when they have achieved a critical mass (as is happening in Europe), ignite them.
These people need to be made to make a choice. "Peaceful" and "moderate" Muslims can stay. Islam cannot.

Yes, Islam needs to end in flames. It wil probably happen that way. Curtis LeMay said,"If you kill enough of the enemy, they will stop."

I can see that Iran sh**ts bomb the Saudi Sunnis. We take on Iran in retaliation. Since SA is now a largely glass wasteland, we can drill it for oil.

By the way, I didn't mean to compare Pipes and Robert to D'Souza.

He's a joke. Sorry, Robert.

Islam is Islam

...and I have seen nothing good coming from those countries where Islam is dominant....it is why....we should....Ban Muslim Immigration....

'There is no difference between a Muslim and Islam.'

Nonsense. I know many Muslims who are not religious at all and who probably know far less about the belief-system they are born into than people who post here.

I personally spent considerable time in Muslim countries, I lived and worked with many who had anything but Islam on their mind, nominal Muslims, uninterested and totally resentful of their clerics.

Even now, some Muslim friends of mine in Indonesia are very worried and very concerned about the Islamization of their country and they don't like what's happening to them and around them at all. Don't expect them to stick their neck out though, because it is likely to cost them their existence.

What's more, much more despicable, is the extreme cowardice of our journo's and the MSM, wimps and flakes who don't even dare to print a few innocuous cartoons.

Not every German was a Nazi. Not every Muslim born person is a religious fanatic and potential suicide bomber.

"'Islam is Islam' makes no more sense than 'Judaism is Judaism' or 'Christianity is Christianity'”. Posted by: FM

I understand what you are saying and I agree with your post. However, when we get down to the above statement, it can be interpreted that plainly.

For example, either I am a Christian or I am not. If I have the core beliefs of a Christian, I qualify, no matter which Christian church I attend. A Mormon is not a Christian; neither is a Jehovah's Witness.

If I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, I am not a Christian. Hence we have that woman priest saying she is a both a Christian and a Muslim. She has never accepted the divinity of Christ and, therefore, in reality, has never been a Christian. It's not enough to think Jesus was a good guy who did some good things and maybe helped a few people.

A Jew is a Jew, whether modern or traditional. One, are you ethnically Jewish; two, do you believe in the core tenets of the Jewish faith? If I convert to Judaism, I am no longer a Christian.

The issue is the core tenets of a faith. Can they be ignored? No, each must be believed in if one would qualify as an adherent to that faith.

(This is why I think the United Church of Canada has become nothing more than a political social group and should be stripped of its tax-free status. It is post-Christian.)

What are the core tenets of Islam? Must a Muslim believe in them all to qualify as a Muslim? Yes. Therefore, Islam is Islam.

Yes, many Muslims have downplayed certain aspects of the historical Mohammed, but will they deny them or say that he was in any way less than perfect? No way: if they did, they would be apostates.

Irshad Manji is a Muslim; therefore she believes in the core tenets of Islam. If she does not, if she has fashioned for herself her own offshoot of Islam, then according to many, she is not a Muslim. Unless and until, of course, she has enough people adhering to her particular brand of Islam and can say that she has established a new movement, a new branch of Islam. But many would say it was a cult and not true Islam and all they would have to do is point to the core Islamic texts, including and especially the Koran, the perfect, unchangeable word of Allah. Dare Irshad Manji, dare anyone, suggest otherwise?

(I'm not saying any of this against Irshad Manji and her faith. I don't know her but I believe she is sincere in wanting to bring Islam into the present and I wish her success.)

FM -- Although I would disagree with your statement that Christianity and Judaism are "also chaotic".

"Not every German was a Nazi. Not every Muslim born person is a religious fanatic and potential suicide bomber."
Posted by: sheik yer'mami

I agree. But how many non-Nazi Germans benefited, without protest, from the actions of the Nazis? How many appropriated the businesses, homes, treasures and wealth of "disappeared" Jews (and others) without a second thought, considering it the rightful property of "true" Germans?

How many non-Nazi Germans quietly stood by as Jews (and homosexuals, etc.) were persecuted, beaten, starved and murdered, and did nothing?

Too many.

This is the concern re. moderate Muslims. They absolutely exist. But what will they do if our rights as non-Muslims are challenged? Who will they side with? Where, ultimately, will their loyalties lie?

I hope most of the moderate Muslims will not prove to be like the majority of non-Nazi Germans. I hope they will not decide that Muslims are, indeed, superior to us and the rightful possessors of all that is valuable in the world.

Surak

Jasser can be said to be somewhat genuine as a reformer, but with Manji, she has the habit of quoting Quranic verses out of context, and pretending that it really says something that no tafseer backs up, and that she is right about her interpretation of Islam, and that all Muslim scholars are wrong. To her credit, she's now starting a campaign for Muslim reform, but like Robert points out, it's tought to reform something that one won't admit needs reforming.

They are totally different from the Taliban and al Qaeda, but really, in a very important way, they are more dangerous. It's because of people like them that too many people here believe that the average Muslim is on the same page as them (for which there's little evidence), and that therefore, Islam poses less of a threat than it actually does. In other words, I consider Manji and Jasser really Trojan horses, and the only ones really worth listening to are those like Ali Sina who have jettisoned Islam altogether.

In other words, I consider Manji and Jasser really Trojan horses, and the only ones really worth listening to are those like Ali Sina who have jettisoned Islam altogether.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 2, 2007 5:15 PM

The problem with Islam is that it is so dishonest, so accepts the option of deception, that it's practically impossible to be a Muslim and speak the truth from the heart. The Muslim mind must be dedicated to lies and deception with Islamic dogmas that must always be misrepresented to unbelievers. They can't tell unbelievers the truth. To be honest with themselves they must abandon Islam and the deception that is mandated ("war is deception") in Islam.

The mind is a bully. The mind and heart speak the truth when they work together. Islam is all calculation, and deception is the soul of Islam. It's the mind (rules, regulations, rituals) out of touch with the heart. It's not reformable.

Look at Fibrahim "Farfur style propaganda" Hooper, and the other CAIR liars. How can such crawl-between-toes deception not be corrosive to the mind, cripple the mind, cripple the heart? They can rationalize (again the mind) only to a certain extent. But as the saying goes "the heart has reasons of its own". The heart will revolt against the deception. They must become bizarre as they separate the calculating (and often deceptive) mind from the heart.

There is something to this yin/yang stuff. The heart and mind must be in balance or else there is the overdrive male principal of rules, regulations, reason, order or the equally destructive overdrive female principal of sentiment, feeling, and chaos.

Islam is the male principal in overdrive, it will create a civilization without flexibility, with rules, regulations, rituals. It's as sick as a culture without bounds-ruled by sentiment. Either extreme is inhuman. Both will end with the guillotine.

As long as the view that ALL religions are as bad as islam there will be no Political islam come to light.

The kicker is that as long as we talk about islam the religion we ARE talking about islam the politics.

Islam is Islam.

To any sane person who spent even the smallest amount of time finding out about islam knows that islam is the religion and the politics,it's all encompassing.

Thats simple. Islam is Islam

He says the term "moderate islam or muslim" is insulting as it should be because i see no value in being a moderate muslim.How can you be? What is there to be moderate about in islam?

I know there are muslims in name only as they were born in islamic nations or families.I know there are muslims who aren't hardcore muslims.In actuality and given the True state of what islam is these are not muslims.So why moderate them.The only thing,probably,that creates a modertae muslim is the law for killing any that converts away from islam.They are now considered moderate muslims because they can't convert and they don't want to be killed or a lifetime of hiding.Or it's the only way to get ahead in an islamic society.

To me thats a moderate muslim.

Political islam rules this as it does everything in islam and it just so happens that the religious are the rulers and the leaders,and the muscle who can even create moderates.

I look at joining islam to be able to rise to the top class status and to further ones self as far as one can in islam as to taking the number of the beast.How far from it is it that one has to be islam in islamic lands to be able to trade buy and sell?I'm not saying i wholly believe this view but i liken it to taking the number of the beast.

At the risk of sounding repetitive political and religious islam are the same.However it would be refreshing to get a little political debate once and a while to show just exactly what they both really are.

Islam is islam,well at least he is an honest liar.

It boggles my mind that islam can get away with what it does to it's women and children as the haters of other religions titles it thier "culture".Well just whose "culture" are we talking about here?The men of islams culture?

So the women and children are to continue to be servatile to the "man",nothing better than slaves?

This is the politics they embrace?Many have died in this country as well as others and faught plenty of other kinds of hard battles to bury this kind of "politics".

If all religions are so equally terrible then whats the hold up to bringing islam into the religion haters boxing ring? If it's islams politics that stinks so bad then whats the hold up there?

What has islamic politics done to the U.N.?That cesspool of an organization,that Org. that NO islamic state deserves or has earned entry into?

I wonder is that Blue rope that Iran loves to use so much provided by the U.N.? Wouldn't doubt it.

Shiek:

I apparently broke some rule and the post you referred to was deleted. I'm not what I said that was wrong, so I won't comment again.

My point was that many people say that "not all Germans were Nazi's" as a way to excuse Islam by then saying there is a difference between Muslims and Islam. That's pretty nonsensical. It's like saying not all members of the Nazi party are Nazi's. you don;t have to be German to be a Nazi, you just have to be a Nazi.

All Muslims follow Islam. They can't call themselves Muslims otherwise. Islam is Islam.

Is the Koran a moderate document?

Having read it more times than I'd have liked, I'm forced to say:

No.

So, how can an immoderate (intolerant, misogynistic, terroristic) ideology produce a "moderate" believer?

It's impossible.

The moderate Muslim is one of three things:

1)- a non-practicing (apostate) Muslim;

2)- someone trapped in Islam, who is too afraid to confront the facts of his terrorizing "faith" and who prefers ritual and denial to reality and honesty;

3)- a calculating liar.

A true believer becomes a Bin Laden.

Luckily, the faith of most Muslims is weak.

We need to encourage them to leave this cruel cult, and admit that its dogmas are dismal.

I pray for the Liberation of Mohammedans from Islam.

The man is correct- Islam is Islam. Because there are NO moderates in this religion.