"Terrorism" does not come out of a vacuum. It comes, as Mao Tse-tung's guerrillas were "fish that swim in the sea of the people," out of a demographic sufficiency, out of an ideological self-assurance.
"Terrorism" in Western Europe is a function of the fact that now large populations among whom “terrorists” are frequently found now live among their targets. This act of colossal folly has been the result of greed in some cases (as in Germany, with that supposed need for "gastarbeiter" who would supposedly, their work ended, return to Turkey -- but they didn't leave, and their progeny are obtaining German citizenship, and becoming more, not less extreme, in their Islam than their parents), and misplaced kindness in others (the British fondly believing that it was they who should rescue the Muslims among those Asians kicked out by Idi Amin and other African despots, rather than have them return to Pakistan or Bangladesh). And always and everywhere, it is the result of criminal negligence about Islam.
Those who commit acts of terrorism do not necessarily need, on the spot, Muslims to support them. The 9/11 attackers may have came from abroad, but remember that those guilty of terrorism in Amsterdam lived in the Netherlands, and that Muslims who have lived for long periods, or in some cases even been born, in Great Britain, in France, in Spain, in Italy, in Belgium, in America, in Canada, in Norway, in Denmark, have either participated directly in acts of terrorism, or plotted such acts before being caught, or have supported those who have been terrorists.
The larger the local population of Muslims, the more incessant the demands by that population for severe, absurd limits on methods used to prevent such terrorism. For example, take the demand that there be no "profiling" at airports or elsewhere for Muslim terrorists, on the basis of the perceived belief in Islam of those in the population who, intelligently and effectively, should be subject to much greater scrutiny. Take also the severe limits placed on public discussion of the nature of Islam, of what its adherents believe or can reasonably be assumed to believe, if they call themselves Muslims. The larger the Muslim population, the greater the number of people attempting to influence Western politicians to lay off of Islam, the greater the pressure to remove all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, and the greater the likelihood that some in that population will offer political, moral, financial support to those who plot and plan, and those who manage to take part in, acts of terrorism.
And there is one final thing. Terrorism is an instrument. But the goal is the removal of all obstacles, everywhere, to the spread and dominance of Islam. Over 1350 years, with a few exceptions (in Java and Sumatra, conversion of the rulers to Islam led to mass-conversion of their subjects), Islam spread by force. Such force is not possible today, right now, in most of the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels. Other instruments of Jihad are being employed instead -- well-financed and carefully-targetted campaigns of Da'wa, deployment of the Money Weapon (Saudi Arabia alone has spent nearly $100 billion in the last few decades, for mosques, madrasas, armies of Western hirelings, propaganda, public-relations efforts), and above all, demographic conquest. That conquest is discussed openly, and incessantly, by Muslims (from Boumedienne in 1974, at the U.N., to letter-writers to the Pakistani newspaper "Dawn"), while the victims of this demographic conquest are made to believe that discussion of this is most unseemly, most unwise, most "racist," most something, and so they -- mostly -- keep very quiet.
And certainly nothing significant has yet been done to halt the large-scale Muslim immigration into the West, that for all the schemes and dreams of integration, poses a permanent (and growing) threat to the political and legal institutions, to the entire civilizational legacy (art, music, free and skeptical inquiry that makes science possible), of that West.
The inheritors of Western civilization may not be worthy, most of them, of those who came before. But they can at least do one thing: they can work to preserve that legacy from the greatest internal threat, possibly the greatest threat, it has ever faced, or endured.
So you waste millions pandering to the agressive demands of a west hating minority until it becomes a dominant majority, complete with nuclear weapons(in some cases).
Or you look and seek and hunt for that elusive creature of western intellectual mythology: the unicorn of hope: the MODERATE Muslim (whom we know exists because polls say he does) and because certain muslims say that they are such(wouldn't lie would they?). But there is still no guarantee that the children of these moderates will be moderate(and in fact it seems to be the opposite as a rule).
Or we suddenly grow up as humans who are determined to save the western legacy and we ask them to leave: politely at first and nonpolitely if they refuse. If Muslim countries harbour or subsidise aggressive acts, they psay the price.
Or we just give up now and learn arabic.
I see no choice but submission or victory and no victory is won without bloodshed. Is the western legacy worth this? Just think of how many will die once the west succumbs to sharia law. Islam's idea of charity seems totally at odds with the western viewpoint and I fully expect 90% of the world to be dead of famine and disease within 20 yrs.
“Saudi Arabia alone has spent nearly $100 billion in the last few decades, for mosques”
Don’t I know it! Going for my usual walk, I pass the Rey Fahd Mosque, a monstrosity that is located just a few hundred yards form the U.S. Embassy. Because I like to read as I walk, I happened to have my copy of “The Truth about Muhammad” in my hands a few days ago. There were a few Muslims milling about the entrance and I walked within 5 feet of them. Because the last thing I can afford to do is to bring attention to myself or start any sort of a row, I made sure that they would not see the orangey-yellow front jacket. As much as it turns my stomach to have to do such a thing, it was a necessary prudence, not an act of dhimmitude.
Hugh,
American children are, for the most part, being taught in public schools to despise this country. All the evils of the world (throughout history) are being rewritten to make America responsible. Have you gone to any National Monument or historical site the last 10 years and seen how they are slowly removing crucial elements of true American history?
American children are being taught to be lovers of themselves and nothing else. Loyality is to self. Glory is to self. It is all about (me).
Add to that the mess of multicultural PC mush that is being pushed into childrens' brains (not to mention the mind altering drugs), and you have a civilization ripe for a take over.
Critical thinking is being killed in this country. It started in the schools and has naturally bled over into the media. We are devolving into a nation of people that either cannot or do not want to think for themselves- let alone challenge (intellectually) another person's point of view (unless of course it pertains to sports or who Brit is going to marry this week).
The children of our country have been (progressively and increasingly)indoctrinated to accept the ideas of 'new deal' socialism. Why aren't more people shocked and outraged when they see HAMAS run pre-schools teaching kids about killing Jews and dying as Shahid? Because we're teaching the kids in this country the same way! Mind numbing indoctrination--where the HAMAS goal is martyrs and America's public school goal is capitulation (for now).
The Islamists are on the move. You are correct to sound the alarm. They and their friends are in very deep.
People that believe "their kids" or "grandkids" will be fighting for their freedom are missing the mark. Those kids will be paying the jizya or 'enjoying' dhimmitude.
I wonder what the latest Brit saga/ headline will be to keep us placated in 5 years??
Probably a story about her loosing her head. Oh, that's right. It already was threatened.
Yes we automatically accept that if we make ourselves obvious to Muslims then we become a target. Everybody knows this, everybody accepts it. No one does anything about it except talk.
It may take a Stalin to beat this monster and if it does we only have ourselves to blame.
“Everybody knows this, everybody accepts it. No one does anything about it except talk.”
Speaking only for myself, I can assure you that I do much more than just talk.
I'm looking forward to your appearance at the next David Horowitz Islamofascisim Awareness Week in 2008, Hugh. You will be speaking, won't you?
If you haven't been asked to participate, I'll call the Horowitz Freedom Center and insist that you be invited. In fact, I can probably initiate a phone-in campaign at the University of Washington for your inclusion in the event.
As Maxwell said, "American children are, for the most part, being taught in public schools to despise this country."
So, if you aren't already home schooling your children, "Get Smart" people...it truly is "the toughest job you'll ever love..."
Hugh-
It appears that in history there are two basic forms of Imperialism-Empire. One is based in "religion"-ideology (Pizarro in Peru, Arab Empire, Muslims invading Hindu India, Nazis in Russia, etc.) and the other is commercial in nature (Brits, e.g.). The "religious" rationalizations for domination are generally plunder-exploitation-genocide-mass-murder systems that sneer at indigenous cultures, indigenous peoples (Muslim invaders of Hindu India were Pizzaro style pigs). Commercial imperialism-domination systems usually (but not always) are more respectful of indigenous cultures-peoples.
Muslims sneer at the commercial nations-cultures as if the Muslim rationalizations for domination are somehow "pure". However, history shows that domination systems based on 'religion" or ideology often culminate in Darfurs. For that reason the age of "religion"-ideology systems for domination is coming to an end. Most cultures today have become very critical-self-critical of "religious"-ideological rationalization systems for domination. Only Muslims are uncritical of this "religion" that is at its core the engine of Arab Imperialism. That total absence of self-criticism is the problem. Islamic culture is as sick as the imagination of Nasralla.
Jeffrey Carr:
This latest attempt of yours to suggest -- I'm sure you think slyly -- that Hugh Fitzgerald and I are the same person made me smile.
In reality, no one would be more pleased than I if Hugh were invited to speak, and agreed to speak, at a college during the next Horowitz Center IslamoFascism Awareness Week. And if you can arrange to have the University of Washington invite him, so much the better. Please do initiate your campaign, and thanks for your help.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
And if you can arrange to have the University of Washington invite him, so much the better. Please do initiate your campaign, and thanks for your help.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Posted by: jihadwatch at January 19, 2008 9:13 AM
Brilliant, Robert, Brilliant!
Mr. Carr,
Let us suppose, just for argument's sake, that Robert and Hugh are one and the same.
How is this relevant? Why are you obsessed with this? Who cares? Perhaps I am Robert as well. Perhaps every poster on this forum is Robert having a conversation with himself, and you Mr. Carr, are the only poster here who is not Robert.
This is no longer even entertaining.
Oh, brother. You can tell by their writing styles that Spencer and Fitzgerald are not the same.
"Carr" is delusional.
This is no longer even entertaining.
Posted by: cumulusnine at January 19, 2008 9:56 AM
Because it's so dumb. Stupidity is never entertaining. It's just pitiful.
"Over 1350 years, with a few exceptions (in Java and Sumatra, conversion of the rulers to Islam led to mass-conversion of their subjects), Islam spread by force."
Even in those cases, Indonesia, North Central Asia, West Africa, where the territories were beyond the reach of Muslim arms, local rulers found Islamic ideology a most useful tool for conquest. So even in these areas the "peaceful" spread of Islam is largely a myth. Once converted, these local rulers engaged in jihad against their neighbors.
Hugh, your lecture should be Muslim Demographics.
Because they are out-of-control and "Majority Rules."
Jeffrey, and especially Robert and Hugh, focus your keen intellects on the Islamic jugular. When a future opportunity presents itself, I'm confident the latter two will strike without a twinge of guilt.
Mr. Carr, I'm usually and like to think of myself as a good judge of character, and I cannot help but to imagine you hesitating, or just not giving one hundred percent of yourself to the effort of causing the demise of Islam, were the opportunity to present itself to do so. Then again, I can also imagine Jeffrey near this arena and, realizing what is about to happen, offering his own rhetorical pearls which adds an extra three or four kicks to the balls as we all assault the beast to its death.
Who knows?
Constructing platforms to massage the minds of future generations to render the words and rituals of Islam bogus in relation to a modern, sober and rational interpetation of what the intentions and will of a (The) Creator actually are ..., someday the pen will be mightier then the sword, for sure.
I myself absolutely, definitely want to be party to causing and then watching this beast fall in the future.
People, order "Defeat Jihad/Jihad Watch.org" stickers, available on this site, put one on your vehicle and give the rest to friends (Order a 10-Pack).
Don't be a coward - do it. Let your immediate world see this message as you drive around town!
So far, not a soul has said a word.
I myself absolutely, definitely want to be party to causing and then watching this beast fall in the future.
Posted by: k24anson at January 19, 2008 10:16 AM
Me too. And we're doing it right now! Can you imagine being WITHOUT JW/DW and other important sites such as thereligionofpeace.com, apostatesofislam, Sons of Apes and Pigs, etc etc?
There is an Islamic proverb: The adulterated milk is useless.
I you look in the history, there was not a single strong wall that could not be scaled. Ancient Muslims knew that to win is to go out, and that to defend is not to win.
Macarthur went out and intent to finish the North Korean war, he was held back. Now, Syria and Iran have bought their Nuke technology; there is no return--the milk is spoiled.
America created the United Nations within its "wall," all foreign spies comes to stay as invited diplomats with full immunity. While they stay, they found the soft spot on the wall. This soft spot is its system of legislation. Now it's been exploited more than 50 years. This exploitation ranges from arrays of domestic to foreign policies.
Domestic exploitation: (1) Funding Anti-war Organizations, (2) Funding Education, (3) Rewarding Politicians at end of their term who favor American erosion, (4) and foremost important exploitation is LEGISLATION.
From the exploitation of American system of legislation, the inundation of counter-productive laws rendered every individual or any sincere leader powerless.
How can we be powerless?
Simple, we are a law abiding nation, and we abide to our own constrains.
Now, in education, parents have no full rights to their children due to constrains; teachers have no right to talk about moral due to constrains; text books contains no inculcation of patriotism due to constrains, etc. I cannot possibly continue this; it's endless.
Now, in commerce, enemies of America have rights to own a business vital to our national security due to free trade constrains; example, Dubai Port, and Chinese take over of high-tech company shares. All nations have quota for selling their products to American consumers because of free trade. Every nation can sell to America because they have their emigrants who know the system, but America cannot easily sell them anything because most Americans stay home where life is better, so we buy more than we sell.
Immigration: A friend of mine who finished schools we me in science quit his job and become an immigration lawyer. I told him that we worked hard for many years to get to where we are and that he just threw away all the hard work and qualification. He said, "A PhD in math is hell less than $80,000 a years, but B.S. in immigration law got me at least $200,000 a year from my private practice." Yes, folks, business is good in the importation of foreigners, and it's good for at least 100 years. The harder it gets to America, the higher the reward will be for lawyers. Can you see why we have more harmful lawyers than beneficial scientist? One more example: Congressmen make $170,000 a year, but they can make more than $1,000,000 legislating for enemy's interests. Then, how much should we pay our congressmen? They answer, "More please!"
If we know that the system of legislation is the problem, why don't we fix it?
Yes, we could, but now we cannot because we have been washed too far downstream. We are not fit as Salmon who can counter strong current. Please note: Though Salmon could go again strong current; they die of exhaustion at their destination.
The milk is spoiled!
Here's an even better idea. Just ask Robert if he'll switch roles with me for a while. Then I would get to be the master ventriloquist, putting words in the mouth of my "imaginary colleague." Sometimes Mortimer Snerd wants to be Edgar Bergen.
More amazing than a sustained act of ventriloquism that would tax a Vattemare crossed with a Pessoa, is the spectacle of someone unable to distinguish two such very different prose styles and two such very different mental make-ups. Such an inability deeply impresses. That is, makes a deep impression.
... second sentence, second paragraph of my last post is edited to better read,"[r]ealizing what is about to happen, suddenly and to the surprise of all the good people at jihadwatch.org/, offering his own rhetorical pearls which, etc."
...
Though trying to find a photo or photos of Hugh Fitzgerald on the internet is not easy, they do in fact exist.
I can assure you that Mr.Fitzgeralds appearance does not even come close to Robert Spencers.
"that would tax a Vattemare crossed with a Pessoa," --posted by Hugh
Spencer would never say that.
Anyone know what it means, lol!
Vattemare was a famous ventriloquist in the first half of the nineteenth century. He was famous from St. Petersburg to Paris, travelled and put on plays, in which he, Vattemare, would play every role (he was not a "ventriloquist" in the Edgar-Bergen sense, but in a different, older sense), and may even have met Pushkin. Later he helped to start the enterprise of trans-national (today "cross-cultural") exchange, helping to arrange for large numbers of French books to come to the Boston Public Library, and books from the American Republic to be sent to France.
Pessoa, was a Portuguese writer early in the past century, famous for his heteronyms, that is the individualized writers, all of whom wrote differently from each other, and each of whom was a creation of none other than Fernando Pessoa ("Person") names and personalities he created, and who "wrote" himself. A combination of the two would require a single person to possess both the heteronymic writing of Pessoa, and the heteronymic oral delivery of Vattemare.
A tall order.
Hugh,
I had never heard of either of those guys. Now I am pleased to announce that both of them were actually me.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Hugh:
Your amazing retention of what you have read never stops to amaze me.
Though you may not be nearly as eccentric, you at times remind me of Thomas Edward Lawrence, and that is meant to be a compliment.
Robert, regardless of my personal beliefs about the "Hugh" persona on this forum, I do think that he should have a larger platform to express his point of view. So on Monday, I'll call the Horowitz Freedom Center. If they'll agree to invite Hugh to speak during Islamofascism Awareness Week, I'll do my best to have the seminar presented at UW.
Also, while I'm on the subject, in spite of the fact that I find your point of view narrow-minded, I have no problem in your airing it. I think its important that flawed arguments should be exposed to the public, rather than kept to small forums like this one. Hugh, in particular, should really strive to increase his exposure. I'm surprised that you, as his friend and employer, don't do more to encourage that.
Also, while I'm on the subject, in spite of the fact that I find your point of view narrow-minded, I have no problem in your airing it. I think its important that flawed arguments should be exposed to the public, rather than kept to small forums like this one. Hugh, in particular, should really strive to increase his exposure. I'm surprised that you, as his friend and employer, don't do more to encourage that.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 11:40 AM
So funny! "small forums!" Oh, yeah, JW is "small," LOL! Just take a look at that sitemeter.
Oh, and what's an example of a "flawed argument" of Spencer's? I bet you can't furnish even one example.
Mr. Carr:
Yes, please do both. The Horowitz Center will be happy to have him speak, but there has to be a college that wants to have him -- the speakers at the last IFAW went where they were invited. So please arrange it at UW -- you will probably need to work with conservative groups that will be willing to sponsor IFAW on the campus there.
I'm still waiting for you to expose a flaw in any of my arguments, but I assure you, I am not in the least interested in limiting what I am saying to "small forums like this one."
May I ask how you came by your information about what I have done to encourage that?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
For a man who supposedly steeps his focus in the ananlyst/intelligence world;
Mr. Carr who couldn't tell the difference b/t two writing styles, and fails to recognise that Mr. Spencer operates from a very large forum almost daily and far beyond Jihawatch with numerous speeches (some international), several books,articles,radio and televison interviews throughout the nation.
So I keep wondering what kind of skills you are using as you do your analysts of Mr. Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald?
"As much as it turns my stomach to have to do such a thing, it was a necessary prudence, not an act of dhimmitude."
patagonianplato,
Of course it was prudence! You shouldn't think otherwise, if you intend (and I hope you do) to "live to fight another day".
"I think its [sic] important that flawed arguments should be [sic] exposed to the public, rather than kept to small forums like this one."
-- from a posting above
If that poster thinks that my "flawed arguements should be exposed to a wider public" why doesn't that poster help by putting a "JihadWatch" sticker on his car, and telling the horde of visitors who no doubt go to his website to visit www.jihadwatch.org so that they too can swell the ranks of those to be "exposed" to my "flawed arguments." And he should make sure to tell them to click on the bar at the top of this site, so that those directed visitors can read hundreds of past articles, and to wander through the "Archives" so that not a single one of my "flawed arguments" is overlooked. They have a right to know, to gawk, to mock, to laugh at all the flaws in those "flawed arguments"just the way that poster does.
Or, if he prefers, he could send me a bank check, Robert, and I'll show up to deliver my "flawed arguments" at a lecture-hall nearby. This special offer is being made because I have need of a portable computer, and I'm thinking of an Apple, with Leopard OS and all the trimmings, including a 17-inch screen. And once postage-and-handling for me (I'm a delicate package) is added in for my visit, the check should be rounded off to $5000, a special price, for a special person, today only. I'm sure he can come up with it, for the important goalof exposing those "flawed arguments" to a larger group.
In fact, if that poster could get me a hearing at the Pentagon, where he surely has tippety-top connections, being practically a secret agent and all (the Vattemare who does me also drops occasionally into Holden Caulfield), I would give a 10% discount. I'd have the money. And he would have the satisfaction of knowing that he had helped to expose, at the highest policy levels, my absurdly "flawed arguments."
We'd both be happy.
Dear Mr. Spencer,
At a different site, another commenter recently took issue with my use of Qur’an vs. Koran. Because I am one of your faithful minions, I told him that if you spelled it that way then that was good enough for me. I was not able to give an intelligent answer to his question. He replied back that;
“I FAULT Spencer for using these newly-minted Politically-Correct spelling. It's a true act of SUBMISSION on his part, though perhaps unconscious.”
Why is it better for us to spell it Qur’an instead of Koran? I want a better way to respond in the future.
Qu'an or Koran makes no difference if you are not Arab.
For English the divorce is pronounced dy-vorce, for American div-vorce.
Americans say "America," but Arabs say, "Am-ma-rik, kan."
English speakers say "Bus," but Chinese say, "Pass-Seh."
Big deal.
Abscedere
Of course it was prudence! You shouldn't think otherwise, if you intend (and I hope you do) to "live to fight another day".
You bet! I dedicated my life to the anti-jihad on 9-11 and as yet, “I have not yet begun to fight!”
Robert writes:
"you will probably need to work with conservative groups that will be willing to sponsor IFAW on the campus there."
--- That should be easy enough to do. I'll contact the same group that sponsored the event last year.
"I'm still waiting for you to expose a flaw in any of my arguments, but I assure you, I am not in the least interested in limiting what I am saying to "small forums like this one."
--- Sorry, my fault for not being more clear. I mean't Hugh limiting his exposure, not you. You're quite well exposed as it is. :-)
--- And regarding my statement about you not encouraging Hugh to speak in public more frequently, I'm basing that on the fact that he doesn't appear on any of the seminar schedules that I've seen. I would think that your influence would have been a bit more successful than zero, which makes me think that you aren't trying all that much. Or perhaps I give your persuasive abilities too much credit.
How does one "integrate" an anti-Constitutional, anti-secular, anti-Universal Declaration of Human right ideology like Islam into the West?
Except the way a cancer is "integrated" into the body?
Patagonian Plato,
That's absurd. This is not a matter of political correctness, but of accuracy in rendering.
The word is القرآن.
There is no agreement on how to render Arabic characters into English, but I think it is legitimate, and indeed useful, to distinguish ق from ك by rendering the former as a Q and the latter as a K.
Since Qur'an starts with a ق, I think it's simply a matter of accuracy to render it with a Q.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Mr. Carr:
Good. Again, thanks for your help.
Actually, there are considerations involved here that have nothing to do with your fevered imaginings.
But again, I appreciate your efforts to get UW to feature a talk by Hugh. I look forward to your setting this up. I just wish I could see the faces of the conservative group there when you go to them and say, "I want you to invite this fellow Hugh Fitzgerald to speak." "Why?" "Because I don't believe he exists."
Cordially
Robert Spencer
I dedicated my life to the anti-jihad on 9-11 and as yet, “I have not yet begun to fight!”
see above
I have fought all my life under Islam. Christians in my Circle disappeared, and I arrived here with no one. My American friends think I am not worth paying attention to.
Dhimmi or no Dhimmi has been a question for centuries. Non-Muslims see their teritories shrinking to no end. I was never a Islam lover, but live as Dhimmi because we Christians are out numbered.
When I arrived here, I though I have become majority of non-Muslim, but "No."
Non-Dhimmi in America is a very small minority. People look at me as looney.
If anyone want to fight, please do, but I suggest they make it a career, such as that of Robert and Hugh. Unless you make money and pay the bill, people won't see you as worth listening to.
When you become majority, you will not be a Dhimmi, but you are not yet. You are only at the juncture.
When become a minority, you will understand why I was left with one choice, that was Dhimmitude, and I am the only serviving Dhimmi in my entire village.
Strike when the iron is hot.
Hugh, don't be such a naughty boy when I'm trying to get you a speaking engagement at the University of Washington.
I'm assuming that since you have no bio, no published books, and no resume available for any UW political club to read, that they should be directed to your archived posts here, and contact the Horowitz Freedom Center to request you as a speaker, is that correct?
And placing a sticker on my car or an ad at my site, would be an endorsement of you. I don't endorse you, or Robert, or David H, or this site. I find Islamofascism a repugnant term, I despise religious bigotry of any kind, and I think your ideas are counter-productive in the war against terror. But the best way to defeat these positions, in my opinion, is not to try to silence the speaker, but to let the negative message be heard by the widest possible audience. Hence my offer.
Dear Mr. Spencer,
Thanks for the lesson. Sorry to make you teach 101 on a Saturday. Least-ways, I can respond back intelligently and also tell him he is being absurd.
"Because I am one of your faithful minions"
patagonianplato, Spencer doesn't have "minions," a pejorative term. Rather, he has supporters, champions, defenders, and advocates.
"I find Islamofascism a repugnant term," --posted by Carr
Isn't that funny, considering it's Muslims who coined it? lol
SSA,
I want to thank-you for your stirring post above. If it is possible for you to do so, I hope you will share more of your story here at Jihadwatch in the future.
Jiahdwatch is a force to reckon with and I am certain that this movement will grow regardless of all of the efforts of all of the Carrs of the world to marginalize us. I have faith in the American people. Their love for freedom and individualism will never allow them to become dhimmis.
to let the negative message be heard --posted by Carr
lol. In our time, there has never been a more positive message than the truth about Islam and the call to save the Free West. Poor brainwashed Mr. Carr, so very much a part of the problem.
Don't count on me. I have not put a dent yet in stirring the American's heart against jihad. People found Hollywood more entertaining the I am.
I don't have the influence or money.
If you are sincere to do the work similar to Robert Spencer, make sure you make enough money to pay for protection. Please note: There's fatwa issued for Robert Spencer's head. Assasins are coming from four winds.
Money is important. At least you need richmen to sponsor your fight.
Maybe Jeffrey Carr can enlist the support of University of Washington Professor Farhat Ziadeh: He is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Civilization at the University of Washington. As his blurb says: "Born in Ramallah, Palestine, in 1917, Professor Ziadeh received his B.A. from the American University of Beirut in 1937 and his LL.B from the University
of London in 1940. He was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn, London, and became a Barrister-
at-Law in 1946. In the last years of the British Mandate, he served as a Magistrate for the
Government of Palestine before eventually moving with his family to the United States.
He was appointed Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Princeton where he taught
until 1966, at which time he moved to the University of Washington."
Recently, the University of Washington's Department of Near Eastern Languages & Civilization established a "Farhat J. Ziadeh Distinguished Lectureship", which is "dedicated to the promotion and celebration of excellence in the field of Arab and Islamic studies".
A recent lecture (2005) that was part of this Lectureship was "RESURRECTING EMPIRE: THE END OF YEAR II OF THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ", delivered by Professor Rashid Khalidi, and guess where he hails from? Yep -- Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, Columbia University.
Anyway, I'm sure Emeritus Prof. Ziadeh or one of his supportive colleagues would be glad to help Jeffrey Carr in making Hugh Fitzgerald feel welcome.
Hugh, you might want to up your offer, given your wish list. $10,000 maybe? ;-)
darcy,
We know "minions" is used as a pejorative by our detractors, but that is ticklishly funny, because when the Carrs, Marrancis, and "13 Martyrs" talk so extravagantly, luridly, and conspiratorially about Robert & Company, it's a backhanded compliment.
This comic menace they concoct is a hoot, a frolic! DO let them go on about our "worship," "personality cult," "virtual militia" and blind "fanaticism."
It does us all proud to be associated with this great enterprise through their belittling, semi-hysterical, downright paranoid remarks. I consider these snide swipes A Badge of Honor and a proof we're on the right side.
Mr. Carr,
I don't believe you when you decry "Islamophobia" and call Islamofascism Awareness Week an expression of religious bigotry.
What is bigotted about examining, carefully and critically, the social and political assertions that derive from Islamic belief, monolithic or not? Why is such examination any more bigotted or intolerant than, say, examining the religious basis or halachic implications of Israeli Jewish settler movements; or, perhaps, the social and political implications of Christian "Kingdom Theology," as Bill Moyers has done? Or the social and political influence of Evangelical Christianity?
Why not examine totalitarian, misogynistic, intolerant, and anti-semitic impulses within Islam? How can THAT, in itself, be seen as an attack on Muslims as persons?
John C says "I don't believe you when you decry "Islamophobia" and call Islamofascism Awareness Week an expression of religious bigotry. What is bigotted about examining, carefully and critically, the social and political assertions that derive from Islamic belief, monolithic or not?"
--- Islamofascisim is considered a pejorative by most people, particularly Muslims. Let's assume that you are a Christian, and I called you a Christofascist because of the actions of Christian Reconstructionists (a radical minority Christian sect who believes that civil laws should be derived from biblical laws, among other things). Would you be offended? Of course you would.
--- If you want to hold a seminar on the teachings of Islam then call it Islamic studies, or more precisely, studies in radical fundamentalist Islam. But don't begin with an insulting name, and then expect to proceed from there with a "careful and critical examnination ...". That's never going to find a receptive audience except for the people who already agree with you.
John C says "I don't believe you when you decry "Islamophobia" and call Islamofascism Awareness Week an expression of religious bigotry. What is bigotted about examining, carefully and critically, the social and political assertions that derive from Islamic belief, monolithic or not?"
--- Islamofascisim is considered a pejorative by most people, particularly Muslims. Let's assume that you are a Christian, and I called you a Christofascist because of the actions of Christian Reconstructionists (a radical minority Christian sect who believes that civil laws should be derived from biblical laws, among other things). Would you be offended? Of course you would.
--- If you want to hold a seminar on the teachings of Islam then call it Islamic studies, or more precisely, studies in radical fundamentalist Islam. But don't begin with an insulting name, and then expect to proceed from there with a "careful and critical examnination ...". That's never going to find a receptive audience except for the people who already agree with you.
But the best way to defeat these positions, in my opinion, is not to try to silence the speaker, but to let the negative message be heard by the widest possible audience. Hence my offer.
The saying "Something beats nothing every time" comes to mind upon reading this. Carr, you and those who think like you offer NOTHING concrete or specific in the "war on terror" (a phrase I'll use out of convenience). You spout your generalities about "opposing religious bigotry" and blah, blah, blah, but it's all well and good until you actually start testing those generalities against the specific doctrines of Islam and jihad.
Just as "honest" Communists eventually had to condemn the Soviet Union, so "honest" tolerant ("tolerantists"?) people will eventually have to learn to be intolerant of Islam. It's the lesser of two evils, in the final analysis, to do what needs to be done to eradicate Islam from this plant (what are we really defending, ultimately, but the ravings of a desert bandit? Big whoop. I'd give up all of Islam for finding one lost Sophocles manuscript, for example). Eventually, every non-Muslim with a functioning brain cell will come to this conclusion and I'll be there waiting, saying "What in the hell took you people so long? Let's get down to business!". And that'll be that.
Hola John C.!
I just got back from another 2 1/2 hour walk. I just can’t get enough of that beautiful minaret. It dominates everything around it and inspires awe.
Thanks for the post. I have been down that road and will not travel it again. It leads nowhere.
Hello people, "bigoted" is spelled this way, not 2 "t's."
That aside, Muslims are the biggest bigots on the planet with their well-known hatred of Jews and Christians (see Qur'an).
You listening, Mr. Misguided Carr? Muslims are the biggest bigots on the planet. They hate everyone not Islamic. Have you read the Qur'an? No? I didn't think so.
Oh, and, as I said before, Muslims (Algerian) coined the term "Islamofascism," nimrod. You are uneducated and uninformed, Carr.
Hola Mi Amigo!
Oh, and hello, Mr. Carr.
Your point is taken. I don't have occasion to use the term "Islamofascict" myself, and I didn't originate it (secularist Algerian Muslims did); but while it may not be the most fitting term, I do not see it as inherently offensive.
Let's make a deal (I'm sure this lines up with your purposes)--let people like me find and use better terms, and YOU stop using the intentionally pejorative neologism "Islamophobia, -phobic, -phobe," DEAL?
OK, darcy--I usually have a sense for spelling.
I still think being called Robert Spencer's "minions," or whatever, is a great compliment.
I do not believe that Mr. Spencer has taken an alternate identity.
However, I do not believe that Hugh is really a "Hugh", much less a "Fitzgerald". I find it interesting that an Irish last name was chosen. Whoever he is, he is learned. However, he is frequently sanctimonious in his devotion to his pet subjects. And that devotion is clear to anyone who reads his work. Maintaining a pen name does afford him some scholarly immunity, but it also diminishes the gravitas that his writings could otherwise have. (It also makes for a good laugh when his bombastic rants inpugn the intelligence of others.)
One also wonders about the identity of "Spengler".
John C.
Neologism: 1. a newly coined word, phrase, or expression. 2. A meaningless word or phrase coined or used by a psychotic. (American Heritage)
Please help me here John C. because I couldn’t even get Chucklehead correct. Which is it?
Dear Mr. Carr,
You may call me a "Christian Reconstruction" if you really should happen to belive I was, and a "Christofascist" if you believe that that's what Christian Reconstructionists are; but what REALLY matters to me is what I believe, especially about myself. I should, after all, probably know.
Besides, I know that the "infinite" human capacity for self-deception applies JUST as much to YOU as to ME in the abstract.
Mr. Spencer wrote above:
"Actually, there are considerations involved here that have nothing to do with your fevered imaginings."
O.K., I am a "supporter" of Mr. Spencer (think minion, but only subliminally) so I hope that all will cut me some slack. That said, I have no further need to delve into this mystery. It is obviously on a need to know basis only.
Hey John C. Don’t be so cheap. Invest in a spell checker!
paragonicplateau (why should DARCY have all the fun?):
Dear fellow, THAT'S the spendor of English--its infinitely nuaced ambiguity!
Don't be funny--and that's"nuanced," BTW.
What in the heck is a paragonic plateau. At least I could Google that platypus thing. Heck, that other poster makes more sense than you!
Does anyone know if the ancient Greeks considered webbed feet to be a sign of wisdom? Truth be told, I made that up.
Btw, I still don’t know what neologism means. I thank I will try “English as a Second Language.”
why should DARCY have all the fun?):
Because I know, John C.
"Minion" means "servile."
Unlike Mohammed's Minions, WE are not "servile."
Unless you count yourself, of course. A Sycophant.
No, "Minions" is NOT a "compliment."
Unfortunately, pp IS a "Chucklehead." LOL
paragonic plateau.
LOL - that's fitting for anyone who dares call himself "plato!"
Oh Darcy, at the risk of bringing your considerable wrath down upon me, what does "LOL" mean? You use it so often that it is about time I asked.
Do you have any idea what kind of hot water you have gotten me into here John C.. John C. . . . ?
Venividivici - I support the recommendations of the 2006 NIE. 3 RAND Corporation reports, and the current thinking of the Joint Chiefs on gaining the support of moderate Muslims, and I've covered all of those things at my site. You might consider doing a little leg work before jumping the gun next time.
Kafir nonbeliever - I'm glad to see at least one other person willing to admit that Hugh isn't Hugh. Hugh claims to be a "lecturer on the manipulation of language for political ends", yet there is no evidence of him attending a single conference as a speaker. Hugh also claims to be an "independent scholar of Islam", yet he remains unpublished in any peer-reviewed journal and has no hits on Google Scholar. Nor will he reveal his alma mater, even though doing so does not in any way reveal where he is or what he is now doing (assuming that he is looking to protect his privacy). The fact that the writing styles of Hugh and Robert are markedly different means nothing. Lots of writers have disguised how they normally write including the famous example of "Anonymous" who wrote the book Primary Colors. There are linguistic determinants that can be tested for but it requires a computer analysis and frankly the issue isn't important enough to warrant that. My only point has been that Robert, who does post under his own name, speaks at numeorus events, lists his alma mater, and has been published numerous times, has a "partner" who is not who he claims to be. In my world, that's suspicious. Perhaps in the world of Christian zealots fighting the spectre of Islamicfascism, it's perfectly normal.
moderate Muslims --posted by Carr
Hirsi Ali describes them as myths - like Nessie and the Yeti.
Please provide names of "moderate muslims." Names. Proof, not myth, Carr.
Don't have any, do ya? Nope, I didn't think so!
Oh, and "Christian zealots" aren't murdering and mass-murdering people worldwide, are they? If so, please provide proof - names, dates, location.
Can't provide any, can you? Nope, I didn't think so!
LOL!
In my world --posted by Carr
Your world is delusion-land.
That aside, Muslims are the biggest bigots on the planet with their well-known hatred of Jews and Christians (see Qur'an).
You listening, Mr. Misguided Carr? Muslims are the biggest bigots on the planet. They hate everyone not Islamic. Have you read the Qur'an? No? I didn't think so.
Oh, and, as I said before, Muslims (Algerian) coined the term "Islamofascism," nimrod. You are uneducated and uninformed, Carr.
Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 5:01 PM
Repeat, for benefit of Mr. Carr.
Jeffrey Carr sides with the biggest bigots on the planet, Mohammedans. So LOL!
So funny! Carr hates "religious bigotry," yet he sides with the biggest religious bigots on the planet, Mohammedans!
Just how dumb and uninformed are you, Carr?
Locked Carr in parking lot, lights on, motor running....
Jeffrey Carr wrote:
Perhaps in the world of Christian zealots fighting the spectre of Islamicfascism..
Boy talk about painting everyone here with a broad brush Carr does it again.
To him everyone here is a "Christian zealot".
Little does the little man know there is a mix of atheists, agnostics and Christians here.
Laughable and another example of bad thinking by Carr.
Then of course his aping of CAIR's arguments that Spenser and Hugh are the same person. Which is very bizarre.
He can't argue Spenser on Islam at all, hell he can't argue with anyone so he's left with insults and taunts.
What a genius.
Dear Darcy,
No, we are NOT servile--the humor here lies in the IRONY of that.
And, YES, to be associated with Robert Spencer--however snidely, and however negative enemies and detractors make that out to be--is a GREAT honor. Robert Spencer is a HERO in my eyes (and yours), even CHRIST-like in the face of derision and slander, and I'll gladly journey to Calvary [Golgatha] in his steps.
Spenser --Walt C.
Walt, it's spelled Spencer.
Otherwise, a good comment. Right, Carr hasn't replied because he has no reply. He supports the world's greatest haters and bigots - Muslims (See Qur'an). And these haters' and bigots' demographics are out-of-control. And they couldn't care less about a man named "Carr." - Hey, convert or be beheaded, Carr! Just like Mohammed did!
MR. CARR:
Perhaps in the world of Christian zealots fighting the spectre of Islamicfascism...
That's a non-sequitur and a despicable low-blow, Mr. Carr.
waltc
Don't forget our Jewish and Hindu posters, among others.
So funny that Mohammed would give dhimmi Carr a choice - Convert or Beheading.
Of course Coward Carr would choose Conversion! Hey Carr - why don't you just convert to Islam now, as Mohammed would force you to do, or death?
You know, Carr, your mother needs to turn you over her knee and give you a good spanking for insulting the brilliant and heroic likes of Robert and Hugh.
Mrs. Carr - please, don't hesitate. Your ignorant son deserves it. He's a worm.
patagonian,
First, I know you know English as well as I do, and have recourse to the dictionary.
Second, the FUN is in making sport with you and in misconstruing your handle.
Third, humor is a universal balm, tension-buster and pain reliever. It furthers camaraderie and unit-cohesiveness in our corps d'elite, our "virtual militia."
"Hugh, don't be such a naughty boy..."
-- from a poster above, employing a curious turn of phrase
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw6r_o3GQE4
Laugh Out Loud!
Deus vult!
Jeff - has your mother given you that well-deserved spanking yet for being such an ignorant worm?
I support the recommendations of the 2006 NIE. 3 RAND Corporation reports, and the current thinking of the Joint Chiefs on gaining the support of moderate Muslims, and I've covered all of those things at my site. You might consider doing a little leg work before jumping the gun next time.
Those recommendations are insufficient to the task at hand, which, as Hugh always states and I concur, is the preservation of the character of Western civilization against Muslim barbarism.
The assumption that "moderation" is sustainable within the Muslim communities in the West, over the long run, is wrong, yet it is integral to current Western strategy in the war on terror, as exemplified in the reports you cite. It is simply, fundamentally, poor strategic thinking. Heck, even Aristotle knew that moderation is uncommon, hence its place among the highest virtues. This was part of my original post's point, that all you offer are vague platitudes, which don't deal with the specifics of Islamic doctrine, but instead make some anodyne assumption that "moderation" means the same to Muslims as it does to modern Westerners. The fact that you can point to specific recommendations and say "This is what I support" doesn't mean there is any meat on the bones of those recommendations and that they aren't based on pie-in-the-sky wishy-washy thinking about the essential doctrines of Islam. If "moderate" Muslims are merely people who would replace violent jihad with demographic jihad, how does that distinction make any difference to me? When what we're really fighting is a war against dhimmitization, "moderate" Muslims remain a threat.
Even if we were to "tame" (I choose that word very carefully) the current generation of Muslim men and turned them into khaki-wearing, SUV-driving suburban dads, what possible guarantee can be provided that their sons will not regress to the Islamic mean, by which I mean Islamic supremacism and violent jihad, in order that Islam "dominate and not be dominated"? Let me be very clear: There is no set of words you, or anyone else, can string together that will convince me that there is any positive value to having Muslims in Western countries. Period.
Darcy,
You realize, don't you, that when they call us "minions," they're projecting--LOL!
Spot on, vvv!
John C - patagonian used the word "minions," which is why I commented on it.
"There is no set of words you, or anyone else, can string together that will convince me that there is any positive value to having Muslims in Western countries. Period."
Posted by: venividivici at January 19, 2008 7:48 PM
Uh Huh. They belong in their own Islamic countries. Period. I mean, hello.
Hugh, thanks for the link. Who doesn't love a good Quickstep or Swing?
John C - if my analogy about radical Christians doesn't apply to you or other posters here, then simply ignore it. Is that the only thing in my entire reply that you choose to make an argument over? Have you read the 2006 NIE that recommends we enlist the aid of moderate Muslims? Have you read any of the RAND reports that gives the names of moderate Muslim organizations in Europe and the Balkans? Can you not find anything of substance to argue with other than my Christian analogy? That's not very impressive.
Darcy - in case you haven't grasped it yet, I'm ignoring your posts. After reading your meltdown with PatagonianPlato the other day, you clearly need to seek psychological help.
venividivici - what do you propose that the U.S. government do about your and Hugh's perception of the "Muslim Menace"? What's your ultimate solution?
Darcy - in case you haven't grasped it yet, I'm ignoring your posts. After reading your meltdown with PatagonianPlato the other day, you clearly need to seek psychological help.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 7:56 PM
So funny. You ARE a "meltdown," Carr!
Please, take your own advice and seek mental help - you are obviously in dire need!
Your mom walloped you, yet? Hope so! Go Mrs. Carr!
Crazy Carr -
You do realize that Mohammed would give you two choices? Convert or die.
So, what, Crazy Carr, would you choose?
Convert, of course, Cowardly Crazy Carr!
Newsflash, Crazy Carr:
Anyone who thinks RS and HF are the same is a resident of Delusion-Land.
That's you, Crazy Carr. A permanent resident.
Locked Carr in parking lot, lights on, motor running....
Posted by: Emerson Twain at January 19, 2008 7:03 PM
So good, Emerson Twain.
Crazy Carr -
Have you learned yet that Muslims coined the term "Islamofascism?" Yes, Muslims - the term you find so "repugnant!"
Wow, you are ignorant! As well as flip-city!
venividivici - what do you propose that the U.S. government do about your and Hugh's perception of the "Muslim Menace"? What's your ultimate solution?
Stop Muslim immigration. Shut down all mosques preaching Islamic supremacism. Deport all Muslims found to be involved in terrorism. Offer payouts to Muslims willing to voluntarily leave. Make it illegal to practice Islam. Do everything short of actual physical violence to make them know that their ideology/religion will not be tolerated. The truth claims of Islam are absurd and there is assuredly no such entity as Allah, so I don't feel in the slightest bad about forcing Muslims to "cease and desist" all activities associated with Islam. For what they get in return, in terms of economic and medical well-being, from being in the West, is ample reward in this world for them to renounce all their mumbo-jumbo about the next world.
You know, it'd just kind of look like Saudi Arabia, in reverse and without the burkas and beheadings, and it would be Muslims on the receiving end of institutionalized discrimination, not non-Muslims. Give them a taste of their own medicine and see how they like it.
I can live with that for starters.
Basically, my only reason for wanting to deal with Muslims is to buy their oil. Arms-length transactions between two willing market participants. All the other crap is just that. Crap. If you actually had internalized anything from the history of Western culture (for example, read the Greeks, or even the existentialists, on human freedom and see why anything proclaiming that submission is the highest value, which Islam does, is inherently absurd), you'd understand that intuitively and not need me to lay it out for you.
LOL - Crazy Carr will LOVE venividivici's "ultimate solution."
Doncha, Crazy Carr?
"The truth claims of Islam are absurd and there is assuredly no such entity as Allah" --posted above by venividivici
So right. And everything else you said.
John C,
Thanks! I can't understand how people like Carr can continue to adhere to the same assumptions over and over again in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Islam is bad news for all non-Muslims. At least the fifth columns in prior Western-Muslim clashes were relatively ignorant of the true nature of Islam and those people who acted as fifth columns for Islam also had legitimate grievances against the ruling cliques of the time. See this, for a good overview of prior fifth column assistance received by Muslims.
http://islamicexpansionanddecline.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-5-patterns-of-treason.html
Here we are, living in a time of relative peace and prosperity in the West and we go and let these fanatics into our countries. I know we need cab drivers here in the US, but this is ridiculous.
Dear Mr. Carr,
Identification, not analogy.
Your argument is not with me, Sir; as you correctly note, I didn't wade into the debate about points asserted in National Intelligence Estimates or RAND reports.
I do take issue with you that we should accept Leiken's thesis, or view the Ikhwan as democrats or moderates, here or abroad. If we fail to recognised the Ikhwan as what it is, by its own principles, than Stephen Coughlin argument is demonstrably correct.
Dear Mr. Carr,
Identification, not analogy.
Your argument is not with me, Sir; as you correctly note, I didn't wade into the debate about points asserted in National Intelligence Estimates or RAND reports.
I do take issue with you that we should accept Leiken's thesis, or view the Ikhwan as democrats or moderates, here or abroad. If we fail to recognised the Ikhwan as what it is, by its own principles, than Stephen Coughlin's argument is demonstrably correct.
With respect to the Ikhwan al-Muslameen, the Muslim Brotherhood: By their fruits shall you know them.
It's so curious that so many of Robert's supporters are so extreme, and it's more curious that Robert does not condemn--but actually seems to encourage--the elements of Hate that seem to permeate his comments sections.
quote: "Make it illegal to practice Islam. Do everything short of actual physical violence to make them know that their ideology/religion will not be tolerated. The truth claims of Islam are absurd and there is assuredly no such entity as Allah, so I don't feel in the slightest bad about forcing Muslims to "cease and desist" all activities associated with Islam."
And we'll throw the once who refuse into the gas chambers! Heil Robert!
I may offer no hard-and-fast formulas for dealing with "the Muslim menace," and no sinister "final solution"--but that doesn't mean I think the status quo is acceptable, or that we should ignore, much less deny the problem posed by this proposition: jihadists swim in a Muslim ocean.
Break dependence on petroleum. Secure our borders. Tighten immigration. Preserve our sovereignty--which proceeds from our people--and our inalienable rights, especially those of free speech and conscience. Counter and neutralize the Ikhwan in America, its networks and fronts, and its Salafist allies. Expose and curtail the Wahabist lobby. Strengthen our military, and use carrot-and-stick diplomacy in pursuit of policies consistent with our nation's principles and long-term interests--like the integrity and survival of our institutions and values. These would be worthy objectives to measure progress and effectiveness by.
Ibrahim--perhaps you should use the "Contact Us" link of this site to communicate your misgivings directly to him. It is certainly in order for you to seek clarification from him about your unease, and what Robert Spencer's stands are on such questions--which need restatement from time-to-time.
Oops! There's the "H" word again.
For the umpteenth time, we don't hate you, Ibrahim X, we just don't want you telling us how to run or lives and we don't want to live like you. We don't want you killing our girls, or working behind the scenes to overthrow our governments or laundering money through various charity organizations in our countries or not selling bacon to people at our stores that sell bacon because you are "offended" by it. We don't want you bringing your polygamy over here or sending your daughters who've grown up here back to the old country so they can be forced into a marriage that they don't want. We think your obsession with sex is pretty gross, especially when you go around with a holier-than-thou attitude, but then look for a younger wife to add to your collection when you tire of the first one. We don't want your madrassas on our soil pumping out little jihadi wanna-be's and we don't want to see that disgusting display of blood and guts when you beat and cut yourselves during the Ashura festival, especially when you do it to your babies. We think that cutting a little girl's private parts out of her when she's five or six because you are insecure in your masculinity is barbaric and quite frankly, makes you look like a real pathetic wimp.
There's no hatred here, just good old fashioned commonsense, respect for our own values and telling it like it is. If you want to lie and call it hate, feel free. If you want us to feel guilty and not tell the truth about it, tough. Why don't you call Hillary Clinton and tell her all about it, or better yet, call Bill. I'm sure he'd love to feel your pain.
Mr 'carr' wrote -
"...in the world of Christian zealots fighting the spectre of Islamicfascism..".
For his information - though I myself am a practising Anglican Evangelical (with Irish Catholics [some VERY lapsed], Danish Lutherans, German Lutherans, and English Methodists in my family tree) - among my favourite posters on this site (after, of course, that passionate intellect Mr Hugh Fitzgerald, self-professed agnostic/ atheist) are Jews (some Israeli, some not; some strongly observant, some not), Hindus (whose postings are always interesting - specially during the threads that covered the Bombay/Mumbai train bombings a couple of years ago), and at least one Sikh, 'gorkhali'.
Oh yes, and a self-professed pagan or two, and not a few red-hot atheists. I believe we have also had at least one Thai or Chinese posting now and then, mostly in relation to the ongoing Jihad against Thai Buddhists in southern Thailand - laesuwan, are you still out there?
Now and then we also have had posters identifying themselves as apostate Muslims (one had converted to Christianity, in Britain, and was therefore in hiding from her suddenly-murderous family who were bent on carrying out the prescribed Sharia punishment for apostasy, that is, death).
'Christian zealots'...???
The Third Jihad - whose opening salvoes one may, perhaps, date all the way back to the Partition of India, at least, that is one event that Jacques Ellul thought significant - is not a ghost; not the illusory product of some neocon's fevered imagination.
It is happening. Let 'Mr Carr' go talk to the families of murdered Buddhist schoolteachers and murdered Buddhist shopkeepers and rubber tappers and icecream vendors, in southern Thailand. Let him talk to the Hindu Pandits who have been driven out of their ancestral homeland, Kashmir, by the thousands upon the thousands. Let him visit the southern Philippines and talk to the families of the Christians there; or research what has been happening to the Melanesian Christians of 'Irian Jaya', that is, West Papua and, too, what the Indonesian Muslim occupiers and invaders did to the Catholic and animist East Timorese after Indonesia 'annexed' formerly-Portuguese-ruled East Timor in the 1970s.
Let 'Jeffrey Carr' talk to Sudanese Christian and animist refugees, in Kenya, in Uganda, in Ethiopia, in Israel, in the 'the West', and hear their first hand stories of how their villages were assailed by the Janjaweed, by helicopter gunships, by mobs of armed men howling 'allahu akhbar!' and carrying out pillage, mass murder, mass rape and mass abductions into slavery (and, by the way, the great Arab/ised Muslim genocidal assault on the southern Sudanese started happening at least forty years ago, before the term 'neocon' was even invented). Let our 'Mr Carr' talk to Malaysian Chinese Christians and Buddhists, and Malaysian Indian Christians and Hindus, and find out what has been happening to them as, steadily, Malaysia becomes more heavily islamised.
Let him google the archives here for 'Kafiristan' and 'Nuristan' and find out when, how and why a whole valley full of non-Muslims in what is now Afghanistan, were 'Islamised'.
Let him go through the archives here and find out how many Jihad plots, just in the past two or three years, have been foiled, often more by good luck than by good management, before they could come to fruition. Had all of them succeeded, there would have been multiple instances of mass murder of unarmed civilians, by Muslims, in at least a dozen non-Muslim countries.
Mr 'Carr' may choose to dismiss every single last one of these foiled plots, and the resulting criminal trials of assorted Muslims (both born muslims and converts, originating from all over) as frame-ups/ false-flag ops, as part of some huge global conspiracy...but in that case he had better go make himself a tinfoil hat and be done with it.
IbrahimX,
The quote you cite is a stand directly opposed to First Amendment rights, not to mention the universal rights of conscience and belief. The last that I heard of it, they were still firmly in place in America.
It's so curious that so many of Robert's supporters are so extreme, and it's more curious that Robert does not condemn--but actually seems to encourage--the elements of Hate that seem to permeate his comments sections.
I assure you that Robert has never encouraged nor discouraged me in the formation of my views and comments. I am absolutely, completely non-emotional on the topic of Islam and my motivations stem from pragmatism and a thorough enjoyment of all the cultures and religions of the world, with the exception of Islam, not hate. I'm a multiculturalists whose brain hasn't ceased functioning.
Now, to answer your feeble-minded post directly:
And we'll throw the once who refuse into the gas chambers! Heil Robert!
When criticizing someone, it is helpful to actually criticize what they say, not some fanciful interpretation of what they say. For those who refuse, put them under 24-hour surveillance. When they fall afoul of the strictures on Islam, and they will, drawn to jihad like a moth to a flame, deport them.
If Muslims really love America and the West, they'd voluntarily give up Islam, given, as I said and continue to say, that there is no such entity as Allah and Mohammed was not a prophet.
One thing to consider if you wish to respond is that you should really react to my exact words and you should realize that I have not one sympathetic bone in my body for Islam, nor do I feel any guilt for the conclusions I have reached regarding Islam. For a non-Muslim who doesn't believe in Allah and who is interested in the least in becoming a Muslim, Islam offers nothing but suffering and humiliation and I am not nearly masochistic enough to give Islam any of my precious sympathy.
If this were my own blog and I had complete license, I'd add some choice words to let you know what I thought about the audacity you display in insinuating that I would erect some sort of death camp system to deal with those who would try to put themselves outside of the laws I'd like to see, but I know that the Jihad Watch staff likes to keep it clean.
Oh, and by the way, if you really want to take the moral high ground, you might consider that my recommendations are only in reaction to what I perceive as a threat. Muslims do those same things to non-Muslims as a matter of course. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
One small rewording: where I wrote 'as part of some huge global conspiracy' I should have written 'as part of some huge global conspiracy by Infidels to slander the poor innocent peaceful Muslims'...
Ibrahim,
I do not presume to know how you think, feel, or live; know, though, that I want the same things for you, and for your own sake, as I do for me and for my sake.
I don't think any sane person would dispute such inalienable rights as freedom and conscience, but here on Robert's blog, there are many who argue that Muslim Americans should be stripped of THEIR inalienable rights, for no other reason than being Muslim. It seems that Robert-Hugh is more interested in demagoguery than actual analysis, and with every posting of the latest terrorist incident, one can't help but note a suggestion (easily picked up by hordes who comment here) that all Muslims are complicit in such an atrocity. This is more a Hate site--akin to American Renaissance--than one of reason. The message seems to be: Muslims are bad and evil. The audience? Christian glad to demean a popular religion and bigots eager to be politically incorrect by condemning peoples/cultures in fashions that are deemed impolite by modern society. I am a Somali immigrant and I believe in and admire the West, but the message of this website is inhuman. Every time Robert asks "why don't Muslims condemn such and such" I wonder why he himself doesn't condemn the Hate and Intolerance in his comments section.
IbrahimX,
The quote you cite is a stand directly opposed to First Amendment rights, not to mention the universal rights of conscience and belief. The last that I heard of it, they were still firmly in place in America.
No hate and intolerance, sweetheart. Who said anything about stripping you of your freedoms? It's YOU stripping me of mine that I'm interested in preventing. If you keep it up and your found guilty of treason then, reasonably, you would be stripped of yours.
Ibrahim,
I do not presume to know how you think, feel, or live; know, though, that I want the same things for you, and for your own sake, as I do for me and for my sake.
quote: "Oh, and by the way, if you really want to take the moral high ground, you might consider that my recommendations are only in reaction to what I perceive as a threat. Muslims do those same things to non-Muslims as a matter of course. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it."
Of course. It's perfectly natural to commit evil action against god knows how many innocents just because you are afraid. If Muslim regimes do it, it must be tit for tat!
quote: "No hate and intolerance, sweetheart. Who said anything about stripping you of your freedoms? It's YOU stripping me of mine that I'm interested in preventing. If you keep it up and your found guilty of treason then, reasonably, you would be stripped of yours."
The problem is that it often seems Robert's fans want to consider practicing Islam to be an example of treason. Anyway, I'm an agnostic merely horrified
by the crowd that Robert draws out.
I don't think any sane person would dispute such inalienable rights as freedom and conscience, but here on Robert's blog, there are many who argue that Muslim Americans should be stripped of THEIR inalienable rights, for no other reason than being Muslim.
Sorry, but rights are alienable when the individual in question professes an ideology diametrically opposed to the document which enshrines those rights. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" and all that. Nothing I'm suggesting goes beyond what are reasonable implications of that fact, although they could be debated and people less committed to rationally thinking through to the endgame of Muslim immigration can disagree. Having studied history, I can see very clearly where all this is going.
You really haven't thought these things through, have you?
I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam. I could care less about Muslims as individuals. If you can't understand that elementary distinction, I can't help you and you can walk away from this exchange thinking that I'm a horrible bigot. I don't really care. You've done nothing to convince me that my position is intellectually incorrect.
Jeffrey Carr writes: 'venividivici - what do you propose that the U.S. government do about your and Hugh's perception of the "Muslim Menace"? What's your ultimate solution?'
vvv has replied.
My solution? A hard hitting report for UK based Policy Exchange written by Munira Mirza 'Living Apart Together' recommended engaging with Muslims as citizens. An end to multiculturalism. No giving Muslims special status. No giving into demands for sharia.
We have to confront Muslims when Islamic beliefs are incompatible with the tenets of respect for others and for social cohesion.
This requires tact - I think that is your point? But it also requires firmness and moral clarity. It is uncomfortable to say this, but some of their beliefs are simply wrong. Such as their totalitarian xenophobia. Muslims must agree to accept other cultures as equals and the pluralist secular model of the privitisation of religion.
Of course. It's perfectly natural to commit evil action against god knows how many innocents just because you are afraid. If Muslim regimes do it, it must be tit for tat!
Actually, tit for tat is the most successful game theory strategy, so, yeah, I'm fine with tit for tat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
Again, if Muslims just renounce Islam, I'll have no beef with them. I think that should be the tradeoff for letting them partake of the fruits of Western civilization. The hard-won, potentially easily-lost fruits, almost certain to be lost if we let Muslims, with their theological mumbo-jumbo about Islamic supremacism, continue to wage jihad against us.
quote: "I could care less about Muslims as individuals."
Does that mean that you do in fact care about them some now?
quote: "Sorry, but rights are alienable when the individual in question professes an ideology diametrically opposed to the document which enshrines those rights."
A faith that preaches against elements of the Constitution is one thing--action that does is another. Why are you so eager to confuse the latter for the former?
quote: "Actually, tit for tat is the most successful game theory strategy, so, yeah, I'm fine with tit for tat."
The problem is that you want to strike back at innocents who have not done anything.
quote: "Again, if Muslims just renounce Islam."
Isn't intolerant of you to demand that they renounce their belief system?
Carr wrote: "I support the recommendations of the 2006 NIE. 3 RAND Corporation reports"
venividivici wrote:
"Those recommendations are insufficient to the task at hand"
I read that Rand report, and in two lengthy posts on Jeffrey Carr's site a couple of weeks ago, I presented an argument against it, to which Carr never presented a counter-argument (he might have deleted my posts by now, as I have not returned to his site since then).
In a nutshell, I found the Rand report to be mostly an inflated puff piece with little concrete substance that was pertinent to the main problem it was supposed to be addressing and most importantly, failed on the key points of the litmus test of adequately defining the "moderate Muslim" which was the whole point of the report. The authors of that report either don't know elementary things about Islam (stuff which even I know for God's sake), or they do know, and are constructing an elaborately deceptive sugar pill for policymakers to swallow.
The Rand report defined Fethullah Gulen as a "moderate Sufi" for crying out loud!!!
quote: "I could care less about Muslims as individuals."
Does that mean that you do in fact care about them some now?
Right, that should read "I couldn't care less..." No, I do not care about them one iota, although I do know that their lives would be immeasurably improved if they gave up Islam and embraced some other philosophy. Any other philosophy would be a step up, even that New Age crap.
A faith that preaches against elements of the Constitution is one thing--action that does is another. Why are you so eager to confuse the latter for the former?
Four words: Weapons of Mass Destruction.
ibrahimx,
We are in tough times. I'm sorry if some of our tough talk offends you. I assure you it is not Muslims I oppose, but versions of Islam which, as far as we have been able to establish here, are not 'aberrations' but in fact have their roots in scripture. It is the chimera of 'moderate Islam' which is the aberration.
For my part all I want is for Muslims to agree that all faiths (and none) have validity and a person's faith position is entirely between himself/herself and God.
It is of no concern to another faith group. The truth of Islam (supposing it is a truth) is not threatened by others' not believing in it.
You are free to worship and be as you please. Kindly allow other people on this planet to do the same, whether they live in a Muslim-minority or a Muslim-majority country.
and it's more curious that Robert does not condemn--but actually seems to encourage--the elements of Hate that seem to permeate his comments sections.
Posted by ibrahimx
Since "hate" doesn't exist here, Mr. Spencer could hardly "encourage" it. The word "hate" is not a proper noun, so you don't need to capitalize it.
While we're on the subject of "hate" and since you are probably a muslim, explain the profound hate that almost entirely defines the muslim ethos. Why is is acceptable for muslims to hate non-muslims but it is unacceptable for non-muslims to defend themselves against the mandates set forth in the qur'an which muslims are obligated to obey? The qur'an very clearly mandates the subjugation or murder of non-muslims.
It may be perfectly reasonable in the addled minds of muslims to conquer the world and subjugate infidels (or kill them) but from the infidels' perspective, this is not an acceptable or rational scheme. We don't consider self-defense an act of aggression against islam but the doctrine of islam defines it as such.
Discussions about islam, muslims, and the threat they pose to Western people and civilization are not expressions of hate. Islam is incompatible with Western values and secular governments. Therefore, the people who practice islam, muslims, are incompatible with Western culture and Western people. This is blatantly obvious everywhere muslims have settled in large numbers in the West. We now live with the constant threat of being blown to bits under the auspices of islam, by muslims who chose to leave their miserable islamic hellholes for a better life but remain loyal to islam and hate everything else, including their new country and its people.
What the hell would you do if your country was invaded by alien subversives who formed a fifth column for the purpose of eventually wiping out your culture, religion, history, and freedom? Muslims hate freedom (they might have to think for themselves) but would you renounce your beloved religion and relinquish your culture? I doubt it.
Don't come here and whine about "hate" on this forum. Islam exemplifies hate and muslims are the very embodiment of it.
Ibrahim,
I'm an American whose grandparents were immigrants, and I feel your alienation from strains of American thought that are nativist. Even so, in the wake of 9/11, I slowly discovered disquieting aspects of Islam itself, which are the focus of discussion here.
You may admit, though perhaps not, that not a few Muslims hold views that are inimical to some deeply cherished values that are the common possessions of We The People, that there are those among Muslims in America who wish to supplant those values with "Islamic" supremacist dictates as Holy Writ. You might aknowledge that others, seemingly peaceable and assimilated, nevertheless sympathize with cultural jihad and Islamization, and also facilitate and enable it.
Therefore, unease and injury begets suspicion and hostility. Tell us, then, what Islam means to you and what you wish us to see; show us other expressions of Islam, an Islam NOT always, everywhere engaged in echatological warfare.
quote: "Right, that should read "I couldn't care less..." No, I do not care about them one iota, although I do know that their lives would be immeasurably improved if they gave up Islam and embraced some other philosophy. Any other philosophy would be a step up, even that New Age crap."
This is what I mean when I say that the message of this website is "inhumane." I agree that, potentially, certain aspects of the livelihood of Muslims would be improved if they ditched Islam--but only at the cost of some other, perhaps just as important elements. If Muslim derive meaning, purpose, and a guide to life through Islam, who are you to expect them to easily ditch it? It's an impossible demand and not a humane one.
quote: "Four words: Weapons of Mass Destruction."
But do you really think that threat would end once you've kicked all the Muslims out? No, they're would still be Muslims out there, potentially able to create biological weapons or (gasp!) acquire a nuclear warhead and somehow manage to get in the US! Why, the only rational response is to wipe out all Muslims! That's the only way you can truly be safe. It would, after all, be in rational self-interest!
quote: "Actually, tit for tat is the most successful game theory strategy, so, yeah, I'm fine with tit for tat."
The problem is that you want to strike back at innocents who have not done anything.
Actually, by remaining Muslims, they are just a guilty by association as people who remain committed Communists despite the historical record of Communist governments killing their own people. If you lay down with dogs, you're gonna get fleas.
quote: "Again, if Muslims just renounce Islam."
Isn't intolerant of you to demand that they renounce their belief system?
Well, since I don't see "intolerance" as the end-all be-all of sins, yes, I suppose you could say that. But, when a belief system combines falseness and a murderous rage toward my very existence as a non-believer, I think it's about time to get a little intolerant, wouldn't you say?
quote: "Right, that should read "I couldn't care less..." No, I do not care about them one iota, although I do know that their lives would be immeasurably improved if they gave up Islam and embraced some other philosophy. Any other philosophy would be a step up, even that New Age crap."
This is what I mean when I say that the message of this website is "inhumane." I agree that, potentially, certain aspects of the livelihood of Muslims would be improved if they ditched Islam--but only at the cost of some other, perhaps just as important elements. If Muslim derive meaning, purpose, and a guide to life through Islam, who are you to expect them to easily ditch it? It's an impossible demand and not a humane one.
quote: "Four words: Weapons of Mass Destruction."
But do you really think that threat would end once you've kicked all the Muslims out? No, they're would still be Muslims out there, potentially able to create biological weapons or (gasp!) acquire a nuclear warhead and somehow manage to get in the US! Why, the only rational response is to wipe out all Muslims! That's the only way you can truly be safe. It would, after all, be in rational self-interest!
A simple question for IbrahimX would reveal (if he answered honestly that is) how inimical he is to the rights we in the West hold dear:
What should a society do when some members of that society choose to mock Mohammed on television, in movies, in art galleries, in books, in magazines, in newspapers, on the radio, on the Internet, in plays in the theater, in local debate clubs, local book clubs, standing on the street corner, talking to people at the bus stop, etc.?
Somehow, I doubt that IbrahimX would say, as any normal civilized Western person would say if their own revered religious figure (if they even happen to be religious anyway) were mocked in such a manner: "Well, I wouldn't like it, and I might write a letter to the editor complaining about it, but I value the freedom of those people to mock religious Prophets so much, I would never think of punishing those mockers, and in fact, I support laws that would punish anybody who would try to harm those mockers."
I would bet my entire bank account that IbrahimX would not say this, and would not even understand the values it enshrines, because he believes in a "superior" way to organize society, better than our "corrupt" and "filthy" ways.
And that's why I, and others here, don't want IbrahimX in my country, because he belongs to a vast worldwide ideology that believes in foisting their ways by hook or by crook over ours.
Ibrahim,
I don't think that the reflexive response for self-preservation is lightly discounted as if it's unneeded in these circumstances.
I do not believe that this site advocates stripping citizens of their rights without due process of law, or mass internments, or blanket deportations, or making the practice of Islam illegal.
Vini - Based on your answer to me, you are willing to suspend the Constitution for American citizens who are Muslim, is that right?
For John C., SusanP, and the rest of the responders who lump all Muslims together to fit the Fundamentalist viewpoint, there are 6 different categories of Muslims who practice Islam: Radical Fundamentalists, Scriptural Fundamentalists, Traditionalists, Modernists, Liberal Secularists, and Authoritarian Secularists. The two Fundamentalist orientations are literalists, but each of the others make modifications in how they interpret the Koran. Do any of you who claim expertise in Islam know the distinctions between these different groups or will you simply summarily dismiss them; boot them out of the country; hate them out of your own ignorance, laziness, or deliberate stupidity?
Cantor, you've outlined what my potential response would most likely be to that scenario and, somehow possessing the ability to read minds over the internet, added that I wouldn't champion that position.
Impartial readers out there, observe Robert's fans in action!
cantor,
There is no reason to believe that Ibrahim X is other than he says he is, an agnostic Somali immigrant who admires the West and its values; and even if he weren't, it does not seem to matter as to the validity of the arguments.
This is what I mean when I say that the message of this website is "inhumane." I agree that, potentially, certain aspects of the livelihood of Muslims would be improved if they ditched Islam--but only at the cost of some other, perhaps just as important elements. If Muslim derive meaning, purpose, and a guide to life through Islam, who are you to expect them to easily ditch it? It's an impossible demand and not a humane one.
First of all, I don't speak for Jihad Watch, only for myself, so if you think I'm "inhumane", don't project that on to anyone else.
Again, as I said in my exchange with Carr, you're relying on vague generalities to defend Islam. "Certain aspects" and "other, perhaps just as important elements" need to be made concrete or else you're either trying to blow smoke up my you know what or you can't find any "aspects" or "elements" of Islam that aren't, in the final analysis, valuable to Muslims but not valuable to non-Muslims like myself. If they care that much about their religion, let them stay in their homelands.
But do you really think that threat would end once you've kicked all the Muslims out?
No, but in the real world, where things that you don't seem to understand, like weapons delivery methods and bases of operations, matter, keeping Muslims out of Western territory would raise the bar on the level of difficulty of actually executing on that threat. If Mohammed Atta wasn't in America, it would have been pretty difficult for him to board that flight now, wouldn't it? He could have verbally threatened me all he wanted from Hamburg and I probably wouldn't have been watching video of it 24/7 for the week of 9/11 through 9/18.
No, they're would still be Muslims out there, potentially able to create biological weapons or (gasp!) acquire a nuclear warhead and somehow manage to get in the US!
Did you seriously just put an "ironic" 'gasp' in a statement about the potential use of a nuclear device in an attack on the US? I need to go take a shower.
Mr. Carr,
You are a SLOPPY reasoner, for you should know, based on my postings as a whole, both here and at your site, you would KNOW, in fairness, that I DON'T "lump Muslims together to fit the Fundamentalist viewpoint." Besides, WHY ARE YOU so dogmatically certain that there are BUT SIX readily indentifiable categories of Muslim, as such is but an artificial construct, however useful it might be--doesn't seem immutably set in stone; following your own logic, after all.
Mr. Carr,
You are a SLOPPY reasoner, for you should know, based on my postings as a whole, both here and at your site, you would KNOW, in fairness, that I DON'T "lump Muslims together to fit the Fundamentalist viewpoint."
Besides, WHY ARE YOU so dogmatically certain that there are BUT SIX readily indentifiable categories of Muslim, as such is but an artificial construct, however useful it might be--doesn't seem immutably set in stone; following your own logic, after all.
No, IbrahimX, deportation is adequate. Trust me - once Muslims are back where they belong and there is no trade or commerce between bilad ul Kafir & dar ul Islam, the Islamic threat would be vastly reduced, with some exceptions, such as Muslims on Israel, India, Thailand, Serbia, Russia et al. Now, that threat could be handled militarily, but even there, just wiping out the military of countries like Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia, et al would be adequate: even there, no need to resort to genocide. Oh, and getting rid of Pakistan's nukes, and deporting all of India's Muslims to Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Also, given the natural tendency of Muslims to kill each other on their own - be it Shia vs Sunni, Shia vs Bahai, Sunni vs Ahmadiya, Arab vs Kurd, Farsi vs Azeri, Panjabi vs Sindi, Pashtoon vs Tajik (you get the picture), we Infidels don't have to do a thing. We all know that you people will very obligingly do it for us.
All we need is the popcorn.
Vini - Based on your answer to me, you are willing to suspend the Constitution for American citizens who are Muslim, is that right?
I believe that eventually there will be a Constitutional amendment doing just that, unless Muslims get their act together. I will support it. Even before that happens, there are precedents for the suspension of rights of certain groups and, quite frankly, that sort of thing doesn't really bother me when done for an appropriate reason, e.g. I don't see the locking up of Japanese during WWII as some sort of collective insanity and moral stain. It was a practical response to an extreme situation. All of the empirical evidence of history and the present day tell me that Islam itself is incompatible with the Constitution and I choose the Constitution over the ramblings of a desert bandit any day.
Again, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
Mr. Carr,
You, yourself, are guilty of the same broad generalizing that you accuse me of, and I'm rightly offended. Physician, heal yourself.
Mr. Carr,
You, yourself, are guilty of the same broad generalizing that you accuse me of, and I'm rightly offended. Physician, heal yourself.
One more thing, the final two categories of "Muslims" you list are held to be "hypocrites" and "apostates" in pious, believing Muslim eyes.
Do any of you who claim expertise in Islam know the distinctions between these different groups or will you simply summarily dismiss them; boot them out of the country; hate them out of your own ignorance, laziness, or deliberate stupidity?
Oh, for Christ's sake, stop your whining. Please explain to me why in the world I should take the time out of my life to do what you're asking?
Honestly, the continued existence of even one type of Islam is of no goddamn concern to me. Islam had its run, but it could very well be that it's time for it to enter the dustbin of history. Either they collectively come to the West, hat in hand, and say they renounce all claims that Islam is the "true religion" and that they will pay reparations to all the victims of terrorism, I'm bloody well completely uninterested in figuring out what I need to do to make them happy. Life is taxing enough without Islam in the picture. If you're going to suggest things that make my life more difficult, there bloody well better be a pot of gold at the end of that rainbow. The opportunity to draw distinctions between Muslim groups is in no way a sufficient reward for the effort you're suggesting I make.
Islam, as an ideology, is an anti-Constitutional movement to establish a theocratic tyranny.
Why would anyone in the "infidel" world pretend that such an imperialistic effort for world domination should be tolerable to them?
Information about the core tenets of this dogmatic, intolerant and misogynistic cult, honestly disseminated, will undo all the current illusions about Islam's pretenses of "peace" or "compassion".
It is only the simpletons and the self-loathing and the un-historical and the sappily suicidal, in the West, who are NOT opposing Islam's self-declared aim: to conquer and subjugate humanity to its brutally-retrograde (and shamelessly-plagiarized) doctrines.
If Atilla the Hun had created a "religion", it would be Islam.
Mohammad was just a sand-chafed Atilla.
Slaveholder, pedophile, warlord, assassin, thief, liar and crank.
If you build a "faith" on such a corrupt founder, you cannot advance toward anything but greater and greater follies and horrors.
Which the world around us demonstrates daily, as Islam's most devoted point-men, in Pakistan and Algeria, Bali and Madrid, Thailand and London, the Phillipines and Beirut, Gaza and Sudan, savage their neighbors and repel the civilized world with their gloating monstrosities.
Muslims are the first and worst victims of Islam.
May they one day be free of its existential intimidation, and breathe as free men, and women, and not as submissive slaves shackled by a mindchain sunk in the murk and brutality of the 7th century.
The truth about Islam will undo Islam ...as more and more people learn it.
Their own dogmas will indict them.
So spread the very bad news.
The dys-pel of Mohammad.
Free speech, the antidote.
Which the Koran forbids.
In its very first line.
*spit*
Vini, I don't expect you to change. I'm just here to rub your bigoted nose in your own offal. You're so full of yourself that you don't see that you are no different from the people you hate.
JohnC - Yes, Muslim sects disagree amongst themselves, just like Southern Baptists and Presbyterians. What a surprise, eh?
Infidel Pride - you're proposing to boot out American citizens who are Muslim too? What a loon. I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode.
These are your classifications, not one that exists in the Ummah. There, the types of Muslims are Shia and Sunni, and there are some sub classes among them, such as Sufi, Ismailiya, Ibadi, Yazidi, Druze, Ahmadiyya, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata and Ha-Mim. These are the types of Islam that are out there, but the ones that matter - Sunni, which is 85% of world Islam, and Shia, which is just 15%, but which is the brand owned by Iran, Iraq, Hizbullah, is just as lethal as Sunni.
The other groups listed above are too small to matter, although those who hold up the Sufi schools as being tolerant ignore the fact that the practitioners of the Chechen and Kashmiri Jihad movements are Sufis.
As John C pointed out, members of the last 2 groups you listed above are either taquiyya practitioners - being deceptive trojan horses in order to lull Infidels into a false sense of security, or, in cases they are genuine, are considered apostates and hypocrites by more devout Muslims. Also, nowhere in your list above do you indicate what % is each of your sub-categories.
quote: "Actually, by remaining Muslims, they are just a guilty by association as people who remain committed Communists despite the historical record of Communist governments killing their own people. If you lay down with dogs, you're gonna get fleas."
Thankfully, assigning guilt by association is irrational and a logical fallacy.
quote: "Well, since I don't see "intolerance" as the end-all be-all of sins, yes, I suppose you could say that. But, when a belief system combines falseness and a murderous rage toward my very existence as a non-believer, I think it's about time to get a little intolerant, wouldn't you say?"
First, note that when you say keep harping on Islam being "false" you sound like a Christian zealot. In what way can a religion be true? Whether or not it's "false" is not the issue but rather the worldly consequences of that belief system. Second--you've yet to demonstrate that Muslims in America have any sort of murderous rage towards you, or that Muslims in large have any sort of murderous rage towards you. Perhaps, then, your hate--or intolerance--is unnecessary.
quote: "Again, as I said in my exchange with Carr, you're relying on vague generalities to defend Islam. "Certain aspects" and "other, perhaps just as important elements" need to be made concrete or else you're either trying to blow smoke up my you know what or you can't find any "aspects" or "elements" of Islam that aren't, in the final analysis, valuable to Muslims but not valuable to non-Muslims like myself. If they care that much about their religion, let them stay in their homelands."
What was exactly was vague about "meaning, purpose, and a guide to life"? But the thing here is that I am not trying to "defend" Islam. I'm trying to defend Muslims from your bitter, irrational hatred, as if every Muslim is plotting how to get at poor veni.
quote: "No, but in the real world, where things that you don't seem to understand, like weapons delivery methods and bases of operations, matter, keeping Muslims out of Western territory would raise the bar on the level of difficulty of actually executing on that threat."
Right. Because all Muslims will side against veni and his ilk and form bases of operations in Minnesota.
quote: "If Mohammed Atta wasn't in America, it would have been pretty difficult for him to board that flight now, wouldn't it? He could have verbally threatened me all he wanted from Hamburg and I probably wouldn't have been watching video of it 24/7 for the week of 9/11 through 9/18."
It's true that Atta and other terrorists on that day took advantage of American freedoms to attack the US, but banning all Muslims from the US--some 1.2 billion people of the world population--is not a really a rational response, because it says that every one of those individuals is as potentially murderous as Atta. That's kind of insane, by the way.
quote: "Did you seriously just put an "ironic" 'gasp' in a statement about the potential use of a nuclear device in an attack on the US? I need to go take a shower."
Yes. Because it's irrational to assume that, collectively, Muslims would be pretty chill with the possibility. I
Btw, thanks for the compliment.
Vini, I don't expect you to change. I'm just here to rub your bigoted nose in your own offal. You're so full of yourself that you don't see that you are no different from the people you hate.
Considering that the worst of my "offal" still smells better than the best of Islam and whatever it is you're peddling, you're doing me a favor.
I'll take your calling me a "bigot" for what it is: an admission of your intellectual inadequacy. If you want to try again, feel free. See, I'm not one of those people who shut down merely because someone with half their intellect calls them a bigot.
You should be thanking me for showing you the light. The fact that you're so wrong and yet you don't just admit it shows that you are the one who's full of himself. I'm confident because I'm right.
Jeffrey,
You have a knack for stating the obvious and self-evident as if it were newly revealed fact.
veni, not caring for the potential harm your proposals would cause to untold number of innocents is not a sign of intellectual courage. Hitler could have argued the same way.
Jeffery Carr and ibrahimX are prime examples of our schools indoctrination program.
mrockroll 1969, in what way? Just because I don't approve of the (arguably) evil proposals by veni I am the product of indoctrination?
Thankfully, assigning guilt by association is irrational and a logical fallacy.
Oh God, you are out of your depth here. Islam (as are all worldviews) is itself associational! That's where the whole idea of an "ummah" comes from.
See definition 2: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/associational
Certain instances of guilt by association can be irrational and logically fallacious, but not all. Guilt by association is especially appropriate when, as with Islam, the basis of the association encompasses all of life. If one person at the local knitting club starts spouting some odd ideas, I won't automatically assume the rest of the knitting club concurs, because it's just knitting. But, when a member of a religion that claims to offer guidance for every detail of life starts spouting certain ideas, it's completely fair to assume a certain level of agreement among his co-religionists. It's no different from when people assume that someone who self-identifies as a "conservative" in the US opposes abortion. Calling my perspective "guilt by association" is illegitimate in this context.
Do you have a job as a cliche-spouter or something? Have you ever thought through the implications of words or phrases? If you seriously don't start getting just basic analytical processes right, I'm going to have to just consider you retarded.
Right. Because all Muslims will side against veni and his ilk and form bases of operations in Minnesota.
Google "virginia muslim terrorists" or "upstate new york muslim terrorists". Does your internet browser have difficulty accessing websites that carry news?
It's true that Atta and other terrorists on that day took advantage of American freedoms to attack the US, but banning all Muslims from the US--some 1.2 billion people of the world population--is not a really a rational response, because it says that every one of those individuals is as potentially murderous as Atta. That's kind of insane, by the way.
You know what, as an American-born citizen, I get to help decide what is and isn't the policy of the United States government. Muslims cause enough trouble around the world that I have come to the conclusion that if they want to live here, they should have to renounce Islam. It's not so much that they are all potentially as murderous as Atta as that there is no reliable test of that potential murderousness, hence no way to tell the potentially murderous from the ones merely seeking a better life for themselves. My "renunciation of Islam" test at least starts to enable us to identify those who understand how diametrically opposed to Western values Islam is and forces them to make a choice between Islam and the West. That is eminently reasonable, despite your hissy fit protestations.
Nothing veni said was evil. Until I hear someone come up with a better solution, I think veni is right on target - unless you have a better idea? Look, there's at the very leat, 3 things you should study before coming on this site and calling us all bigots. These are jihad, sharia, and dhimmi.
You seem to think that "not every muslim in America would condone jihad or sharia", but the muslims only make up 1% - what do you thinks going to happen when the to 10%? I'll give you a hint, look at Thialand or India.
I for one am sick and tired of whining Muslims and bleeding heart apologists using the "hate" label because we want to defend ourselves. In future, screw being on the defensive and let's do a full out offensive attack. Thanks IbrahimX! I never thought about kicking your people out of my country but now that you've made me see it's a good idea, I'm all for it.
BTW, does anyone really believe that IbrahimX is a simple Somalian agnostic and has spent his entire Saturday night defending Muslims and Islam when he isn't one, from the big bad westerners who, he thinks, want to annihilate him? Oh, it's getting so very old.
veni, not caring for the potential harm your proposals would cause to untold number of innocents is not a sign of intellectual courage. Hitler could have argued the same way.
Again, they aren't innocent if they, with all of the information about Islam at our disposal today, continue to profess it. All of the positive aspects of Islam (and there are positives, if you're a Muslim male) can be found elsewhere and in other philosophies. There is no real suffering in giving up Islam because none of its claims are valid.
First, note that when you say keep harping on Islam being "false" you sound like a Christian zealot. In what way can a religion be true?
In no way. The topic of this website is Islam. If you want to have a discussion on the falsity of all other religions, feel free, as you will get no argument from me. I was raised Catholic, love Greco-Roman paganism, learned Ancient Greek so I could read Plato, date a Jew and have had great working relationships with many Hindus. It's just Muslims that cause problems. Something about that whole "Islam is the greatest thing since sliced bread" thing that turns me off.
You say Hitler could have argued the same way and while that's true, except that the Jews didn't knock down the two tallest buildings in Berlin and weren't constantly proclaiming that they wanted to destroy German, so I'm not really sure I see any substantive point being made by your statement. There's a flip side to that, too, which is that individuals in pre-Muslim conquest Spain could have argued your way, that Muslims weren't that bad and couldn't we all just get along. 700 years later, the Spaniards finally recovered their homeland. Again, who has history on his side and who is just spouting cliches?
mrockroll1969,
Cut Ibrahim some slack. I know he came to this site willing to listen. Unlike Jeffrey Carr, though I concede that Jeffrey can be charming and civil if wishes to.
My views on these points I managed to summarize above, and I think those things I mention are reasonable, beneficial, and possible--necessary, in fact.
Break our dependence on petroleum. Secure our borders. Tighten immigration. Preserve our sovereignty--which proceeds from our people--and our unalienable rights, especially those of free speech and of conscience. Counter and neutralize the Ikhwan in America, its networks and fronts, and its salafist allies. Expose and curtail the Saudi/Wahabist lobby (and cash pipeline). Strengthen our military, and use carrot-and-stick diplomacy in pursuit of policies consistent with our nation's principles and long-term interests--like the integrity and survival of our institutions and values. These would be worthy objectives to measure progress and effectiveness by.
It's o.k. We all grew up being indoctrinated in school - thinking that everybody is the same, everybody has the same values and wants the same things. We all grew up believing that maybe hitler wasn't really that bad of a person, maybe he was just "misunderstood". lol And we all grew up believing that America is a big, fascist, bully who liked conquering little countries so we could steal their resources. And lets not forget about how terrible we treated those indians and blacks - they never let you forget about that now, do they? They instill in your brain that everything has to be equal. They had me believing that those hippies were right, that we should have gotten out of vietnam (neglecting, of coarse, to tell me anything about communism).
Well apparently some of us grew out of that indoctrination crap (thank god), and some of us didn't. The posters on this site (most of them) have grown out of the indoctrination crap. We know that sometimes things are just plain bad and some other things are just plain good - some things are not equal.
Jeffery Carr and ibrahimX, please study islam. Study islam like your life depends on it - because it does. You don't really want to see your grandchildren living in dhimmitude or a burqa do you? I know I don't.
IbrahimX responded to my post by writing:
"Cantor, you've outlined what my potential response would most likely be to that scenario and, somehow possessing the ability to read minds over the internet, added that I wouldn't champion that position."
IbrahimX did not answer my question. He had the opportunity. Why didn't he?
And he wonders why we are so suspicious?
John C:
I would think that your objectives are largely in line with orthodox American conservatism. The venom doesn't really come out until posters start talking about shelving the Free Exercise clause.
The venom doesn't really come out until posters start talking about shelving the Free Exercise clause.
That clause applies to religions. Islam is a political ideology with a smattering of plagiarized Judaism and Christianity added. Calling it a religion is an abuse of the term. If the mafia started calling their group "religione nostra", it wouldn't give them First Amendment rights.
You accuse me (I assume you're talking at least partially about me) of "venom". OK, my smear word for you is "naivete", as in "The naivete really comes out when people buy into Islam's claim to be a religion". I don't apologize for wanting to restrict one aspect of one amendment (which, I contend, is of dubious application in the case of Islam to begin with) against one group in order to save the rest of the Constitution. Ooh, that's so radical. People need to grow up. Perhaps a visit to www.thereligionofpeace.com is in order? Do you think those girls in Texas who were murdered by their father wish he'd been deported and they, who seem to have taken a shine to an American-style life of possibilities for women, had been able to stay?
Not Telling,
You think Jefferson was ignorant of the principles which established the Constitution?
Quote:
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548
"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547
Oh, I missed this nugget of wisdom from ibraham:
What was exactly was vague about "meaning, purpose, and a guide to life"? But the thing here is that I am not trying to "defend" Islam. I'm trying to defend Muslims from your bitter, irrational hatred, as if every Muslim is plotting how to get at poor veni.
What is vague about it is that it doesn't reflect an understanding of exactly how Muslims get "meaning, purpose and a guide to life" from Islam and what Islam posits as the "highest values". Islamic doctrine prescribes "submission" to Allah and "dominating, not being dominated" in this world. Now, if Muslims want to believe that God wants them to "submit", that's their prerogative, but when they start talking about "dominating" infidels as a religious prescription, from which they derive "meaning and purpose", I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. Statistical analysis of the use of the term "jihad" in Islamic doctrine refers to war against infidels 97% of the time. Simply put, Muslims find meaning and purpose through fighting non-Muslims. Now, as a man, I can sort of see where they're coming from, since who doesn't like a good fight. But, as I've already said, I'm an infidel and will always be an infidel, so they want to get their meaning and purpose in life by fighting me. Well, while it doesn't give my life meaning and purpose to fight them back, I'll do it to protect my ability to do the things that give my life meaning and purpose.
See, when you don't take those bland uplifting statements you like to use and put them into a specifically Islamic context, of course what I say is going to sound discordant to a person's ears. When put into the right context, as opposition to Islamic supremacism and jihad against infidels, what I say is pretty much the only rational analysis of the situation. Sorry if I don't get weepy at the thought that somewhere some poor innocent (yet fully-informed of the hell on earth that his co-religionists are creating in the countries where they come to power) Muslim would suffer because I don't want him to suffer "sudden jihad syndrome" and run me down with his SUV.
Sedition is not religion--but religion is not sedition. The personal practice of Islam is not, in itself, sedition. I might think that the basis of Mormonism is humbug, but I can't force a choice of renouncing the LDS church or being disqualified for Presidential office on Mitt Romney. (Yes, I believe Islam in its essence is retrograde.)
The Free Exercise of Religion never made laws against polygamy illegal, all the same.
John C,
Sometimes a "religion" foments sedition.
Fact from American history:
"I have received by Amos Rees, Esq. and Wiley E. Williams Esq., one of my aids, information of the most appalling character, which changes the whole face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made open war upon the people of this state.
"Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operations and endeavor to reach Richmond, in Ray County, with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good. Their outrages are beyond all description.
"If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may think necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Wallock, of Marion County, to raise 500 men and march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with 500 men to proceed to the same point, for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the North."
-- Copy of a Military Order by the Governor of Missouri. HEAD QUARTERS, MILITIA, City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838.
Don't go soft on me now, John C
...Made laws against polygamy unconstitutional, I mean.
cantor,
How do you know I don't belong to some weird Mormon spinter group?
cantor,
How do you know I don't belong to some weird Mormon splinter group?
Sedition is not religion--but religion is not sedition. The personal practice of Islam is not, in itself, sedition. I might think that the basis of Mormonism is humbug, but I can't force a choice of renouncing the LDS church or being disqualified for Presidential office on Mitt Romney.
There's a difference, since Mormons compromised some aspects of their theology, e.g. polygamy, in exchange for recognition as a state. Let's say Muslims eventually became a majority in a state. Do you think that they'd renounce the tenets of Islam in exchange for recognition from the Federal government? No, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts they'd agitate to secede from the Union.
John Crankraft Piggery
Seer and Diviner
REVEALS
A Secret Hidden for Ages:
The Twelfth Imam and Successor of The Prophet
is
HUGH FITZGERALD!!
Cantor:
Good try on the Jefferson quotes. I would say that Jefferson was ignorant of the Constitution there, as he was writing about a decade before its adoption. He was also no friend to the Federalists, who did well to put Jefferson in Paris while they went to work. You might have done better to scan wikipedia for the Warren court's use of "compelling interest". With that you might be able to whittle yourself a leg to stand on.
Note that stumping for the violent overthrow of the State to establish a theocracy is hardly illegal. Bob Enyart does it all the time.
Also, I fail to see how an extermination order proves the sedition of the party to be exterminated.
Veni:
A "think of the children" argument? Are we playing Internet Bingo here? Those kids are dead and, yes, their murder was an abomination. You, however, assume far too much for your deportation idea to go very far. For example, you assume that those girls would have survived any Federal attempt to seize their violent maniac of a father.
A "think of the children" argument? Are we playing Internet Bingo here? Those kids are dead and, yes, their murder was an abomination. You, however, assume far too much for your deportation idea to go very far. For example, you assume that those girls would have survived any Federal attempt to seize their violent maniac of a father.
Obviously, I was using that particular story as a "telling anecdote", not the basis for policy. The basis for the policy I'd like to see is Islamic doctrine's incompatibility with the US Constitution and Islam's status as a political movement that will inevitably cause us more and more problems down the road. All a non-Muslim needs are two things: historical perspective and a desire to remain a non-Muslim, to see that I'm absolutely correct. If the Constitution doesn't allow what I'm proposing now, I'd like to see it amended. If we could amend it to make sure people couldn't drink a beer, we can amend it to make sure Islam doesn't eventually gain real traction as a political force in America.
And, if you'll notice, I phrased it as a potential wish on the part of the murdered girls. Typically, in wishes, things that may not occur in real life occur in the granting of the wish.
Christ, I'm feeling more and more confident of my stance, if you people are throwing up your best arguments against it. Do you guys have anyone who can actually debate on your side, because right about now would be a good time to trot them out. There's one more hour left in "The Godfather" on TV right now, so I've got a little more time to school you.
Well, I gotta hit the sack if I want to make it to church tomorrow. Thanks for the warm welcome and I hope we can all have a good time chasing each other around the prickly pear!
Say Veni - what are you doing in the real world to banish Muslims from the U.S., or is posting your views in this forum behind the protection of an assumed name the extent of your effort?
No Telling,
"stumping for the violent overthrow of the State to establish a theocracy is hardly illegal. Bob Enyart does it all the time."
I don't know what "stumping for the violent overthrow of the State" means, and so I cannot tell if it falls short of sedition, which is illegal. Jefferson in the quotes I provided was not talking about "stumping for the violent overthrow of the State" a la Bob Enyart, was he? If you think he was, demonstrate that with an argument, not a mere assertion.
"Also, I fail to see how an extermination order proves the sedition of the party to be exterminated."
What that order proves is that in the US in the 1830s a Governor was able to procure Federal troops to do everything he could to fight against a particular religious movement (Mormons) because they were deemed to be of an "appalling character" (and "[t]heir outrages are beyond all description") such that it changed "the whole face of things, and place[d] [them] in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made open war upon the people of this state... for the public good."
If you can show any Supreme Court ruling that rendered the anti-Mormon actions of the State and Federal governments of the USA -- particularly of the events I quoted -- as un-Constitutional, then you might whittle yourself a leg to stand on.
Otherwise, it is a precedent for kicking ass in self-defense when that ass is rationally deemed to merit such kicking, no matter how "religious" and "cultural" that ass may be in public sentiment.
Infidel Pride - you're proposing to boot out American citizens who are Muslim too? What a loon. I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 11:47 PM
Good Morning! I see Ibrahim the Mohammedan, complete with his "Hate" baggage, came on board. SusanP - loved how you said "hate is not a proper noun, you don't capitalize it," lol.
Wow, some great ripostes to imbecile Carr - and here he is up above referring to Infidel Pride as a "loon." So funny how Crazy Carr loves to play the "crazy card" against others! Newsflash, *you're* the loon, Crazy Carr.
I'll take your calling me a "bigot" for what it is: an admission of your intellectual inadequacy. If you want to try again, feel free. See, I'm not one of those people who shut down merely because someone with half their intellect calls them a bigot. -- to Carr from veni!
Oh, so right. Esp. after Crazy Carr said the charming "I'm going to rub your bigoted nose in your offal." Wow, isn't that kind of scatological, Carr? Figures, as you are obscene.
Also by veni:
Do you have a job as a cliche-spouter or something? Have you ever thought through the implications of words or phrases? If you seriously don't start getting just basic analytical processes right, I'm going to have to just consider you retarded.
Consider away, as Crazy Carr *is* retarded - in his "thinking." He is brainwashed.
Enjoyed reading your arguments, veni.
A dialogue between Willaim of Baskerville and Venerable Jorge in the Name of the Rose.
J. I trust my words didn't offend you Brother William, but I heard the persons laughing at laughable things. You Franciscans, however,
belong to an Order where merriment is viewed with indulgence.
W. Yes, it's true. Saint Francis was much disposed to laughter.
J. Laughter is a devilish wind which deforms the lineaments of the face and makes men look like monkeys.
W. Monkeys do not laugh. Laughter is particular to man. As is sin.
J. Christ never laughed.
W. Can we be so sure?
J. There is nothing in the Scriptures to say that He did.
W. And there's nothing there to say that He did not. Even the saints have been known to employ comedy to ridicule the enemies of the faith. For example, when the pagans plunged Saint Maurus into the boiling water, he complained that his bath was cold. The Sultan put his hand in and scalded himself.
J.A saint immersed in boiling water does not play childish tricks. He restrains his cries and suffers for the truth.
W. And yet, Aristotle devoted his second book of poetics to comedy as an instrument of truth.
J. You have read this work?
W. No, of course not. It's been lost for many centuries.
J. No, it is not! It was never written! Because Providence doesn't
want futile things glorified.
W. Oh, that I must contest...
J. Enough! This Abbey is overshadowed by grief. Yet you would intrude on our sorrow with idle banter!
W. Forgive me, Venerable Jorge. My remarks were truly out of place.
John C.
It is an honor and a privilege to trade idle banter with you I look forward to much more in the future. I am very serious when I say that there is much that I can learn from you (and not only about humor).
Mi Amigo!
In answer to Carr, Ibrahimx, and those who say Islam is incompatible with western societies:
As far as I'm aware the work of Muhammad Taha (executed for apostasy by the Sudanes authorities in 1985) offered some hopeful reconstruction of Islam in line with liberal democratic principles -and world peace.
Taha proposed to make a distinction between the Meccan and Medinan suras. He argues that the Meccan suras were not intended for all time, but only for the time the first Islamic community found itself in.
This work of revision was continued by his student, An-Na'im, who teaches at Emory. He advocates reversing the traditional method of abrogation to favour the Meccan over the Medinan suras. This is a radical move, and if adopted, could provide a way forward to harmonise Islam and the west.
Only one problem. What Muslim has ever heard of An-Na'im? Where are the takers?
Ibrahimx, I note you have still not answered the pertinent question that was put to you by Cantor, whether you would or would not support the right to criticise Islam as any other religion that is a fundament of freedom of speech in a liberal secular society. Answer: Yes or No?
John C, in your social science categorisations of Muslims (there are various typologies: in relation to Islam and the UNDHR I could for instance add particularist, assimilationist, appropriationists, liberal harmonizers, and confrontational liberals)do you know of any sizeable movement in support of An-Na'im?
Do inform us if you do.
From where I stand it is the fundamentalist Salafi strand that is gaining ground globally. Reason? Two-fold. Firstly, because this is the true content of the Qu'ran as Robert has highlighted (unless once accepts An-Na'im and Muhammad Taha's take). Secondly, because of modernisation: specifically, the processes of rationalisation and globalisation. As more of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims can read, they are discovering for themselves what the Qu'ran says.
And they're not coming to An-Na'im's conclusions.
Sorry, in correction to my last - I should of course have said that Taha thought the MEDINAN suras should not be for all time.
Apologies.
Carr,
Say Veni - what are you doing in the real world to banish Muslims from the U.S., or is posting your views in this forum behind the protection of an assumed name the extent of your effort?
Watch this space!
Since what needs to happen is a change of heart on the part of normally (and rightly so) tolerant people around the country to recognize that we need to carve out an exception to that tolerance for the case of Islam (Islam really is unique, after all!), there's really nothing I can or need to "do". Nearly all of the resources that would be necessary are in place, if you think about it, just dedicated to other tasks. There are plenty of lawyers, police officers/military and transport vehicles, that would, if diverted to this task, be sufficient. Someone once did the math and showed that it wouldn't take very long, with full planloads of 747s flying people back to whence they came, to get the job done.
When, as I believe it will, the "eureka" moment happens in enough people, I won't need to do a thing. That's how mass psychology works.
I'm sure you won't change your mind, but that's OK, there were people who opposed WWII and the Cold War, also. Someone has to be on the wrong side of history and I guess that someone is you. Someone also has to be "ahead of the curve", a la Schopenhauer's three stages of truth model, and that is me.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
The "truth" you are arguing from is in the third stage, leveraging facile assumptions about religions all being equivalent, bigotry being the worst imaginable sin, etc. This is "old" truth, based on outdated data and untenable assumptions (e.g. your assumptions about "moderate" Muslims).
"My" "new" truth, based on up-to-date information about Islam relative to all other religions, its role in history as an imperial force, its methods and goals, is in stage one or two.
devorgilla,
We need two clarifications:
First, you begin thus, In answer to Carr, Ibrahimx, and those who say Islam is incompatible with western societies ... Surely, here you must mean compatiblewith.
Second, you ask, John C, in your social science categorisations of Muslims ... Here you must mean J. Carr, since the six categories are his; and I am not, regrettably, a social scientist. Even so, though I don't know how he acquires these, I doubt the six categories have wide circulation and applicability.
With kind regards,
John C
devorgilla,
I accept your conclusions above, but do spell out the reasons Salafism is gaining ground globally, because the effect of those causative agents defies our expectations.
Jeffrey Carr should take a cue here and pick up on your observations, if only he were disposed to listen and learn.
BTW, you don't happen to have higher degrees from prestige universities,do you?
John
John C.
I reread your 7:35 post. My 6:02 was entirely tongue in check. When you are creative with the handle it is obvious it is done in a spirit or camaraderie and not rancor as others might do.
So you know, I am a very patriotic ex-pat.
If there was a misunderstanding, it was my fault. I truly do need to work on my material.
sincerely, patagonianplato
`Ola, Amigo!
I didn't know they were building large mosques in Patagonia. Blast those Oil Sheiks!!
I would hate to see large numbers of rheas converting to Islam down there. When they become radicalized, bolo-wielding rheas can be a real threat.
There are already reported incidents of attacks by emus armed with boomerangs in Australia, perhaps you heard. They were followers of a radical Muslim cleric, Imam Emu Al-Aussiya.
Cómo te vas, Chico?
You know, I walked by the Mosque again today and actually took a look at the grounds. (Before, I had always been so mesmerized by the all-imposing minaret.) They actually have a soccer field set up with nets and all (That’s football for you Brits.)
I was thinking my God; they really aren't all that different from us. We can build on that can’t we?
I’m leaving soon for three weeks of fun and scouting. Gonna build a Hostel. You will always be welcome!
What did you think of the "Name of the Rose" dialogue?
Speaking of football, Go Pats! (Please everyone, don’t bury me with expletives.)
Since you spend way to much time at Wikipedia, I’ll give you a hint. Think Mapuche, not Guaraní.
Please tell me you like yerba mate. (Mate comes from the Quechua word Mati.) Brush-up on Native American cultures.
Super Bowl! Go Pats!
Dear Friend,
Always glad to amuse you.
About myself, I am more than just miles apart from you, Pat. I'm not a man of means, education, or (other than vicarious) experience; nor well-travelled, unless Southern Ontario counts for being abroad. [Of course, I wouldn't admit that to the Jeff Carrs among us; wonder why he bothers sparring with the hoi polloi.]
But I don't consult Wiki very much; rely on the dictionary more. Besides, I've been on-line for only 18 months. Most of what I know or think I know I learned elsewhere (yeah, I had to Google Mapuche, but I wouldn't confuse Patagonia with Paraguay).
The dictionary confirms what I knew offhand, that mate is brewed from leaves of a holly, Ilex paraguariensis. Thanks for your kindness and hospitality (though we irhabi Mormon cultists don't drink that stuff--it's haram). That wasn't the kind of Yankee Patriots team I identify with either; I don't have cable or dish (or favorite sports bar) anyway.
I should rent "Name of the Rose"; I remember that it stars Sean Connery, but don't remember seeing it. Great dialog, brings to mind sourpusses like Khomeini and ... ...let's not go there.
Adios, Platito,
Juanito
Please do rent it. As an ex-devotee of the cinema, I consider it one of the few examples of a “perfect movie.” It is Jean-Jacques Annaud’s masterpiece. Of course, it is based on Eco’s masterpiece so you get the best of the best all around”
The invitation was quite serious. My wife very much enjoys your postings and she is onboard. (I’m turning her into an anti-jihadette!)
We will even get rid of all caffeinated substances for the duration.
We would love to give you an example of, “True SOUTHERN Hospitality!”
(Please excuse the all-caps.)
Mein Freund!
PS:
Don't have any scruples about what I imbibe. Everything in moderation, after all.
Buenos noches, bierfreund,
Juanito
cantor:
First, my apologies for the combative and disrespectful nature of my earlier posts. It was stupid of me.
The heart of our first disagreement is whether Islam's creed violates Federal law and is therefore not protected by the Free Exercise clause, correct?
This seems to fall under the Smith Act. According to text supposedly sourced from West's Encyclopedia of American Law (so says the legal dictionary at freedictionary.com), a crime is not committed until the advocacy of the overthrow of government begins to deal with specific actions or plans. "Burn the infidels in the flames of jihad" would be legal speech under this interpretation, while discussions on the matter of attacking X official on Y day would not.
Therefore, even if Islamic orthopraxy demands the immediate downfall of the US government by any means necessary, it wouldn't be in violation of US law. This suggests to me that it would still be within the full protection of the Free Exercise clause. Note that any groups who began dealing in specific terms towards this goal would be in violation of the law. Keep in mind this is a layman talking.
(Just FYI: Bob Enyart is a radio "personality" out of Colorado who, for a while in the early 2000s, promoted the replacement of the US government with an absolute monarchy based on his specific interpretation of Christianity. He remained safely within legal limits as he never advocated specific action against the US government.)
The Supreme Court is, so far as I have found, silent on the matter of the Mormon War of 1838 and Missouri executive order 44. Another executive order, this one in 1976, rescinded it with an apology in explicitly Constitutional terms.
I imagine anyone attempting to use the Extermination Order as legal precedent before the Supreme Court just might be interrupted by howls of laughter, but that's only speculation on my part.
Not Telling,
Great post!
There is still some inherent ambiguity, I gather, as to just what constitutes incitement to criminal acts. Proscribed by law or not, incitement is an ugly, dangerous thing.
It is really ugly and dangerous that any Muslims as Muslims should be predisposed to Islamist violence, or programmed to respond to Islamist incitement.
(BTW, this here is the kind of Yankee Patriots team I identify with.)
GO, Yanqui Pats!
* )
Star & Crescent
* )
Star & Crescent
*` )
John C writes:
'I accept your conclusions above, but do spell out the reasons Salafism is gaining ground globally, because the effect of those causative agents defies our expectations.'
Yes, that's a weird one, but I'll try to say what I've figured out.
Sociologists of religion note two global religious trends in relation to the psychological disturbances created by conditions of advanced modernity:
1. A preference for religions which require commitment and are theologically well defined.[radical Islam; various 'fundamentalist' movements] Here theology is everything, numinous experience nothing. Salafis hate Sufis!
2. A preference for religions which emphasise experience over doctrine, and which are theologically poorly defined.[New Age stuff; some Sufism; some strands of Pentecostalism; some liberal charismatic Christianity] Theology is less important than capturing a numinous experience of the divine.
Why that is, I do not know, but I think it has to do with human psychology and perhaps, education (in the liberal sense) and environment. Also the individual's life; people who are a mess seek structure; people who are well-balanced and happy are less thrown by disorder. They tolerate ambiguity better. Ambiguity is a mysterious journey.
The society the individual is a part of also figures; well-ordered societies are at home with liberalism; basket-case economies like Egypt will gravitate towards extremism.
Some people find modernity deeply troubling and will seek to impose mental order on it. Other people find modernity highly congenial.
Modernity is deeply disturbing in countries undergoing development; vast inequalities exist, and life is certainly not a meritocracy; more of a lottery.
Another disturbing side to modernisation is rationalisation. You would think this would be a good thing - not straight away.
Now this is a weird one in relation to Salafism.
For 1400 years of its existence most Muslims were illiterate. All they understood of their religion was the five pillers. Theology really didn't come into it. Now however, thanks to modernity, large numbers can read, and they try to rationalise the mad circumstances that are their lives. They turn to their religion and find what Robert and all of us here have found in Islam - a hateful programme of global domination of the dispossed over the possessed. Link that into post-colonial discourse and you see how the appeal spreads.
At some point, also due to rationalisation, Muslims are going to do what we do and start wondering if Salafism actually adds up. But since there's 1.2 billion don't hold your breath, that's not going to be anytime soon.
However, there are some going the right way. An-Na'im for instance; Ed Husain; and others. I believe that Islamism seems to have burned out in Algeria, people are doing what Ed Husain did and are turning back to mystical Sufism. That's why the remanant Islamists have been displaying a bit of tragic dramatics recently.
Thank you for correcting me, above! Yes, I was writing this at 4am, not the best time for concentration.
John C writes:
'I accept your conclusions above, but do spell out the reasons Salafism is gaining ground globally, because the effect of those causative agents defies our expectations.'
Yes, that's a weird one, but I'll try to say what I've figured out.
Sociologists of religion note two global religious trends in relation to the psychological disturbances created by conditions of advanced modernity:
1. A preference for religions which require commitment and are theologically well defined.[radical Islam; various 'fundamentalist' movements] Here theology is everything, numinous experience nothing. Salafis hate Sufis!
2. A preference for religions which emphasise experience over doctrine, and which are theologically poorly defined.[New Age stuff; some Sufism; some strands of Pentecostalism; some liberal charismatic Christianity] Theology is less important than capturing a numinous experience of the divine.
Why that is, I do not know, but I think it has to do with human psychology and perhaps, education (in the liberal sense) and environment. Also the individual's life; people who are a mess seek structure; people who are well-balanced and happy are less thrown by disorder. They tolerate ambiguity better. Ambiguity is a mysterious journey.
The society the individual is a part of also figures; well-ordered societies are at home with liberalism; basket-case economies like Egypt will gravitate towards extremism.
Some people find modernity deeply troubling and will seek to impose mental order on it. Other people find modernity highly congenial.
Modernity is deeply disturbing in countries undergoing development; vast inequalities exist, and life is certainly not a meritocracy; more of a lottery.
Another disturbing side to modernisation is rationalisation. You would think this would be a good thing - not straight away.
Now this is a weird one in relation to Salafism.
For 1400 years of its existence most Muslims were illiterate. All they understood of their religion was the five pillers. Theology really didn't come into it. Now however, thanks to modernity, large numbers can read, and they try to rationalise the mad circumstances that are their lives. They turn to their religion and find what Robert and all of us here have found in Islam - a hateful programme of global domination of the dispossed over the possessed. Link that into post-colonial discourse and you see how the appeal spreads. Feed in Saudi money to fan it along, US neo-imperialism and foreign policy; growth of global media; the sub-rational 'persuasion' of the image rather than the reasoned word; it's all a lethal cocktail.
At some point, also due to rationalisation, Muslims are going to do what we do and start wondering if Salafism actually adds up. But since there's 1.2 billion don't hold your breath, that's not going to be anytime soon. I hope the world last long enough, and God indulges his errant children long enough that we ride this out.
However, there are some going the right way. An-Na'im for instance; Ed Husain; and others. I believe that latest reports are that Salafism has burned itself out a bit in Algeria, people are doing what Ed Husain did and are turning back to mystical Sufism. That's the new trend. Turn inwards; heal the soul. God is personal. The privitisation of religion. That's why the remnant Islamists have been displaying a bit of dramatics recently.
Thank you for correcting me, above! Yes, I was writing this at 4am GMT, not the best time for concentration. Sorry also for confusing you with Mr Carr.
Not Telling,
"a crime is not committed until the advocacy of the overthrow of government begins to deal with specific actions or plans. "Burn the infidels in the flames of jihad" would be legal speech under this interpretation, while discussions on the matter of attacking X official on Y day would not.
"Therefore, even if Islamic orthopraxy demands the immediate downfall of the US government by any means necessary, it wouldn't be in violation of US law. This suggests to me that it would still be within the full protection of the Free Exercise clause. Note that any groups who began dealing in specific terms towards this goal would be in violation of the law."
Everything you say here may be accurate, but it ignores the systemic nature of the threat. You are using the framework of "crime" which is not the proper framework for the threat we face.
The proper framework is military, not criminal. Muslims are not "criminals" -- they are soldiers who belong to an Army dedicated to our overthrow. And treating them as such in anticipation of horrific attacks on us in the coming decades, is not un-Constitutional (unless you can prove otherwise).
The overarching obstacle to this are the First and Second Commandments of PC:
1) "Thou Shalt Never Criticize Islam Itself"
2) "Thou Shalt Never Criticize the Vast Majority of Muslims".
And because PC rules the day throughout the West, there are powerful inhibitions to making membership in Islam tantamount to membership in an Enemy Army (no matter how passive or apparently harmless many of its members might be).
Thus we persist in thinking in terms of the criminal framework -- even applying it to Taliban soldiers we capture!
I guess we'll just have to wait until one or more horrific attacks (using one form of WMD or another) occur, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent Westerners are dead and injured, before we finally connect the dots.