Some keep telling us that Nidal Malik Hasan's act "had nothing to do with being a Muslim." And there is a variant on this, used by those who, though they may have reservations about Islam, offer us a false alternative. One such Offeror of False Alternatives is that publicity-hound the henna-haired Irshad Manji, Brave Young Reformer Of Islam, who "speaks truth to (Muslim) power etc. etc." and who should never be confused with the real, full-fledged, non-apologist apostates, though she keeps being confused with them, a confusion she encourages.
This is what Irshad Manji has posted at her blog:
You've probably heard about the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas - America's biggest military base. The main suspect has a Muslim name. Does this matter? If he did it in the name of Islam, then religion is a motivation. In that case, his Muslim identity is relevant. But if he did it out of other motives - say, mental illness - then his Muslim ID means nothing. That's my take. Yours?
Notice how she has set this up.
This man, this "main suspect," "has a Muslim name." Is that really the only thing that with such studied casualness connects this man to Islam, and not his ever-present Qur'an, not his history, over several years, of publicly denouncing Infidels and otherwise showing his deep devotion to the most bloodcurdling parts - see Sura 9 - of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira, not his postings on the Internet about killing 100 Infidel soldiers, not anything at all except that "Muslim name"?
Did he do it out of some quite unspecified Muslim motive? Or was his "motive"--not exactly a correct use of English, but perhaps we are expecting too much from the excitable likes of Irshad Manji - "mental illness"?
But isn't there a third possibility? Even if you do not accept what I insist makes the most sense - to see this killer as a Muslim intent on Jihad - there is another way to look at this. Nidal Hasan was unwilling to use other, less violent means to conduct Jihad in this country, for now, given the balance of forces and the far greater apprehension, by Muslims, that the Infidels in this country are not quite as yielding as those in the countries of Western Europe have proved so far (but for how long?) to be. But if you wish, for the sake of argument or out of belief, to think that Nidal Hasan was unusually ferocious in his fervor, more than many Muslims, so that you might wish to console yourself with at least a nod to "depression" or "mental illness" or some such, that is really no consolation at all. In fact, given that in modern industrial societies a great many people suffer from Durkheimian anomie and economic insecurity and loneliness, and so on, given that a great many people at any one time suffer from depression, should we not ask ourselves instead a different question? And that question is: what happens when a non-Muslim becomes depressed, and what happens when a Muslim, living within a society of non-Muslims, becomes depressed?
I have written about this before many times, and choose here simply to repost a piece - "Fitzgerald: Anything To Do With Terrorism?" that appeared here two years ago:
There has been much discussion lately of whether or not this or that case has anything to do with "terrorism." The Salt Lake mall shooter and the Nashville would-be murderer by taxicab spring immediately to mind. The word "terrorism" may not quite fit if the FBI takes it to mean some kind of organized conspiracy, something done by a group. What should be made clear is that Islam supplies a pre-fabricated mental grid or, to vary the metaphor, a prism through which to view the universe. And on that grid, or through that prism, there is always an Identifiable Enemy, and that Enemy is Always the Infidel.Feeling bad? Feeling blue? Feeling things aren't going right for you? It happens to all of us. We blame our parents, our siblings, our children, The System, Amerika with a "k," Capitalism, fate, the stars, our serotonin level, our cholesterol level. Even, at times, we may blame ourselves. That's if you are an ordinary Infidel.
What if you are a Muslim? You don't have to blame your parents, your siblings, or anyone or anything else except: the Infidel. And you don't need to be part of Al-Qaeda, or Islamic Jihad, or Jaish-e-Muhammad. You don't even have to have been a faithful attender of a mosque. You can be Intel engineer "Mike" (Muhammad) Hawash, married to an American, with Little-League-attending children, earning $360,000 a year. And when the banality and boredom of life assails you, you can return to that Old-Time Religion, that is to Islam, and start reading, and re-reading, with the effects we all know, the Qur'an. Then you can light out for the territories, in this case those territories being Western China, and thence, you hope, to Afghanistan, in order to kill Americans. Yes, you are technically an "American" yourself, but the categories and the loyalties of the Infidel nation-state mean nothing to you: you are a Muslim, and that is the only Category that counts, Muslim as opposed to Infidel.
All that one need have asked in the case of Sulejman Talovic was why he went out to a mall, and not in a sudden mental raptus, and quietly and calmly proceeded to kill as many people as he could. Did he see it as killing Infidel after Infidel after Infidel? No one need have asked if he had a collaborator, to be guilty of violent Jihad. No one need have asked if he wrote it out. All one needed to do was find out what his worldview was: did he, or did he not, see the world as divided, as so many Muslims are taught to see it, between Believer and Infidel? Did FBI agents determine this before they dismissed "terrorism" in this case? The answer to that question is not known.
If FBI agents are still ignorant of Islam, then the country is endangered. Anyone running for President should assure us that he, or she, will make sure that "all of our security services, all of those who are in the army and the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. and the local police, will be fully informed of the nature of the ideology that menaces us, and does more than menace us." If you wish, if you don't dare utter the word "Islam," then call it "Islamism" or "fanatical Islam" or some other such term.
But more and more, those even in government have a duty to approach the truth asymptotically, so that the uninformed or insufficiently informed will come to locate, accurately, the menace for all Infidels in the immutable texts of Islam, not in the teachings supposed invented by the proponents of "Wahhabi" Islam, or of "Islamism," or of "extremist" Islam, but mainstream Islam.
And those who are not in government have no excuse for using terms such as "Islamism." No, those without official positions have a stark and unwavering duty not to add to the confusion that currently prevails among Americans and Westerners in general, but instead to constantly clarify whatever others at the moment may now deem necessary to obscure.
One may hope, of course, that they may deem this obscuring action to be necessary only on a temporary basis, if they are fully aware of the real, disturbing, frightening truth.
To Irshad Manji's false dichotomy - was it because he was mentally ill (was mental illness, in her comical solecism, the "motive"?), or because he was a Muslim? I think he met the definition of a fervent Muslim, convinced of the rightness of his beliefs and willing, as so many Muslims in other countries over many years have shown themselves willing, to act on them. They act upon them without delay and without calculating the possible consequences to the long-term interests of Islam, as its adherents are still in the process of establishing themselves in the Western world, and are hoping to continue to do so with no disruptions from Infidels waking from a deep dream of interfaith peace. But even if we were to grant - I don't - that he met the definition of "mentally ill," we must also look, as my 2007 article says, at the pre-fabricated mental grid, or rather the ideological prism through which the world is apprehended by Muslims, and in which world, the blameworthy are always the Infidels. You don't blame your parents, your siblings, your spouse, your children, fate, Amerikkka, The System, the stars, your serotonin level, your cholesterol level, the malfunctioning of your dopamine receptors. No, those possibilities are open to Infidels. But for you, the Muslim suffering mental disarray (that kind which does not come from being a Muslim, living in a non-Muslim society and furious that Muslims do not yet rule, and must smile, and be outwardly nice to Infidels, and appear to accept things that are contra naturam in your view, where Infidels still appear unafraid and even call most of the shots), your enemy is always and everywhere the Infidel.
And that is what Irshad Manji ignores. So do others who are trying to deflect attention from the perfectly explicable behavior of a deep Believer, not a "moderate" who has managed to ignore or pretend to ignore some or much of what Islam inculcates. Manji, by focusing on "mental illness," ignores the fact that such an explanation, for us, the potential victims of those Muslims who suffer depression or other forms of such mental illness, misses the point -- that such Muslims turn their fury, almost inevitably, on us, the undifferentiated enemy Infidels.
Given the high rates of mental illness in the modern industrialized world, that is no consolation at all.
Mental illness is not a motive. Islam is.
Oh, I can't stand Irshad Manji.
She's not a "reformer" - she still believes in the moon god and whacks her head 5 times a day to it. Gimme a break.
Her desire for 'a reformation in Islam, returning it to its clever, fun-loving roots' was the end for her.
I think we all know Irshad Manjis, those intellectuals who dance all around the point with dazzling displays of logical gymnastics designed to convince themselves of what they know is actually bullshit but can't get themselves to admit.
Islamic doctrine is relevant to the Hate Doctor's motives and should not be obscured by invoking mental illness as an excuse. Actually, the hatred and violence in Islam makes it especially dangerous as it can provide an outlet for unstable people who wish to rationalize their crimes as moral. How sane was Saddam Hussein? Arafat? Ahmedinejad? Ismail Haniyeh? Islam is a madman magnet.
This woman prays to evil. It's no wonder her story is deceitful, Satan has a hold of her, we need to pray for her and all Muslims, her eternal life and all Muslims eternal life are in Satan's hand. This evil religion of Satan has to be put in God's prayers, for his glory. God is the way to beat this evil religion, in Jesus name. While your at it, pray for all Liberals too. Because they Champion Islam as a victim and therefore a block of voters, they are part of the problem. God will forgive those that are naive. for they know not what they do...............................................................God, I surrender my will to Thee, and ask for the miracle of Truth, ... Dear Lord, please help me to forgive those who are naive and ignorant of Truth. Allow me to love them unconditionally for what they are being, and to act with wisdom in their presence.
Oh Lord, as Thy servant, I ask for a miracle.
...........................Amen.............................
Irshad Manji has an audience - in this country. In any Islamic Republic (an oxymoron), she would be considered an apostate and killed. Her refusal to renounce Islam in the face of it's continued brutality, is a sign that moral bankruptcy is looming on her horizon.
What action would it take to make this western-educated muslimah to read the writing on the wall?
1. Her father tried to kill her in her youth. She managed to escape this knife-wielding honor killer. His actions are sanctioned by the Qur'an and sharia law.
2. Her sexual orientation would, yet again, call for a death sentence in any Islamic Republic.
3. The continued attack on the west (whose cultural and sexual freedoms she claims to promote) seems to move her not the least. Her remedies for the jihad might stop an angry mosquito, but will have no effect on the core reason for jihad - Islam.
4. Her reaction to this act of war (the Texas massacre at Ft. Hood) is so muted it verges on silence. I can only assume that the Beslim massacre (in which hundreds of Russian school children and teachers were raped, beaten, tortured and murdered) and the destruction of 9-11 were mere blips on her radar screen.
Whose side are you on, Isrhad Manji? It is a question that must be addressed to all Muslims living in the west. I, however, would not place much stock in any answer, due the practice of kittman and taquiyya.
"Irshad Manjis....dazzling displays" -- from a 731 posting above
I'm afraid I've missed completely any "dazzling displays" on the part of the flamboyant and excitableIrshad Manji. She appears to me to be as off-the-rack banal in thought, word, and deed (though not in appearance) as any of those "unreformed" Muslims to whom she claims to be bravely bringing the light of reason. Her carved-out niche has allowed her to do quite well for herself, so I suppose many will at least admire her entrepreneurial flair. I don't.
Hey fellow Muslims, speak the truth for a change. The reality is uncomfortbale for most of you but let the truth be revealed and the chips fall where they may:
Major Nidal Hasan, Muslim of Palestinian parentage, was not insane, abused, mistreated, mad or had some other sort of "disorder." He acted as a true jihadi would or should according to Islamic precepts (Hadith and Quran). He was very careful on how he executed his jihad al saghir mission in Dar al Harb against the kuffar who wore uniforms and were about to embark on their "crusade" to "kill" in Dar al Islam.
He was methodical and kept close to the script in order to wage jihad bin saif that Allah would bless. Thus, he made sure to pay all his bills, dispose of his belongings and phone those he wanted to say good bye to. He was calm on the morning when he went to meet his "brothers" at the 7/11 as his did everyday because this was a great day. Unlike many other Muslims brothers who continued to wage jihad using haram (forbidden) ROE like suicide vests to reach jannat thus killing selves in the process vice being killed; Hasan went in with guns blazing at unarmed fellow Americans. He probably knew/expected that he'd be shot/killed at some point and attain martyrdom status then. And, be perceived by fellow Muslims as a "true jihadi." True martrydom in Islam has to involve death at the hands of the kufar while conducting jihad in order to guarantee a place in jannat (heaven). The current dependency on suicide attacks and/or IEDs prohibits a spot in jannat because these tactics are either haram (suicide) or kill innocent women and children. And, Hasan was aiming for that coveted spot in jannat with all the virgins. In short, he understood --as most Muslims do-- the correct methodology for conducting Jihad and followed it.
This incident should raise some necessary alarm bells/flags since our current struggle isn't with the Nazis (and their ideology) but with Muslim elements (and their ideology).
To date, Hasan's US born Imam -currently hiding out in Yemen- is the only Muslim who has actually --publically-- told the truth. Read/absorb his statement carefully. It is how Muslims would perceive Hasan's mission if they were honest about it.
The latest...Hasan is awake and talking...His main concern is that he gets a 'fair' trial...Where's Judge Roy Bean when you need him??
Hey fellow Muslims, speak the truth for a change. The reality is uncomfortbale for most of you but let the truth be revealed and the chips fall where they may:
Major Nidal Hasan, Muslim of Palestinian parentage, was not insane, abused, mistreated, mad or had some other sort of "disorder." He acted as a true jihadi would or should according to Islamic precepts (Hadith and Quran). He was very careful on how he executed his jihad al saghir mission in Dar al Harb against the kuffar who wore uniforms and were about to embark on their "crusade" to "kill" in Dar al Islam.
He was methodical and kept close to the script in order to wage jihad bin saif that Allah would bless. Thus, he made sure to pay all his bills, dispose of his belongings and phone those he wanted to say good bye to. He was calm on the morning when he went to meet his "brothers" at the 7/11 as his did everyday because this was a great day. Unlike many other Muslims brothers who continued to wage jihad using haram (forbidden) ROE like suicide vests to reach jannat thus killing selves in the process vice being killed; Hasan went in with guns blazing at unarmed fellow Americans. He probably knew/expected that he'd be shot/killed at some point and attain martyrdom status then. And, be perceived by fellow Muslims as a "true jihadi." True martrydom in Islam has to involve death at the hands of the kufar while conducting jihad in order to guarantee a place in jannat (heaven). The current dependency on suicide attacks and/or IEDs prohibits a spot in jannat because these tactics are either haram (suicide) or kill innocent women and children. And, Hasan was aiming for that coveted spot in jannat with all the virgins. In short, he understood --as most Muslims do-- the correct methodology for conducting Jihad and followed it.
This incident should raise some necessary alarm bells/flags since our current struggle isn't with the Nazis (and their ideology) but with Muslim elements (and their ideology).
To date, Hasan's US born Imam -currently hiding out in Yemen- is the only Muslim who has actually --publically-- told the truth. Read/absorb his statement carefully. It is how Muslims would perceive Hasan's mission if they were honest about it.
Hey fellow Muslims, speak the truth for a change. The reality is uncomfortbale for most of you but let the truth be revealed and the chips fall where they may:
Major Nidal Hasan, Muslim of Palestinian parentage, was not insane, abused, mistreated, mad or had some other sort of "disorder." He acted as a true jihadi would or should according to Islamic precepts (Hadith and Quran). He was very careful on how he executed his jihad al saghir mission in Dar al Harb against the kuffar who wore uniforms and were about to embark on their "crusade" to "kill" in Dar al Islam.
He was methodical and kept close to the script in order to wage jihad bin saif that Allah would bless. Thus, he made sure to pay all his bills, dispose of his belongings and phone those he wanted to say good bye to. He was calm on the morning when he went to meet his "brothers" at the 7/11 as his did everyday because this was a great day. Unlike many other Muslims brothers who continued to wage jihad using haram (forbidden) ROE like suicide vests to reach jannat thus killing selves in the process vice being killed; Hasan went in with guns blazing at unarmed fellow Americans. He probably knew/expected that he'd be shot/killed at some point and attain martyrdom status then. And, be perceived by fellow Muslims as a "true jihadi." True martrydom in Islam has to involve death at the hands of the kufar while conducting jihad in order to guarantee a place in jannat (heaven). The current dependency on suicide attacks and/or IEDs prohibits a spot in jannat because these tactics are either haram (suicide) or kill innocent women and children. And, Hasan was aiming for that coveted spot in jannat with all the virgins. In short, he understood --as most Muslims do-- the correct methodology for conducting Jihad and followed it.
This incident should raise some necessary alarm bells/flags since our current struggle isn't with the Nazis (and their ideology) but with Muslim elements (and their ideology).
To date, Hasan's US born Imam -currently hiding out in Yemen- is the only Muslim who has actually --publically-- told the truth. Read/absorb his statement carefully. It is how Muslims would perceive Hasan's mission if they were honest about it.
Wana : Hey fellow Muslims..[SNIP]
You'll be the first moslem on this board to speak the truth, welcome!
My apologies about repeat posts (3). First time posted here and seem to have problem (so my computer indicated) with submission.
My apologies about repeat posts (3). First time posted here and seem to have problem (so my computer indicated) with submission.
Hugh's correct. It's not just a choice between being Muslim or being mentally ill. There's that third choice out there: being a fervent Muslim. And when things go wrong for fervent Muslims, often times precisely because they are Muslim but for whatever reason, watch out. Islam creates believers who are a menace to societal order in a way that dwarfs any problems that any other religion on earth creates.
And yes, it's not surprising that Irshad Manji would proffer a false dichotomy. The woman's got fool written all over her. Really, how can anyone anymore stand to listen to her or read what she writes?
From Wana...our current struggle isn't with the Nazis (and their ideology) but with Muslim elements (and their ideology).
Can you identify who those 'Muslim elements' are, and elaborate a little on their 'ideology'?
I've always been convinced that Irshad Manji would prefer to be honest about Islam but is afraid of what the repercussions would be (especially for a lesbian woman)...I'm not saying that makes her phoniness any less annoying, but I do have some sympathy for her. As weak and even misleading as her "brave criticisms" of Islam invariably are, I'm sure she nonetheless receives death threats.
duh_swami:
Can you identify who those 'Muslim elements' are, and elaborate a little on their 'ideology'?
At this depressing juncture --post Fort Hood murders/carnage-- it is hard for me --a Muslim by birth not choice-- to believe/trust/identify with Muslims here or elsewhere. I actively seek to AVOID them due to myriad reasons.
That said, there are some variables that should raise red flags:
How well is a Muslim integrated into our society whether he/she be first , second or third generation? Life style, attendance of Mosque(s) and what type? Does this person exclude/seclude self (except for work purposes) from mainstream American society? Is he/she only have friends and family members that are Muslim? How does he/she treat daughters? Are they allowed to choose their partner even if he is non-Muslim? have some family members married outside the faith and are their children being raised in a different faith and still accepted in this extended family? does the family in the spirit of being part of a larger community, celebrate Christian or Jewish holidays? How deep are their ties to the "old" land? In short, have they chosen to be Americans first or Muslims/Paks/Saudis first? Where does their LOYALTY lie? These questions have been applicable to ask since 9/11. For me, it doesn't take long to place individual Muslims on a spectrum from enlightened all the way to bigoted/lethal and to be avoided like the plague. In closing, Muslims aren't monolithic, but the challenge will be how to remove the wheat from the chaff.
Worse Yet! Who is to blame for the Ft Hood massacre?
see the attached NPR link for the article that goes down the long and twisted blame road, plenty of tar but short on answers.
Who's to Blame?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120266334
But besides stirring up some dust and pointing fingers, really never answers the question. The question that cannot be answered in a politically correct manner for an ultra sensitive society. Maybe that is the problem?
Wana--
Why stick with Islam at all? Why not be like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Magdi Allam, Wafa Sultan, and all the others who, in truth, present the spectacle of what appear to be among the most intelligent, articulate, and morally aware of people, which is perhaps why they had the sense to abandon Islam. Magdi Allam tried for years to see if there were not some way to "reform" Islam, but he finally gave up, he says, because he realized it was simply impossible. The Qur'an is the uncreated and literal Word of God. Nothing to be done about it. And even if somehow the edip-yuksel-mustafa-akyol school of "sola scriptura" were to get a handful of others to propose throwing out the Hadith and the Sira, how do you think a billion Muslims, kept in mental thrall by a Total Belief-System that encourages the habit of mental submission and discourages free and skeptical inquiry (about Islam, but because Islam suffuses everything for Muslims in Muslim societies, becomes internalized, and affects even the patterns of permissible thought), there is still the Qur'an, with its violence, its aggression, its clear division of the universe between Muslim and Unbeliever, Believer and Infidel.
I don't find humanly puzzling the desire of some Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims to be very quiet about this, so as not to suffer ostracism by their families, or professional damage (what would happen to Fouad Ajami if, for example, he were publicly to admit that he is not a Believer, that he jettisoned Islam long ago? Could he still travel to, for example, Lebanon, or Kuwait?). But I do find puzzling those who,having been born, through no fault of their own, into Islam, and who, in the mental (and physical) freedom of the West, choose to continue to call themselves Muslims.
Are you a Muslim, really? Do you believe that Muhammad is al-insan al-kamil, the Perfect Man? Do you believe in the Djinn? Do you believe the received story of how the Qur'an, over 23 years, was dictated? Do you believe that the Qur'an is the uncreated and immutable Word of God?
You know you don't. You may have-- and why not? -- pleasnat memories, connected perhaps to smells of Iftar dinners, or of pious grandparents for whom Islam was little more than the rituals, but really, at this point, why if you are perfectly rational and sane, should you allow non-Muslims to mistakenly ascribe your personal mental advance as one that the real Believers also possess. They don't. And you shouldn't lend yourself to misperceptions about Islam. Not if you regard with dismay or horror, as I suspect you do, the islamization, through demographic conquest, of the countries of Western Europe. Those who have fled the lords of misrule in Islamic countries, and sought better lives in the West, have a duty to warn and protect that West, every bit as much as refugees from the Nazis warned about the Nazis and refugees from the Communists warned about the Communists. But what we see is that those who flee the countries where Islam dominates carry undeclared in their mental baggage Islam itself, and they fail to understand how it is that Islam explains the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of societies suffused with Islam.
You know. Or at least, I suspect you know. So why continiue to call yourself a Muslim? Why not emulate Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Magdi Allam, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Be like all the best people born into Islam -- the ones who managed to see through the whole thing, and take the fateful final step to complete mental freedom.
'Worse Yet! Who is to blame for the Ft Hood massacre?'
Of course it is we infidels who are to blame for the massacre.
We annoyed the major so much, teased him, isolated him, didn't find a wife for him and to top it all, we expected him to fulfill his obligations to the US army?
/sarc/
Why, indeed, would anyone of sense want to be a Muslim?
Okay, Hugh, but for a mediocrity she's done quite well for herself. I even remember reading somewhere that she has served (still does?) as an advisor to Secretary Clinton.
Wana,
Don't follow the fools who try to re-define your faith for you through dissemination of media reports and biased reporting.
Don't come here to learn anything from them...they are incapable of even identifying what the true message is.
They have a commercial incentive to do what they do or you would not find a single one of them writing the drivel they do.
Talk to other sisters of yours about Islam and re-discover the truth for yourself. If you head back into it with the desire to find the truth you will.
The people here only twist and pull out of context to fit their agenda...they will try to confuse you...they will produce a plethora of half truths that lead to one big lie.
They will never advise a single good thing for you...they will only advise you to do what they perceive is good for themselves...save yourself, because these people here will only flee from you on the day of resurrection...they will not help you in any way.
Peace
Abdullah
Com'on, Abdullah, there's stuff straight from Major Hasan himself on this site. How much more authentic can you get? That guy's one step below the Prophet Himself.
Hugh:
Let's just say there is a method to my madness. Easier to fight from within, than without, for this "war" will be fought within the confines of Islam to liberate the women and others from the tyranny that lies within. This is a battle that must take place just as the Thirty Years war was a necessary evil to overthrow the tyranny of the Catholic church and the establishment.
As for the few people you cited as somehow to be glorified for their apostasy, I politely beg to disagree. Closer analysis of at least two of these apostates reveals self aggrandizing/publicity craving agendas and questionable backgrounds. I'm not a seeker of publicity, fame or such; rather, I seek to quietly serve/help my country. Thus, my agenda is my country: the United States of America. No d--n religion should be allowed to imperil the essence of what this country stands for based on the US Constitution and the visions of our founding fathers.
Religion needs to remain in the private realm and not be used for malevolent ends.
As for publically leaving Islam, well belonging to it causes me no pain, no effort as I'm "non practicing" and never have and never will go to a mosque in the West. And what, pray tell, should I leave Islam for?? Christianity (I have close familial ties to it) with its Trinity is unattractive; atheism (no thanks) and I wasn't born Jewish. I actually see myself as a (Muslim) Deist. As a Muslim, I have more "operational" wriggle room. At any rate, I can feel the noose tightening whether or not I remain a Muslim. Hugh, I know what you seek to accomplish. Hell, we are of similar minds on this. But, the primary problem is our own secular society that does not want to stand up to the totalitarian elements of Islam; does not demand reciprocity from the Muslim world and whose best allies are the Saudis and the Paks. Go figure. We are our own worst enemies and that is what p----s me off the most. My leaving the faith won't do squat until and unless we --as a society-- start standing up for our values and start taking more proactive (draconian?) measures.
Well, one thing's for certain, Wana, either Abdullah Mikhail has it right or we haters do, in which case we're not really so bad after all (never mind what this would then make AM). This is not a matter where shades of gray exist by the way. It's an either/or. After all, either Marxism and Nazism were good ideologies or they weren't. Same with Islam. Your call.
I know several people on that list of apostates I gave and I can't imagine which ones are guilty of "self-aggrandizing" behavior, at least behavior out of the ordinary in this self-promoting age, and in some cases they have used the publicity they obtain to good, even noble, effect. But perhaps you are privy to information that I do not possess.
I wasn't suggesting "leaving Islam" for anything in particular. No particular axe is being grinded here by old neighborhood knife-grinder. I note, however, that in the list of possible alternatives, you left out a good many possibilities, such as Buddhism or the kind of tentative atheism that identifies itself as agnosticism . Nor was I suggesting that you had to jettison Islam publicly, noisily, and possibly dangerously. I just don't understand, I can't quite fathom, why someone who knows exactly what Islam inculcates, knows its effects on the minds of many of its adherents -- not because it has been misunderstood but because it has been correctly understood , understands perfectly the figure of Muhammad and what such a figure, offered up as worthy of emulation as the Perfect Man, means ---- ----- would wish to continue to identify herself as a Muslim. Why not, at least, with a wry smile, tell people that “I'm a cultural Muslim" (if that applies) or, more accurately, “I’m a Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim." Wouldn't that come a little closer to the truth of your particular grey matter? And don't you agree that if all or many of those who are not true Believers , not really Believers at all but simply people born into Islam, nonetheless present themselves, wonderful as they (as you) are or may be, as "Muslims,” the effect is thereby to prolong the confusion of already-confused Infidels?
I won't bother to comment on your slighting of atheism, as if it were self-evident. I'll let a sentence from Nabokov's "On a Book Entitled Lolita"reply for me, the one where he notes that the subject of his book shocks American publishers, and that there are at least two subjects equally verboten at the time (the late 1950s), the first being a black-white marriage that is a “complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren” and the other being the subject of "the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, and dies in his sleep at the age of 106.”
Finally, while women born into Islam might be most concerned about the role, or status, of women in Islam, I have slightly different and possibly larger fish to fry. The thing that most concerns me is the division of the world, with which every part of Islam is instinct, between Believer and Unbeliever, Muslim and Infidel. The state of permanent war (though not necessarily of open warfare) that Muslmis are taught must exist, until all obstacles put up by the Infidels to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam are removed -- that's what I find most threatening. That is the threat to the civilisational legacy of non-Muslims, created by those, especially in the West, who could not, for one minute, have done what they did in societies where Islam dominated.
"...belonging to it [Isalm]causes me no pain, no effort as I'm "non practicing" and never have and never will go to a mosque in the West.
@Wan
I like your style.
I think I'm going to be a Muhammadan too!
Here we go:
"There is no allah but allah and muhammad is his messenger."
There. I'm a muslim too.
Now, like you Wan, I have permission to tell everyone WHAT I PERSONALLY THINK ISLAM SHOULD BE IN MY PRIVATE, PERSONAL FAIRY-TALE UNIVERSE.
O, by the way, I think Allah = Satan.
Hope that doesn't disqualify me.
Hugh et al:
You folk just don't get it. Your modus operandi is flawed and dangerous. Read what I've written very carefully as in s-l-o-w-l-y. I think you will understand where I stand. If you just want to beat up someone who is an asset, go right ahead. I'll just keep my future 2 cents to myself.
To say "Islam cannot be reformed" is to wish for something horrible that would make the 30 yrs war look like a walk in the park. Read up on the Sufi movement and also know that most Muslims are poor illiterate souls who just want to survive and are spoon fed their doctrine. Worry about the ones in your midst.
What I fear is this: demonize an ENTIRE people based on religion, race, ethnicity and this leads to GENOCIDE. That's what the Nazis did to the Jews; and the Russian/Soviets to the Pushtun (my people); the Turks to the Armenians etc etc.
There are many other ways to skin this cat...
P.S: I am "culturally" non-practising Muslim. happy now :-{
"Worry about the ones in your midst."
--posted by Wan
Sir, you couldn't be any clearer.
ps. Now tell us again why we shouldn't stereotype.
@yankel
touche...that was some fun.
You won't get it but good effort nonetheless.
You have to walk in my shoes to understand what I'm trying to do.
BTW: Allah is satan was fine with me. No worries.
Do you know why? Because I believe in your right to speak freely on any topic to include my faith or someone else's religion. That is your first amendment right.
SAPERE AUDE
P.S: I am "culturally" non-practising Muslim. happy now :-{
Culturally?
Islam isn't a race or a language that you can't change.
It doesn't have a history that anyone should be or reasonably could be proud of. It was forced on every race it encountered including the Arabs. It is not ANYONE'S rightful heritage.
"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger"
That cannot be reformed. You either accept it or you don't.
YANKEL...are u out there? Over. If you read this, I'm taking the time to re-post my response to an earlier query:
"Worry about the one's in your midst" No kidding.
Here are things to look for in the West as in potential Hasan's/fifth column:
There are some variables that should raise red flags:
How well is a Muslim integrated into our society whether he/she be first , second or third generation? Life style, attendance of Mosque(s) and what type? Does this person exclude/seclude self (except for work purposes) from mainstream American society? Is he/she only have friends and family members that are Muslim? How does he/she treat daughters? Are they allowed to choose their partner even if he is non-Muslim? have some family members married outside the faith and are their children being raised in a different faith and still accepted in this extended family? does the family in the spirit of being part of a larger community, celebrate Christian or Jewish holidays? How deep are their ties to the "old" land? In short, have they chosen to be Americans first or Muslims/Paks/Saudis first? Where does their LOYALTY lie? These questions have been applicable to ask since 9/11. For me, it doesn't take long to place individual Muslims on a spectrum from enlightened all the way to bigoted/lethal and to be avoided like the plague. In closing, Muslims aren't monolithic, but the challenge will be how to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Its all about integration/tolerance/acceptance and LOYALTY to country over religion.
BTW: Allah is satan was fine with me. No worries. Do you know why? Because I believe in your right to speak freely on any topic to include my faith or someone else's religion.
--posted by Wan
Thanks, Wan. I'm glad you're NOT desirous of causing me bodily harm for calling allah Satan. Since you're a muslim, it was good of you to let me know that you're not a violent, intolerant bigot and that YOU "believe in" my "right to speak freely on any topic to include my faith." You know, before you interjected that comment, I almost caught myself looking over my shoulder.
"In closing, Muslims aren't monolithic, but the challenge will be how to separate the wheat from the chaff."
--posted by Wan
The wheat from the chaff?
You mean the BAD muslims (who integrate with the Kaffir) from the GOOD Muslims who "do not take Christians and Jews for friends."
Good luck with that project.
Gotta skedaddle.
Yankel
And here I was looking forward to a little more back-and-forth of the shuttlecock of belief and disbelief in a hoary, now fallen into desuetude, jean-barois sort of way, where no ultimate truths would be arrived at, but one would keep turning one's head now to this side of the net, and now to that. Oh well.
But one thing. The business about genocide, in posse or in esse, strikes me as crazed. You know -- your sentence that goes like this: "What I fear is this: demonize an ENTIRE people based on religion, race, ethnicity and this leads to GENOCIDE. That's what the Nazis did to the Jews; and the Russian/Soviets to the Pushtun (my people); the Turks to the Armenians etc etc."
You are forgetting that no "entire people" are being demonized. Everyone here accepts the lapidary formulation of Ibn Warraq in "Why I Am Not a Muslim": "There are moderate Muslims. Islam itslef is not moderate." This needs a further gloss (Am.) or gloze (Eng.), and that is about the meaning, and usefulness, of the word "moderate" or the phrase "moderate Muslim."
Magdi Allam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq -- do you think these people, any of them, are coming close to suggesting that we, in your amazing phrase, should try to "demonize an ENTIRE people" etc.? Goodness, you know that's not true. What is being attempted is to simply look steadily and whole, with none of the nonsense and lies that are so readily accepted because, I presume, some find them comforting, at what Islam inculcates, what the effect of Islam is on those who take it most seriously to heart. That there are those who do not take it seriously to heart, or who have other, competing identities -- being a Pushtun, being a Kurd, being a Berber, being a Baluchi, even being an Iranian -- that may work against Islam once Islam is perceived, rightly, as a vehicle for Arab cultural, linguisetic, and other forms of imperialism -- that hardly amounts to anything like "genocide." Whatever you worry about, you need not worry about too ferocious and undiscriminating a reaction from a Western world, once aroused. The problem is quite other: the slow conquest, through deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest, of a Western world weakened, possibly fatally, by its habit of making a burnt offering of itself on the altar of various Idols of the Age, including a Tolerance that tolerates the murderously intolerant, and a Diversity that would strip the countries of the Western world of their own cultural coherence, history, and right to a continued existence.
We get it. Look, either those of us who think Islam is the one world faith which is totalitarian in structure and ideology (as Bertrand Russell maintained almost a century ago in his Practice and Theory of Bolshevism) are right or we are wrong. If we are wrong, then your chastising us for thinking that Islam can't be reformed is justified. But what if we are correct? What if Islam can't be reformed? Just because there are over a billion believers in Islam won't change the unreformability of it if this is the case.
No totalitarian ideology is capable of reform and I unequivocally assert that Islam is a totalitarian phenomenon. Does the entire world have a gigantic mess on its hands? You bet, courtesy of Islam. In fact, I have argued that Islam is the "perfect storm" of totalitarian ideologies. It's also the world's biggest pain in the ass.
You brought up the Nazis and so I will too. Would anyone argue that Nazism could have been reformed? Hardly. Well, where is it written that just because something is a religion it must be good? Why can't a religion be evil? I've read the entire Koran, some of the Hadith and Sira, have familiarized myself with Islamic religous law (which equates non-believers to human waste) and have come to the conclusion that Islam is rotten to the core, unreformable. If I'm wrong, shame on me, but if I'm right, shame on you.
ISLAM IS A PAIN IN THE ASS. I've spent enough time in the muslim world to know this. But Christianity hasn't been that far behind. Both these religions are equally culpable IMHO thanks to aggressive efforts to "spread their faiths." Islam is an ARAB religion that has turned life on its head in Pukhtunkhwa. Its a pain in the ass in the West because none of you have the b---s to demand the end to immigration from the Muslim world.
Happy now? Feel good...now that this "Muslim" has beaten up that faith you despise? What have we solved here? nada. a big fat zero. I do know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Asking "Muslims" to abandon their faith (moi) and in the next breath talk about "moderate Muslims" are essentially fine...it's the religion stupid. WTF.
Bottomline is the bottomline and we must all reckon with it as unpalatable as it may be: there are between 1.1 to 1.4 billion Muslims on this planet. Extermination isn't an option. Cooption/reeducation/enlightenment might be. And, let me tell you although most are poor, illiterate and hungry, they are not about to just "drop" the one (spiritual) thing that gives them sustenance and hope for a better life in the hereafter because some gringo or apostate ask them to. Are you w/me so far?
Unnecessarily stoking/rousing passions by publically demonizing their quran and prophet aint going to cut it either. Roger that? So how to skin the cat? Go after the funding sources of the more virulent indoctrination processes as in madrassas and mosques. Secretly bolster Muslim leaders/voices that focus on the "positive" aspects of the religion as in jihad al kabir (as sufis and dervishes have done so through the centuries) and draw a line in the sand with the Arab instigated "jihad" now ably assisted by the Paks (and developing into a much serious problem for all of us). It will have to be the tried but true carrot and stick approach. With the big stick aimed right at the Saudis and their Arab and Pak ilks. But we all know that aint goint to happen. So we have to be imaginative, don't we?
SAPERE AUDE.
There is some merit in what you say, though I hardly would argue that Christianity has been almost as bad as Islam respecting capacities for violence. The Thirty Years War was the last major religious war in Western history. The vast majority of Christians finally realized by 1648 that killing in the name of religion was not an option. Muslims haven't figured this out yet. Moreover, and what is crucially important, is that Christianity in theory is not a paradigm for violence. Islam most certainly is (part of why it's evil). When Christians killed in the name of their religion, they were violating the tenets of their creed. When Muslims kill in the name of their faith, they regularly invoke their religion in doing so. Huge difference.
I myself have argued here at JW for the policy of working with some Muslims against others. I also don't see all Muslims as evil. Far from it. But I do see all Muslims as confused. The more virulent Muslims, who I'm sure you will concede are as much a threat to other Muslims as to non-believers, must be eliminated or at least so marginalized that they are no longer a menace to world order.
Nonetheless, if the religion itself is unreformable, wouldn't you, wouldn't any person of sense, want to know this? Is pretending that it is reformable when it isn't a sound policy? After all, knowledge is power.
I have also argued here at JW that the way to ultimately defeat Islamic supremacist designs is to have Islam slowly discredited in the eyes of the world, much as Nazism and Marxism have been. This will take a long time, probably as much as a century, and many Muslims will inflict many tragedies upon mankind before this happens (and Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. in the name of their religion won't). It's a damn shame Islam ever came along, but it did and now the whole world has to deal with this mess of a religion. I would also argue that sensible and knowledgeable people have a right to be irate at Islam, just as they should be with Nazism and Marxism. Surely, if I am correct and Islam really is the one major faith which is rotten to the core, anger and disgust manifested towards it is understandable at times.
In the long run, the solution to Islam will be its discrediting, not only to non-Muslims but to Muslims as well. Once this occurs, then Muslims will desert Islam in droves. When that begins to happen, mankind will have turned a corner and will have to await the next great threat to freedom, whatever that might be.
There are many ways to make Islam unattractive to both its current adherents, and those who might otherwise be tempted to convert.
One way is to examine, analyze, and find ways to encourage -- sometimes by doing nothing to prevent -- those ethnic,sectarian and economic fissures that potentially could not only divide the Camp of Islam, but also lead to a diminishing of numbers. While the Sunni-Shi'a split should be recognized, and nothing further done by the Americans or other Infidels to limit their hostilities, that split is mostly of relevance locally, wherever Shi'a are in the majority, as in Iraq and Iran, and Bahrain, while in a few other places -- Yemen, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia -- the numbers of Shi'a are sufficiently large to allow them to stand up to Sunni power. Otherwise their numbers are too small to allow them to make or take a stand.
The economic disparity between the rich Arabs and the rest of the Muslims --save for Iran -- should be constantly discussed by non-Muslims, so often, and so loudly, that the world's Muslims will have to overhear. And if that discussion takes place as Infidel aid is cut, cut to all the poorer Muslim states and would-be states, Egypt, Jordan, the "Palestinians," Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on, and those taken off what seems to be a permanent Infidel-funded dole asked to go hat in hand to Saudi Arabia, to the United Arab Emirates, to Kuwait, to Qatar, to Oman, to Libya, even perhaps to Iran, in a spirit of sharing among members of the Umma, the results will be disheartening both if the rich Arabs shell out something (it will never be enough, it will never satisfy the oil-less Muslims) and if they don't.
But the most important way to diminish the appeal of Islam is to work on the theme that counts the most: Islam as "the Arab National Religion" (as Anwar Sheikh called it), Islam as the vehicle for Arab cultural, linguistkc, and other forms of imperialism. It is not hard to show this. And non-Arab Muslims -- Kurds, Berbers, black Africans in Darfur -- will have had their own recent experience at the hands of Arabs and suffered from that same Arab supremacism found within Islam. That theme, and the obvious variations upon it, can do much to cause non-Arab Muslims to become disenchanted with Islam.
Finally, the more we talk, and talk loudly, and in detail, about all the ways in which the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim states and societies (and even families, even individuals living in the West) can be attributed to Islam itself, the more impossible it will be, in this age, for Muslims not to eavesdrop, to overhear, and for many of them, to be unable to deny the justice of the connection being made. That will keep them on edge, and will perhaps lead some -- how many cannot be gauged -- to wish to work to systematically constrain Islam, as Ataturk did.
And the spectacle of constant violence and aggression -- every morning bombs going off somewhere in the Muslim lands -- will be regarded with interest, and then with indifference, in the non-Muslim world, where we will come, nolens-volens, to identify Islam with violence, aggression, and an inability to move forward with the rest of the world. And that is an impression that can be valuable, for it can make Islam less attractive, even to the psychically marginal who lately have provided the most pathetic, but also the most vocal, of the converts.
Hugh, Yankel, Wellington, Wana,
Thank you all for such well thought out posts. I only wish that discussion like the above would be out for more to see. Was 'Firing Line' the last of this kind of mass communication? I'm off the tv grid in anycase.
So, whether to defeat, reform, isolate, denigrate, or become the subjects of Islam. Ignoring is sure didn't work out so well. I like the first four choices, chosen carefully for the right effect given the particular situation.
"And when things go wrong for fervent Muslims..."
Things always go wrong for fervent Muslims. Things are wrong for fervent Muslims. The whole world is wrong, and has been wrong since day one -- because Muslims do not dominate the world, and are, and have continued to be for centuries, frustrated from realizing that goal. With the bar set that low, they will have justification to explode, shoot, stab, beat and riot as long as history lasts.
On a related note, I think there is evidence of a textual blueprint in the Koran-and-Sunnah legitimizing, if not mandating, that Muslims foment fitna in order to usher in the last days. According to this blueprint, Muslims do not really want to conquer societies in order to organize them: they want to attack, fight and engage in sabotage in order bring the world to an end according to its apocalyptic script, which requires fomenting violence and encouraging enemies to counter-attack, hopefully on a global scale. (Certainly at various times and places in history, various fat sultans saw fit to aggrandize their regional power in order, effectively, to delay the eschaton, because they were able to cultivate their own little paradise on earth and on the backs of the hundreds of thousands of bodies they killed and enslaved and tortured. But that doesn't mean the apocalyptic script isn't there in Islam, and isn't motivating innumerable Muslims.)
Of course, they won't succeed. But merely in failing while trying to succeed, the will manage to cause untold grief, misery and mayhem in the decades ahead.
With all due respect, I think before judging Irshad Manji's "position" - based only on the strength of a single Facebook posting - one might take the time to read an article she wrote for the Globe & Mail. It's entitled: "Let's analyze Fort Hood, not sanitize it" (and is accompanied by an excellent cartoon!)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/lets-analyze-fort-hood-not-sanitize-it/article1357062/
With more knowledge about Hasan than she probably had at the time of her FB posting, Manji says:
"Let's be clear: If an alleged criminal merely happens to be a Muslim, then religion may well be immaterial. But if his crime is committed in the name of Islam, then religion serves to motivate. In that case, the suspect's Muslim identity absolutely matters. Words, gestures and images should be analyzed – fully, openly and honestly."
Your criticisms of Manji may well be justified - I haven't read her book, and have only heard her briefly on TV quite some time ago. However, on this issue, I do believe she's on the "right" side.
NAMES ARE GIVEN TO CHILDREN BY THEIR PARENTS/FAMILY MEMBERS IN
THE LANGUAGES THEY SPEAK/UNDERSTAND AND ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF ANY FAITH,IDEOLOGY OR RELIGION.
ISLAM DOES NOT OWN ANY NAME; IT'S AN IDEOLOGY AND IT'S EVIL.
HIS NAME DID NOT MOTIVATE HIM, ISLAM DID.
IT IS SAD TO WATCH ON TV, WELL EDUCATED PEOPLE DEBATING AND
PRETENDING AS TO NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE.
ISLAM MOTIVATES THESE IGNORANT IDIOTS TO KILL OR DIE FOR THE
DEMON ALLAH THEY BELIEVE IN AND WORSHIP.
Wana,
I wish you success with your undercover reformation mission, if I read you correctly.
For what it's worth, I agree with Ali Sina and Ayaan Hirsi Ali that Islam is unreformable, but will soon start to collapse under the weight of it's own falsehood and absurdity. A process that would have begun sooner but for the huge oil-funded expenditure worldwide on dawa and the rigid opposition to any real criticism of Islam by any means. (see the various excellent posts at this site by David Littman for example)
No-one should be compelled to remain in a faith by virtue of being born into it. Yet millions are.
Notwithstanding the hollow promise of 'there is no compulsion in religion.' And because they are never taught real alternatives to that faith, young Muslims see no escape - they are taught only those ideas that are designed to hold them in the grip of Islam. Lies such as the promise of hellfire for apostasy. I sometimes watch the Islam channel, one of many new Islamic satellite channels, with awful fascination as children are brainwashed relentlessly to parrot those Koranic verses and hadiths; proudly displaying their feats of memory and oratory, sometimes in song, so charming, but with absolutely no question of questioning any of it. I can see how such an atmosphere, with a close confiding trust nurtured between the Imam and his students would make criticism of the faith simply unthinkable to these young minds.
Yet we know that the awareness of scepticism, non-islamic philosophies and other, more moral religious ideas all filtering through to the Islamic world now means that many are already leaving and many more only remain out of fear. We don't know how many apparently devout believers have learned to stifle their doubts.
Doubts which can be opened again as long as we non-Muslims realise our duty is to help them to see through the lies that hold them back, and not to refrain from criticism out of misplaced respect.
Once the trickle of apostates and doubters becomes a stream, it could soon become a flood, and I believe this will probably start to happen in the next 20 years, hopefully less.
For an example of how religious faith can be undermined simply by open debate, see the before and after polls at the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw&feature=related
Not that attacking Catholicism is any help to anti-jihadists, but if Catholics can take this kind of examination, then why not Muslims, at least in the West (to start with)?
hro001,
The problem is, when Irshad Manji writes things like "But if his crime is committed in the name of Islam, then religion serves to motivate", she is not talking about any problem of Islam per se, but only of "extremists" who are trying to "twist" the perfectly fine and peaceful teachings of Islam. She is firmly in the camp of the Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Trying to Hijack Islam theorists -- and that theory continues to reinforce the dogma that Most Muslims Are Decent Harmless People.
Hesperado,
Maybe I need to read her book! But based on what I've read and heard so far, I have difficulty with the inference you draw from her paragraph, in context. Not to mention the fact that elsewhere in the article, she says:
Since the "religion" is Islam, and she considers the police omission as an "exercise in denial about the role of religion" wherein lies the source of your claim that she believes they were merely "extremists" who "twist" the religion?
I certainly agree that there is an alarming camp such as you described - and, sadly, much of our political leadership and media appear to have their feet firmly planted there. But, IMHO, Manji is not claiming (at least in this article) that the religion is being "twisted".