“Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati is the newest blogger for the popular website The Huffington Post. Here is an excerpt from his first blog: ‘As Muslims, when we take an oath of citizenship or allegiance, it is tantamount to making an oath with God: “And be true to your bond with God whenever you bind yourselves by a pledge, and do not break [your] oaths after having [freely] confirmed them and having called upon God to be witness to your good faith: behold, God knows all that you do.” - Quran 16:91. As Muslim Americans, when we take the oath of allegiance to America witnessed by our families and our friends (and now DHS), we must remain true to our word. It is an Islamic obligation to defend what we are taking an oath to, namely the constitution of the United States of America. That does not equate with supporting the policies of the government. Patriotism is not waving the flag or using it to intimidate others; patriotism is love of country, and when we as Muslim Americans see a danger to our country, such as terrorism or xenophobia, or policies that hurt the image and interests of the United States, it is our American and Islamic responsibility to change toward the betterment of America….’” -- From the Huffington Post, which apparently will now regularly include articles by Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (see the announcement here)
This is the purest taqiyya, or kitman, or combination of both.
Islam teaches -- inculcates, rather -- the notion that Muslims do not owe any allegiance to non-Muslims, not to their countries, not to their institutions, legal and political, not to anything. Within Islam -- uniquely, among world religions -- such a doctrine has arisen, and has been elaborated, and has been written about, one that is based on both the letter and spirit of the Qur'an and on the example of Muhammad, the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana), the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil). See the assurances given the Meccans in the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya.
Look at the false equivalences: “terrorism or xenophobia,” with the first referring to real acts of terror by Muslims, following promptings that are found in the texts of Islam (see the Qur’an, see the Hadith, passim) and the “xenophobia” in question merely being, in this case, not “hatred of foreigners” but, of course, the fear and suspicion of those who are adherents of Islam, a fear and suspicion that are entirely rational, and that are felt most by those who have taken the most time to inform themselves about the texts and tenets and history of Islam.
And note how carefully he says that “we must remain true to our word” when we “take the oath of allegiance to America.” Why? It makes no sense to remain true to a word, or an oath, given to an Infidel polity in order to obtain American citizenship or to relieve the suspicions of non-Muslims. Islam is a Total Belief-System that reinforces, through a whole variety of means, again and again the idea that for a Muslim the main thing, possibly the only thing, in life that truly matters is being Muslim, and that loyalty to fellow Muslims and to the teachings of Islam are the only things that matter, not the trivial and the transient, the without-worth because non-Muslim, Infidel polities.
Al-Marayati pretends that Muslims are just full of the patriotism and loyalty that animates other Americans. Is this true? Have Muslims rallied to the cause of fighting against “Muslim extremism” abroad? Have they flocked into the military, imitating the Japanese-Americans of the 422nd Regiment during World War II, the first (or possibly second) most decorated regiment in the entire U.S. military? Or have the handful of Muslims who have served reported how difficult it has been for them, how they have been repeatedly criticized and attacked by other Muslims for fighting “for the Infidel”?
And what has been the behavior of Muslims, and Muslim organizations, in this country? Have they encouraged Muslims to report on that “tiny handful of extremists,” or have they repeatedly refused to do so? Have Muslim organizations, and not only CAIR, exhibited a spirit of cooperation, or have they repeatedly urged Muslims not to voluntarily cooperate but to carefully go through them, and what’s more, have encouraged Muslims to report any and all supposed “anti-Muslim incidents,” all of which are scrupulously investigated, and almost all of which have been found to be baseless, or greatly exaggerated? Have they not encouraged in Muslims themselves, and in a credulous media that believes uncritically Muslim complaints, the idea that Muslims are being “victimized”?
There are a handful of exceptions. These consist of those who, having through no fault of their own been born in to Islam, have decided that they no longer are believers. But they are unwilling, out of fear or filial piety, to declare themselves openly to be apostates, and so signal to the outside world their disenchantment with Islam by identifying themselves as “cultural Muslims” or in some other way as “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslims. They are as yet unwilling to wholeheartedly declare that disenchantment and their own falling-away from the faith.
All over the countries of Western Europe, as in the Muslim -dominated lands (Dar al-Islam), one can find the message of Islam clearly set out in the sermons of imams who are either uninhibited or perhaps, in some cases, simply unaware that they are being eavesdropped on by agents of the various Infidel governments. That message is clear: loyalty to Islam and to fellow members of the Umma comes first. And if one goes to Muslim websites (it isn't hard to do) and reads around, one discovers that the universal answer to the question "do I have to obey the laws of Infidel states if I have managed to obtain citizenship in those states" is not a resounding and unqualified "Yes" but, rather, the obvious: obey the laws of Infidel states only insofar as those laws do not contradict the principles of Islam, of the Holy Law of Islam or Shari'a. In other words, "be a good citizen" just so long as what you do does not contradict Islam.
The "loyalty" and "patriotism" that Salam Al-Marayati describes sounds fine. Anyone who knows little or nothing of Islam might be taken in. One might be if one has ignored all the evidence, in both the clearly-stated doctrines of Islam, and in what might reasonably be called the necessary developments from those doctrines -- including kitman ("mental reservation") and taqiyya. These have naturally been developed and are practiced, as we can all see, in every encounter with non-Muslims, when Muslims feel they need to conceal, in order to preserve Islam and Muslims from critical scrutiny, and to delay for as long as possible the widespread understanding of the texts and tenets of Islam.
The passage above should raise eyebrows and more than eyebrows. It is clear that Al-Marayati is determined to misrepresent Islam. It will be interesting to see what protests there are in comments, and how informed those protests are. The level of preparation of those who answer him will be important.
But all you need to do is look at Islam from the inside out -- look at the ample testimonies provided by a growing army of defectors from that other army, the army of Islam. Look at what Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells us in her Infidel about all the ways that Muslims talk about fooling the non-Muslims of the Netherlands. Look at Ibn Warraq, or Ali Sina, or all the many ex-Muslims who have contributed to such websites as the latter's www.faithfreedom.org. Look at the opinion polls, where Muslims in Western Europe support attacks within, and against, the countries and non-Muslim peoples among whom they have been allowed to settle. There they are treated by the innocent and the ignorant with great generosity, which has been repaid with a malevolent determination to relentlessly spread the power and might of Islam, and to undercut, in every way that is deemed effective, the legal and political institutions, the liberties, the social understandings, of Infidel peoples and polities.
One detects in the soft-spoken assurances of Tariq Ramadan the hiss of a slitherer. Read Caroline Fourest, or many others, on his slitherings. And then re-read carefully the excerpt from Al-Marayati above. Then go to www.faithfreedom.org, or answering-islam.org, or to the books of Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or to the articles by many defectors from Islam, or the studies of Islam by the great Western scholars who wrote during the century of flourishing Western scholarship on Islam, roughly from 1870 to 1970, which is roughly when the portcullises came down, to defend the castle of Islam, and the Age of Inhibition began.
When Al-Marayati utters his sly remarks about “love of country” and the “betterment of America,” what do you think he means? What could he possibly mean, if he is a believer in Islam? If you believe in Islam, if you believe in the Message of the Last of the Prophets, then what would be best for America, what would bring about its “betterment”? Surely not more of the same, not more of the same belief that mere men should, through the ballot, decide on the political and legal institutions of this country. Men are, or should ideally be, “slaves of Allah.” And a well-ordered world, according to Muslim doctrine, is that in which the will, not of mere mortals, but of Allah himself, is obeyed. So it is not the will of the people, expressed through elections and representative government, but rather the will of Allah, as expressed in the Qur’an and glossed by the Sunnah, that should prevail. That is surely what Al-Marayati sees as the best hope for this country, the “betterment” for which he, and all of the Believers, will naturally strive. In other words, the entire basis for the American policy is flatly contradicted by the most essential understandings of Islam.
And what does Al-Marayati think of the Constitution of the United States? What, for example, does he think of the First Amendment, and the rights of free speech, and of freedom of conscience, as guaranteed by both the Free Exercise and the Establishment clause? Does Al-Marayati think that anyone in this country who wishes to leave Islam should be perfectly free to do so without any repercussions whatsoever? What does he think about the case of Rifqa Bary? What punishment does he think should properly be meted out to those Muslim men who have, on their own, killed or greatly harmed their own daughters or wives, because they thought their daughters or wives had left Islam, or behaved in a way that brought “dishonor” to the family? And if he thinks such people should be properly punished by the full force of the law, does he also think that people guilty of similar behavior in other countries, such as Jordan or Syria or Iraq or Saudi Arabia, should also be punished? Or does he merely counsel acquiescence in the American legal system because, at present, Muslims cannot change it, and it is more important to outwardly conform -- temporarily -- with the American system so as better to work, over the long term, for changes in America that will lead to what Al-Marayati and those who think and believe like Al-Marayati consider to be the “betterment” of America?
And what could be “better” for America than the onward march of Islam, and an end to all of those elements, including the Constitution of the United States, that flatly contradict the spirit and letter of Shari’a? Just look around the world, look at the vast lands that over the past 1350 years have been conquered by Islam, ordinarily, though not exclusively, through military force. And look at the wiles and guiles that have helped Muslims avoid having to declare, in their mental baggage, as they leave the Lands of Islam (where all the failures of those lands can be intelligently attributed to the teachings of Islam itself), that they are quite different from refugees from the Nazis, who hated the Nazis and Nazism, and refugees from Communism, who hated the Communists and Communism, despite in a sense being “refugees” from the Misrule, in every sense, of Islam.
No, most of those who leave the awful societies of Dar al-Islam take a bit of Dar al-Islam with them. Yet they flee its natural violence, and aggression, and corruption, and political paralysis, and economic paralysis which are natural results both of the Muslim hatred of bida (innovation), and of the Muslim encouragement of an attitude of inshallah-fatalism. They flee an intellectual wasteland, reflected in such things as openness to the world as suggested by the number of translated works, because in Islam, what is pre—Islamic, or what is non-Islamic, is part of one vast and contemptible Jahiliyya -- save in the one area that seems truly to interest Muslims, and that is the area of weapons manufacture. While they are indifferent to pure science, they seem terribly concerned to acquire the ability to rival or surpass the West in the production, or at least accumulation, of weaponry.
There’s much more, but you can elaborate on the theme -- including the moral squalor that the mistreatment of women and of all non-Muslims reveals.
Oh, yes.
What could be better?
What could be worse?
Mr. Spencer's next post will then be something "will no Muslim condemn this? will no Muslim defend the constitution?" to which jwatchers who have just read this article will say "no and its taqqiya/kitman if they do!" - then Mr. Spencer can step back and say that he doesnt necessarily agree with everything thats posted on his website (or posted by the man who he appointed as vice-president of this website).
But yeah High, we get it, no Muslim can be trusted (I know, I know, thats not you meant at all)
Cheers,
mp11, I would pray for your soul, but it's already been eaten up by islam.
Appreciate the thought Reacher, I in turn will offer to pray to whatever sky pixie you worship that you regain your sanity.
Mp 11,
It's not that no muslim can be trusted. The point is that many, way too many, cannot be trusted to choose civic obligations over their religious faith.
In an exercise of intellectual honesty it would have been appropriate to link to Salam Al-Marayati's entire column instead of selecting one quote then launch into a rant. It would have been even more appropriate if Al-Marayati's latest column on Rifqa Bary, your most recent "Let's-Save-the-Muslim-Teen-Girl-From-the-Bloodthirsty-Muslims" poster child (Mmm, it's always teen girls, isn't it?), was included. It's the same tired argument. You want Muslims to voice loudly and clearly their loyalty and to denounce terrorism, but it's instantly attacked as insincere and nefarious.
"the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil)"
surely that translates as "the crazy camel"
Islam has not changed in 1,400 years and we have no evidence that it will do so now, so what would be "better" for America is for our political leaders to sit down and learn about islam and the threat that it poses to our freedoms and culture, and then devise a comprehensive strategy to protect us against it.
"Look at the false equivalences: “terrorism or xenophobia,” with the first referring to real acts of terror by Muslims, following promptings that are found in the texts of Islam (see the Qur’an, see the Hadith, passim) and the “xenophobia” in question merely being, in this case, not “hatred of foreigners” but, of course, the fear and suspicion of those who are adherents of Islam, a fear and suspicion that are entirely rational, and that are felt most by those who have taken the most time to inform themselves about the texts and tenets and history of Islam."
There is no equivalence between a war crime (terrorism) and xenophobia (an exaggerated or abnormal fear of strangers or foreigners or a strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners) but xenophobia is often one of the reasons (motivations) for not only war crimes but also more serious crimes such as genocide or crimes against humanity.
Xenophobia seems to be a part of our instrinctive nature and serves the purpose to secure the survival of a tribe or society defined by ethnicity or religion or ideology, language and history (culture) aganist attacks from foreign tribes or societies with a different (strange) culture.
The effects of xenophobia (dislike against the genetically dissimilar out-group and nepotistic favoritism towards the genetically similar in-group) are analyzed by many sociobiological researchers.
Some see it as an innate biological response on the part of the evolved human organism in inter-group competition. In his famous book, The Ethnic Phenomenon, Pierre L. van den Berghe, anthropological professor of the University of Washington, discusses the concepts of kin selection, ethnic nepotism, and the biologically-rooted tendency of people that are more similar genetically to behave more generously toward each other.
In Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing, author James Waller argues that all human beings "have an innate, evolution-produced tendency to seek proximity to familiar faces because what is unfamiliar is probably dangerous and should be avoided.
More than two hundred social psychological experiments have confirmed the intimate connection between familiarity and fondness. This universal human tendency is the foundation for the behavioral expressions of ethnocentrism and xenophobia" (Oxford University Press, USA, 2002, p. 156).
Frank Salter, an ethological researcher of the Max Planck Institute, deals with similar "taboo" topics in his controversial book, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in An Age of Mass Migration; this work has been praised by well-known sociobiology innovator E.O. Wilson as "a fresh and deep contribution to the sociobiology of humans."
Salter posits an "innate group-descent module" in the human mind to explain the universal occurrence of ethnic nepotism. In Salter's view, favoritism towards one's own ethnicity is an evolutionarily-based "objective" value and, from a political science perspective, Salter proposes a "universal nationalism", in which all planetary ethnic-based communities or nations have the right to preserve their own heritage and distinctiveness.
That´s a sociobiological argument for cultural relativism and it implies that all values and cultures are equal and should be given that same right to express itself.
Salter and other scientists of biology, sociology and culture often forget that science is purely descriptive and can have nothing to say about normative (ethical) questions.
People are not slaves of their instincts or biology or culture or traditions. They are able to question everything and ask what they should do, what it is rational to do. Basically we are ethically autonomous persons and we have the ability to give an answer to the ethical question.
But yeah High, we get it, no Muslim can be trusted (I know, I know, thats not you meant at all)
Posted by mp11
May he meant it and maybe not. Decide what suits you best.
Much more important and encouraging is the fact that increasingly more infidels do mean it.
"the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil)"
surely that translates as "the crazy camel"
Posted by ebonystone
LOL! Wonderful, Ebonystone!
If it only were a camel. Unfortunately, it was the Devil himself.
In a speech at Columbia University on Sept. 18, 2008, Organization of the Islamic Conference Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu made a remark pertinent to the matter of Muslim loyalty:
The Muslim Ummah, means the 'community of the faithful'. It is a unique bond that has no similar example under any other political or religious system in the world. It is a belonging to ideals which bring Muslims together in an eternal brotherhood lock which transcends all other consideration of allegiance or loyalties or barriers of nationhood, ethnicity, geography or language.
Hence, according to one of the most senior representatives of the Muslim world, there can really be no such thing as a "Muslim American" or an "American Muslim," the two categories being mutually exclusive. This is implicitly recognized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the compound modifier in whose name is used advisedly. (See also Qur'an 48:29, which mandates that Muslims be "hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.")
If you are a true Muslim, a real Believer, you cannot be both a good Muslim and loyal to any Infidel nation-state. You can, temporarily, disguise that fact, for the sake of realpolitik, as you live in such an infidel nation-state and need to lull the Infidels who surround you, or at least to distract and confuse them, as you work, steadily, to chip away at everyhting that makes that Infidel state what it is, to chip away ceaselessly at its legal and political institutions, at its social arrangements, at its solicitude for the individual. You may, as Al-Marayati does, present yourself as that slippery thing, a "moderate," though Al-Marayati has so often in the past shown his true colors (see the articles on him by The Investigative Project), that at this point, with the gig he somehow fooled the Huffington Post into giving him, he is attempting - not very successfully, I'm afraid -- to give himself a makeover as he continues to attempt to delude. But he's failed to realize that too many people are taking the time to find out about Islam, and not from the espositos and armstrongs. Some of those people include those who have relatives who served in the squanderings known as Iraq and Afghanistan, or themselves served, and have come, dimly, and grimly, to certain conclusions about the effect of the ideology of Islam on the Muslim mind, and its attitude toward Infidels.
And as those who have by circumstances been forced to learn about the texts and tenets of Islam grow steadily in number, and in confidence in their own grasp of the matter, the al-marayatis of this world are going to have a much more difficult time in their propagandistic efforts than they ever dreamed.
Eternal vigilance is only part of the price of liberty. Another part is the duty to be well-prepared, to learn about things that are a source of present confusion and perplexity. And that is what people are doing, and not only at this website, and not only through the Internet. They are doing it out of an awareness that something is happening all over the world, that the historic heart of the West -- Europe -- is under assault, that an essential part of the West, Israel, faces a permanent war, a Jihad, against it, that no amount of further surrenders of land can conceivably end (there is no "solution" to the Lesser Jihad against Israel), and that North America has so far been largely spared only because we have not been as close to the Muslim lands, and do not face, for now, the demographic nightmare that the peoples of Western Europe must now deal with.
"Look at the false equivalences: “terrorism or xenophobia,” with the first referring to real acts of terror by Muslims ..."
No, what he really meant by "terrorism," I think, are actions like overthrowing Saddam, fighting the Taliban, and helping allies (especially Isreal) fight local Islamic insurgencies--that is, fighting Islamic jihadists. The jihadists are not "terrorists," you see, they are noble warriors and holy servants of Islam. No, the "real terrorists" are the U.S. Army, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Navy. He meant, as Muslims always really mean, that it is wrong to resist in any way the spread of Islam, and that he will oppose any such resistance. That will be his "patriotic duty."
While there are always individual exceptions, of course, Americans as a group are decidedly not xenophobic. You can go to any city in the U.S. and find a wild assortment of races and cultures everywhere, mixing freely and peacefully. [I am 1st generation Czech descent, my wife is Vietnamese--we have never had a lick of trouble raising our kids, and over the years we have lived in all four time zones and regions of the U.S., North, South, East, and West. I currently live in the South--there are mixed-race couples everywhere. No one is killing or bombing anyone over race or ethnicity.]
Americans, however, are "slave-o-phobic," and will fight anyone (even Obama) who tries to take away their hard-won freedoms. Slaves of Allah are not content to wallow in their own miserable abject servitude and mental poverty--they insist on enslaving and lobotomizing the rest of us. They think physical and mental chains are some kind of gift that they should bestow on our society.
Muslim slavers are in for a nasty fight--and in the long run they will surely and rightfully lose that fight. The sleeping giant is slowly waking up. Too slowly, but steadily nonetheless.
Lying Muslim, Slave of Allah, Slave of Tyranny and Death, don't tread on me!
From the Allah worshipper above...Appreciate the thought Reacher, I in turn will offer to pray to whatever sky pixie you worship that you regain your sanity.
Talking about sky pixies, how is Allah anyway?
I bet he has holy ulcers from worrying about kufrs...Since he is helpless, and can't do anything on his own, he depends on demented mouthpiece worshippers to do all his dirty work...Allah may have written a book long ago, and inspired some psychotic individuals like Mahound, but what has he done recently? Not much as far as I can see, he can't even protect his submitters from each other...
Typical limitations on fake gods...
Sorry, Israel not Isreal.
Hugh: "...obey the laws of Infidel states only insofar as those laws do not contradict the principles of Islam, of the Holy Law of Islam or Shari'a. In other words, "be a good citizen" just so long as what you do does not contradict Islam."
Doesn't that really sum it up for Muslims living in the West? This goes hand in hand with al-Marayati's:
"It is an Islamic obligation to defend what we are taking an oath to, namely the constitution of the United States of America. That does not equate with supporting the policies of the government."
No, of course it does not equate with 'supporting' the policies of the government, anymore than anyone else may have reservations about what one's government is doing. Many here on JW, for example, will not support our immigration policy, but we do support our government in principle. What makes the Muslim psyche different is that their support for their adopted country's government is limited by their prime directive set in their Koran to first obey Islam without question (Q 2:1), and then obey the laws of the land if not in contradiction to their Koran. To the Muslim mind, that is a subtle point which through taqiyya and kitman hope will be lost on the infidel's mind, so the two will have two different understandings of it:
The infidel, who is a modern human with democratic and liberal principles, will understand this to mean that Muslims will support their adopted government under oath with the same reservations of other normal modern citizens, that it is okay to criticize your government. While the Muslim will understand this as being an evasive tactic of offering tacit support of allegiance while reserving the right to disobey his oath of support for a government of which he is critical.
These two are NOT the same thing, so once again what appears fair and normal to a modern reasonable person becomes weird and abnormal in the Muslim mind. Whereby we modern citizens do support our government in principle, because it is based on the principle of common consent and constitutional laws, but have the right to criticize it; whereas the Muslim mind will support first the principle of Koran 2:1 above all else, where the common consent is not to the nation but to Allah and the Umma of Islam. There is no way to absolutely reconcile these two principles, which makes Muslim 'allegiance' highly suspect in all cases where they 'swear' it, because they cannot help but lie to themselves and us when they do. They can NEVER criticize their Sharia under oath. Under these conditions, we will NEVER see massive Muslim support of our troops or national security, nor in the West's fight against Islamic Jihad. This is a given.
"They can NEVER criticize their Sharia under oath."
Why not? Doesnt taqqiya authorize you to lie?
"They can NEVER criticize their Sharia under oath."
Why not? Doesnt taqqiya authorize you to lie?
Posted by: mp11 at August 30, 2009 9:25 AM
Under 'oath' to Q 2:1, like swearing on the Koran, the only oath they accept. ;)
Islam is an anti-Constitutional anti-Universal Declaration of Human Rights movement aiming to establish a global theocratic tryanny based on terror and intolerance.
No frikkin' thanks.
Of course there’s the authority to lie. Luckily for the infidels, islam breeds stupidity, so the lies rarely deceive, and the deceptions are rarely, if ever, original. Any ideology preaching perfidy over compassion deserves to be banished from humanity.
Thanks for the heads up about al-Murayati at the Huffington Post, Hugh. I'm an occasional commenter on articles at HuffPo, and your article above reminded me that I hadn't been over there in a while. I just got back from commenting on al-Murayati's blog article about Rifqa Bary (he performs the usual moral equivalence and deflection jig).
No matter how comfortable we might be with each others' company here, our discussions are sometimes rather like those of old friends around a dinner table. How about JWers who are so inclined and have not already done so spending some keyboard barricade time by setting up a Huffington Post account and joining in the discussion there? They need some calm, factual and rational voices to counter the drearily predictable Leftist MC PC propaganda that appears there.
"like swearing on the Koran, the only oath they accept"
You're saying there are taqqiya rules? like a Muslim wouldnt be able to lie if he swore an oath on the Koran?
Well then, there's no reason no to trust ellison in Minnesota is there?
"Islam teaches -- inculcates, rather -- the notion that Muslims do not owe any allegiance to non-Muslims, not to their countries, not to their institutions, legal and political, not to anything."
The famous verse from the Koran -- "O ye who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as friends" (5:51) -- is actually relevant here, more than one would think. For the word too often translated as "friends" is not quite what we think of as "friends" in the colloquial sense. A Muslim professor, David Dakake (who seems to have been a busy bee over the years in Islam apologetics having written for example a book titled The Myth of a Militant Islam etc.), has written an unintentionally illuminating explanation of that verse, and particularly the word usually translated as "friends" -- awliya -- that actually bolsters Hugh's position on this:
"In the context of this verse, the word awliya does not mean "friends" at all, as we use the term in English... While it is true that awliya can mean "friends", it has additional meanings such as "guardians", "protectors", and even "legal guardians"..."
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:pR5ytViPoF8J:l.b5z.net/i/u/6053592/f/Friendship_with_Non-Muslims.pdf+do+not+take+jews+christians+as+friends&hl=en&gl=us
Think about those "additional", more correct meanings of awliya supplied by our helpful Muslim professor: "guardians", "protectors", and even "legal guardians". Would it be stretching the translation to supply yet another word to fill out the nuance of awliya -- namely, representative ? I don't think so.
I.e., what Allah is forbidding Muslims to do in verse 5:51 of the Koran must surely entail the acceptance of Jews and Christians as the political representatives of Muslims. This proscription of "guardians" and "protectors" would also extend to police, and firefighters, and even doctors. All authorities in a state who are entrusted in one way or another with the "legal guardianship" of their fellow citizens, must be avoided for the Muslim if those "legal guardians" are Jews or Christians: politicians, judges, lawyers, police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, etc.
And we have learned how promiscuous and fungible is the term "Christians" to modern Muslims, when we hear that word fall casually from their lips in describing soldiers and contractors in Iraq, where such a description seems odd if not laughable to most modern Westerners. To the average Muslim, the West really is a massive force still connected to the "Rome" against which Muslims struggled militarily for over 1000 years, beginning with Mohammed himself (until the West became so powerful and Muslims so weak they could struggle militarily no longer); and this "Rome" which rules the world as a constant evil thorn in the side of the Muslim is a "great Satan" ruled by Christians in thrall to the demonic Jews. The massive phenomenon of secularism, and the cultural transformation of the West into a dominant agnosticism and atheism, is interpreted by the Muslim as merely the essential corruption and evil of the Jews and Christians from the beginning, now flourishing more than ever in their wicked power: the Jews and Christians (at least those who did not properly submit to the Prophet and Allah) have always been Mushrikoon, pagans, idolators, which is what sensual, materialistic, secular agnostics and atheists are: wicked Jews and Christians simply in a new permutation. Thus the Ancient Enemy for Muslims remains: Rome presided over by Christians & Jews -- everywhere and anywhere in the West, whether America, Australia, Europe or the UK (America being the worst because the most powerful). And no good Muslim would sincerely want to take for their "legal guardians" and "protectors" these wicked people -- though while the Muslims are still weak, they must pretend that it is okay.
...like a Muslim wouldnt be able to lie if he swore an oath on the Koran?
Well then, there's no reason no to trust ellison in Minnesota is there?
Posted by: mp11
There is no such thing as lying to the infidel.
So, yes, they accept swearing on Koran when the oath is made before Moslem authority, not before Infidel one. So in cases like Ellison the taqqiya overides Koran.
Allah, the Lord of Lies, had it all figured out when he planted his poison in the putrid brain of Mohamed - The Glorious Degenerate.
"Luckily for the infidels, islam breeds stupidity, so the lies rarely deceive" -- Kaffir Kanuck
Unfortunately, their lies, more often than not, have been successful in deceiving far too many people throughout the West.
Stendec, I salute you for your intelligence and your courage. I am pleased and proud America has welcomed you and your family; so do I.
No matter how comfortable we might be with each others' company here, our discussions are sometimes rather like those of old friends around a dinner table. How about JWers who are so inclined and have not already done so spending some keyboard barricade time by setting up a Huffington Post account and joining in the discussion there? They need some calm, factual and rational voices to counter the drearily predictable Leftist MC PC propaganda that appears there.
----- Eastview 10:44a
Good suggestion Eastview!
Hesperado: great post above! Illuminating discussion of K5:51, thanks.
Cheers
Golfdad,
Many thanks for the kind words. But I am not the brave one. The brave ones are those such as Robert Spencer, Pamela Gellar, Andrew Bostom, and--bravest of all the Westerners--Geert Wilders. The even braver ones are the “defectors,” those such as Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and Bridget Gabriel. All of these intelligent, courageous people fight tirelessly against the Islamic propaganda machine (one that dwarfs the Communist effort of decades past), and they struggle to be heard while under constant death threat--to them personally and to their families. Most, if not all, of them are actively being hunted by the Cult of Death. If I could be one tenth as brave or as intelligent as any of these folks, I would count myself blessed.
America is a wonderful country, full of kind, generous, and mutually supportive people. The whole story of our nation (with occasional mistakes along the way, to be sure) is one of beating back tyranny, slavery, and barbarism and—via just laws and carefully limited republican government--securing freedom for its citizens. Wave after wave of immigrants has come here to escape foreign tyranny, slavery, and barbarism. And, even though each group has had to struggle to assimilate, their success at that task is undeniable, and that success has only been possible because Americans truly have an open society. They truly do not care where you come from or what you look like--only that you thrive and help others to thrive according to their reasonable needs and wants, while honestly playing by the agreed upon rules—our non-discriminatory and compassionate law.
Today we face an unusual predatory group of immigrants who maintain a closed, separate society, who support no one except their own cult members, who seek to thrive parasitically only at the expense of others, who bring with them, and insist on enforcing, their old world (ancient, actually) tyranny, slavery, and barbarism. We face an unusual predatory group of immigrants who strive incessantly to take away our freedoms--to subjugate us under their wicked, discriminatory laws--and who enforce their tyrannical control over their cult members through terror, intimidation, and murder.
If I were smart, I would have figured this all out on my own, long ago. During the Cold War, among other jobs during that struggle, I worked a long time in Air Force intelligence. We carefully studied Soviet ideology and took that ideology into account (explicitly or implicitly) as we helped craft military plans and defense programs.
But never did we study Islamic ideology in the same way. The “religious” smokescreen kept that subject mostly off limits. In the Middle East and elsewhere, conflict was always understood only as a hopelessly confusing, muddle of movements, strongmen, and international, ethnic, and tribal grievances. (Apparently, judging from public statements by our military leaders, that orientation still dominates.).
It was not until a full four years after 9/11 that, after floundering around in what I now fully understand was (and is) an ocean of deliberate disinformation, I stumbled across the P.I.G. book by Robert Spencer, which led me to JW, which led me to the writings of Hugh Fitzgerald, Andrew Bostom, and other notables as listed above. In those uncompromised, unexpurgated, and undistorted writings about Islamic, I found, as many JW readers have, the Rosetta Stone for understanding the mindset of the jihadists who make war on our society (and who make war on all free men). Finally, belatedly, the fog of confusion about things Middle East (and elsewhere) dissipated completely. Today, I do what I can to spread the word (by itself, a meager effort at best) and urge all who would defend freedom to do the same, within their own sphere of influence, however large or small. This dissemination of the truth about Islam is the parmount task in this critical time. (It is encouraging to see that so many JW readers have vigorously taken up this cause, in America and across the globe--a fine group of people, to be sure, united in defense of humanity).
Final thought: In a sane world, Robert Spencer would by now have received a Medal of Freedom. His unassailable integrity on the subject of Islamic ideology, his steadfast standing up for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, his careful and meticulous scholarship, his calm and fearless debating style, and his equanimity and good humor in the face of vicious lies, scurrilous personal attacks, and death threats, marks him as a true hero in my eyes. That this country can still produce brave men of integrity such as Robert Spencer makes me proud to be an American and feel blessed to live in his time.
We at JW know it will be a very long time, if ever, before our willfully ignorant governing elites would consider giving Robert Spencer any kind of medal for his services to the nation. And in his genuine modesty, he probably wouldn’t want one in any case. Nevertheless, in the meantime, let us honor him today by following his example, by doing our utmost to spread the word, by doing our utmost to confront this evil before it causes the violent deaths of yet more millions, among them our own neighbors, whose families, today and in decades past, fled tyranny only now to see it follow them to the New World in the obscene guise of a “Religion of Peace.”
Golfdad,
Many thanks for the kind words. But I am not the brave one. The brave ones are those such as Robert Spencer, Pamela Gellar, Andrew Bostom, and--bravest of all the Westerners--Geert Wilders. The even braver ones are the “defectors,” those such as Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and Bridget Gabriel. All of these intelligent, courageous people fight tirelessly against the Islamic propaganda machine (one that dwarfs the Communist effort of decades past), and they struggle to be heard while under constant death threat--to them personally and to their families. Most, if not all, of them are actively being hunted by the Cult of Death. If I could be one tenth as brave or as intelligent as any of these folks, I would count myself blessed.
America is a wonderful country, full of kind, generous, and mutually supportive people. The whole story of our nation (with occasional mistakes along the way, to be sure) is one of beating back tyranny, slavery, and barbarism and—via just laws and carefully limited republican government--securing freedom for its citizens. Wave after wave of immigrants has come here to escape foreign tyranny, slavery, and barbarism. And, even though each group has had to struggle to assimilate, their success at that task is undeniable, and that success has only been possible because Americans truly have an open society. They truly do not care where you come from or what you look like--only that you thrive and help others to thrive according to their reasonable needs and wants, while honestly playing by the agreed upon rules—our non-discriminatory and compassionate law.
Today we face an unusual predatory group of immigrants who maintain a closed, separate society, who support no one except their own cult members, who seek to thrive parasitically only at the expense of others, who bring with them, and insist on enforcing, their old world (ancient, actually) tyranny, slavery, and barbarism. We face an unusual predatory group of immigrants who strive incessantly to take away our freedoms--to subjugate us under their wicked, discriminatory laws--and who enforce their tyrannical control over their cult members through terror, intimidation, and murder.
If I were smart, I would have figured this all out on my own, long ago. During the Cold War, among other jobs during that struggle, I worked a long time in Air Force intelligence. We carefully studied Soviet ideology and took that ideology into account (explicitly or implicitly) as we helped craft military plans and defense programs.
But never did we study Islamic ideology in the same way. The “religious” smokescreen kept that subject mostly off limits. In the Middle East and elsewhere, conflict was always understood only as a hopelessly confusing, muddle of movements, strongmen, and international, ethnic, and tribal grievances. (Apparently, judging from public statements by our military leaders, that orientation still dominates.).
It was not until a full four years after 9/11 that, after floundering around in what I now fully understand was (and is) an ocean of deliberate disinformation, I stumbled across the P.I.G. book by Robert Spencer, which led me to JW, which led me to the writings of Hugh Fitzgerald, Andrew Bostom, and other notables as listed above. In those uncompromised, unexpurgated, and undistorted writings about Islamic, I found, as many JW readers have, the Rosetta Stone for understanding the mindset of the jihadists who make war on our society (and who make war on all free men). Finally, belatedly, the fog of confusion about things Middle East (and elsewhere) dissipated completely. Today, I do what I can to spread the word (by itself, a meager effort at best) and urge all who would defend freedom to do the same, within their own sphere of influence, however large or small. This dissemination of the truth about Islam is the parmount task in this critical time. (It is encouraging to see that so many JW readers have vigorously taken up this cause, in America and across the globe--a fine group of people, to be sure, united in defense of humanity).
Final thought: In a sane world, Robert Spencer would by now have received a Medal of Freedom. His unassailable integrity on the subject of Islamic ideology, his steadfast standing up for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, his careful and meticulous scholarship, his calm and fearless debating style, and his equanimity and good humor in the face of vicious lies, scurrilous personal attacks, and death threats, marks him as a true hero in my eyes. That this country can still produce brave men of integrity such as Robert Spencer makes me proud to be an American and feel blessed to live in his time.
We at JW know it will be a very long time, if ever, before our willfully ignorant governing elites would consider giving Robert Spencer any kind of medal for his services to the nation. And in his genuine modesty, he probably wouldn’t want one in any case. Nevertheless, in the meantime, let us honor him today by following his example, by doing our utmost to spread the word, by doing our utmost to confront this evil before it causes the violent deaths of yet more millions, among them our own neighbors, whose families, today and in decades past, fled tyranny only now to see it follow them to the New World in the obscene guise of a “Religion of Peace.”
When is the last time someone died of xenophobia?