The one thing that can and should be done would be to call American Muslim groups to account, and demand that they institute in mosques and Islamic schools comprehensive, honest, inspectable programs teaching against the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism. But officials will never do this. They would prefer to pretend that the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism do not exist. And so we will see many more Jihad Janes.
"'Jihad Jane's' Arrest Raises Fears About Homegrown Terrorists," by Huma Khan, Emily Friedman, and Jason Ryan for ABC News, March 10 (thanks to Sr. Soph):
The arrest of a suburban Pennsylvania woman known by the alias Jihad Jane, who allegedly plotted with Islamic radicals abroad to kill a Swedish cartoonist, has raised fears about homegrown terrorists in the United States who may be difficult to spot. Suburban Pennsylvania woman is charged with recruiting extremists online."This woman might as well have advertised in the Washington Post," former White House counterterrorism official and ABC News consultant Richard Clarke said on "Good Morning America" today. "It was easy for the FBI to find her, but there are other people who are much more covert."
"There will likely be more attacks," Clarke said. "Hopefully, they will be small, and hopefully, we can catch them early."
Colleen R. LaRose, 46, of Montgomery, Pa., was arrested in October 2009 and charged with trying to recruit Islamic fighters and plotting to assassinate a Swedish cartoonist who made fun of prophet Mohammed, according to a federal indictment unsealed Tuesday.
The FBI had kept the case secret while it looked for more suspects in the United States and abroad. The case was made public after seven men were arrested in Ireland this week, suspected of plotting to kill the Swedish cartoonist.
LaRose's case is rare, Clark [sic] said, but it shows the capability of international dissident groups to reach out to Americans via the Internet.
"This is a very rare case of a disturbed woman," he said, but it signifies how "the Internet not only allows them to communicate, it allows them to recruit."
Their persuasive speeches and sermons, which have been effective in recruiting men and women in the Middle East, are "beginning to work for some misfits in the United States," he said....
But neither Clarke nor anyone else ever asks himself why these speeches and sermons are so persuasive.
abc news gives the reason for jihad plot to kill as making fun
of mohammad without explaining as to what fun?
Anyhow, I remember a story that a sunni killed a shia and gets
arrested for the man's murder but when he goes to court he told the judge that he only killed a dog and that judge should issue order to dig the shia's grave to confirm.Judge issues the order and when they dug the grave they found the shia with
dogs body.
Maybe jihad-jane and other jihadis in particular and muslims in general should dig up up mohammad to confirm that he is not a dog before getting all upset and plotting jihads.
"This is a very rare case of a disturbed woman,"
Then why doesn't she take antidepressants, like a normal person?
It would be interesting to know who recruited her, and what bait they dangled, other than the obvious sadism to match her masochism.
There's no doubt that Jihad Jane is a dog!
Why are Jihadists (and Democrats) always so ugly??
NVUH
Honestly, what next? Tupperware jihad parties to get recruits. Cold canvassing by telephone?: 'Yeah, I know its 7 o-clock on a Saturday morning, but I wondered if you'd like to join an organization with a global reputation.'
And the names!
Jihad Jane, Time-bomb Ted, Pants-bomb Patrick, Suicide Sal.
Jihad is getting really bizarre - as if it wasn't bizarre enough already.
Clarke and others use throw away comments such as :
"...disturbed woman"
"...some misfits in the United States"
These people don't worship the moon or believe that by eating cornflakes it offers everlasting life.
No, they believe in the murder of all infidels.
And yet the liberal West pussyfoot around their sensibilities allowing them to run amock with their hatred towards us in our own back yards.
Jihad Jane maybe one result, but like sports fixtures, there are whole lot more being played, covertly or otherwise.
The outrageous thing about this whole episode as far as the "Mainstream Media" is concerned is the reluctance to mention Islam. In the local paper the story appeared on page 9. Nary a word about Islam or her being a Muslim convert, just that she is a "jihadist."
To Fox New's credit, they did mention all of these things, and also mentioned that she was representative of a growing threat from "blond, Western and Northern European appearing terrorists". It is infuriating to see the "ho hum" reaction of most of the "chattering class" and the intelligentsia in this country.
"Jihad Jane" is a pitiful example of a brainwashed Western female convert to Islam. She should be forced to experience the humiliation endured by Muslim women under the thrall of Sharia, before she is put away for good!
I sincerely hope that this incident wakes up our naive leaders in Washington, although I will not be holding my breath!
Ban all Muslim immigration now, and monitor all Mosques. Do not allow any new Mosque construction!
The one thing that can and should be done would be to call American Muslim groups to account, and demand that they institute in mosques and Islamic schools comprehensive, honest, inspectable programs teaching against the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism.
A couple of problems with this formulation. First, the "and" that joins the first clause to the second: it could be simply equivalent to saying --
The one thing that can and should be done would be to call American Muslim groups to account, by demanding that they... etc.
Or it could mean Spencer had some other ways in mind to "call American Muslim groups to account" additional to those he lists in his formulation. It seems reasonable to assume the former.
More importantly, the formulation doesn't go far enough, considering how deadly Muslims are and what their plots portend for our society. Imagine in 1940 there were a proportional population of Nazis in the USA along with thousands of their organizational, educational and military outposts (for that is what a mosque is) in every city of the USA and in hundreds of towns, while their leader Hitler was busy fomenting supremacist war in another land.
To make it more realistic, we need also to imagine further that innumerable numbers of these American Nazis had already perpetrated mass-murders on American soil and had been discovered to have developed dozens of plots to do the same or worse, in addition to numbers of lone wolf individuals among them murdering, or trying to murder, innocents in the name of the same ideology that their fellow Nazis consider foundational.
We are not yet done with making our analogy comport with the grim reality of our situation today: Imagine that these American Nazis were part of a worldwide network of Nazis that had been assassinating individuals, mass-murdering innocents, and plotting to mass-murder innocents in various locations all over the world, from London to Madrid to Germany to Paris to Denmark to Holland to Moscow to Mumbai to Bali, all on the explicit basis of the supremacist expansionist ideology they all share as their fundamental tenets.
Hang on, we are still not yet done with making our analogy comport with the grim reality of our situation today: Imagine that the Nazism of these American Nazis in our hypothetical situation were ten times more evil and ten times deadlier than the Nazis of history.
Okay, now we're done. Let's take a look at Spencer's formulation again, keeping in mind my above hypothetical:
The one thing that can and should be done would be to call American Nazi groups to account, and demand that they institute in Nazi organizational, educational and military outposts comprehensive, honest, inspectable programs teaching against the Blitzkrieg doctrine and Hitlerian supremacism.
Stormwarning...Then why doesn't she take antidepressants, like a normal person?
Thanks...That's the best laugh I have had this morning...
***in related news***
Sweden grows a pair!
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3860733,00.html
"The one thing that can and should be done would be to call American Muslim groups to account, and demand that they institute in mosques and Islamic schools comprehensive, honest, inspectable programs teaching against the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism."
That is not enough. There is ample evidence at this time to be able to state categorically that Islam is incompatible with democracy and with the Constitution of the United States of America and that merely asking or hoping for Muslims in America to reject core elements of their faith is not enough, it is time to begin to call for the limitation of the practice of Islam in America and the West including an end to all immigration of Muslims and the beginning of a long process of encouraging those already here to leave.
"Islam is incompatible with democracy and with the Constitution of the United States of America."
That sums it up quite well, ThinkThrice. It is basically an irreconcilable issue in the long run, but Islam's strategists are banking on the masses not understanding this. Muslims understand it perfectly, from the least of them unto the greatest.
Jihad Watch doesn't appear to understand that the First Amendment's intent under the American form of governance as it currently exists is to protect religion from government intrusion. And JW needs to learn what the Tenth Amendment says and has traditionally meant, even if most Americans, including our so-called 'conservative movement' of the present day, don't care.
The U.S. federal government has no legitimate constitutional warrant to start dictating to any religion what its tenets should be and subject it to regulatory review. As a Catholic, I certainly wouldn't care for, and would never accept, any lecture from any ignorant government functionary that the destruction of unborn life is not intrinsically evil or that woman being unable to have holy orders conferred is some gross form of sex discrimination.
Then there's the Jihad Watch bugaboo of supremacism, as though that's always suppose to be some dirty word. Is JW saying that no religion can claim that its beliefs are superior to those of other religions? Or is it alright for non-Islamic religions to make that claim, and only Islam dare not make such a statement?
There is nothing wrong with, and it's entirely sensible for, a religion to believe that its beliefs on the whole are superior and more true than those of other religions. There's also nothing inherently wrong, in and of itself, with a religion believing that government should grant it special recognition and support.
It would be interesting to hear Mr. Spencer explain the metaphysics of any worldview that is supposed to hold that all religions are equally true and none can be viewed as superior to another. Perhaps he should also propose that Congress introduce and pass a bill that repeals the Law of Non-Contradiction. And an explanation as to why he's a member of the Catholic Christian Church, which would appear to qualify as a supremacist religious entity under JW's understanding of the concept, would also be useful.
fairuzfan
Your argument doesn't hold water. Islam is not simply a religion, it is a totalitarian belief system in every way comparable to Nazism or Communism but with the protective cloak of "religion" attached to it. To be consistent, you must believe that the Nazi Party and the Communist Party had every right to have their subversive associations and cells of operatives ensconced in our society, working to subvert this country, prior to WWII and following it.
We have no mandate to commit national suicide by welcoming a totalitarian, intolerant "religion" hell-bent on supplanting the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law and imposing its religious practices on us into our midst and pretending that it is simply a religion, equivalent to all the others! No, we, on this site, at least, will not fall for that!
The posing "as a Catholic" poster above does not appear to understand the Constitution: his invocation of the Tenth Amendment, which has to do with what powers are reserved to the states if not given to the Federal government, is merely bizarre. And he appears to think that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment means that the government (Federal or State, the latter through incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) cannot interfere at all with any exercise of religious beliefs. But of course it can, and it does. For example, in one case, an Air Force pilot was required not to wear his yarmulke for safety reasons. A law banning the use of peyote or peyote-like substances was upheld as Constitutional -- that is, withstood a challenge based on the argument that the peyote was used in a religious ceremony by American Indians. I have no doubt that if Muslims started slitting the necks of sheep in public, as they sometimes do in Europe, the legislation exists, or can be drafted and approved, to ban such activities. There are balancings, weighings. "As a Catholic" fairuzfan has a shaky grasp of American Constitutional Law. What he does appear to be most interested in, what seems most to engage him, is acting as a Defender of Islam, every step of the way. "As a Catholic." Curious.
Our money whores in Washington figure that Jihad Jane is just like them and she is in it for the money just like all the other crooks.
"Then there's the Jihad Watch bugaboo of supremacism, as though that's always suppose to be some dirty word. Is JW saying that no religion can claim that its beliefs are superior to those of other religions? Or is it alright for non-Islamic religions to make that claim, and only Islam dare not make such a statement?
There is nothing wrong with, and it's entirely sensible for, a religion to believe that its beliefs on the whole are superior and more true than those of other religions. There's also nothing inherently wrong, in and of itself, with a religion believing that government should grant it special recognition and support."
You are completely missing the point about the how the term "supremacism" is used on JW.
Only Islam teaches that Muslims are THEMSELVES superior to other PEOPLE. That is not a position that can be defended. All persons, no matter what their belief, are unique individuals endowed with rights not by man, but by God. WE ARE EQUAL.
Any belief system that teaches one group of people are superior to another group is dangerous and should be ostracized. We should teach our children that it is never right for one group to think they are better than another.
Christians know because the Bible says that God is no respecter of persons, and He would have ALL to be saved. Christians know they are only vile sinners who have been saved by grace. Everyone else is a vile sinner who NEEDS Christ's grace.
Got it?
fairuzfan wrote:
"Jihad Watch doesn't appear to understand that the First Amendment's intent under the American form of governance as it currently exists is to protect religion from government intrusion."
Correct to a point. That is why Islam must be stripped of its protections under religious freedom and be properly re-categorized as an aggressively violent and seditious political ideology.
Also, certain government agencies, like the FBI, do not need surveillance permission from Muslim leaders to investigate the happenings in mosques. likewise, David Koresh did not enjoy protections from "government intrusion" in Waco, Texas.
The point that Spencer is making is that regardless of what actual powers these officials presently possess, the call for Muslims and Muslim organizations to voluntarily submit to the requestes that Spencer noted is a non-starter for any elected official because no one believes or wants to believe that these elements even exist in Islam in any foundational way.
fairuzfan wrote:
"As a Catholic, I certainly wouldn't care for, and would never accept, any lecture from any ignorant government functionary that the destruction of unborn life is not intrinsically evil..."
This has no correlation to this thread. No one cares what Catholics think and no one is trying to regulate what Catholics think. Now if Catholic doctrine dictated and was taught that abortion practitioners are evil and must be killed, an act then perpetrated by untold Catholics, then you can be sure that the government would step in. No one is trying to or can control what Muslims think. You can however, prohibit the teaching of Islamic doctrine that calls for the harm of others, regardless if it is justified in their religious doctrine.
fairuzfanwrote:
"Then there's the Jihad Watch bugaboo of supremacism, as though that's always suppose to be some dirty word. Is JW saying that no religion can claim that its beliefs are superior to those of other religions?"
This is the development of a straw-man position against JW. Logicly, every religion believes that theirs is the best. If one discovered another ideology they deemed better, then they would probably subscribe to it. That said, JW is not making this claim at all. By referencing supremacism, Robert is explicitly referring to the harmful actions and reactions by Muslims outwardly to non-Muslims based on Islamic doctrine. Muslims don't have to like non-Muslims, but that does not give them license to do as they wish against them.
fairuzfan wrote:
"There's also nothing inherently wrong, in and of itself, with a religion believing that government should grant it special recognition and support."
That sentiment contradicts your opening paragraph and several other points in your comment.
fairuzfanwrote:
It would be interesting to hear Mr. Spencer explain the metaphysics of any worldview that is supposed to hold that all religions are equally true and none can be viewed as superior to another.
Another straw-man. Spencer has never claimed that all religions are equally true, nor has he ever said that none can be viewed as superior to the other.
fairuzfan:
"Perhaps he should also propose that Congress introduce and pass a bill that repeals the Law of Non-Contradiction."
Red herring, for Spencer did not contradict himself in this article and fariuzfan's weak assertions have not successfully argued otherwise.
fairuzfan:
"And an explanation as to why he's a member of the Catholic Christian Church, which would appear to qualify as a supremacist religious entity under JW's understanding of the concept..."
I do not know whether Robert is a Catholic, but it is irrelevant. If he is however, it does not support your assertion that it would qualify as a "supremacist religious entity" as Robert or JW has ever presented it.
In my estimation, fairuzfan's entire argument premise is flawed and based almost solely on a straw man tactic.
Perhaps fairuzfan should also propose that Congress introduce and pass a bill that repeals the validity of critiquing a debate style that relies on logical fallacies?
Kaixo: Communism and Nazism are not religions in any traditional understanding of the term. And, since you bring them up, my understanding is that, nonetheless, they do, indeed, enjoy basic protection within the U.S. law of the land. That doesn't mean their illegal behavior is allowed. Just like any Muslim's illegal behavior would not be allowed.
Mr. Fitzgerald: I'm afraid your post seems just plain odd.
The Tenth amendment is important, and our nation's lack of adherence to and respect for it should not be dismissed as merely bizarre with nary a word more.
There is a considerable differnce between the related matters of curbing religious practices that violate Natural Law norms, handling the interaction between religious practices and licit prudential discretionary positivist implementations of law, and occupational guidelines that an adherent of a religion is called upon to abide by when voluntarily accepting employment versus the whole idea that government should start dictating what a religion teaches and how it instructs its adherents. Your comments in this area appear to be all but irrelevant to the nature of what Mr. Spencer was positing in the opening post of this thread.
A Defender of Islam appears to be a rather ambiguous and dubious claim as well. Since I'm not an adherent of Islam, I'm obviously not an apologetical defender and affirmer of its distinctive truth claims. Nor do I accept, condone, or support any wrongdoing committed by Muslims, as my positions regarding terrorism, Geert Wilders, Muhammad cartoons, Iranian human rights, and Kosovo exhibit.
That, of course, doesn't mean that calumny-like statements directed toward Muslims must go unanswered by thoughtful non-Muslims. Do you find the Caucasians who participated in the Southern civil rights movement equally curious?
I would be most interested in hearing from you how things like an Islamic billboard constitute an unacceptable form of 'supremacism', and why Muslims shouldn't believe and profess that their religion is more true than, and superior to, other religions.
"...and why Muslims shouldn't believe and profess that their religion is more true than, and superior to, other religions."
Same problem. Straw man tactic, this time against Hugh. Neither Robert, nor Hugh have ever expressed that sentiment here on JW.
You missed the point entirely, and willfuly, methinks.
fairuzfan
Did I state that Nazism and Communism were religions? I did state that they were subversive and that they did not qualify for protection under the Constitution. I am stating that the same thing should hold true for Islam, as it is a totalitarian belief system which incorporates an intolerant religion (the most intolerant in the world) with a supremacist system of laws and practices entirely incompatible with any free nation.
Note that the Nazis had NO RIGHTS in the United States during WWII. The Communists should have had no rights in this country either, but there were those in high places who admired Communism and were not adverse to allowing it to influence our government. As a matter of fact, we still have some Communists actively working with this Administration...which is an outrage!
Stand fast in the liberty: Muslims with whom I have had discussions pertaining to Islamic teaching, while they clearly have held that Islam dictates that their beliefs are truer than mine, have also held from Islam that I am in no way inferior to them as a person. In addition, the point is that Jihad Watch has gone beyond any claim in this area. A Minnesota Islamic billboard that refers to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as Islamic prophets cannot be tagged as an expression of supremacism because Muslims purportedly believe they are superior as persons. A claim of supremacism, in such a context, would have to be oriented around theology, which, I'm claiming, is intellectual absurdity.
Awake: FBI surviellance has to do, as I understand it, with suspected law-breaking, not seeking to dictate the teaching of Islamic theology.
Again, I would state, that government cannot regulate religious teachings, based on what would be supposedly 'harmful'. I think my Catholic thoughts are entirely relevant here, and don't understand why you disagree. Catholic teaching holds that destruction of the unborn is immoral and tantamount to murder. That could be construed as setting the stage for harm to abortion providers. Catholic teaching holds that homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered state. That could be construed as setting the stage for physical attacks against homosexuals and denying them their 'civil rights'.
Should the government cleanse Catholic teaching of such beliefs that can lead to harm to those in our society? And should government cleanse Orthodox Jewish yeshivas of teachings such as milchemet mitzvah and rodef?
A religious adherent engaged in objective wrongdoing and basing it upon their understanding of religious teaching does not, in and of itself, I believe, belong under the heading of supremacism. In any event, again, Jihad Watch's claims appear to have gone well beyond this.
Lastly, my points about respecting the Constitution as our present-day law are not a contradiction to religonists seeking government recognition of religious truth, which can be pursued through proper, licit, peaceful, constitutionally approved efforts.
A Minnesota Islamic billboard that refers to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as Islamic prophets cannot be tagged as an expression of supremacism because Muslims purportedly believe they are superior as persons.
--fairuzfan
The supremacism of islam is perfectly on display in such a billboard.
islam recognizes no religion but islam. It flatly denies any historical authenticity to any other religion.
Once again, the vile, Jew-hating, arab/muhammadan apologist, fairuzfan opens mouth and inserts foot.
Fairuzfart; the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
"Islam is incompatible with democracy and with the Constitution of the United States of America."
Its not as if Muslims have not themselves made that very clear, though they would put it in a different manner.
"Democracy and the Constitution of the United States of America is incompatible with sharia - the constitution framed by allah."
Muslims with whom I have had discussions pertaining to Islamic teaching, while they clearly have held that Islam dictates that their beliefs are truer than mine, have also held from Islam that I am in no way inferior to them as a person.
--fairuzfan
THEY DON'T READ SEIN KORAN!!!
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
...those who reject faith (Infidels) fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73
----
and on and on and on the evil drivel of the fiend muhammad and his murderous minions.
Fairuzphan, you're being taqiyya-ed. They really don't like you despite your sparkling personality and wizard-like intellect.
Of course, that smug streak down your back might might not be so appealing to them.
Why do I suspect that Colleen Larose was an embittered, angry woman before her conversion to the RoP?
Among the many things that "fairuzfan" misunderstands about American Constitutional Law is that it does not regulate belief, but regulates practices. How, after all, could it change the "beliefs" of Muslims?
Tbe most obvious example of this, which I did not mention in my first reply to "fairuzfan" above, is Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 case, in which the Court upheld upheld Roger's conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy:
“Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”
Congress could not outlaw belief in polygamy, but it could outlaw the practice of polygamy. The Court in Rogers also said that people cannot excuse themselves from this or that law because of their religion: “Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? The
permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the
land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist
only in name under such circumstances....”
The Free Exercise Clause is not absolute.
And, of course, there is a question that "fairuzfan" ignores, that the Court has yet to decide. Is Islam a "religion" or is it best defined as something else? Why are what David Koresh ran, or what the Jonestown man with his Koolaid-swallowing followers, called "cults" rather than "religions"? Does the fact that both in Waco, and in Jonestown, there were obvious attempt to hold, against their will, by force or the threat of force, or through endless brainwashing that never lets up, those who have entered this group and for a while accepted whatever beliefs its members share, push us toward calling such belief-systems "cults"? And if so, what shall we say of Islam, which punishes open apostasy by death?
And furthermore, is Islam really a "religion" as most of us understand that term by reference to Christiantiy, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, or is it most concerned with the spread of the worldly power of Muslims and the dominance of Islam? Is Islam a matter of saving individual souls, or is it, rather, a matter of signing up recruits for the Army of Islam, recruits who, once they have signed up (a single uttered sentence is equivalent to signing on the dotted-line at that Army Recruitment Centeer), find they can't get out? Should the matter of what to correctly call Islam come before the Court, or should we simply go with the recent idea -- and it is recent, because until the twentieth century there was none of this piety about "the world's great religions" and what in the West was called "Muhammadanism" was seen, rather more clearly than today, as a unique fighting faith that was all about conquest, all about hostility toward Infidels, based as it was on a clear distinction between, and the assumption of a permanent state of war between, Believer and Unbeliever, Muslim and Infidel.
Or does "fairuzfan" think that the American government, having banned polygamy in Reynolds, as against Mormons, has no right to do so as against Muslims?
One would like to know what he thinks.
In 1890, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints officially rejected polygamy
Fairuzfan wraps himself in the U.S. Cnstitution but has yet to discover that the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact. His comparisons to the Catholic religion are totally off base and incoherant. The life of Jesus was one based on His love of His fellow man. The life of Muhammad was based on his ascendance to power, devotion to Allah, and his contempt for certain peoples.
Here is where 10s of billions dollars in US aid to Pakistan is
used to rebel rouse the so called moderate Muslims against the larger kuffur world, who will be defeated and dominated to establish a caliphate, United States of Islam, whose combined Muslim armies will destroy India, turn around, march into and destroy Israel to free the Palestinians, "inshaallah".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMNXDw_XQJI&NR=1
WAKEUP AMERICA, STOP FUNDING PAKISTAN, TERROR CENTRAL !!!!
Cover your nose folks, fartman just let a stinkin' lie....
Here fairuzfan claims to be utterly mystified as to why Hugh would refer to him as a "Defender of Islam" by stating this:
"A Defender of Islam appears to be a rather ambiguous and dubious claim as well."
But in the same breath fairuzfan concludes by -- you guessed it -- DEFENDING ISLAM:
"...and why Muslims shouldn't believe and profess that their religion is more true than, and superior to, other religions."
"Stand fast in the liberty: Muslims with whom I have had discussions pertaining to Islamic teaching,"
Well, there ya go, he's been reassured by his conversation with a few Moslems that the endless parade of examples showcased here at JW are negated by their soothing words. LOL
"Catholic teaching holds that destruction of the unborn is immoral and tantamount to murder. That could be construed as setting the stage for harm to abortion providers. Catholic teaching holds that homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered state. That could be construed as setting the stage for physical attacks against homosexuals and denying them their 'civil rights'."
Apples and oranges. If Catholicism supported these hypothetical actions and preached to its adherents to do engage in these hypothetical actions, then yes, they would be subject to government intrusion.
All of this is useless speculation, and religious moral equivalence, especially when compared to Islam where the doctrine and the message does exactly what you purport Catholicism does, but in reality, does not.
Your straw man arguments against Hugh, Robert and JW in general on your misunderstood term of Islamic supremacism were thoroughly exposed by several commenters here.
“Muslims with whom I have had discussions pertaining to Islamic teaching, while they clearly have held that Islam dictates that their beliefs are truer than mine, have also held from Islam that I am in no way inferior to them as a person.”
Also sprach “fairuzfan,” who wants us to do what he apparently does, and accept at face value, and with not the slightest suspicion, the assurances he has received from “Muslims with whom” he has “had discussions” that he, “fairuzfan,” and presumably all the rest of us Infidels too, are in their eyes “in no way inferior to them as a person.”
What, then, should one make of the fact that all intelligent scholars of Islam note that Islam is based on a very clear distinction in the treatment of those who are Believers and those who are called Unbelievers, that is between Muslims and Infidels? What does he, “fairuzfan,” make of the explicit calls in the Qur’an to present the Unbelievers with only three choices: death, immediate conversion to Islam, or permanent status as “dhimmis” who are subject to a host of political, economic, and social disabilities, so severe that, in order to escape the life of humiliation, degradation, and permanent physical insecurity that the dhimmi status (and even this status was accorded automatically not to everyone, but only to members of the Ahl al-Kitab, the “People of the Book,” that is to Christians and Jews) entailed. Does he not know of this status, even having been coming to this site for months or possibly years? Has he not read of the condition of the dhimmi, in such works as Bat Ye’or’s “The Dhimmi”? Has he not looked into her masterpiece, “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam”? Isn’t he at all curious as to why vast lands, in North Africa and the Middle East, once the site of thriving Christian populations (both Tertullian and St. Augustine came from North Africa), indeed what was once the unrivalled center of Christianity, became over slow time almost entirely Muslim, with a few holdouts – the Copts in Egypt (really, in Egypt most of those who oppress the Copts are themselves merely the descendants of Copts who were forcibly converted to Islam, or who converted to avoid the agony of the dhimmi condition at times of unusually harsh persecution), the Maronites in Lebanon (who could hold out for so long because of the mountainous terrain (Mount Lebanon or Mont Liban) and the proximity, by land and sea, to Western Christendom , the Assyrians and Chaldeans (who were once practically everyone in Iraq, save for the Jewish population that was spread among the Christians all over the Middle East,and especially in what is modern Iraq and Iran, but also, even, at the time of Muhammad, in Arabia itself. No, he, “fairuzfan,” prefers not to do any studying, but to accept uncritically these assurances from Muslims – no suspicion, no understanding of kitman or taqiyya, no grasping of the “war is deception” that Muhammad preached. Just a Willingness To Believe that is itself suspect.
“Fairuzfan” also talks about “supremacism” and wonders why Robert Spencer thinks it right to ask Muslims to stop inculcating the idea of “Islamic supremacism.” For “fairuzfan” – as other posters above have keenly noted – confuses two things. He confuses the unsurprising idea that believers in this or that faith may believe – it would make sense, would it not? – that their faith is superior to all others, or that they alone possess the truth. Now while we might think this claim or attitude equally true of all faiths, it isn’t. Hindus do not believe that the whole world should become Hindu, and Hindu India is famously tolerant and receptive, though some Hindus also resent the attempts by, say, Christian missionaries to proselytize in India itself; Hinduism is connected to the culture and history of India, Hindu India. Similarly, though in Roman times there was a certain amount of Jewish proselytism, in recent millennia that happens rarely, and Judaism is not held out as a universal truth, making universal claims, but like Hinduism, is limited in its application to a particular people and those who might wish, after intense study, to become a member of that people, or tribe. Buddhists welcome converts, but they do not aggressively seek them out. The two faiths that do make universalist claims are Christianity and Islam. But here, again, distinctions muset be made. To become a Christian you need to study, you need to know what it is you are getting into. Your soul, so those proselytizing believe, can be saved if you accept Christianity. But there is no trickery, no sleight of word, no holding back on major parts of the doctrine;you are not only encouraged, but required, to learn something about Christianity, whether those doing the proselytizing are Protestant missionaries or Catholic ones. Christians wish those converting to make a choice based on real knowledge. And they do not attempt, through threats of death, to prevent those who are born into Christianity, or those who have converted to it, from leaving one Christian sect for another, or for a non-Christian faith, or for no faith at all. There is freedom of conscience, at least in modern times.
Islam is quite different. Conversion, or “reversion,” is made as quick and easy as it can, and indeed, I have been told by a number of those who in this country converted to Islam and then re-thought things, that when they were converting they were deliberately not told about many aspects of Islam, and were only informed about them, drop by drop, later, once they were already considered to be Muslims. Kept deliberately in the dark about much of what Islam teaches, what the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira contain, until it is too late, until those converts or “reverts” have recited the Shahada, they could now do nothing, no matter what they subsequently discovered or had revealed to them about Islam. For in Islam the true object of worship is Islam itself. Islam itself must grow, and grow, and become ever more powerful. For the sake of Islam, individual Muslims can lie, can practice deception, can do whatever they have to to protect, and promote, Islam. Islam is not individualist, but collectivist, and it is the Umma itself, the Community of Believers, that counts, and not the individual’s mental freedom. Indeed, Islam is based entirely on a system of rules, of What Is Commanded and What Is Prohibited, and the individual is told he must be a “slave of Allah,” must never question the ruiles of Allah or their morality, and must learn the habit of mental submission. His not to reason why. “Fairuzfan” appears not to grasp this essence of Islam.
“Fariuzfan” also demonstrates amazing inconsistencies, or perhaps hypocrisy, is the correct word. For he begins by wrapping himself in what he takes to be Constitutional guarantees (he does not understand the Tenth Amendment nor, I’m afraid, the correct application of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, as against both the Federal and the State governments). But he’s willing to invoke them in order to claim, incorrectly, that the government (Federal and state) has no business meddling in religion. But of course it does, and it has in many ways, such as in the Rogers v. U.S. where polygamy was outlawed, or in a whole series of cases where laws trenched on the absolutist interpretation of the Free Exercise or the Establishment Clause, and were held to have withstood Constitutional challenge.
But after having performed his little act as a stout defender of the First Amendment, even if he misinterprets it, “fairuzfan” then declares that his own mission is to try to establish, in this country, a legal regime quite different from that of the American Constitution with its First Amendment, He’s quite open about it:
“[M]y points about respecting the Constitution as our present-day law are not a contradiction to religonists [sic]seeking government recognition of religious truth, which can be pursued through proper, licit, peaceful, constitutionally approved efforts.”
So, he will counsel to himself, as well as to Muslims, “respecting the Constitution” but only
as our present-day law” [the hint that such law is, and should be, modified in the future is clear] and because that “present-day law” does not constitute “a contradiction to religionists [?]} seeking government recognition of religious truth, which can be pursued through roper, licit, peaceful, constitutionally approved efforts.”
So, let’s get this straight. “Fairuzfan” thinks that the Constitution may command his respect, or anyone’s respect, as mere “present—day law,” but if, and only if, it does not serve as a barrier to “religiionits seeking government recognition of religious truth” – a goal which “can be pursued through proper, licit, peaceful, constitutionally approved efforts.”
So he doesn’t really believe in the separation of church and state, though that is what he starts out with, as a way to denounce Spencer and others who think that Muslims in this country have a responsibility to cease to inculcate the idea of Jihad. No,he’s all for a theocracy, it’s as clear as day. He doesn’t really care for the very guarantees, the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses, and he thinks the Constitution is only to be obeyed, apparently, as “present-day law” because, you see, it does not, he thinks, constitute a permanent obstacle to his real goal, which is to change the American polity out of all recognition, by pursuing his goal of “seeking government recognition of religious truth.” What “religious truth”? Oh, his, “fairuzfan”’s religious truth. Astonishing, that he would fess up to such a goal. Given his bishop-lefevre-like views of Catholicism, one assumes nothing short of the theocracy the Jesuits set up in Paraguay in the eigthteenth century would satisfy him. What a supporter of the American Constitution. What an American. I can well imagine what Washington, Jefferson, Madison,George Mason, would think of the likes of “fairuzfan.”
I won’t go on, I won’t bother to note his English, as in “[t]here is a considerable difference between the related matters of curbing religious practices that violate Natural Law norms, handling the interaction between religious practices and licit prudential discretionary positivist implementations of law, and occupational guidelines that an adherent of a religion is called upon to abide by when voluntarily accepting employment versus the whole idea that government should start dictating what a religion teaches and how it instructs its adherents” except to wonder about someone capable of writing “handling the interaction between religious practices and licit prudential discretionary positivist implementation of law” – move over, Savigny, move over, Hans Kelsen, there’s a Daniel come to judgment here, and he needs a seat – you can do that for yourself.
And as for that curious claim by “fairuzfan” hat he couldn’t possibly be a “Defender of Islam” because, you see, he’s not a Muslim : “A Defender of Islam appears to be a rather ambiguous and dubious claim as well. Since I'm not an adherent of Islam, I'm obviously not an apologetical defender and affirmer of its distinctive truth claims.” No, not an “apologetical defender and affirmer of its distinctive truth claims” but that is not the only kind of Defender of Islam that exists. There are plenty of those who wish to tell us how wonderful Islam is, how inspiring Tariq Ramadan is, how splendidly the Muslims have always treated Christians and Jews and, while we’re at it, Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Jains too, because, as Obama said in his Cairo speech, and as Bush said before him, Islam is characterized by “tolerance.” And if you parrot any of that stuff, or if you make such claims as “Islam is responsible for the Renaissance” or “islam is responsible for keeping all of Greek philosophy alive” or “Islam is responsible for the development of modern science” or “Islam resulted in a great improvement in the treatment of women” or any such thing, you may not be making what this junior-league theology student calls “truth claims” about Islam but you are every bit as much a Defender of the Faith as is, for example, the idiotic Karen Armstrong or the venal John Esposito, the first of whom ditzily contents herself with the pious belief that All Religions Are Created Equal and the second of whom is happy so long as those checks keep coming in, and those invitations for more well-paid speaking engagements before Muslim audiences (and can the King Faisal Prize be far behind?)
Really, “fairuzfan,” you’ve outdone yourself this time.
What a performance. What a display.
What Hugh said, excellently.
Unfortunately there are homegrown terrorists all over the civilised world, as Mohammedans proselytise like mad. And all these converts want to become martyrs rewarded with 72 regenerating virgins in paradise. What awaits women like "Jihad Jane", I must admit I haven't got a clue, I can only conjecture. Maybe she'll meet the self-appointed prophet himself who had the power of 40 x 40 (!) ordinary men. I hope she'll let the investigators know.
Hugh, as usual, said it all, better than almost any of us could. Fairuzfan has not a leg to stand on. Fairuzfan, please read "Islam 101", accessible on this site, for a brief, concise synopsis of Islam. It should clear up all of the misconceptions about Islam that you have in abundance...
I think Fairuzfan lives across the pond, and is not a US citizen (correct me if that's wrong)...As such, when Fairuzfan becomes a US citizen I might be interested on his take of the US Constitution...Otherwise it's all blue smoke and mirrors...
fairuzfan, I too have had many discussions with "Muslims...pertaining to Islamic teaching." One that I recall vividly, although it happened at least four years ago, was with an extremely nice intelligent young man from Afghanistan. He considered himself a devout Muslim but was far from an extremist, in large part, I believe, because he had been imprisoned for a time by the Taliban in his native country and had witnessed horrific things, as you might imagine. (In fact, he was so "moderate" that he refused to join the Muslim Students' Association on the campus where I teach, making it clear his disdain for them.)
However, even this nice, non-fanatical young Muslim admitted to me that, according to his religion, "I am supposed to kill you if you do not convert to Islam." I asked him how much time non-Muslims had to convert before being killed, and he said he didn't know--different Muslim clerics held different views.
I should add that he was *clearly* embarrassed by this tenet of Islam, and I truly believe he never, ever would have killed me or anyone else for not converting. However, even he, despite his embarrassment, made no attempt to deny the truth.
I am also reminded of a female Muslim student I had who admitted, in an essay she wrote, that "My religion teaches women are not as good as men." I guess I'm just lucky that, unlike fairuzfan, I've met and talked with some Muslims who do not practice taqqiya.
On the subject of whether or not Islam is a "religion" or is something more, and that something more is not entitled to whatever protections are afforded to belief-systems deemed "religions" for the purposes of the First Amendment, here is one among many testimonies offered by well-known apostates.
In this case, the apostate is Wafa Sultan, in one of her appearances on Al Jazeera:
Wafa Sultan: "Dr. Faysal, you know that you cannot separate Islam from politics. Islam is not a religion, but politics. You must let me express my views the way I want. When you called me, you didn't say I was not allowed to discuss Islam or the Koran. Islam says to them that they will 'kill or be killed', and here they are—killing and being killed. So what's wrong with that? They want to be martyred and to meet their black-eyed virgins, and Israel is merely helping them get what they want. What's wrong with that? If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you, will consider you in a better light, and will draw you in a better light."
"Islam is not a religion, but politics."
Bush certainly refused to undrestand this, and as someone who felt he had been saved by religion, was a sentimentalist. Obama, on the other hand, whom I take to be an atheist who finds religion a useful means of social control and, for some populations, uplift, has a tiersmondiste attitude, and also fancies himself knowledgeable about Islam based on two trivial things: that his absentee father was, nominally, a Muslim (though an easygoing, syncretistic, Kenyan sort of Muslim, in the days before Saudi money brought the real thing), and that he, Obama, spent four of his childhood years, from the ages of six to nine, living in largely Muslim Indonesia, and has -- but what kid wouldn't -- happy memories of those years. The fact that Indonesia at the time was more secular than any Muslim country save Turkey (because of Ataturk), that Jakarta was a cosmopolitan city and Obama lived with other Westerners, that the school he attended had both Christian and Muslim pupils, which meant that the Muslim parents must have been advanced and secular, unafraid to send their children into an environment where they would have to mix with Christians, and that, furthermore, at that age the full brainwashing in the mosques and madrasas had not commenced for most of his innocent and cheerful classmates -- well, all this has not exactly been pondered by him, and he perhaps thinks he has no need to read up on Islam, when of course he does, and he certainly needs to let himself hear what the articulate apostates -- and why not spend a pleasant few hours with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and hear what she has to say? -- can tell him. He is far too sure of himself -- baselessly -- on this. and he, and others, in official Washington, are letting themselves listen to Musilm advisers and counsellors as well as to other non-Muslims as ignorant of Islam as they themseelves. A disastroyus situation, that could so easily be rectified.
Hard to know if he's one of those antisemitic Richard-Williamson Society of Pius X types, even further beyond the pale than Bishop Lefebvre (incidentaly, despite Lefebvre, I think there's a lot to be said for not jettisoning the Latin Mass, and I'm glad it's here and there coming back, on Robert Frost's aesthetic theory that "some mystery becomes the proud"), a real throwback and fanatic, or if he's merely a Muslim decking himself out as an antisemitic richard-williamson type. I asked two friends of mine, both supernumeraries in Opus Dei, and very much amused by the question, what they thought of this "fairuzfan" -- that is, whether they thought he was a Muslim masquerading as a "Catholic" or was indeed a Catholic of a peculiar kind, and the two of them came down on opposite sides of the question, one thinking he must be a Muslim and the other thinking he was merely one of those williamson clones (yes, I am aware that some people think everyone in Opus Dei is a fanatic, because Dan Brown has made many think so but, at least in this country -- and I know a few in Spain too -- it most definitely isn't so), the kind who are nostalgic for father-feeney, formerly of Central Square, in Cambirdge, and have a deep interest in denouncing Jews and Judaism, and who, therefore, have a natural interest in, and natural sympathy for, Muslims, as people who will not look askance, but welcome, their pre-existing mental condition that others will, among those in the educated Western world, any longer tolerate.
It really doesn't matter what "fairuzfan"'s background is; what is of note is the difficulty he has understanding American Constitutional Law and the history of its adjudication.. His understanding of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses is crudely absolutist -- akin to those people who think that the guarantee of Free Speech is similarly absolutist, for they have never heard of any time, place, and manner restrictions, have never heard of the Holmes-Brandeis "clear and present danger" test, have never heard of the modifications and then the final jettisoning of that test with Brandenburg, and do not realize that interpretations of constitutional clauses and their application are not set in stone, not even in harlan-stone. His, fairuzfan's, view of the Tenth Amendment is simply bizarre.
If he felt like educating himself,he could. He could start, say, with the works of the late Professor Robert McCloskey, who wrote for the general reader, and who taught undergraduates at Harvard College -- taught them brilliantly -- rather than at Harvard Law School. You can still find his anthology of major Supreme Court cases and his discussion of them. He could go back further, to Corwin say, or Alexander Meiklejohn. He could read Alexander Bickel, at Yale Law School, a contemporary of McCloskey (who died, unforgettably and tragically, of a ruptured spleen). There is the great big book, Tribe on American Cosntitutional Law, written by him with a lot of help from a whole tribe of anonymous Harvard Law School students who considered it an honor to slave away, at slave wages, for Tribe), and then fairuzfan, if he wanted to -- I suspect he doesn't want to, anymore than he really wants to read about Islam from thsoe who are not simply apologists, but scholars or witnesses -- to bring himself up to speed and up to date with the shepardizing and searching for cases that in antediluvian pre-Internet days took forever, but now can be done with flying fingers and a subscription to Lexis-Nexis or WestLaw, or both.
Then he could find out where things stand as to both the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clause, though neither he, nor anyone else, can discover what the Supreme Court will accept as the definition of a "religion" because they haven't yet addressed that question. And Islam, that Total Belief-System, fairly begs to have that question answered.
Hugh wrote...
"Hard to know if he's (farazfan) one of those antisemitic Richard-Williamson Society of Pius X types, even further beyond the pale than Bishop Lefebvre..."
Either way, farazfan engages in theological trickery to make his point. He ignores reality, and why would he go to all this trouble to make such an intricate point. To me the answer is obvious. He is a Muslim cloaking himself as a Catholic and trying to con us which is what Muslims intend to do. (BTW, the only anti-semitic Christians I have ever seen are a few very nominal and ignorant Christians.)
Hugh has nailed farazfan.
Jihad Jane arrest raises fears of "homegrown terrorists..."
I particularly dislike the term "homegrown." The term is deceptive to the real issue. The term "homegrown" means grown or originating in a particular place. Islam may be growing in the U.S. but in no way did it originate in the United States. It is more like the infestation of a foreign weed.
The truth is islam is a foreign infestation in the United States. It is now common throughout most of the United States, because of defective immigration policies allowing muslims primarily from war zones created by muslims against their non muslim neighbors, to preferentially receive immigrant status and come to the United States ahead of all other immigrants. Because they were leaving a war zone they primarily created because of a murderous ideology to their neighbors, the absurdity is that by bizzare Western policies murderers and their ideological sympathizers were put ahead of the rest for preferential immigration to Europe and the United States. The result is jihadi muslims and their sympathizers first started infestating the U.S. in the 1970s.
Islam is like Kudzu. It is a weed growing out of control. It has no natural predator in the U.S. because the States have a live and let live attitude which was needed to help blend immigrants of a similiar ethic in the development of multi- ethnic yet single minded country. Kudzu, after its intentional introduction in the U.S. in the 1870s was subsequently discovered to be a pest. It had near-perfect conditions to grow out of control as it has no natural predators. As such, the once-promoted plant was eventually recognized and named a pest weed by the United States Department of Agriculture.
Adherents to islam making jihad and behaving badly in the U.S. are not homegrown, they are an out of control pest weed with no natural predators among the hapless good will intentioned Americans. The last time the West went against the marauding Moslems was when Pope Urban declared a first Crusader war against them because of the atrocities they had committed against Christians.
Continuing with the plant and flora metaphors, American Jihadi should not be called "homegrown" merely because they grew up or converted in the U.S. The whole religion and culture is totally foreign to what is the U.S.
While it is true Islam has found near perfect conditions in the U.S. as it did in the West to establish itself in a live and let live place, islam is an out of control pest where hapless Americans do not know how to stand up to its bullying. Moreover, most Americans have no idea about Muslim intentions for their body or soul listening to the sickening lying pallative of the stringer press from 56 muslim countries where they disingenuously write that islam is a religion of peace.
The challenge is for Americans to see that islam is not a home grown flower but as a weed and pernious pest. Jihad Jane is not home grown, she is the result of a dangerous out of control foreign infestation.
call American Muslim groups to account, and demand that they institute in mosques and Islamic schools comprehensive, honest, inspectable programs teaching against the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism.
In other words, Islamic leaders must put their shoulders together with the average Moderate Moslems who populate American mosques and work together to systematically dismantle Islam piece by piece.
*** 8:7 ***
Or would that be peace by peace?
........ America to reject core elements of their faith is not enough, it is time to begin to call for the limitation of the practice of Islam in America and the West including an end to all immigration of Muslims and the beginning of a long process of encouraging those already here to leave.
....encouraging those already here to leave.
Encourage!!!! How about "an offer to leave they can't refuse".
Did she call herself "jihad Jane"? If so...do you suppose she's a fan of "Hanoi Jane?"
I wonder if Fonda is honored or pissed. I'm guessing honored. Could be wrong...
islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.
Hugh: Your response to Fairuzfan "posing as a Catholic" is spot on!! One of the PR/propaganda approaches Muslim fanatics are trained to use with Americans is to appeal to US cultural norms, government, history, etc. in order to try to insuate their evil into mainstream thinking. "Posing as a Catholic" is just a second-rate hack Muslim trying to follow, perhaps, the PR training he received at a CAIR conference or an MSA conference, etc.... I am reminded of the time I interviewed English-speaking Muslim Palestinian terrorists being held in an Israeli jail. They had so clearly been trained in specific PR/propaganda techniques. They tried to characterized themselves as "freedom fighters" akin to George Washington and the American Revolutionary soldiers. I pointed out that Washington and the American Revolutionary Army did not have a standing policy of attacking and killing non-military targets (i.e. innocent civilians). He didn't even bother responding since it was fraudulent propagandizing to begin with - not an actual argument. He just moved on to Tactic B on his list of techniques. Fairuzfan is a total ringer! And a patently second-rate one, at that.
Fairuzfan has really been put in his place on this thread. I suspect, though, he's delusional or pompous enough not to realize a good whippin' when it happens to him.
Hugh: I feel silly asking, but are you Mr. Fitzgerald? Either way have you published any books? If not, WHY THE HECK NOT? Perhaps a collection of you posts (which are informitive mini essays in themselves), maybe including other non-print-published you feel is good to. I'd seen something like that with gaming blog posts.
As others said you responce to fairz is right on.
wellington: hasn't stoppped them (apollogists) before
You know, if anyone can suggest an agent, a publisher or, for that matter, offer a guide to self-publishing, I'd welcome the information. I read books, and I prefer things in book form, and while articles preserved in pixilated-fashion are not quite as ephemeral as they might seem, the Articles in the Archives above (which do need updating, as was pointed out to me by "Sword of Damocles" the other day) might form the basis of a book. I'd have to deal with the typos, the anacolutha, and possibly re-write things because I seldom stop to compose, but type at white heat and, alas, it shows. Suggestions, c/o Robert, welcome.
wow, you got spanked by Hugh, lol ....
Ease up on Fairuzfan, folks. I make no bones over the fact that I believe that Jesus Christ is the way, truth, life, God Incarnate, Messiah of Israel, and all those other things I read in the New Testament; and many are those who declare me a supremacist because of that.
Fairuzfan is right to say that US government bureaucrats have no right to pontificate on what someone else's religion really says. As a matter of curiosity, how many practicing Christian posters here have ever heard someone who never darkens the door of a church, never cracks a Bible open, and who loves the TV comedians who mock and scorn "organized religion" at every turn, pontificate about what bad Christians we regular churchgoers are and how "Jesus wouldn't hold your position"?
As an American, I am embarrassed when one of our leaders, wise in his own conceits, pontificate to the Jihadis on how the Jihadis have abused "the religion of peace". It's practicing Takfir from outside.
Indeed, the modern, Western liberal, like the Muslim always seems to want to police the other man's conscience from outside.
That being said, I still think that Hugh has been in rare form on this thread.
Hells bells! I pity poor Fairuzfan! he must be licking his wounds and soaking his poor, sore tush!
Hugh is surely the master at spanking the Ismofascists and their protagonists.
Hugh is truly one of the encyclopedic purveyors of wisdom on all things Islamic!
Thank you!
EccoLa:
You said "Fairuzfan is a total ringer". Ha! He is a total "ding-a-ling!"
No suprise ABC consultant Richard Clarke says: "This is a very rare case of a disturbed woman."
He is chanting the 'Islam is a religion of peace...ergo anyone who is a jihadist must be insane!'
People like Clarke help the terrorists by promulgating nonsense.
The terrorists are rational and logical, but their ideology is mystical lunacy. Nazis were not irrational either, but they were very determined.
By underestimating the threat and making light of it, Clarke and other politically correct useful idiots like him endanger the lives of millions of people.
Mr. Clarke, you are irresponsible for not telling the truth about Jihad Jane. There are more out there like her.
Your PC guesses are dangerous.
Good title, Robert!
"Jihad Jane arrest raises fears of "homegrown terrorists," but no one really wants to do anything about it"
I have met Anglo-Saxon Islamists who are ready for jihad.
My own experience convinces me:
JIHAD JANE IS THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG!
Why don't our leaders see this?