Here, from a lengthy and fascinating discussion featuring Paul Berman, Judith Miller, Fred Siegel, Lee Smith, Ibn Warraq, is my friend Ibn Warraq's take on a question that has been much discussed here and elsewhere, and is often obscured and confused: the distinction between Islam and "Islamism," and that between the teachings of Islam and Muslims as individuals. "Modernity and the Muslims: A transcript of a discussion at St. Francis College," at City Journal, July 15 (thanks to John):
QUESTIONER: You talk about the difference between Islam and Islamism. Mr. Smith, you said that you don't want to deal with it. We have the Islamic Conference, which Ibn Warraq mentioned, and 56 nations are promoting the so-called Cairo Declaration of 1992, which is basically an Islamic replacement for the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So is the Islamic version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Islam or Islamism? What's the difference?IBN WARRAQ: I often think that this is a way of skirting the question. I prefer to bring in the nuances of history. I like to make a distinction that I actually owe to Bernard Lewis; oddly enough, Lewis, to my knowledge, has never made use of it. It's a very useful distinction that he made between Islam One, Two, and Three. Islam One is what's in the Koran, what the Prophet Mohammed did and enjoyed. Islam Two is the sharia and the theological construct that we call Islam, as developed by the theologians over the centuries. Islam Three is Islamic civilization, which is what Muslims actually did do as opposed to what they should have done, what actually happened in Islamic history. Often Islam Three--that is, Islamic civilization--was far more tolerant than what Islam One and Two demanded. For example, until very recently, Islamic society (Islam Three) was far more tolerant about homosexuality than the West was, whereas Islam One and Islam Two more firmly condemned it. There are several ambiguous passages in the Koran, but certainly Islam Two, the sharia, condemns homosexuality.
Islamic history has never been a relentless series of theocratic governments; it has varied from century to century, ruler to ruler. Sometimes it has been very intolerant, and sometimes it has been very tolerant. Just look at some of the poets who were given free rein--for example, al-Mahawi, an Iraqi who was certainly an agnostic and very probably an atheist, but he was very critical. He was left alone; no one bothered him, so this is witness to the period of tolerance. This is, for me, the best way to approach the situation. For example, some of the terrorists are taking literally what is in the Koran. There are all sorts of intolerant passages in the Koran about killing infidels and not taking Jews and Christians as friends. It's undeniably there, and you can't get away from it. Chapter four in the Koran: you can't get away from the fact that it gives men the power to beat women. It's no good pretending that somehow the real Islam is tolerant, the real Islam is feminist, and so on. There is a great deal of confusion because people do not want to tarnish with the same brush a billion believers. We don't want to be too crude in our defamation. We don't want to call all Muslims terrorists, so the best way is this distinction between Islam One, Two, Three.
Three quotes that I used in an article about Islam that I placed in my suburban church's parish magazine:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali apostate from Islam:
“When people say that the values of Islam are compassion and tolerance and freedom, I look at reality, at real cultures and governments, and I see that it simply isn’t so” (Infidel, p. 349).
Jacques Ellul, a French Reformed Christian, lay theologian and sociologist who taught law at the University of Bordeaux, and participated in many inter-faith ‘dialogues’, penned a brief foreword on ‘jihad’ – Islamic warfare – for his friend Bat Ye’or’s book “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam”. From that foreword, this is his disturbing assessment (remember, he speaks as a sociologist):
“there is so much talk nowadays of the tolerance and fundamental pacifism of Islam that it is necessary to recall its nature, which is fundamentally warlike!”.
The German-American scholar Joseph Schacht, in his monumental academic tome 'An Introduction to Islamic Law':
“The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be either converted, or subjugated, or killed”.
Yet several more layers removed in preparation of the 'boiling onion' of Islamism...
There is a great deal of confusion because people do not want to tarnish with the same brush a billion believers.
Ain't that a fact...How many times have I heard that?
The 1-2-3 observation may be useful if you want to 'talk' about the depths of Islam, but just like in a mental institution, a diagnosis is not what you deal with, it is behavior...You can talk all day about a diagnosis, but first you have to deal with the individual who is hanging off your arm by his teeth...
"There is a great deal of confusion because people do not want to tarnish with the same brush a billion believers."
Ain't that a fact...How many times have I heard that? - swami
Really, what a cliche.
The German-American scholar Joseph Schacht, in his monumental academic tome 'An Introduction to Islamic Law':
“The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be either converted, or subjugated, or killed."
Islam in a nutshell. So simple.
Yet, somehow the "rop" lie persists.
Islam is an incurable mind-virus, a Murder-Meme and the rabies of religions.
The "real Islam" story is the same booshwah we used to hear about communism.
When you pointed out to enthusiastic fellow travelers, that the Soviet Union was a godawful hell-hole, they would invariably tell you, "Well, that's not **real** communism" - - and trot out a line about the particular/peculiar features of Russian history and culture . . .
Of course, in America, they were going to creat "real communism" and everything would by swell . . .
Then you'd point out that China was a hell-hole . . . that Cuba was a hell-hole . . .
And you'd get the same line.
Today, these same dupes tell us that honor killing is'nt Islamic, it's ***tribal*** --even though the honor killing of young women by their mothers and brothers occurs in all Islamic cultures, and in no culture that has not been heavily influenced by Islam . . .
I don't agree with the dismissive comments about Ibn Warraq here. I think he is quite right, that one must distinguish between islamic doctrine (Islam 1 and 2) and Islamic practice. We should not condemn a person simply he calls himself a muslim. We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does.
If a muslim follows orthodox Islamic doctrine by the letter (wages jihad against kuffar, kills apostates, beats women until they obey,...), then we should treat him like a criminal. If he doesn't act in this manner, we shall tolerate him.
What it seems to come down to is this: Moslems are better people in practice (Islam 3) to the extent that they ignore Islamic doctrine and law (Islam 1 and Islam 2).
That's the gist of what Warraq is saying. The distinction is very important. You can criticize Islam without condemning each and every Muslim.
We don't want to fall into the trap of being characterized as islamophobe racists.... - fearing Islam is quite rational if you're a Kafir and Islam is not a race - .... but you get my drift.
The important thing to remember is that when individual Muslims act in a tolerant manner, they do so inspite of Islam 1 and 2, NOT because of Islam 1 and 2.
"islamophobe"
There's no such thing as Islamophobia.
If a muslim follows orthodox Islamic doctrine by the letter (wages jihad against kuffar, kills apostates, beats women until they obey,...), then we should treat him like a criminal. If he doesn't act in this manner, we shall tolerate him.
Nobel but impractical. As discussed many times here before and as evidenced by the multitude of SJS (Sudden Jihad Syndrome) cases there is no effective way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Even if this were not so the violent injunctions would remain part of islam for the next generation of muslims to re-discover and put into practice anew, starting the process all over again.
No. Unfortunately the only effective solution is to not allow muslims to take up permanent residence. While most might remain law abiding and peaceful (if not wholly loyal) the baggage they bring with them is anathema to western societies.
The written truth about Islam--despite an individual Muslim's understanding of it, and their willingness to comply with that truth--is contained in Qur'an, ahadith, and Sunnah; available for any and all to read or to be told about.
'Moderate' Muslims are like Catholics who use artificial birth control methods. Each, knowing--at least generally-- what their respective belief's teachings requires of them, has chosen to ignore some, or many, of those teachings.
Those personal choices do not, however, change the truth.
For that reason, we can and must paint the entire Muslim world with the same broad brush: that of of being members of a 'complete way of life' that still teaches its 'slaves' to offer the rest of us reversion, dhimmitude, or warfare.
For centuries, people in much of the world cowered in fear of such offers.
That was then. But no sovereign nation--with its defined borders and its own governments and cultures and laws--is obliged to accept or to even acknowledge those offers. And citing their own texts, the Muslim world should be told so at every opportunity.
You quote me but how does your post address what I said? I don't understand the connection? Do you condemn each and every muslim? If so, how do you want to deal with each and every muslim in the west? Spell it out!
We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does."
Not necessarily. Not if we are aware of the doctrine of religiously-sanctioned dissimulation (Taqiyya, Kitman), and realize that sometimes Mulims do not "say or do" certain things not because they have a moral but rather a practical and perhaps temporary objection to some instruments of Jihad. And we also know that very often Muslims who were quiescent, and seemed to have decided to overlook or ignore much of what Islam inculcates have, in periods of personal distress (and almost everyone can suffer setbacks of one kind or another), re-discovered the full, and dangerous Islam. Think of "Mike" Hawawth, the Intel engineer with the American wife, and three children, and a salary of $360,000 a year, who "returned to Islam." Think of the son of Iranian immigrants who fled Iran because of the Khomeni regime, but he "returned to Islam" when he was at loose ends, and subsequently, tried to murder with a car fellow students at UNC-Chapel Hill. There are many such examples, of Muslim immigrants who come to the West, or are raised entirely in the West, and who find that they do not acquire the position or status to which they believe themselves entitled, and they seek solace in Islam, with results we by now all understand.
Furthermore, numbers themselves are a weapon. If in the democracies of the West there are more and more Muslims, the perceived power of Muslims, and of those who claim to speak for them, will not unnaturally increase, and politicians worried about votes will, more and more, give in to, or at least not sufficiently oppose, Muslim demands.
All of this has to be considered, all of this has to be understood. Even the most "moderate" of Muslims may, because Islam itself is not moderate, pose various kinds of problems for non-Muslims attempting to calculate the best way to protect the legal and political institutions of their own countries, and their own physical security.
"Here, from a lengthy and fascinating discussion featuring Paul Berman..."
I was wondering what happened to old Paul Berman. I remember him in the immediate aftermath of 911 being one of the few, if not only, liberals who seemed Islamosavvy -- but then, back then, I was still slow on the uptake about recognizing insufficiently anti-Islamic analyses (since I myself was insufficiently anti-Islam, and since that time have undergone that strange experience called changing one's mind in the light of a mountain of ghastly data). I'll have to read this round-table and see where Berman stands now, and whether he's matriculated along the learning curve along with (some of) the rest of us.
I don't agree with the dismissive comments about Ibn Warraq here. I think he is quite right, that one must distinguish between islamic doctrine (Islam 1 and 2) and Islamic practice. We should not condemn a person simply he calls himself a muslim.... That's the gist of what Warraq is saying. The distinction is very important. You can criticize Islam without condemning each and every Muslim.
It's déjà jihad all over again! I am loath rehash what was recently hashed in a recent thread below on this very matter. What surprises me is that Kilian affects a beleaguered tone about these "dismissive comments"; however, from that lengthy aforementioned thread discussion (Why is Geert Wilders Anti-Islam -- even now teetering on the brink of falling into the Chasm of Archives), with one or two exceptions, I was the odd man out in aggressively repudiating this specious distinction between Islam and Muslims.
If a muslim follows orthodox Islamic doctrine by the letter (wages jihad against kuffar, kills apostates, beats women until they obey,...), then we should treat him like a criminal. If he doesn't act in this manner, we shall tolerate him.
"Nobel but impractical."
And worthy of a Nobel Prize (from that same institution that gave Obama a blowjob a couple of years back).
"We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does."
Not necessarily..."
Wow, I thought this to be self evident. We are only responsible for our own deeds. We are not responsible for what anybody else says or does.
You believe in guilt by association. People like you are a threat to a just society.
"We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does."
This is foolish...
'Not necessarily...'
This is wise...
Many people hide malicious intent behind a curtain of respectability...There are people who sound good and look good, but they are not good, and intend to rob or harm you...Some of these dubious people are called 'politicians', and some are called Mahoundians, or Islamics...
No, you have misunderstood. Politics -- the politics of peace and war and nation-preserving -- is all about not individuals, but groups. It is unfortunate, but that is the way it is. Administratively, for example, it is impossible to have policies that will look deeply into the minds and hearts -- the souls, really -- of individuals. We lack the resources. We have to make judgments based on what we think is likely to happen.
I read yesterday that the American government had allowed into this country another 50,000 Somalis since 2004 [this is the official figure, and I have reason to believe that the real figure is much higher]. Why? Even if some of those 50,00 turn out to be okay, in the sense that they are so busy fending for themselves that they do not wish to participate in Jihad, at least for now, how do we know which ones might change their mind in the future, or have children or grandchildren who will do so? The texts of Islam - Qur'an, Hadith, Sira -- remain immutable. The figure of Muhammad, and the record of what what he said and did, in the Hadith, will not change. And so the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, remains the one involved with the mass murder of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack -- for loot and women -- on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, the man who met with mirth news of the murders of Asma bint Marwan (who had mocked him in verse) and Abu Afak, who consummated his marriage to little Aisha when she was nine. We have seen that "Kemalist" Turkey has changed; Islam is back. We have seen that the advanced and tolerant regime of the Shah (corrupt, to be sure, but not more so than any other Middle Eastern or Muslim land) was replaced by the Islamic Republic of Iran. We have seen, not isolated cases, but repeated examples. of those whom we took to be "moderates" showing quite a different aspect, some of them in up to their necks in support of, or active participation in, acts of terror against Infidels. Are we to ignore all that?
It is not unreasonable to conclude that someone nowadays who continues to call himself a Muslim can thereby be held to believe in, now or possibly in the future, the tenets of Islam. If someone wishes to distance himself from Islam, there are many ways to indicate a fierce disapproval of what Islam inculcates, including a careful self-identificationn as "only a cultural Muslim."
If one does not do that, we are entitled to be suspicious of the real beliefs, and possible acts, of the person in question, and we must worry -- and why should we add to our worries by allowing such people to settle within our lands, lands built by those who were not Muslims, and with legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, that are flatly contradicted by the letter and spirit of the Sharia -- about not only them, but about those they may influence (as, say, Muslim students taking advantage of the ignorance of American non-Muslims on collegte cmapuses) or causing pusillanimous politicians to support, or at least not to oppose, the onward march, or attempts at it, of Muslims trying steadily to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam."
This is no more "guilt by association" than would be, say, an attitude of great suspicion -- perfectly justified - in regars to members of the Communist Party during the Cold War, or supporters of the Naxis or members of Fritz Kuhn's Bund, that held its rallies right up to 1941 at such places as Madison Square Garden.
At a certain point, willful ignorance and naivete about Islam grades into something more sinister.
I'm trying to catch-on to Mr. Warraq's rating system. I pretty-much put muslims in the "Number 2" category, if you know what I mean...
"Many people hide malicious intent behind a curtain of respectability...There are people who sound good and look good, but they are not good, and intend to rob or harm you..."
True, some people have evil intentions. How do you know their intentions unless they utter them or act upon them? Do you have a mind reading machine that can predict future? I recommend a great American movie about this topic. It's called "minority report" directed by Steven Spielberg and featuring Tom Cruise. It is very entertaining and very enlightening, especially for people like you!
"No, you have misunderstood. Politics -- the politics of peace and war and nation-preserving -- is all about not individuals, but groups..."
I did not misunderstand. I was not talking about nations. I was talking about individuals: "We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does."
If you reject this notion, which you have done, then you have left one of the basic principles of justice. I don't want to be associated with you!
All this talk of Islam 1, 2 and 3 reminds me of ...ehm, The Trinity! Time for more Muslim riots all over the world.
Kilian Kleibur to duh_swami:
True, some people have evil intentions. How do you know their intentions unless they utter them or act upon them?
Rrright! How do you know a follower of a murder cult wants to murder you unless he does?
It's called common sense, swami!
Just wondering...so what am I supposed to think about my next door Ismaili Muslim neighbours (Asian Indian from Uganda) whom I have lived beside for the last 6 years? They are very Western in attitude, dress Western, 2nd generation (parents came here in early '70's when Idi Amin kicked everyone out)have two university kids (now 3rd gen?)who are no more "Muslim" than I am, it appears. The parents (not their kids) do go to their mosque almost every day (volunteer programs as well as to pray) but other than that they don't seem to concentrate on their religion.
Also, the Amadiyya Muslim sect (currently persecuted in Pakistan), is a fast growing group of newer immigrants in major cities in Canada as they are being granted refugee status. Both of these sects of Muslims seem to be assimilating well into Cdn. society, are hardworking, many highly educated and contribute in many ways to the general communities/areas where they live. Are all these Muslims just practising their taqiyya and I should expect one or more of them to develop "sudden jihad syndrome" at some point?
The Amadiyya Muslims just opened the biggest mosque in North America(?)in Calgary, AB in 2008, raised half the funds themselves. This mosque is open to everyone of all faiths who wants to use it. They do have separate prayer halls for men/women. The Ismaili all prayer together apparently. From what I have read about the different Muslim sects, the Ismaili and the Amadiyya sects seem to be the most "progressive, modern" but is this just another way of infiltrating into the West and then once Muslims reach more in critical mass numbers the mainstream, Sunni/Shiite Muslims with their hardcore Islam are going to march in and takeover?
There are now a few million Muslims of various sects in Canada and the U.S. and for years both of our gov'ts have been accepting these new immigrants. So now what do we do with the ones already here? We have to interact with them and can't just simply tell them that they now have to leave or ignore them? Furthermore, I actually really like my Muslim neighbours and even socialize with them but definitely do not agree with what is written in their Koran. They don't seem to agree with everything that is written in it either, but they insist that all Muslims follow the same Koran? So what to make of all this? lol
"We don't want to call all Muslims terrorists, so the best way is this distinction between Islam One, Two, Three."
Sounds like a good way to keep the distinctions alive. We keep "peaceful" Islamic civilization but what about Islam One and Two? They don't exist in a vacuum. People follow them. There's no point in pretending Islam is tolerant but that seems to be what Ibn Warraq is proposing. Turn your eyes away from one and two and focus only on three. That way there are no bad Muslims. Ibn Warraq would get along quite nicely with John Gambling, Mayor Bloomberg and many others who refuse to face what is unpleasant. To them Islam is just another religion and we must prove our moral superiority by surrendering our sovereignty and letting the Ground Zero mosque be built.
If "Islamism" is a strategy to spread islam (by covert/armed jihad, demographics...); and
If "Islamization" is the process to codify islamic supremacy in a nation through implementing sharia law; and
An "Islamist" is one who works toward Islamization; then
Are individual Muslims Islamists?
Any muslim who wants or is sympathetic to sharia to any degree, and who does not strive to prevent and obliterate sharia can and should be considered an islamist, and therefore seditious. However, since Hugh's comment on islamic deception is cogent, a nation that does not consider islam and muslims to be potentially a danger to their existence is politically and culturally suicidal. The theo-political doctrine of islam and its followers are threats that must be resisted if human liberty is to persist.
They don't seem to agree with everything that is written in it either, but they insist that all Muslims follow the same Koran? So what to make of all this? lol
It would be interesting to see where your neighbors draw the line. Would they approve of sharia in the US? Would they have a problem imposing it on you, Linda? Do they want us to ban all pork and alcohol? How about pictures of the Three Little Pigs? They don't agree with everything in the Koran but what DO they agree with, and how much of a danger does it pose to your (and our) freedom to live our lives as we see fit?
Kilian Kleibr to Hugh:
I don't want to be associated with you!
Too late!
After Hugh had kicked Kleiber's ass so thoroughly, effortlessly and elegantly, the association is inevitable. It will take yeras before the memory of Kleibur humiliating defeat fades out completely and the asociation with Hugh snaps.
"Rrright! How do you know a follower of a murder cult wants to murder you unless he does?
It's called common sense, swami!"
So you actually believe that every muslim wants to murder you? Now I do understand a certain amount of suspicion or reservation in relation to muslims in particular due to the doctrines of taqqyia and jihad. But, to conclude that each and every muslim wants to kill you is far fetched.
In this case, I believe, the term "islamophobia" is indeed justified. This is an irrational pathological fear of muslims. The only sane response on your part would be to irradicate this nation of murderers from the earth..... How many muslims were born to be muslims? How many can't leave the faith for fear of death? How many are largely ignorant of the quran and sunnah? How many have a sound theological education? They are all murderers? Think about it, think about it again and again! When you have seen the light, then be ashamed of yourself!
I assume Mr. Spencer is indeed reading the comments on this page. I am very sure that he is not amused about the majority of comments and IN NO WAY endorses these attitudes.
Nevertheless he seems to attract these people, which is unfortunate. He is not personally responsible for his unwanted followers. However, he should draw a clear line between just criticism of Islam as a doctrine and unjustifiable condemnation and irrational fear of each and every muslim.
"The Amadiyya Muslims just opened the biggest mosque in North America(?)in Calgary, AB in 2008, raised half the funds themselves."
Who provided the other half of the funds?
I expect that the Amadis will be all right as long as they remember: (1) where and by whom their ancestors were persecuted -- in Pakistan, by other Moslems;
and (2) where and among whom they are free -- in Canada, among the kaffirs.
"There's no point in pretending Islam is tolerant but that seems to be what Ibn Warraq is proposing. Turn your eyes away from one and two and focus only on three. That way there are no bad Muslims. Ibn Warraq would get along quite nicely with John Gambling, Mayor Bloomberg and many others who refuse to face what is unpleasant. To them Islam is just another religion and we must prove our moral superiority by surrendering our sovereignty and letting the Ground Zero mosque be built."
I don't see where Ibn Warraq has proposed anything of the sort, PMK, in fact, one of his most oft-quoted observations is "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." This observation/position hardly supports your accusations that Warraq proposes that "Islam is tolerant" and "there are no bad Muslims". Similarly, based on my reading of Mr. Warraq's numerous essays and books concerning Islam and the West, I sincerely doubt that he thinks "Islam is just another religion and we must prove our moral superiority by surrendering our sovereignty and letting the Ground Zero mosque be built."
By all means, in his own words, prove me wrong about Mr. Warraq, who is one of the bravest and most outspoken critics of Islam.
"Nevertheless, he seems to attract these people, which is unfortunate ".
That would be " dubious " people.
"I assume Mr. Spencer is indeed reading the comments on this page. I am very sure that he is not amused about the majority of comments and IN NO WAY endorses these attitudes.
Nevertheless he seems to attract these people, which is unfortunate. He is not personally responsible for his unwanted followers. However, he should draw a clear line between just criticism of Islam as a doctrine and unjustifiable condemnation and irrational fear of each and every muslim."
I've been around since the early days of Jihad Watch, Kilian, and Mr. Spencer has always drawn a clear line between legitimate criticism of Islam and blind, anti-Muslim xenophobia. If you haven't figured that out by now, you haven't been paying close attention.
I'll just be happy if and when the honest and accurate recognition of Islam Type 1 becomes mainstream.
It does reinforce my argument that discussing the individual disposition of Muslims as counter productive and essentially irrelevant when providing the requisite criticism of Islam.
Keeping with that simple rule alone would have adequately pre-empted the emotional tantrum of Killian Klaiber here on this thread, which devolved into pretty much what he was condemning, a wholesale condemnation of a group of people, with his references to Spencer, who "seems to attract these people", the "unwanted followers" of this site.
Killian in his self-righteous rage, acknowledges it, albeit grudgeingly it seems, the obvious fact that it is impossible to know the hearts and minds any Muslim, let alone all billion plus of them, which then logicly renders each one as potentially dangerous. But instead of rationally expressing his opinion, he decided to develop a straw-man argument.
First, he initiates with his contempt for "dismissive comments about Ibn Warraq", which quite frankly I didn't see and he did not clarify. Second, from a rational and measured comment from big-pete, he summarily declared people here as collectively and irrationally fearing that every Muslim was out to kill us, therefore requiring our blanket condemnation. Third, this false argument culminated in declaring most people here as irrationally Muslim-phobic, although he declared it Islamophobia, as opposed to Islam-phobic which he condoned as acceptable.
It was an odd turn of events, and quite possibly intentional on Killian's part, due to his thinly-veiled guise of calling out Robert for a direct response with his false appeal to morality.
Kilian, I'd like to throw-in an example here, if I may.
A current posting on this site documents events at an Electrolux factory in Minnesota.
Somali immigrants, ostensibly brought here at government expense, handed jobs (in this economy, no less)and God only knows what and how much else, are demanding special eating privileges for their Ramadan period. Several, with CAIR assistance, have filled EEOC complaints against Electrolux to FORCE this on this company.
Now, many of these may be "nice, nonviolent" muslims--but look what they're doing! Demanding special privileges. Hoping to set a precedent. Taking action against their employer. Injecting their "religion" into their work. Refusing to accept and integrate into our society. Direspecting their rescuers.
Whether they're individually pleasant or irritable, diligent or lazy, polite or ill-mannered--no matter--they are the footsoldiers of an unfriendly culture who would force that culture on us. And they are in our midst.
I would analogize these "peaceful, moderate" muslims here to a sprinkler-hose. The hose itself is islam; the little holes in that hose are muslims themselves. While a soaker-hose is quieter in its work than a hydrant (analogy for terrorist attack), leave it on all night and the area will be well and truly soaked. And those little holes can't be covered using both hands and both feet together. Just too many litle holes...
I know it's not pretty but I think we have to face the facts. Islam is the disease, muslims are the carrier. That's demographic jihad.
And we'd better find the stomach to fight it--or WE will be the ones well and truly soaked...
"There are all sorts of intolerant passages in the Koran about killing infidels and not taking Jews and Christians as friends. It's undeniably there, and you can't get away from it." -- headline
islam & company are evil! ...this bears repeating, over, and over again.
On the topic of whether Muslims are to be trusted, or whether this type of Islam is better/worse than some other kind, I'll paraphrase something I read on JW some time ago. It struck me as being so true, I tried to memorise it.
"The extreme form of anything is the intensification of some pre-existing trait or characteristic. Therefore, the extremism we find in Islam must have its origin in what existed before."
So, the logic is that the apparently harmless form(s) of Islam is/are the fertile ground(s) for Salafi/Wahabi intensification.
The final stage of that logic is that only a museum version of Islam as an artifact to show how dumb and cruel mankind can be, is acceptable. A bit like keeping the black plague in a laboratory under the most rigorous safety conditions.
Islam One, Two & Three (the trinity of evil) are all founded by the same false prophet, right? Sooo ...
Trust is earned ...so I see no 'good' earthly reason why I should ever trust a muslim at this point; especially since there are so many other trustworthy people in my life whom have earned my trust. I am FAR from ever trusting a single muslim. Sorry, but for me, that's just the way that it is.
The only sane response on your part would be to irradicate this nation of murderers from the earth....
???
I think one has to be insane to call it a “sane response”. To arrive to such a conclusion shows more about you than me. Keep your sick fantasies to yourself don’t project your rant on me. And “nation of murderers” is your own chimera, don’t try to slide it in under my door.
You would like to know of other possible responses? Here are a few:
How about total stop for muslim immigration, deporting suspected of terrorist sympathies –(including families), deporting CAIR, closing mosques, banning Koran, etc., in short making the West very uncomfortable place for serious muslims? Not a place they would like to raise their children.
What? That will only radicalize them? Good! As long as we are determined to radicalize our own reaction we should welcome such development.
Total separation is my kind of response. Does it make me an islamophobe? Well, I am already naziphobe, commiephobe so I don’t mind being an islamophobe too.
So you actually believe that every muslim wants to murder you?
No, not every muslim, perhaps every other, or every thousandth I really don’t know and it is NOT my primary concern. Far from it. What I DO believe is that practically every muslim wishes the West to become the part of dar al islam. And when their number in the West is sufficient I, or rather my grandchildren, will face a very high risk of being murdered by muslims for openly opposing that horrid development.
I want to keep the West western. I want to keep our great civilization alive. That is the world my fathers, their fathers…and so on, lived, worked and died for. I believe it is my sacred duty to defend it from its historical enemy. Anything else is treason.
Again, does it make me islamophobe? Better islamophobe today than dhimmi tomorrow!
You have problem with that?
My advice: SHOVE IT!
"For that reason, we can and must paint the entire Muslim world with the same broad brush: that of of being members of a 'complete way of life' that still teaches its 'slaves' to offer the rest of us reversion, dhimmitude, or warfare."
Exactly. Including Mohammedan troll "Klaiber."
As Thomas h remarked above: "You have a problem with that?
My advice: SHOVE IT!"
Right on.
The wise person perceives followers of islam as ticking time bombs. You never know what will set them off but it's only a matter of time.
"The wise person perceives followers of islam as ticking time bombs. You never know what will set them off but it's only a matter of time."
Exactly.
Corregas W wrote:
"Not the only. Just the morons suggested otherwise."
That was not quite the same, and the sentiment there against Hesperado's position was certainly not identical to what Killian Klaiber proclaimed early on in this thread, when he wrote:
"We should judge each and every individual (Muslim) only upon what this person says or does."
Stand by Hesperado.
courreges W wrote:
"Stand by Hesperado."
And your entitled to do so. And, newsflash: It does NOT make you a moron for doing so.
"And your (sic) entitled to do so. And, newsflash: It does NOT make you a moron for doing so."
lol
"We can and must paint the entire Muslim world with the same broad brush: that of of being members of a 'complete way of life' that still teaches its 'slaves' to offer the rest of us reversion, dhimmitude, or warfare."
Agree, PRCS.
"Kilian to be suspicious of a certain individual who happens to follow a religion that justifies the extermination of all non believers is rational and justified"
Being suspicious is alright and I haven't objected to that. But you can't pass a final judgment on a person based on his religious affiliation alone. This is what is happening here. People simply do not understand that you must distinguish between individual people and the ideology as a whole.
Hi CW,
You are surely hard to keep-up with! But I think I get it. I say no more, you no KEEL me, OK?
G
"I know it's not pretty but I think we have to face the facts. Islam is the disease, Muslims are the carriers. That's Demographic Jihad.
And we'd better find the stomach to fight it--or WE will be the ones well and truly soaked..."
Right on, George.
So you actually believe that every muslim wants to murder you?
No, but they wouldn't mind if some other Muslim did it. There are a lot of Muslims who don't want to get their hands dirty in order to advance Islam, while tacitly approving of those who do.
An extremist Muslim will kill you. A moderate Muslim wants you dead.
People simply do not understand that you must distinguish between individual people and the ideology as a whole.
Would you have felt the same way about the Nazis?
Hi George,
this is my point of dissent:
I believe: "We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does."
This has been rejected forthrightly on this blog. Instead it has been proposed to pass judgment on people merely based on their religious affiliation. This is what Hugh believes:
"Not necessarily."
This is what dhu_swami thinks:
"This is foolish..."
He added an explanation: "Many people hide malicious intent behind a curtain of respectability...There are people who sound good and look good, but they are not good, and intend to rob or harm you..."
In response, I posed the following question:
"True, some people have evil intentions. How do you know their intentions unless they utter them or act upon them? Do you have a mind reading machine that can predict the future?"
His reaction was:
"Rrright! How do you know a follower of a murder cult wants to murder you unless he does?
It's called common sense, swami!"
The murder cult is Islam. Therefore it is "common sense" that a follower of Islam (a muslim) wants to murder you...
I don't think I am being unfair, if I call this xenophobia. I know for certain that Mr. Spencer does not share this attitude. For my taste there are far too many comments on this blog that fall into this category.
Your example George was: "Now, many of these may be "nice, nonviolent" muslims--but look what they're doing! Demanding special privileges. Hoping to set a precedent. Taking action against their employer. Injecting their "religion" into their work. Refusing to accept and integrate into our society. Direspecting their rescuers."
You are judging muslims according to what they are doing. You are not condemning them for the sole reason of being muslims. Therefore, I have no quarrels with you.
"Would you have felt the same way about the Nazis?"
Great point, AS ...
I was the odd man out in aggressively repudiating this specious distinction between Islam and Muslims.
You indeed repudated it tad too agressively for me to back you up. I also respected the position of some of your opponents and it would be too demanding for me to draw my position clearly enough. So I decided not to enter the fray.
This has been rejected forthrightly on this blog. Instead it has been proposed to pass judgment on people merely based on their religious affiliation.
The problem with this statement is that you are treating Islam just like any other religion. Islam, at its core, is an all encompassing geopolitical system more than it is a spiritual belief system. Would you say the same things about Nazis? "We can't pass judgment on individual Nazis merely based on their political affiliation."
Are you a muslim? If not, then how would you classify yourself?
"Would you have felt the same way about the Nazis? "
Yes, not every Nazi participated in the extermination of the jews. Not every Nazi committed war crimes. You must pass judgment according to what a person really did. Merely being a member of the Nazi party does not turn you into a war criminal. It depends on what you said and did as a Nazi.
This is really the basic lesson from the Nazi holocaust. You cannot extinguish a people merely because they belong to a particular ideology, religion or race. You must judge each and every person individually. If you choose to condemn a whole people merely based on their religious affiliation then you are no better than the Nazis. You are actually following them!
Yes, not every Nazi participated in the extermination of the jews. Not every Nazi committed war crimes. You must pass judgment according to what a person really did. Merely being a member of the Nazi party does not turn you into a war criminal. It depends on what you said and did as a Nazi.
This is really the basic lesson from the Nazi holocaust. You cannot extinguish a people merely because they belong to a particular ideology, religion or race. You must judge each and every person individually. If you choose to condemn a whole people merely based on their religious affiliation then you are no better than the Nazis. You are actually following them!
I like the hypocrisy in this post. You go from "each Nazi should be judged on their own merits" to condemning them collectively with the statement "You are no better than the Nazis."
The Nazis were our enemy as a whole. The fact that certain individual Nazis never killed people does not change the fact that we were justified in attacking the Nazi ideology and those who subscribed to it.
"The fact that certain individual Nazis never killed people does not change the fact that we were justified in attacking the Nazi ideology and those who subscribed to it."
Sure, we are justified in attacking Nazi ideology. I agree. But you have to distinguish between the ideology and the people. Someone is not a criminal merely because he belonged to the Nazi party. Is this so difficult to understand?
You people study the Third Reich day in and day out in school. You build memorials and museums all over the world. But you fail to learn from the past. My god, when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn.... I guess never!
Waiting ...
Come on, it's a simple question ...are you a muslim? If not, then what?
Read my first post in this blog:
"I don't agree with the dismissive comments about Ibn Warraq here. I think he is quite right, that one must distinguish between islamic doctrine (Islam 1 and 2) and Islamic practice. We should not condemn a person simply he calls himself a muslim. We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does.
If a muslim follows orthodox Islamic doctrine by the letter (wages jihad against kuffar, kills apostates, beats women until they obey,...), then we should treat him like a criminal. If he doesn't act in this manner, we shall tolerate him."
Any more questions?
Sure, we are justified in attacking Nazi ideology. I agree. But you have to distinguish between the ideology and the people.
The ideology is brought to life in people's beliefs and actions. Without human subscribers to Nazism, the ideology itself is completely harmless. To defeat the ideology, you have to defeat those who will defend it to their death.
Someone is not a criminal merely because he belonged to the Nazi party. Is this so difficult to understand?
"Criminal" is a relative term. In Germany, the Nazis were not criminals at all. Regardless, the Nazis were the enemies of the Allied forces, and it was necessary to go after them.
You people study the Third Reich day in and day out in school. You build memorials and museums all over the world. But you fail to learn from the past. My god, when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn.... I guess never!
Who are you referring to with "you people..." ? For someone who dislikes other people generalizing Muslims, you sure like to generalize.
"Any more questions?"
---------
Yeah, the one champ asked: are you a Muslim?
"You people" referred to the xenophobes all around the world and in particular those commenting on this blog.
"To defeat the ideology, you have to defeat those who will defend it to their death." Not every nazi and not every muslim is willing to defend the ideology to his/her death. You defeat an ideology by demonstrating its fallacies. You don't defeat an ideology by defeating people.
You are in a box and you can't get out. You are continuously and stubbornly mixing up ideology and people. Mr. Spencer says: There are moderate muslims, but there is no moderate islam. He understands the difference. You don't!
""Criminal" is a relative term. In Germany, the Nazis were not criminals at all... "
I thought moral relativism was an ideology embraced by liberals. Mr. Spencer always complains about those damn leftist moral relativists. But, even among conservatives, moral relativism appears to have its followers.
"Any more questions?"
Yes, are YOU a muslim? Why are you afraid to answer the question? You seem ashamed of who you are.
Please respond with either a "yes" or "no" response.
Thank you ...
No
Your welcome!
Thank you ...
OK, so are you Jewish, Christian? Or is that question too personal?
Hey I'm just trying to get to know you a little better, that's all.
It would seem that by your logic, the Allies should have taken the time to interview and assess each and every Nazi encountered during the battle to liberate Europe?
My guess is that had we done that, by the year 2000, we would have been somewhere close to the Rhine river.
Kilian, most of us here recognize that Islam is, indeed, a beligerent and totalitarian ideology bent on world domination by force or by stealth, and we are going to regard it as such.
Living and functioning in the "gray area" of PC/MC and culturally sensitive practices has gotten the west only an increase in both numbers of Islamists, and an increase in aggressiveness of Islamists.
They're taking the gloves off; please explain to us why we should leave ours on?
I have the impression that your questions are diverting the discussion from how to deal with Islam / muslims to the topic what I personally believe. I have no problems sharing this with you, but I don't think that this is interesting to the general public in particular the bloggers here.
I am neither christian nor jewish. I do not believe in a personal god who answers to prayers and interferes in the real world on behalf of his followers. I am agnostic about a creator god. I believe that science and reason are the only path to knowledge. I don't think that faith is a virtue, on the contrary, critical inquiry is a virtue. I believe in universal human rights, rule of law and democratic government.
Kilian, uhh, I think that, to quote the old movie line, "What we have here...is a failure to communicate!" I thought I was clear enough at the time; my apologies if I was not. I'm not a crowd-follower and I'm not looking for a fight with you. But that said...
If I had it within my purview, EVERY LAST muslim immigrant in the USA would be deported, beginning TODAY. Some of these muslims might be OK-folks as individuals--if they could (or would) disengage from their criminal mob. But, collectively, they ARE the mob. The mob comes first, they've subsumed their identities to the mob. The odds are simply too high that today's "moderate, good-guy muslim" will become tomorrow's traitor or worse--much worse (Major Hasan). To protect our culture, I don't want them here. To protect our PEOPLE, I don't want them here.
Sorry, I'm not looking to insult or fight you, but I cannot subscribe to your benevolence for individual muslims. They've done nothing to deserve any benefit-of-the-doubt. I didn't invite them here. I want them out-of here...
"It would seem that by your logic, the Allies should have taken the time to interview and assess each and every Nazi encountered during the battle to liberate Europe?"
No this doesn't follow from my logic at all. The allies had every right to fight a war against Nazi Germany.
After the second world war the Allies indeed questioned each and every Nazi about his involvement in Nazi Gerrmany. Check out your history books!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
I agree completely, and I stress that it is the IDEOLOGY that is at issue.
Someone surely will throw out the "racist, xenophobic bigot" card, but I reject that on its face.
If that were true, we'd want ALL foreigners "of color," or not, to go, and we don't.
I don't want blonde, blue-eyed Swedish Muslims here any more than I want Somali Muslims here.
In my view, it's the same as saying I don't want Nazi's or the Klan here.
Dump the belligerent ideology in a meaningful way and you're fine with me; refuse to repudiate that belligerent ideology in a meaningful way and I will refuse to trust you.
I don't think that's unfair at all.
You cannot convict people or take away their rights because of the odds of them becoming evil. Please watch the movie "minority report by Steven Spielberg, which deals with this topic.
On the topic of muslim immigration: No country must approve of all immigrants wishing to enter. You can question immigrants, in particular muslims, about their allegiance to the basic principles of American government and society. If they reject American society or lie about their motives then you have every reason to send them back to their country of origin. If they are born in the USA then this option does not exist.
"Check out your history books!"
-------------------
I am LMAO!! You say to check out my history books -- of which I have several good ones of the period -- and then you link something from Wikipedia ?!?!
More:
"No this doesn't follow from my logic at all. The allies had every right to fight a war against Nazi Germany."
-Nazism, a belligerent, totalitarian ideology determined to enslave the world: KILIAN SAYS OK TO FIGHT!
-Islam, a belligerent, totalitarian ideology determined to enslave the world: KILIAN SAYS NOT OK TO FIGHT!
????????
What makes some supremacist ideologies ok to oppose and others not?
I have a feeling that your answer will be: "because it is a religion."
And, I would reject that because it is the very definition of kitman (half the truth).
Well, I am not trying to divert attention away from how to deal with islam, so your impression of my motives would be incorrect; but I do think that a persons religious background, and/or current affiliation with religion -- or lack thereof, does play a certain role in how each of us relates to islam and company, and also in how we relate those perceptions to others. Thank you for your response.
BTW, does anyone know how "kitman" came to be called "kitman?" It's just that it has, to my ears, a very "western" ring to it.
Certainly more western than Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque.
Like three brothers: Hakeem, Mahmound and Timothy.
Is that just a coincidence?
Every time I run across it (often) I wonder if perhaps there was some obscure academic British consular official in the 18th century named Sir Lord Neville Randolph Kitman...or something.
Hugh knows, perhaps?
You quote me but how does your post address what I said? I don't understand the connection? Do you condemn each and every muslim? If so, how do you want to deal with each and every muslim in the west? Spell it out!
I do not condemn every one that calls themselves a muslim but I do condemn their decision to remain, however tenuous, a part of a destructive and abhorrent ideology for whatever reason.
As for dealing with muslim immigrants, curtail muslim immigration. Declare islam a political organization subject to all relevant statues. Deal with the remaining muslims on a case by case. There is currently no other way I am sorry to say.
Pious muslims will either self-deport or be aggressively deported. The rest will quickly distance themselves from islam as a political movement. Islam's political ambitions subjected to more scrutiny then is currently "allowed" (such as its in perpetuity injunction to replace all non-islamic governments) would run afoul of the Constitution in short order and be de-fanged in one way or another.
This is hard for Americans to swallow but what can you do in the face of an implacable ideology, at odds with every freedom we cherish? There is no accommodation, not for them and not for us. We must accept that we will always be in conflict with the external muslim world but there is no need to import that conflict within our own borders.
I think that spells it out.
Kilian:
"We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does."
Big-Pete:
"I do not condemn every one that calls themselves a muslim but I do condemn their decision to remain, however tenuous, a part of a destructive and abhorrent ideology for whatever reason."
What Big Pete answered appeals a lot to me. Because part of what a Muslim says and does is CHOOSING to remain Muslim! That means aligning him/ herself with Islam, a totalitarian ideology & religion combined.
Kilian is for democratic government. I think that somehow Muslims, especially in Western countries should be held in future much more accountable for their choices or at least their allegiances. But especially after increasing our political knowledge.
Knowledge and awareness of both Democratic and Islamic tenets, teachings should be studied and known well. And then their contradictions too. Like in treatment of religious minorities, women, apostates and especially priority of democratically decided laws or alleged divine laws.
And it should be made ever clearer that not only Democratic essences are known to the citizens and politicians of democratic countries but also Islam I and II. And the contradictions between the two. Exhaustively so, on a par with the best experts that the Islamic Ummah has to offer!
(because knowledge of Islam I + II belongs to all Mankind and not just Muslims and I think that non-Muslims can know and understand it just as well as any Muslim). I think this is almost or already the case.
As both Democratic and Islamic theory and their contradictions can be known it will no longer do for Muslims to just say that according to them "Islam means doing this and not doing this".
It will in future only do to ask them about their supreme allegiance; to Democratic or Islamic laws, values and interests, when the 2 contradict. There should in future be legally binding oaths. There should be discrimination concerning immigration of people on grounds of belonging to a manifestly anti-democratic totalitarian ideology as Islam is, when these people admit or are found out to belong to that ideology, which they CHOSE!
But profound knowledge of what both Democracy and Islam I + II really entail and where they contradict, among governments, parliaments and as many citizens as possible, is paramount.
After widespread knowledge of Democracy and Islam it becomes much more acceptable to hold individuals accountable, if not for their "religion" alone, at least for their professed and practiced (because well-monitored) primary allegiances.
KK is confused. He compares the attention given to individuals in peacetime, when one has that luxury. In Occupied Germany, he notes, the Allies looked at "individuals" not groups. He is not even accurate about that. Even though denazification efforts were far too inadequate, incomplete, far too forgiving, and called off far too early (because of the new Cold War that had begun) the Allies, membership in the Nazi Party was prima facie evidence of a level of guilt, and inadmissibality for participation in the government. Individuals were not examined, to see if there were, among them, a Schindler or two.
And that was in peacetime.
In wartime, one attacks the enemy. The bombs that fell on Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, on Hamburg, Cologne, and Berlin, did not carefully distinguish between the real and the lukewarm supports of savage Japanese militarism and Emperor-Worship(Kodo) and those who did not, or between the full-fledged Nazis and those who were lukewarm. That is not how wars are fought.
We are now at war -- a war we did not start, a war of which some are unware -- and will be, forever, as Infidels, against those who take the texts and tenets of Islam seriously, and who wish to fulfill their duty to participate, directly or indirectly, in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam.
We have reason to believe that techniques of dissimulation as practiced by many Muslims are widespread and, in Defense of Islam, enjoy long favor and religious sanction (Taqiyya, Kitman). We have had many examples of Muslims -- political leaders, clerics, even those who specialize in cunning Interfaith Outreach -- addressing non-Muslims one way, and fellow Muslims quite another.
We are incapable of determining which Muslims are true adherents and which ones are truly unobservant or lapsed, or if unobservant or lapsed, if they will forever remain that way, or if even a personal crisis might return them to the dangerous fold of full-bodied Islam, taken straight and not on the rocks (of custom, of self-interest, of laziness, of inattentiveness).
We have, especially in the countries of Western Europe, a great deal of steadily accumulating evidence that the large-scale presence of Muslims has been deeply upsetting, and dangerous, to the tenor or way of life for non--Muslims -- one that was not inevitable, one that might have been avoided had the political and media elites over the past 30-40 years been paying attention to Islam and what it inculcates, instead of relying on bland assumpations that "everyone is the same the whole world over" or "everyone wants the same thing" or "all religions are the same" or (Your Favorite Soothing Banality Here) when it came to immigration. That large-scale presence of Muslims has created a situation for the indigenous non-Muslims, and for non-Muslim immigrants too, that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without that large-scale presence.
We don't have time, we don't have space, to wait for the promised always=just-over-the-horizon in-truth-impossible "reform" of Islam. We don't have time, we don't have space, to risk our art, our science, our literature, our mental freedoms, our legal and political institutions, our social arrangements, on the possibility or even likelihood that "some Muslims -- that nice Pakistani (Somali, Arab, you name it) who always asks after your hildren, and seems to be so much more human, so much warmer than fellow Westerners (but have you ever engaged him in a truthful discussion of Islam, and of the figure of Muhammad, or have you never put your trust in him to the only test that matters?).
Look, this kind of sentimenality based on ignorance or, still worse, wilful ignorance, simply will not do. Too much has happened, too much is still to come. And there are so many problems facing the West, and the world -- we don't have time to take in Muslims or to engage in "reconstruction" of their own wretched countries (made wretched by Islam). The threat of Islam has to be reduced to manageable proportions, and manageable expense, and can be, if those who formulate policies would rely on, or themselves become, better informed, more imaginative, more cunning, and less sentimental, more intelligently ruthless.
The threat from adherents of Islam who take their naturally fanatical faith seriously is not a "problem" to which there is a "solution" but rather, a situation that can be handled, and permanently, as we husband rather than squander resources, and allow the pre-existing fissures -- ethnic, sectarian, and economic --within the Camp of Islam to work their magic, and we can help divide and demoralize that Camp (unified only as against Infidels) by bringing to the attention of the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacisme,
And we can also discuss, endlessly and openly, all the ways that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim states and societies are a direct result of Islam itself, and the kind of ideal worshipper, with the habit of mental submission, that Islam attempts to create and, alas, by the hundreds of millions, so often does.
Hesperado, here's my latest reply to you, from the earlier Geert Wilders thread. Thank you for your most recent reply.
Which pragmatic truth? You are talking not about some pragmatic truth in general, but a very specific purpose: defeating the Islamic danger to the West.
I think the hard line sometimes drawn between the effible and so-called ineffible (that which allegedly cannot at all be expressed in words) is probably a false divide made by those who only know how to speak about the effible and quantifiable. In other words, I suppose Wittgenstein, when he said that, had not read enough poetry, so he didn't understand that poetry is not just potentially beautiful. It also can sometimes mediate objective knowledge, even if that knowledge is not quantitative. But that's a digression.
It depends on which pragmatic level -- which purpose -- you are talking about. I agree that no one can say for certain when a Muslim might start reading Qur'an and hadith and becoming devout, jihadist, supremacist.
It's true I cannot show you a harmless Muslim in the way that I can show you a four-leaf or two-leaf clover. There will always be some degree of uncertainty about the harmlessness of someone who calls himself Muslim. And that degree of uncertainty will be higher than the degree of uncertainty that attends the harmlessness of the average non-Muslim.
It's not useless, as I'll explain. In fact, Hesperado, it might even help you get your preferred pragmatic plans accepted more widely more quickly.
It has to do with your capacity to persuade, your rhetoric, and your character. As you currently speak, you don't seem to understand that many non-Muslims have deep, loving connections with "moderate" or "nominal" Muslims and know them and care for them as human beings. Don't misunderstand. I don't say that should change your basic views about what needs to be done.
But the way you speak seems to show that you are actually unaware of the humanity of, say, nominal Muslims. There seems to be in your expressions sometimes a particle of mindlessness or heartlessness, or perhaps simply a lack of experience of "moderate" or nominal Muslims as concrete people, insofar as you do not evince any sense of tragedy or sadness in all that you propose should take place.
And that is pragmatically unwise of you, because you will arguably be more convincing in pushing for your pragmatic plans if people can believe that you understand the real human suffering involved in what you want to do, that you care deeply about it, and that you feel that, tragically, horribly, it is nevertheless unavoidable because of x, y, and z.
If you don't understand the suffering involved, and care about it, then for us to follow your plans would be a little like letting ourselves be driven around in a truck by someone who can conceive pedestrians only as virtual realities in a computer game. I don't get the sense from you that you really do understand the suffering involved in what you propose.
Your plans for Muslims -- some of whom love and are loved by non-Muslims -- will cause huge suffering. Your plans may nevertheless be right, and unavoidable (especially in the dire case of today's Europe), because of what Islam means for the end of Europe. But your cool logic, admirable in its own right, needs to be combined with a kinder or warmer awareness of concrete facts, flesh and blood people, real exceptions to your abstract generalizations about Muslims. No one who was really in touch with the reality and horror of what you propose to do could write about it as you do! You need to express yourself more compassionately, if only to get your plans more widely accepted more quickly. That would be pragmatic.
I want to see immigration of Muslims to the West put on hold until a majority of Muslim-majority nations permit full freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But I'm not under illusions that an immigration moratorium won't cause a lot of suffering to many innocent people. I know that Muslims are my brothers, lost for now in a tragic disaster of a totalitarian belief system. But you do not seem to understand real people are involved, and some of them are good people.
So my issue with you is not your pragmatic proposals. At any rate, we both agree a lot more needs to be done to defend the non-Muslim world. My issue with your approach is that your seeming lack of compassion suggests that you are not enough in touch with the flesh-and-blood reality of the people involved. That is a hazard for many people with a calling for abstract thought.
I'm not saying you have to wear your heart on your sleeve or write a lot of mushy prose. But I think you have to understand much much better the tragedy of what you propose, even as you seek to persuade others that that tragedy is unavoidable, in order to prevent still greater tragedy: the death of the West.
Linda said " Also, the Amadiyya Muslim sect (currently persecuted in Pakistan), is a fast growing group of newer immigrants in major cities in Canada as they are being granted refugee status. Both of these sects of Muslims seem to be assimilating well into Cdn. society, are hardworking, many highly educated and contribute in many ways to the general communities/areas where they live. Are all these Muslims just practising their taqiyya and I should expect one or more of them to develop "sudden jihad syndrome" at some point".
No Linda you don't need to worry about sudden jihad syndrome from Md's. They are peaceful tolerant Muslims; I myself have known a few.
Let me tell you a little fable you probably know. You know that man is walking wearing a coat and the sun and wind decided to have a contest, who can force the man to take off the coat? The wind huffed and puffed at the man but the man held onto his coat tight. After a while of trying the sun said let me try. So the sun shined bright and hot. As it got hot the man took off his coat. "There", said the sun, "I won".
So you see the Sunnis and shittes are the wind while the Md's are the sun. Their goals are the same; make the man lose his coat or rather his resistance to Islam.
Let me tell you about the Shiites and Md's. Both have inferiority complex. Both want to prove to the Muslim world they are good Muslims. The shitte's goal is to grow strong and be the first Muslims to defeat Israel by force. The Md's goal is to prove to the world that they can conquer the western world for Islam, through peaceful stealth jihad. I think they have succeeded with you.
Who can forget that during the Indian partition the Md's were strong violent backers of an independent Porkiestan. They expected the Sunni Indian Muslims to be forever grateful for helping to create Porkiestan. But as you can see after 50 years the Md's are treated worse than animals by their Porkie Muslim brethrens. Let that be a lesson to you. Peaceful Muslims will one day face the violent jihad Muslims who think they are hypocrites and nonmuslims, and guess who will win out?
Just a small note. The person who transcribed this conversation wrote that Ibn Warraq said the Koran was about what Mohammed "did and enjoyed". Surely Ibn Warraq really said "enjoined"! Mind you, I am sure Mohammed enjoyed himself at the time...lots of booty and women and the adoration of fools who did his bidding...
I don't think we have the time or resources to get a psychological profile on every muslim in the country. It is reasonable to assume that people who call themselves muslims believe islamic doctrine and practice the tenets of islam. That makes all muslims potential terrorists. There is absolutely no way to look at one and determine if he is a bloodthirsty jihadist. Since muslims are inveterate liars and lying comes as naturally to them as breathing, they cannot be trusted. Even their clerics lie. They foment hysteria in their zombie congregations with false accusations against non-muslims which results in mobs of maniacal muslims attacking and killing innocent people. They lie to non-muslims to obfuscate the hideous, supremacist dogma that enslaves them and poses a deadly threat to us. We read accounts of these crimes committed by islam's 'holy' men every day.
In addition to being masters of deceit, muslims are also extraordinary poseurs. They have been taught by their diabolical clerics how to behave, dress, and interact with infidels to appear Westernized and laid-back. Check out the archives and read the articles about the 'nice-muslims-next-door' who turned out to be shahids-in waiting or members of sleeper cells. Pay attention to the remarks made by their neighbors and co-workers. It is ridiculous to suggest that all muslims are innocent until proven guilty, or to believe that 'most' muslims really are innocuous pacifists. Islam is a predatory death cult and nobody has the time,resources, or ability to sort out the stealth jihadists from the holy warriors. It would take a mind reader to do that. Stealth jihadist or holy warrior---both are our enemies and all muslims are one or the other.
Islam is not compatible with Western values and governments. That is an indisputable fact
Brava.
"That makes all muslims potential terrorists."
I agree. All muslims are potential terrorists. All humans are potential murderers.... This leads to nowhere.
"It is ridiculous to suggest that all muslims are innocent until proven guilty..."
No, this is the basic assumption of criminal law. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right. It is part of the universal declaration of human rights, Art. 11(1):
"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence."
It is ridiculous to reject this principle. I insist:
"We should not condemn a person simply because he calls himself a muslim. We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does."
I believe in universal human rights and the rule of law. Many people here reject these notions. We must defend our open societies against its enemies, muslim supremacists as well as against hard core conservatives in our own countries.
You want to defend "western values", but your post proves that you reject western values just like orthodox Islam.
"The law and customs of war ARE the "rule of law" during wartime." - Andrew McCarthy
Elements within the theo-political ideology of islam have declared war on infidels and insufficiently-muslim muslims. Islam 1 & 2 declared this war 1400 years ago as doctrine. Islam 3 must destroy islam 1 & 2 to gain any standing in the world of infidels. Until this occurs a new cold war is necessary and perhaps a few hot wars to save the cultures and forms of governance that celebrate human-ness and accept the challenges of liberty for the splendor of freedom.
Hugh, I applaud your eloquence and depth, and cherish what you so obviously cherish.
"...membership in the Nazi Party was prima facie evidence of a level of guilt, and inadmissibality for participation in the government. Individuals were not examined, to see if there were, among them, a Schindler or two...."
Not true. Membership in the Nazi party was insufficient for excluding participation in the government. Many former members of the Nazi party were allowed to hold public office after the second world war following denazification. The Nurnberg trials convicted the main criminals to death or imprisonment.
"In wartime, one attacks the enemy. The bombs that fell on Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, on Hamburg, Cologne, and Berlin, did not carefully distinguish between the real and the lukewarm supports of savage Japanese militarism and Emperor-Worship(Kodo) and those who did not, or between the full-fledged Nazis and those who were to condemn lukewarm. That is not how wars are fought.
We are now at war -- a war we did not start, a war of which some are unware -- and will be, forever, as Infidels, against those who take the texts and tenets of Islam seriously, and who wish to fulfill their duty to participate, directly or indirectly, in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. "
There are no human rights in wartime? What about ius in bello? Bombing civilians in WW2 was justified? So what is your conclusion? We should suspend our basic human rights until we have "defeated" all muslims? We should bomb muslims, both guilty and innocent, because we are at war with islam?
Beware of the enemies of an open society among the conservatives! They shall take away all our liberal rights and freedoms in order to "defend western values"!
Western values, the Bill of Rights, freedoms that my relatives throughout American history (almost every single war from the Revolution thru Iraq) fought and died for, are NOT just suicide-enabling-fancy-words-in-a-history-book-pacts, Kilian!
You JUST DON'T GET IT.
We cannot long survive by tolerating intolerance to the point where tolerance is not tolerated! The MAIN THEME of Islam is INTOLERANCE!
WAR has been declared on the west. Islam has NOT declared CIVILIAN CRIMINAL OFFENCES upon us, they have declared WAR.
This kind of threat is not going to be dealt with or defeated by the PENAL system!
Oh, maybe you're a racist and think that because it's "brown" people who have declared their wish for our blood by declaring WAR against the west we should give 'em a break? Is that it? Have we oppressed them and subjected them to "colonial" type unfairness...is that what you think?
Should we just roll over and say "whatever?"
Oh, maybe it's because they're "religious" people we should not worry about them, and give them their way because they might turn out to be "nice" in the end?
If Hugh Fitzgerald cannot even get thru to you, I don't know why anyone else here should even bother.
You don't understand, and you're hopeless.
Far greater minds than mine around here have really tried with you, but it's a no-go. It seems you're too wrapped up in that dovey liberal la-la land kumbaya-singing unreality that will probably lead to the subjugation or deaths of millions of westerners who would otherwise be free.
Or, you're an agitprop just f-ing with us.
I really don't care either way.
"...membership in the Nazi Party was prima facie evidence of a level of guilt, and inadmissibality for participation in the government. Individuals were not examined, to see if there were, among them, a Schindler or two...."
Not true. Membership in the Nazi party was insufficient for excluding participation in the government. Many former members of the Nazi party were allowed to hold public office after the second world war following denazification. The Nurnberg trials convicted the main criminals to death or imprisonment.
"In wartime, one attacks the enemy. The bombs that fell on Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, on Hamburg, Cologne, and Berlin, did not carefully distinguish between the real and the lukewarm supports of savage Japanese militarism and Emperor-Worship(Kodo) and those who did not, or between the full-fledged Nazis and those who were to condemn lukewarm. That is not how wars are fought.
We are now at war -- a war we did not start, a war of which some are unware -- and will be, forever, as Infidels, against those who take the texts and tenets of Islam seriously, and who wish to fulfill their duty to participate, directly or indirectly, in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. "
There are no human rights in wartime? What about ius in bello? Bombing civilians in WW2 was justified? So what is your conclusion? We should suspend our basic human rights until we have "defeated" all muslims? We should bomb muslims, both guilty and innocent, because we are at war with islam?
Beware of the enemies of an open society among the conservatives! They shall take away all our liberal rights and freedoms in order to "defend western values"!
I'll skip your ad hominem attacks and answer your questions:
"Oh, maybe you're a racist and think that because it's "brown" people who have declared their wish for our blood by declaring WAR against the west we should give 'em a break? "
No
"Is that it?"
No
"Have we oppressed them and subjected them to "colonial" type unfairness...is that what you think?"
No
"Should we just roll over and say "whatever?""
No
"Oh, maybe it's because they're "religious" people we should not worry about them, and give them their way because they might turn out to be "nice" in the end?"
No
"Far greater minds than mine around here have really tried with you, but it's a no-go... "
It's a discussion and you don't win by ad hominem attacks or by appeal to authority.
I have no sympathy with orthodox Islam as a doctrine. But, contrary to the mainstream notion on this forum, I do distinguish between individual muslims and the ideology as a whole. Let me quote myself:
"...We should not condemn a person simply because he calls himself a muslim. We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does.
If a muslim follows orthodox Islamic doctrine by the letter (wages jihad against kuffar, kills apostates, beats women until they obey,...), then we should treat him like a criminal. If he doesn't act in this manner, we shall tolerate him."
I am very astonished that this idea is controversial at all and extremely disappointed how many conservatives on this forum reject basic western values.
"I'll skip your ad hominem attacks and answer your questions:"
-------------------
Ad hominems? Attacking your logic is not a personal attack. And asking if you're a racist -- considering the subject -- I think is entirely appropriate, considering your attitudes.
All I'm saying is that you wish us to take a knife to a gun fight, and then you want us to ask the guy with the gun if there's anything we can do to make him feel more comfortable and at-home while he shoots us.
You would have us be so tolerant of an intolerant ideology that we would have no defense against it.
You would have us treat a military matter as a criminal matter.
You simply don't believe (or will profess to not believe) that there is a palpable threat against us.
Is that not correct?
You say:
"...We should not condemn a person simply because he calls himself a muslim. We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does."
In a perfectly fair and sane world, yes. And, ideally, that would be in a world where there are not approx. 1.5 Billion people (2.5 million in the U.S. alone) who subscribe to an ideology that has declared open war against the west, and where the majority of said subscribers REFUSE to disavow that declaration!
But considering the fact that they HAVE declared war -- or refused to disavow the declaration of war -- I believe that great caution and care should be taken to protect ourselves and our values. As Bush-I used to say: "It would be prudent."
If some feeling are hurt, I'm sorry. Hurt feelings but lives saved? Too damned bad.
I am not talking about going out and killing people or rounding people up! I'm talking about being appropriately suspicious and on-guard to a credible threat!
And, regarding your great concern about human rights, understand that trust and respect are NOT human rights.
No one has the "right" to be liked or respected. And, no one has the "right" to NOT be SUSPECTED if they happen to openly cling to an ideology that is inherently supremacist and violent, and has a 1,400 year track record of aggressive conquests and a trail of bodies a million miles long.
You say:
"I am very astonished sthis idea is controversial at all and extremely disappointed how many conservatives on this forum reject basic western values."
And I say, again, freedoms and rights are not to be used to enable a so-called suicide pact, in which a people or system is SO tolerant that we tolerate intolerance to the point where the intolerant no loner tolerate our freedoms and liberties, and take them away.
I am very astonished that THIS idea is controversial at all and extremely disappointed how some liberals on this forum reject the protection of basic western values, and won't stand up to preserve them against those who would have them done away with at the first opportunity.
"It's a discussion and you don't win by ad hominem attacks or by appeal to authority."
------------
(You should keep this handy, just for future reference):
"One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again. I will begin with some invented examples, before dealing with some real-life misuses of the term at the end."
(Follow the link for some good examples)
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Let me answer your questions:
"All I'm saying is that you wish us to take a knife to a gun fight, and then you want us to ask the guy with the gun if there's anything we can do to make him feel more comfortable and at-home while he shoots us.
You would h ave us be so tolerant of an intolerant ideology that we would have no defense against it.
You would have us treat a military matter as a criminal matter.
You simply don't believe (or will profess to not believe) that there is a palpable threat against us.
Is that not correct?"
No, none of this represents my opinion. All of this is completely false.
"And I say, again, freedoms and rights are not to be used to enable a so-called suicide pact, in which a people or system is SO tolerant that we tolerate intolerance to the point where the intolerant no loner tolerate our freedoms and liberties, and take them away."
I don't tolerate intolerance. You are talking to a different person, not me.
I do think that your insinuations are akin to ad hominem attacks. But let the general public draw its conclusions.
Even though KK finds himself in the minority, he will not budge from his dangerous position. Notice that his first comment on this thread, is similar to his last, so he remains intransigent on the subject. And he behaves like a criminal defense attorney merely intent on winning his case, regardless of what the other side presents.
"I don't tolerate intolerance. You are talking to a different person, not me."
-----------------
Sentence I's okay, but I think sentence II's an ad hominem!
You may be attempting to deflect any further discussion by claiming that either YOU'RE not the person in the discussion, or, that I'm so whacked-out that I can't even grasp that it's NOT YOU I'm having the discussion with, or simply that I'm not addressing the issues that have clearly been part of the discussions here for half the night because I'm whacked-out and am incapable of keeping up!
Yeah, I think that's an ad hominem!
LOL!
"I do think that your insinuations are akin to ad hominem attacks. But let the general public draw its conclusions."
-------
Akin = similar to. Really, it's easy to mistake a non ad-hominem for an ad-hominem, KK.
If I'd attacked you personally in order to specifically discredit you and/or to deflect attention away from any particular point, then that would be ad hominem, I believe, as I've interpreted ad hominem.
Sarcasm is not ad hominem, but is frequently accused of being so.
It's confusing, which is why I rarely, if ever, accuse anyone of it, because, as that article shows, it's so rarely an accurate charge.
But I could be mistaken and, as you put it, would defer to a "higher authority" if that were the case. :D
Excellent analysis.
"Islamic history has never been a relentless series of theocratic governments; it has varied from century to century, ruler to ruler. Sometimes it has been very intolerant, and sometimes it has been very tolerant."
But Islamic history has always depended on an autocratic ruler. If the ruler was tolerant then so was his rule.
Islam 1 and 2 do not allow for democracy and the safeguards democracy provides to democratic freedoms.
Islam 2, the Sharia, trying to be imposed by the Islamic Conference, would not allow for these freedoms.
Would you support banning Sharia law in the US and Europe, and requiring all citizens to legally commit themselves to opposing Sharia?
Kilian Klaiber I don't agree with the dismissive comments about Ibn Warraq here. I think he is quite right, that one must distinguish between islamic doctrine (Islam 1 and 2) and Islamic practice.
But that is not what he said. Islam 3 is not Islamic practice it is Islamic CIVILISATION, which is what Muslims actually did do as opposed to what they should have done, what actually happened in Islamic history.
This was totally dependent on the autocratic ruler of the time. So long as a muslim acknowledges his subservience to Islam 1 and 2, he/ she can always be persuaded to abide by their dictates, when this is demanded of them. If a muslim renounces Islam 1 and 2, then that "muslim" is perfectly acceptable, but it is a moot point if he is still a muslim.
Wow!By the time I received this email, the thread was really long...trying to read every comment is tiring. Especially when one person, so intent on convincing everyone else that he/she is the only one speaking what is correct, keeps commenting and copying each part of the remarks dealing with his/her comments.
It is not possible for me to detail here all of the interactions I have had with muslims...men, women and children. Suffice it to say, there have been many. Long ago, I thought they were just like everyone else...only different. I have come to find out....through my personal dealings with them....they are not just like everyone else. They are different in several respects.
If they are muslim, if they believe in Mohammed, if they read their 'holy' book....they have a goal that is in lock step with every other believer. It is impossible to separate them from their beliefs.
As someone stated: not all will murder an unbeliever, but they don't try to stop the murders from taking place.
And too it is well known about due process, which I must add, CONSERVATIVES believe in this as a Constitutional right: However, when a woman is found murdered, or goes missing, the cops look at the husband/boyfriend or ex of these. They may be "innocent until proven guilty" but the police don't see it that way necessarily. They have to follow the law, but they look at the husband/boyfriend or ex as a "suspect" or "person of interest" and feel that this one is the guilty party. They have not proven it yet...it is up to a jury to do that, but to the police, the man is a "liar" if he says he didn't do it, a "murderer" if the woman is found dead and they will try their hardest to get the proof they need to arrest him.
We have to look at Muslims that way too, unfortunately. Because they belong to the group that has TOLD us they want us dead. There may be many muslims who would not kill us outright, but they are in favor of taking our freedom to worship (or not) as we wish in order to impose upon us their restrictions and practices.
It serves no purpose to categorize those ones who choose to read these news articles about Islam and comment on them with points they feel are important as some wish to do...like one commenter (you know who you are) keeps doing... implying everyone here is as the Nazi's who wished us dead during WWII.
There were Germans who didn't agree with what Hitler did...I have relatives who are German born and lived there when it all happened. They were German, but not Nazi's. These would have walked away from the conflict and killing if they had been able to do so. Children must stay with their parents, right or wrong and are dependent on them.
There are some who are born into the Muslim faith and wish to get out....for these, we can have empathy. But the majority who come to this country do not wish to leave their religion behind. They bring it with them. It is unfortunate, but like the husband married to the dead woman, or the man who dated her last: we have to hold them all as suspects.
Exactly that pledge must be undertaken by every muslim to be eligible to have residency or citizenship in a western country. They must acknowledge the superiority of the western laws over the Sharia. They must renounce Islam 1 and 2.
Just as we would not tolerate a Nazi to become one of our citizens or migrate to our countries, we should not tolerate believers of Islam 1 and 2. It would not be enough for the Nazi to say I believe in the Mein Kamph but I will not practice it by killing a Jew. Why should it be enough for a person to say I believe in Islam 1 and 2 but I will not carry it out?
"I agree. All muslims are potential terrorists. All humans are potential murderers...." - KK
Nope, the second doesn't follow from the first.
"All" humans do not ascribe to a mass-murder ideology. Only Muslims and Nazis do.
Therefore, your comparison of "all Muslims" to "all humans" is faulty and invalid.
Nice try.
Eleanor:
"No one has the "right" to be liked or respected. And, no one has the "right" to NOT be SUSPECTED if they happen to openly cling to an ideology that is inherently supremacist and violent, and has a 1,400 year track record of aggressive conquests and a trail of bodies a million miles long."
"And I say, again, freedoms and rights are not to be used to enable a so-called suicide pact, in which a people or system is SO tolerant that we tolerate intolerance to the point where the intolerant no loner tolerate our freedoms and liberties, and take them away."
Exactly my stand in the matter! I applaud your eloquent answer to KK!!! The whole of it, you speak for me, thank you!
In a way KK's stand is that of yesterday. The Islamic challenge is a challenge to the very system he himself adheres to and uses. I may add, against those who wish him and all others the right to use it. On behalf of those that certainly would not allow him his recalcitrance on their territory.
He, like so many Westerners, does indeed not see the threat Hugh so eloquently outlines. His stand is one of luxury.
Any way, if the threat does not appear too apparent to people, because of the ineffectiveness of Muslims, as opposed to their intention, there still are other arguments;
I. Is it not highly probable, with our present knowledge, that a substantial and fast growing part of populations in Democratic countries, are indeed, not just indifferent-neutral, but in league with anti-democratic forces? In their minds, attitudes? Isn't that something to be addressed?
II. Should it not be ever more emphasized that having a religion is a choice, NOT a birth-accident? For which accountability should be asked.
Maybe "yesterday" we were very careless, because ignorant about Islam, but now we have become much better informed of Islam I, II AND III.
III being what Muslims actually do, what laws they actually follow, "in the world", when power permits them to follow their "nature". AND when that power results in oppression of our natural allies, the religious minorities among them. In sharp contrast to the treatment and freedoms of the Islamic minorities among the countries of the other faiths-ways of life. And in the 21st century I think we should think global, not myopically only national, concerning Islam & Democracy.
Maybe yesterday KK was right, but we have to evolve to a situation that it IS what a Muslim says and does as a choice, what should be challenged. The very choice to belong to an anti-Democratic movement while living in a Democratic country, THAT that becomes quilt, not innocence.
But with the very important proviso, that Muslims will be offered the choice of giving oaths of primary loyalty to democratic laws, values, interests over Islamic ones when the 2 are in contradiction. And then still will have to build and earn the by now almost totally lost trust in them, by knowledgeable "Democratic infidels", by their declarations and behavior.
"If they are Muslim, if they believe in Mohammed, if they read their 'holy' book....they have a goal that is in lockstep with every other believer. It is impossible to separate them from their beliefs."
Agree.
All humans have the capacity to murder. Therefore, all humans are potential murderers. Convicting persons for "potentially committed crimes" is unjust.
Shariah law is incompatible with a liberal democracy based on universal human rights. Therefore, I am opposed to shariah law and oppose shariah law.
You people are not responding to me. For example:
"And I say, again, freedoms and rights are not to be used to enable a so-called suicide pact, in which a people or system is SO tolerant that we tolerate intolerance to the point where the intolerant no loner tolerate our freedoms and liberties, and take them away."
I said explicitly that I do not tolerate intolerance. Why do you think that this is any kind of response to what I said?
"II. Should it not be ever more emphasized that having a religion is a choice, NOT a birth-accident? For which accountability should be asked."
This is not true for muslims. If you are born a muslim you have no choice to leave. Apostates are killed according to shariah law. In many cases being a muslim is in fact a birth accident.
This is my basic premise, which you people so violently object:
"We should not condemn a person simply because he calls himself a muslim. We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does."
I find no fault in it and I find your objections - to say the least - disturbing.
"All humans have the capacity to murder"
That's not true, that's a total lie.
I find your illogical, unproveable, ridiculous generalizations about "all humans" disturbing, to say the least. Quite "disturbing."
"This is my basic premise, which you people so violently object:
"We should not condemn a person simply because he calls himself a muslim. We should judge each and every individual only upon what this person says or does."
"violently," lol. You want violence? Look to the Mohammedans.
Go ahead and have your opinion - no one has to agree with it, so stop acting like a Muslim in your aggressiveness.
And, re-read Susanp's reply to you.
""All humans have the capacity to murder"
That's not true, that's a total lie. "
It's the truth. Anyone can pull the trigger of a gun. No more is required.
"And, re-read Susanp's reply to you."
Susanp didn't reply to anything I said. I told her that. But her insinuations are now becoming the topic of this thread.
"II. Should it not be ever more emphasized that having a religion is a choice, NOT a birth-accident? For which accountability should be asked."
This is not true for muslims. If you are born a muslim you have no choice to leave. Apostates are killed according to shariah law. In many cases being a muslim is in fact a birth accident.
Kilian, this is perhaps your strongest point. This is to a large extent very true.
But I do not think we should indefinitely this any more in the 21st century in democratic countries. As I said, Muslims must be given a way out, through a loyalty-oath to Democratic essences. But after that, in future it should no longer be innocence, but guilt, when Muslims refuse such an oath or stealthily break it. Because that would represent a choice, NOT a birth-accident. A choice preceded with ample information, arguments and warnings.
Correction, we should not indefinitely ALLOW this any more in the 21st century in Democratic countries.
In 1932 there were some 70 million Germans of which two and a half million were Nazi. However, Hitler garnered 43% of the popular vote in that year's election. Fast forward to 1940 when the Germans marched into Paris. Now (then) 95%+ of Germany thought Herr Hitler was just fine.........remember what our fine fellow bin Laden said, "They will follow the strong horse"...........given enough "success" all our #3 muslims will become #1 and part of that success will be the Ground Zero mosque. "Mosque", in terms of #1 Islam means "place of battle"
"Susanp didn't reply to anything I said. I told her that. But her insinuations are now becoming the topic of this thread."
Yes she did. And her's are not "insinuations" they are assertions. And she's right.
I agree Demsci. We must liberate muslims so that they finally have the freedom to leave islam. The rifqa bary case is just one example. We need to find a way of protecting former muslims from a muslim mob that wants to kill them in the name of Allah.
But one thing must be clear: A person, whether he be a muslim or not, is only responsible for what he himself says and does.
This basic moral notion is something we must all adhere to. Unfortunately the majority of people on this blog appear to reject this idea. This has been the cause for all the controversy here.
Islam is, it should be agreed, a faith different from others that we call, sometimes lazily, "religions." It is all-encompassing. It is a Total Belief-System. It has its origins in the desire of some Arabs, long ago, possibly already having left Arabia (there were Arab settlements outside the confines of Arabia, among the civilisationally more advanced Christian and Jews to the north and east), to have a faith of their own, one that naturally was based on what they knew, and what they knew was pagan Arab lore, and bits and pieces, imperfectly understood by those who composed, over time, the Qur'an, of personages and stories taken from Christian and Jewish texts. Islam allowed the conquering Arabs to present themselves as bearers of the correct version of the Only Truth, the one that contained enough elements of prior-in-time monotheisms that made Islam appear entirely foreign to the conquered peoples (Christians and Jews, in the earliest days), a faith that could plausibly be presented as the "true" version of what the others had in a "distorted" version.
This Islam, whatever else it contains, is based on a clear division of humanity between Believer and Unbeliever, Muslim and Infidel. Between the two, Muslims are taught -- the texts, the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics of Islam all conspire or collude to teach them -- that there must be a state of permanent war (if not of open warfare). Furthermore, it is incumbent on all Muslims to push forward the borders of Dar al-Islam, the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, by working to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the domination, of Islam -- not in one or two places, not in "the West Bank" and Kashmir only, but everywhere, for the whole world belongs to Allah, and to the "best of peoples," the Muslims.
Illiterate Muslim villagers, living in remote parts of Dar al-Islam, are little threat to us. But take those illiterate villagers, and give them modern technology, so that the full message of Islam can more easily be disseminated, and they become more of a threat. Still worse, take those illiterate (or literate) villagers, and for some reason admit them into your own countries, the countries of the Infidel West, that could never have had their legal and political institutions, their art, their science, their anything, created in the Muslim lands, and you have imported, for no particular reason, a permanent threat. There may be, for every hundred Muslims, a few who become outright apostates. There may be a dozen more who, while not openly apostates, are secretly so delighted to be living in a well-run state, and who have no intention of trying to change that state. But as for the rest -- and we have all kinds of evidence as to what the views of Muslims toward Infidels, toward the Jihad, and even toward the use of terrorism as an instrument of Jihad -- there they are, and permanently. We made the mistake, all over the Western world, of thinking that Islam is just a faith like any other, and governments and elites all over the Western world did nothing to encourage, and everything to undremine, the growing popular understanding, based on experience with Muslims, both direct and indirect (including news reports that sometimes makes the daily newspaper seem litt;e different from a "Jihad News of the Day") growing dislike of Islam and well-justified suspicion, as a result, of those who are its True Believers, its promoters and protectors, those who demand or support those who demand changes in our societies, our laws, our customs, and insist that for some reason they have a "right" to keep on coming, and to keep them out would be "unjust," a violation of...of what, exactly? Some kind of divine right of Muslims to enter, and settle deep within, Dar al-Harb, the lands of the Infidels, deep behind what Muslims themselves are taught to consider enemy lines? This makes no sense.
And it makes no sense, either, given the experiences of the last few decades, to ask us in the Westrn world to ignore the evidence of our senses, including our ability to read the texts of Islam, and the work of the great scholars of Islam, and the testimony of those who, like Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are defectors from the Army of Islam and have come to offer their own testimony, their own analysis. And finally, we have every day fresh evidence of how, all over the world, Muslims treat non-Muslims. We now hear, and read, about what happens to Christians in Pakistan, or Buddhists in Bangladesh and southern Thailand, or to Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Christians in Indonesia, or to Copts in Egypt, Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq, and we know, of course, the status of Christian guest workers in Saudi Arabia, forbidden the slightest practice of their faith. And we also have the news of the latest outrageous demands, or fiddling of the system, by Muslims all over Western Europe, and the slow awakening -- despite the efforts of their governments to keep them in the dark -- of the peoples of advanced Western Europe.
I gather that efforts have been made by many in the thread above to explain, patiently and good-humoredly, to a particular poster, one who is willfully obstinate, or obstinately obtuse, whose mind is made up and simply does not wish to consider those three kinds of evidence -- the Islamic texts, the Western scholars of Islam who have studied both the doctrine, and the history of Islamic conquest of many different lands and the subjugation of many different non-Muslim peoples, the testimony of those who, having been born and raised up within Islam, have in the mental and physical freedom of the West jettisoned Islam and, what's more, chosen to openly testify about it, and to warn us about it, and finally, the evidence of Muslim behavior that can be explained only by reference to Islamic texts and tenets.
All of this that particular poster wishes not to consider. He's only going to judge Muslims, make policies concerning Muslims, on a "case-by-case" basis. He's going to raise his holier-than-thou standard (a banner with a strange device) because, you see, while he claims to understand what the doctrines of Islma contain, he wishes to assume that many Muslims don't really take those doctrines seriously, and never will, or their children or grandchildren never will.
He wants to remain pure. He doesn't approve of all kinds of things that are routinely done, and have been done, in wartime.
That way madness lies, and defeat too. He is not, I think, sufficiently familiar with history, and the practice of nations, and men and events, to be a guide to anything. But he can luxuriate, he can wallow - se vautrer -- in the pleasurable mental bed of his own self-righteousness.
And the rest of us will have to accept our assigned role, in his private universe, that of being the careless (unable-to-make-fine-distinctions) and even cruel villains of the piece.
That is something we can all live with. Following his views and his precepts is something, I'm afraid, at this point in history, we can't.
"KK is confused. He compares the attention given to individuals in peacetime, when one has that luxury. In Occupied Germany, he notes, the Allies looked at "individuals" not groups. He is not even accurate about that. Even though denazification efforts were far too inadequate, incomplete, far too forgiving, and called off far too early (because of the new Cold War that had begun) the Allies, membership in the Nazi Party was prima facie evidence of a level of guilt, and inadmissibility for participation in the government. Individuals were not examined, to see if there were, among them, a Schindler or two.
And that was in peacetime.
In wartime, one attacks the enemy. The bombs that fell on Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, on Hamburg, Cologne, and Berlin, did not carefully distinguish between the real and the lukewarm supports of savage Japanese militarism and Emperor-Worship(Kodo) and those who did not, or between the full-fledged Nazis and those who were lukewarm. That is not how wars are fought.
We are now at war -- a war we did not start, a war of which some are unaware -- and will be, forever, as Infidels, against those who take the texts and tenets of Islam seriously, and who wish to fulfill their duty to participate, directly or indirectly, in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam.
We have reason to believe that techniques of dissimulation as practiced by many Muslims are widespread and, in Defense of Islam, enjoy long favor and religious sanction (Taqiyya, Kitman). We have had many examples of Muslims -- political leaders, clerics, even those who specialize in cunning Interfaith Outreach -- addressing non-Muslims one way, and fellow Muslims quite another.
We are incapable of determining which Muslims are true adherents and which ones are truly unobservant or lapsed, or if unobservant or lapsed, if they will forever remain that way, or if even a personal crisis might return them to the dangerous fold of full-bodied Islam, taken straight and not on the rocks (of custom, of self-interest, of laziness, of inattentiveness).
We have, especially in the countries of Western Europe, a great deal of steadily accumulating evidence that the large-scale presence of Muslims has been deeply upsetting, and dangerous, to the tenor or way of life for non--Muslims -- one that was not inevitable, one that might have been avoided had the political and media elites over the past 30-40 years been paying attention to Islam and what it inculcates, instead of relying on bland assumptions that "everyone is the same the whole world over" or "everyone wants the same thing" or "all religions are the same" or (Your Favorite Soothing Banality Here) when it came to immigration. That large-scale presence of Muslims has created a situation for the indigenous non-Muslims, and for non-Muslim immigrants too, that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without that large-scale presence.
We don't have time, we don't have space, to wait for the promised always=just-over-the-horizon in-truth-impossible "reform" of Islam. We don't have time, we don't have space, to risk our art, our science, our literature, our mental freedoms, our legal and political institutions, our social arrangements, on the possibility or even likelihood that "some Muslims -- that nice Pakistani (Somali, Arab, you name it) who always asks after your children, and seems to be so much more human, so much warmer than fellow Westerners (but have you ever engaged him in a truthful discussion of Islam, and of the figure of Muhammad, or have you never put your trust in him to the only test that matters?).
Look, this kind of sentimentality based on ignorance or, still worse, willful ignorance, simply will not do. Too much has happened, too much is still to come. And there are so many problems facing the West, and the world -- we don't have time to take in Muslims or to engage in "reconstruction" of their own wretched countries (made wretched by Islam). The threat of Islam has to be reduced to manageable proportions, and manageable expense, and can be, if those who formulate policies would rely on, or themselves become, better informed, more imaginative, more cunning, and less sentimental, more intelligently ruthless.
The threat from adherents of Islam who take their naturally fanatical faith seriously is not a "problem" to which there is a "solution" but rather, a situation that can be handled, and permanently, as we husband rather than squander resources, and allow the pre-existing fissures -- ethnic, sectarian, and economic --within the Camp of Islam to work their magic, and we can help divide and demoralize that Camp (unified only as against Infidels) by bringing to the attention of the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism, and we can also discuss, endlessly and openly, all the ways that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim states and societies are a direct result of Islam itself, and the kind of ideal worshipper, with the habit of mental submission, that Islam attempts to create and, alas, by the hundreds of millions, so often does."
Deserved a repeat.
"I gather that efforts have been made by many in the thread above to explain, patiently and good-humoredly, to a particular poster, one who is willfully obstinate, or obstinately obtuse, whose mind is made up and simply does not wish to consider those three kinds of evidence -- the Islamic texts, the Western scholars of Islam who have studied both the doctrine, and the history of Islamic conquest of many different lands and the subjugation of many different non-Muslim peoples, the testimony of those who, having been born and raised up within Islam, have in the mental and physical freedom of the West jettisoned Islam and, what's more, chosen to openly testify about it, and to warn us about it, and finally, the evidence of Muslim behavior that can be explained only by reference to Islamic texts and tenets."
I guess you are talking about me. But, you are completely ignorant about what I know and believe. I have studied both the canonical islamic texts (koran, hadith and sirat) as well as western scholars of islam. I have read several books by Mr. Spencer, Mr Warraq, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Khan, Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Bostom,.... I doubt that your knowledge of islamic doctrine and history is any more profound than mine.
Your post does not in any way refute may basic premise: We must judge each and every person only based on what this person says or does, irrespective of whether he is a muslim. You have rejected this notion but you have failed to substantiate this.
"We don't want to call all Muslims terrorists, so the best way is this distinction between Islam One, Two, Three."
While I completely agree that the "human factor" must always be considered in the SOLUTION of a problem, it is not a good idea to modify abstract thinking on the NATURE of the problem (Islam) by attempting to change reality into a form that fits some notion of acceptance by people. Islam One, Two, and Three is an example of bending the abstract thinking process to please people. In a recent post we went through all this on good vs. bad Muslims.
It is better to completely separate the abstract analysis of the problem from what to do about the problem. That way we may get closer to workable solution if one exists. The human element and "heart" issues of the proposed solutions will all come out in the discussion of the solutions.
I believe that knowledgeable reasonable people could agree that there is NO WAY to tell a "good" Muslim from a "bad" Muslim. We would not even be discussing this if it were not for the depth of the "badness" of "bad" Muslims. Just think, a "bad" Muslim that is hell bent on suicide to please Allah could easily take a relatively small WMD device or substance and kill 100,000 people to please Allah. Or a Muslim military chief from a Muslim organization could use WMD ordinance to kill millions of people to please Allah. That should make us all think that something is seriously wrong with Allah and Islam.
The real problem is what to do about it when vast numbers of people who interact with Muslims cannot see the danger of Islam and connect it to the Muslim(s) they know. In the 1930's, when people were orders of magnitudes higher in common sense then the people of today, even then they had no real success in getting acceptance of a solution for the sinister designs of Hitler and his Nazis. Like the Islamics, Hitler told the world clearly where he was going and the best the world could do was to depend on the likes of Nevel Chamberlain.
Ideally we would round up all Muslims in our country until there is no threat. Do you see how foolish it would be to seriously consider this in today's world. Even cutting off Islamic temporal power by outlawing Shariah would be a major challenge if not impossible. So this leaves us to talk about all this serious business while the rest of the world sleeps.
I believe that a major effort to ban Shariah should be attempted. If successful and it has a good effect, we can then measure what to do next. Beyond that, we will probably be left to talk about it until one of those rabid Muslim suicide bombers takes a real shot at us. Even when that happens, our current arrogant criminal politicians with help from journalists would then likely impose martial law on us and attempt to swing this country to a different form of government similiar to the Russian model, while keeping the Muslim problem going in order to keep our minds fully occupied in order to hide themselves from scrutiny. We don't know what the future brings and we must all hope for the best.
"No. Unfortunately the only effective solution is to not allow Muslims to take up permanent residence."
So what do you suggest for the several MILLION Muslims who are born and raised "sho nuff" AMERICANS? Execution, revocation of our citizenship, interment camps? No, for REAL, I'd like to know...
I realize this devolves into a "which came first" argument, but in light of the fact that the scientists solved that for the chicken/egg quandary, maybe we could get some objective minds on this question too.
I'll even make it as specific an example possible so we're not drowning in the generality of it:
I was born in the U.S. from U.S. parents > Grandparents > etc.
I converted to Islam in my mid 20s. So according to you loving folks, did I forfeit my U.S. rights in doing so? I AM opposed to the current incarnation of US government, but I LOVE this country, and the principles it was founded on. I also believe that Islam is the solution to ALL the problems in this country.
So, what would y'all do with me, I REALLY want to know...
If you do indeed "believe that Islam is the solution to ALL the problems in this country," then your view of what should be, that is the imposition of the Shari'a, the Shari'a which in letter and spirit flatly contradicts the laws of this country, then of course you should be considered a security risk. Why should you not be?
"I AM opposed to the current incarnation of US government, but I LOVE this country, and the principles it was founded on. I also believe that Islam is the solution to ALL the problems in this country."
America was founded on the principles of democratic government. This means government by the people. The people are sovereign. The people's elected representatives legislate. Do you adhere to these principles?
Then you cannot at the same time adhere to orthodox Islam. Orthodox Islam means submission to the will of one god, named Allah. Allah sets the rules and laws not the people. These rules encompass every aspect of life. The separation of church and state is heretical. Either the people are the prime legislator or Allah is.
Furthermore the American constitution legislates a strict separation of church and state. Therefore, an Islamic government with Allah as prime legislator, is contrary to the principles of America.
A democratic form of government and orthodox Islam are irreconcilable. You must choose one or the other. You can't have both.
All Muslim individuals have the right to 'veto' Western polity and democratic way of life:
They can leave -- and take their four wives and extended family with them.
That solves a lot of problems all around. We won't be offended. No Sharia.
Hi Champ,
I agree with your statement about KK. KK must be the defense lobby for Muslims. He thinks that western values are not worth fighting for. He said in one of his posts:
"...Beware of the enemies of an open society among the conservatives! They shall take away all our liberal rights and freedoms in order to "defend western values"! Posted by KK
Maybe I read this wrong. If I did, he needs to clarify his statement. Western values are worth everything and must be defended at any cost from any enemy. Without Western values the world goes into another dark age.
Maybe he is one of those that believes in losing with honor.
Islam, without a massive reformation, as it currently exists, is a permanent threat to all peoples and systems non-Islamic.
Anyone who subscribes to Islam, declaring themselves as a Muslim, must also be considered a potential threat based on their subscription to Islam.
The degree of piety to Islam by the individual Muslim is not realistically discernable at all, so all must be suspect as long as they continue to self-identify as Muslims.
A reactive policy of waiting for the "orthodox" Muslims to act is not a sound policy to ensure the safe continuance of a non-Islamic society or nation.
Kilian Klaiber's flawed appeal to morality is not supported by any logical means, and the obvious existence of Muslims who at this poiont in time, do not consider themselves as "orthodox", is wholly irrelevant.
The allies had every right to fight a war against Nazi Germany.
After the second world war the Allies indeed questioned each and every Nazi about his involvement in Nazi Gerrmany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
Then you would agree that it is okay to fight Islam, even if this ultimately involves a world war, just like we fought Nazism, but after we beat Islam to a pulp we "Deislamize" each and every Muslim?... That's doable.
"I LOVE this country, and the principles it was founded on. I also believe that Islam is the solution to ALL the problems in this country."
You're contradicting yourself, Dank.
KK hasn't responded.
Into the second week of posting on Pat Condell's sites the question, "Would you support banning Sharia law in the US and Europe?": there has not been one single YES from a Muslim, or an appeaser of Islam. They just go mute.
Likewise, when you ask the question, "Give us the date, place and how many Muslims showed up to march or sign petitions against al Qaeda"...silence (except one muslim tried to sneak by the Iranian American protest against the Iranian elections, which shouldn't count because that was an effort to protect other Muslims, and not me and my fellow unbelievers)
So, I ask KK again:
Would you support banning Sharia law in the US and Europe?
Would you support banning Sharia law in the US and Europe?
Sure, I'm against Shariah law. What makes you think otherwise? Shariah is unconstitutional in the US and most European countries. As far as I know only Britain has applied shariah in civil courts. Shame on the UK. I hope they shall revert this practice.
We have a democracy that has as its foundations the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No new laws can contradict the Constitution or Bill of Rights and still be legally enforceable. The checks and balances in the three branches of our government are meant to prevent straying from our foundations. The courts have the obligation to strike down unconstitutional laws. The legislatures have the limitations set by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The President is not king and can be prosecuted for not upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The people have the right and obligation to hold the government accountable under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a global jihad view that democracy just means majority vote can install Sharia law.
"Then you would agree that it is okay to fight Islam, even if this ultimately involves a world war, just like we fought Nazism, but after we beat Islam to a pulp we "Deislamize" each and every Muslim?... That's doable."
I do think that we should "fight" Islam. I don't think this involves a world war like the second world war. The fight is going to be very different. We are not fighting a country with a standing army and about 80 million inhabitants. We are fighting an ideology with over 1 billion followers. Therefore, the tactics and techniques have to be very different.
1. We have to oppose the islamic ideology.
Why? If you have the slightest doubts about the veracity of Islam, you will not blow yourself up in the name of Allah. We must publicly demonstrate the fallacies of Islam. This must be performed in public media, television, radio, internet, ... It must be broadcasted in arabic, persian, english all over the world. This is first and foremost an ideological conflict.
2. We must identify the militant followers in our countries.
The most dangerous enemies are within our societies. We must take care that fundamentalist muslims who preach violence and the desctruction of western society are silenced and imprisoned.
3. We must unite the non-muslim western world Europe and the US but also China and Russia, which have militant muslim minorities, in the struggel against islamic supremacism.
4. We must stop aiding our enemies, such as iran, saudi arabia,... This includes stopping the flow of money for oil. The replacement of oil as source of energy is a matter of national security. Afghanistan and Iraq are lost. We are aiding governments in these countries that subscribe to shariah law. We should pull out our armies.
I think those are the most important things we can do.
I agree with all four points, KK. But in the end, when this new openness or 'glastnost' of Islam is pursued, there will still be a military war, most probably with Iran, before we can 'deislamize' them on a large scale. Engaging Russia and China, as you say, is also necessary to win this.
Standing back from all that's been said, there is a common theme here by all participants, that we must educate the people of what Islam truly represents, all of its evil supremacist agenda, to de-fang it, and oppose Sharia in any form; which means no sharia 'family' courts, such as now allowed in the UK. Bring this level of awareness all the way up to journalism, policy think thanks, government officials, schools, and down to the community level, such as opposing more mosque constructions, and thoroughly monitor those already in existence. Shuttering down those who preach seditious activities such as Jihad and Sharia, and we have the beginnings of of 'deislamization' starting before real wars are fought. Finally, review and modify all Muslim immigration to the West, with removal of those hostile to our freedoms. That is the start of an intelligent policy to counter Islamic demands for supremacy. But it would take an 'act of God' to truly liberate all the billion trapped within Islam with equality and full human rights, especially the women. So even if we soundly beat Islam, it will still plague a large part of humanity. Education is really the key to overcoming this primitive repressive ideology, and that takes time.
Dank, it was great that you intervened when you did, because right after 2 great antagonists on this thread responded to you in the same way! Thanks!
They have explained to you why self-confessed membership of the at least in part totalitarian ideology of Islam merits a firm response, because of the security and community cohesion of a democratic state.
And the idea I now entertain is administering to all Muslims (if need be to all citizens) an oath of loyalty, specifically stating that the oath-giver is first and foremost loyal to the constitution, laws, rules, values, interests of the Democratic state when these are in conflict with well-known Islamic ones. Which can be and are well studied and known by ever more politicians and citizens, and media too.
Would you give such an oath AND adhere to it? If you don't what do YOU think our society should do with you?
I think you would then be a "persona non grata" and should consider migrating to an Islamic country of your choice.
Mary,
Unfortunately our country as it is now functioning, is not based on the Constitution but on our Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution which has been bastardized by liberal courts beyond recognition. In England they do not have a Constitution but rely on 100 or so Judges to serve as their Constitution. They now allow Shariah law for Muslim. We are drifting in that direction with only nine judges to make the final decision. Our judges are completely political in my opinion like we saw during the Florida vote challenges a few years ago.
Specifically outlawing Shariah law would send a chilling message to all Muslims (and US citizens) that Islamic behaviour is not welcome here. I would hope that many of the serious Islamic people would leave the country as a result and serious prosecutions of Muslims would result.
Never the less, as I have stated before, this would not be a real solution to our problem because of the ineptitude of our government. Just look at the border problems. The federal government is suing Arizona to continue to allow illegal immigration in Arizona. The Islamic problem is just on facet of a much bigger problem.
"...But it would take an 'act of God' to truly liberate all the billion trapped within Islam with equality and full human rights, especially the women. So even if we soundly beat Islam, it will still plague a large part of humanity. Education is really the key to overcoming this primitive repressive ideology, and that takes time."
Battle of Tours,
I agree with your entire comment. Education and let the people know.
And, that's why it is the people's (our) obligation to hold the government, which includes the courts, accountable under the Constitution. If President Obama has forbidden even the use of the word "jihad" in resisting global jihad, then it is up to the people to demand and enact laws making jihad crimes (crimes under our laws) punishable as hate crimes against non-Muslims and outlawing Sharia law principles as against our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
This thread arouses a weird sense of déjà lu ("already read") -- with the added twist of being an Alice-in-Wonderlandish mirror image of that other monster thread Why is Geert Wilders "anti-Islam," and what is his message to the Muslims?. In that thread, I was the beleaguered odd man out in articulating my stand that we cannot trust any Muslim and that we therefore cannot base any policy upon a hypothetical distinction between the putatively harmless Muslim and the rationally prejudged dangerous Muslim -- since that distinction cannot be made pragmatically for the purposes of our safety.
In that thread, with the exception of one or two individuals, I was roundly disputed on all sides by other Jihad Watchers.
Now along comes Kilian Klaiber defending the same distinctions -- with which all those Jihad Watchers apparently agreed in their disputations with me -- and stating logical conclusions from those distinctions, and suddenly all these Jihad Watchers (with the notable exception of Susanp, and of course Courreges) gang up on Kilian! All I can ask now is: Where the heck were all you guys when I was manning all those bastions in the other thread? And why the flip flop?
Or maybe there is no flip flop: I suspect what is going on here is that on a theoretical abstract level, your distaste for Kilian's logic arouses in you a defense of the rational prejudice against all Muslims: but when someone like me draws out the logical conclusions from that principle in concrete policies we must be ready to implement in order to protect our societies, you guys suddenly recoil and protest, and then defenses of all those multitudes of nice, moderate, "relaxed" or "ignorant" or "victimized" Muslims that must exist blossom and flower in order to stave off the grim necessities which the problem of Muslims poses.
The one, two, three classification is very, very dangerous - don't pay any attention to it! What Ibn is in denial about is the oft proved fact that when a teacher appears who is really well versed in what the Koran REALLY says and says very clearly, this teacher can easily convert most of his listeners (if they are Muslims) into cold blooded murderers - all that is necessary to persuade any practicing Muslim with an average IQ to become very sympathetic to the ideals clearly put forth in the Koran - the clearly expressed idea that cold blooded murder can be holy and get you rewards in heaven beyond any merely spiritual reward, namely, unlimited non-marital sex with beautiful but non-human playmates forever. There is not now nor ever has been a Muslim community without this extremely possible likelihood that the friendly Muslim you knew yesterday will slash the throats of your family tomorrow! If you want to live, don't believe what is written above. Don't even turn your back on a Koran believer!
"I converted to Islam in my mid 20s."
lol, says it all. Not too bright, are you? And, a sociopath for joining a belief system that mandates mass-murder of everyone else (Unbelievers).
Why don't you move to Yemen, where you belong? Take your barbaric evil mass-murder 7th century AD belief system with you.
Kilian has stated:
"I believe in universal human rights, rule of law and democratic government."
And, in responding to Hugh, Kilian stated: "Your post does not in any way refute may [sic] basic premise: We must judge each and every person only based on what this person says or does, irrespective of whether he is a muslim. You have rejected this notion but you have failed to substantiate this."
Actually, Hugh did so eloquently as did many others on this blog but you are seemingly as incapable of divorcing yourself from your dogma as the jihadis are from theirs.
By asserting that any judgment must be made "irrespective of whether he is a muslim" you seek illogically to divorce the muslim from the supremacist, hegemonic, intolerant and genocidal imperatives of islam. You can not. Unfortunately, you can take the muslim out of islam but you can not take islam out of the muslim.
As the Supreme Court of the United States has said: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Your premise is circular, fallacious and disingenuous.
First, if a Muslim "says" that he is a Muslim but does not convert out of Islam or otherwise definitively and without taqiyya disavow the hegemonic, intolerant and genocidal belief system that Islam represents, then that person has already "said" enough which entitles me and every other rational mind to judge him and to make defensive plans. It is not my job to conduct an Inquisition to determine the depth and purity of his beliefs. If someone declares that he is a member of a group that believes that their god has commanded them to kill me, I don't have wait until he takes out a gun or straps on a suicide belt before I plan my defense.
Second, if a Muslim "says" nothing upon which he may be judged, your premise requires that "we can not judge" him until he "does" something. Reduced to its logical absurdity, your premise requires that we only have the right to judge him after he has hijacked the airplane and murdered 3,000 people by flying it into a building or two. That is a bit too late in the view of most rational people. I don't have to wait until the guy pointing a gun at me pulls the trigger before I "judge" him to be a mortal threat and defend myself.
Third, in light of your professed admiration for the rule of law, you should know that in American law, for example, if a bank teller is murdered in the commission of a robbery, the driver of the getaway car is guilty of "murder" even if they did pull the trigger themselves and even if they did not know that the other party had a gun.
Fourth, under American law, thankfully, it is not necessary for those conspiring to commit unlawful acts to actually succeed. Conspiracy itself is a crime. If any individual identifies as being a member of a group which conspires to subvert the Constitution or carry out acts of sedition, murder and treason, I don't need to wait until they succeed before I take action against them.
Perhaps, Killian missed Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."
Islam is a supremacist, hegemonic, totalitarian, genocidal ideology which embodies, espouses and advocates the practice of many activities and the commission many acts aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights against children, women, non-Muslims, gays, apostates, free speech advocates and anyone else who favors "universal human rights, rule of law and democracy," Therefore, we are entirely free to judge anyone who identifies as a Muslim as ascribing to the beliefs of that group and desiring the achievement of the group's goals until they prove otherwise. Once they have identified as Muslims, the burden of proof shifts to them to show.
I disagree with your assessment of this thread's flow comparative to the aforementioned one on Wilders. There is absolutely no flip-flop in my position, and our positions do not conflict in any meaningful way.
Islam must be discredited and that must be accepted as a mainstram ideological truth for any solution to be implemented.
Where you err, is seemingly on the opposite end of the spectrum to Kilian Klaiber. His "all Muslims are innocent until proven guilty" is diamterically opposed to your "all Muslims are guilty until proven innocent through genuine apostasy."
That Islam is indeed it its current form, irreconcilable, is absolutely true, and will remain so until it is completely reformed or abolished. These two outcomes again, are essentially diametric opposites, and either outcome is highly unlikely to occur.
So what we are left with, is that all Muslims, because they are followers of Islam to whatever degree, are suspect and potentially dangerous. The mere existence of examples of apostasy from Islam, and the obvious fact of those oppressed under Islam, like some women and children, although still suspect, are not beyond redemption at some point.
In fact, the words and actions of individual Muslims are irrelevant save for those that are rightly used to continue to build the case against Islam. Seemingly decent Muslims are to be ignored, unless in their decency, they honestly and openly criticize the aspects of Islam which make it an inherent threat. Likewise, innocuous textual portions of Islam should be ignored. They have no value and actually off-set the attempts to build the case against Islam.
Any solution can only be achieved if and when Islam is absolutely rejected as an ideology in mainstream, non-Muslim thought, and that those who openly continue to practice it, are unmistakenly labeled as an enemy. If this is achieved, there will be collateral damage for sure, but does anyone think that this could occur without considerable bloodshed? I think not.
The implementation of any solution to the problem of Islam requires first, the widespread education of, and acceptance by non-Muslims, of what Islam really is. This is, in my estimation, properly putting the horse before the cart.
Hi, Spot on ...
Thank you ...and I think that KK supports western values, but that he's fearful of "conservatives" destroying them -- oh, and that conservatives will destroy our western values under the GUISE of defending them -- which is totally false and inane! IMO, KK seems to think that conservatives are on par with islam, and that they are both just as evil; at least that's my impression of his comments thus far. Yeah maybe he could clarify his stance to both of our queries, eh?
"I also believe that Islam is the solution to ALL the problems in this country."
lol! So, when did you have that lobotomy? Because you're clearly brainless.
And, as Demsci said:
"I think you would then be a "persona non grata" and should consider migrating to an Islamic country of your choice."
Exactly. Get out of our country and move to a Muslim one. You're a security threat. Get out.
"with the notable exceptions of Susanp, and of course Courreges)"
Support you, Hesperado. And also champ and Hugh.
You are right.
"Islam is a supremacist, hegemonic, totalitarian, genocidal ideology" - American Exceptionalist
Exactly. And Muslims follow it. No division between the two.
Just as Nazis followed Nazis. No division.
Just as Nazis followed Nazism. No division.
You know what I meant.
"In wartime, one attacks the enemy. The bombs that fell on Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, on Hamburg, Cologne, and Berlin, did not carefully distinguish between the real and the lukewarm supports of savage Japanese militarism and Emperor-Worship(Kodo) and those who did not, or between the full-fledged Nazis and those who were lukewarm. That is not how wars are fought." - Hugh
And we are in a war against Islam, in case you people haven't noticed.
I converted to Islam in my mid 20s. So according to you loving folks, did I forfeit my U.S. rights in doing so? I AM opposed to the current incarnation of US government, but I LOVE this country, and the principles it was founded on. I also believe that Islam is the solution to ALL the problems in this country. So, what would y'all do with me, I REALLY want to know...
You're in deep self-deception and very confused. How can you possibly reconcile sharia mandated death for apostates and the establishment clause? The first amendment and sharia mandated death for defaming muhammad or islam? The islamic command that all the world must be temporally ruled by islam (sharia), at the point of a sword if necessary? These are rhetorical questions so please don't try to answer. The answer is they cannot.
So what is to be done with you you ask? If, as I suggested earlier, islam is reclassified as political entity it would soon be outed as the incompatible and seditious ideology that it is. Perhaps you would make the choice to leave islam or perhaps leave the US? Perhaps you along with other american muslims would collectively reject the political aspects of islam (quite hard to do and have any islam left) and continue on as "spiritual" muslims (FWTIW)? Or perhaps you will choose to agitate for an islamic overthrow of our institutions at which point you would likely run afoul with the authorities? I think this would be up to you.
The point is you cannot be a devout muslim (which, today at least, includes its supremacist temporal mandates) AND a loyal US citizen. If you claim you can you are either not devout or you are lying to yourself (or others). At some point you will have to make a final choice.
And speaking of which...
traeh,
You quoting me:
" On the level of focusing on pragmatic truth, [literal truth and pragmatic interpretation] are equivalent."
You replied:
"Which pragmatic truth? You are talking not about some pragmatic truth in general, but a very specific purpose: defeating the Islamic danger to the West."
No. You forgot the specific context, and you were the one who used the term "pragmatic truth" anyway, and you used it to distinguish it from a "literal truth". Both truths we were discussing in that context related to the determination of the difference between the dangerous Muslim and the harmless Muslim. On a literal level, it is reasonable to assume that there must exist a certain, though indeterminable, number of harmless Muslims out there somewhere. My point, as expressed in that quote of mine above, is that on the pragmatic level, those harmless Muslims do not exist because we cannot determine who or where they are. And this is no mundane benign problem, like not knowing which of five cups on a table contains a coin: this is a deadly serious problem, like not knowing whether the next click of the trigger of a gun pointed at your head in Russian Roulette will shoot the bullet. Indeed, our problem is far deadlier, far worse and far more confounding than the deadly game of Russian Roulette.
On Wittgenstein, I wasn't defending Wittgenstein's philosophy, but only using that quote in the above specific context.
"It depends on which pragmatic level -- which purpose -- you are talking about. I agree that no one can say for certain when a Muslim might start reading Qur'an and hadith and becoming devout, jihadist, supremacist."
I am only talking about our inability to tell that difference. Then, because of that inability, we must draw logical conclusions, which are relevant to our imperative to protect our societies, and then we must act accordingly.
"It's true I cannot show you a harmless Muslim in the way that I can show you a four-leaf or two-leaf clover. There will always be some degree of uncertainty about the harmlessness of someone who calls himself Muslim."
There are no degrees. Our inability to tell the difference between harmless Muslims and dangerous Muslims is not based upon a knowledge of how dangerous any given Muslim is relative to any other Muslim. Just as we lack the knowledge that would determine the difference between harmless Muslims and dangerous Muslims, so also we lack the knowledge that would tell us that Muslim X is somehow less dangerous than Muslim Y. On what basis could you possibly determine such a difference in degree? Muslim X wears blue jeans, listens to an ipod, is friendly and gregarious, his wife doesn't wear a veil -- therefore you know he's less dangerous than Muslim Y who is surly, wears Islamic clothes, eschews music? Of course, there are contexts where we can get away with assuming such hypothetical differences in degree, but the crucial point here is that there are contexts where not only can we not get away with such fancies, it would be dangerously reckless for us to do so.
Again, given 1) the problem of multitudes of Muslims swarming, pullulating, milling around and motile in and throughout our societies; 2) the horrific potential for the terror attacks an indeterminable number of them are fanatically intent on perpetrating against us; 3) the hatefully xenophobic fanaticism rife in Islamic societies; 4) the culture of taqiyya in Islamic societies; 5) the culture and encoded obligation & supreme virtue in Islam of waging jihad against non-Muslims; 6) the sociology of networking and mutual assistance even between putatively non-terrorist Muslims and terrorists; and last but not least 7) the impossibility of determining which among all the swarming multitudes are plotting to mass-murder us -- if we want to protect our societies from Muslims we must base our defensive policy on the rationally prejudicial assumption that all Muslims pose an equally deadly threat to us.
As for your peroration on my rhetoric, you elide from asserting that my rhetoric makes me seem callously incognizant of the human tragedy of the suffering Muslims will endure under policies I advocate, to inferring that I actually am callously incognizant of it. Until I actually state that I am callous about it, you can only guess that I am. No one in the anti-Islam movement goes out of their way to advert to the humanity of Muslims -- except when it comes up as an abstract principle either to deflect accusations that they are going down the slippery slope toward "genocide"; or when they are being careful to craft their anti-Islamic message by softening its rough edges with PC-friendly rhetoric (e.g., Geert Wilders' "nice hospitable Egyptians") -- though some do seem to be genuinely ethically anxious about it.
I'll tell you what I feel passionate about. I feel passionate about all the outrageous hateful crap Muslims say, and the ghastly ghoulish hideous atrocities they do, all over the world. I feel passionate about all the ostensibly good Muslims who do absolutely nothing about all this outrageous hateful crap and all these ghastly ghoulish hideous atrocities. And when they aren't doing nothing, they are positively contributing to the climate of deception and obfuscation with their infuriating tap-dancing evasions whenever we ask them questions about it, or worse, they imply justifications of it even while they have the gall to continue pretending they are opposed to it, in claiming they are "against terrorism" and "against taking innocent lives" and all the other infuriating bullshit that only adds insult to the horrific injury their brothers and sisters are perpetrating all over the motherfucking world. I'm passionate about the real and horrific dangers which their fanaticism poses for us. I'm passionate about the profound existential nausea that wells up in me because of this ever-increasing mountain of horrible data called Jihad Watch as it reports what Muslims say and do over the years. If I'm going to feel compassion for Muslims, they have to first take down this grotesque mountain they have amassed and keep amassing. No promises, no lame shifting of a few rocks off the mountaintop, no shovels full of dirt that more often than not turn out to be deceptive camelshit anyway. The whole mountain or no deal. I'm sorry: I've given up on Muslims. They can all go to Hell. And I'm not going to sacrifice one Western life for any of them.
"So what we are left with, is that all Muslims, because they are followers of Islam to whatever degree, are suspect and potentially dangerous."
Yeah, but you don't want to do anything logical about it. In that respect, Kilian is more consistent and logical. Your position (and that of some others here and in that other thread) is analogous to a person who concedes that some of the meat on supermarket shelves is deadly-poisonous and that we can't tell which meat is deadly-poisonous and which is harmless, but the person doesn't want to actually take all the meat off the shelves and interdict further supply of meat. Whether you asseverate it or not, your incoherent position basically amounts to telling consumers to play Russian Roulette with the meat. And the reality is worse than my analogy, for people can do without meat (they could eat fish or be vegetarians, for example): but we cannot live without Muslims amongst us as long as we do not stop immigration and deport the ones already here.
"...I was the beleaguered odd man out in articulating my stand that we cannot trust any Muslim and that we therefore cannot base any policy upon a hypothetical distinction between the putatively harmless Muslim and the rationally prejudged dangerous Muslim -- since that distinction cannot be made pragmatically for the purposes of our safety..."
Hesperado,
The difference this time is that Wilders is not part of the equation. Loyalty to Wilders did play a part. Also it is important that we identify what we are discussing specifically. I believe that not only were we discussing Wilders, we were also discussing both the problem of Islam and the solution to Islam at the same time.
When we discuss Wilders, the problem, and the solution separately, everything that everyone said makes better sense. This is why I supported your analysis of the problem with Islam, with some reservations about the solution while remaining loyal to Wilder's situation among the European wolves. I really don't think anybody has a workable solution that our government can handle given it ineptitude.
Hesperado wrote:
"Whether you asseverate it or not, your incoherent position basically amounts to telling consumers to play Russian Roulette with the meat."
My position from my comment states nothing of the sort that you are assering. Nothing at all.
Your solution, is simplistic and yet wholly unrealistic at this point. You have correctly determined Islam to be the problem at point A. Unfortunately, you then jump right to point Z, with ending Muslim immigration to non-Muslim countries and the voluntary or forced deportartion of all existing Muslims in that land.
It would make one helluva screenplay Hesp. The problem is that it will not occur in the fashion, the only one you will accept in yiour rigid, reductionist thinking.
Solutions are only valuable...if they are plausible.
Many Muslims are victims of Islam. They did not choose to be Muslims. It's been imposed upon them. And they are under pain of death to convert.
Many such Muslims are not responsible for the supremacist ideology of Islam. They do not necessarily subscribe to this supremacist ideology. But they are forced to remain as Muslims because they are liable to being murdered if they convert.
In light of these facts, to hold all Muslims fully responsible for their religion's supremacist ideology is simply unjust.
If anything, we need to work towards their deliverance from Islam, and not ostracize and condemn them.
Muslims are human beings with God-given consciences. Their indoctrination is not insurmountable. Not all Muslims are fanatical, but even fanatical Muslims can be converted as proved by Walid Shoebat and Son of Hamas.
To those of us that are Christians, we actually have a moral responsibility to share the gospel with them. But how can we accomplish this if we ostracize and condemn them wholesale?
Hesperado,
Thanks for the reply. I'm just taking it in for now.
Hi Demsci! Thanks for the sweet reply :D
I picture KK in a very deep, exhausted sleep right now, having been put thru the wringer here at JW by the mere footsoldiers (like me) and the Generals (like Hugh)!
He may be battered and bruised, but he'll probably be back for more at some point. LOL!
Time to shore the walls and deepen the moat!
Dear Eleanor, I am neither battered nor bruised;-)
The most intelligent response to my thesis came not from your generals and footsoldiers. It came from Demsci.
He said that being a muslim is a matter of choice. Therefore, a muslim may be held accountable for this (wrong) deed. I responded that most muslims are born muslims (no choice) and are not entirely free to leave islam (death penalty). Living stone eloquently picked up this argument and showed the moral implications.
This was the only exchange of rational arguments with regard to my thesis: Don't condemn someone for being a muslim. Judge him for what he/she says or does as muslim.
All the residual remarks in this blog - if you ask me - were non sequiturs (some of the funny others not). They had nothing to do with my proposition. The majority of the posts talked about what is wrong with Islam, yadayadayada, as if i didn't know that.
So sleep tight;-)
I believe in universal human rights and the rule of law. Many people here reject these notions. We must defend our open societies against its enemies, muslim supremacists as well as against hard core conservatives in our own countries.
You want to defend "western values", but your post proves that you reject western values just like orthodox Islam.
Nobody here rejects the notions of human rights and the rule of law, and 'hard core conservatives' are the damn least of our worries. Muslims reject 'universal human rights'; they had to write their own half-baked version to preserve their barbaric legal system, which codifies unspeakable horrors against women, children, and homosexuals. Muslims reject 'man-made' law and are obligated to adhere to the dictates of sharia, which is incompatible with our legal system. Muslims reject everything you accuse me of rejecting yet that doesn't bother you. Why? Muslims are my enemies because they believe the heresy that islam promulgates, which threatens my freedom, my wealth, my religion, my very life. They are the most intolerant people on earth yet you say I should be tolerant of them. Human rights and tolerance are either 100% reciprocal or the muslims should not get what they don't give. I refuse to tolerate the intolerant; it is suicidal.
I certainly do not reject Western values but muslims do. ANd I vehemently disagree with your assertion that everyone is a potential murderer. There are plenty of people who couldn't kill another human being in self-defense, much less commit cold-blooded murder.
Islam is a foul and despicable belief system and muslims believe the qur'an is the immutable word of allah, applicable to all men for all time. Islam is extremely antipathetic to non-muslims and muslims are taught to hate Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. They believe they are superior to all other people and are the rightful rulers of the world, megalomaniacs extraordinare. They are duplicitous hypocrites who cannot see the irrationality of their convictions because they are practioners of blind faith. They are incorrigible, insufferable, and deadly.
So knowing what we know about islam, how can muslims be considered anything but our mortal enemies? And what possible benefits are there to allowing your mortal enemies to invade your country, exploit your legal system, disrupt the workplace, and make more unreasonable demands for special treatment than any other immigrant group in the history of this country? Muslims are loyal only to other muslims and the islamic agenda. That agenda is anathema to everything I cherish and believe in. You go right ahead and judge them individually; they are members of a herd and do not even comprehend the concept of individuality. Human rights are only important to muslims as a ploy for grievance theater and contrived victimhood, strategic maneuvers to advance their nefarious agenda.
susanp. You commit the same error again and again. You show me what is wrong with Islam. Then you infer that this applies to each and every muslim. Not each and every muslim has the same commitment and belief in islam. There are innumerable shades of devotion to this ideology. There are fundamentalist who follow the teaching word by word. There are muslims by name only who don't want to leave the faith because they fear death or isolation from their muslim family. Nevertheless you want to condemn each and every muslim. This is just immoral and unjust.
You must judge each and every person individually according to what he/she says or does.
Thanks for the compliment, Kilian.
My position is that Jihad Watch is very good and that it has great posters and great discussions. Among them you and your discussions.
I was totally in agreement with Eleanor about her saying that we should not be tolerant indefinitely to the intolerant and all what that entails. And that no one has the right NOT to be distrusted, disliked and I might add NOT to be offended. In other words there is no right for a citizen to be protected against these. I also completely agree with most other posters. With a few minor nuances maybe.
I saw your valid point that being Muslim is NOT always a choice. It seems to me now the very crux of the matter. I read Living Stone's interesting take on that just now.
But this choicelessness of Muslims should in my opinion not be allowed to stand any longer. It's used against us, concerned Democrats. We all seem to be confused, the whole issue of choice and accountability is now too damned vague, unclear, it seems to me. The Muslims should no longer be able to get away with this.
Especially for citizens in Democratic countries one's loyalty to Democratic or Islamic laws, values, interests should be made somehow a CHOICE, a DECISION. With CONSEQUENCES. For now, my only solution is the administering of a very carefully worded oath to that effect.
We should evolve to that situation. Then it seems to me the difference between you and many of the other Jihad Watchers can be resolved.
Oh, I know that many Muslims will feel free to lie and break the oath. But after giving it, the honest refusers and the proven oath-breakers can be handled in an appropriate legal way.
Remaining are the multitudes of Muslims who lie low. But the next stage will then be to monitor them, their mosques, leaders and their declarations and behavior and react appropriately. They now have low trust, they have to earn and build that again.
And reguired in this scenario is something you are FOR too; the governmental, legal assertion that Islam is at least in part anti-democratic, which means that oaths can be administered to immigrants and discrimination of Muslim-immigrants can be justified. Which is now still impossible.
And even reasonable respect can be shown to the Muslim world as well; because we only say; Hey, you and us, we just have a different, mutually exclusive way of ordering society. You have preference for other laws than we do.
Admit that, then understand and accept that we should be separate, not mixed. Understand that our laws are as dear to us as yours are to you, and that both sets of laws flatly contradict each other!
But nooooooo, Muslims always seem to feel soooo "hated, offended", and in denial of their un-democratic traits when we point this out to them. Always looking at the "tone" in which this is pointed out, largely incapable to appreciate the very logical contents of the democratic viewpoint.
"Dear Eleanor, I am neither battered nor bruised;-)"
------------
Well then, we'll just have to work harder on you next time! HAHA and LOL! ;-)
Actually, I'm not at all surprised that Demsci "got through" to you, Demsci is a gem (and, I believe, at least a full Colonel in the anti-jihad Army)!
Till next battle...
~Eleanor
Pvt. 1st Class
Thank you very much, Eleanor, this compliment means a lot to me.
Jihad Watch is very dear to me, and soooo often in my thoughts!
Living Stone
you wrote: "Muslims are human beings with God-given consciences. Their indoctrination is not insurmountable. Not all Muslims are fanatical, but even fanatical Muslims can be converted as proved by Walid Shoebat and Son of Hamas.
To those of us that are Christians, we actually have a moral responsibility to share the gospel with them. But how can we accomplish this if we ostracize and condemn them wholesale?"
Answer: That is, perhaps, one of the reasons why God in His infinite mercy allowed us to invent 1. Radio and 2. Satellite TV.
When Mao ruled China we would not have permitted him to send into our lands millions of fanatical card-carrying signed-up members of the Chinese Communist Party, as 'immigrants' to set up aggressively-expanding colonies (luckily for us, he didn't think of that; he wanted to keep his citizens inside their prison). But the church still prayed for the Underground Church inside China, and for the conversion of people inside China, and did what it could - radio, bible smuggling, even undercover visits - to sneak the gospel message in through the Bamboo Curtain. Evangelising of communist China took place even while there was - imposed from both sides - a clear separation between the realm of Mao and the realm of, say, the Free West.
A reimposition of a clearer separation between dar al Islam and dar al Harb - a refusal by western countries to permit any further entry by Muslims, and a sending back to dar al Islam (on grounds of national security) of many or most of those Muslims resident within the West - would place us in a situation, vis a vis the lands of Islam, similar to that which obtained vis a vis Stalin's Russia or Mao's China.
If you don't already know about the Barnabas Fund, or the work of Father Zakaria Botros (he broadcasts via satellite TV into the heart of dar al Islam), or the Gospel Radio that is based in Monte Carlo and broadcasts into North Africa, then I urge you to look them up and place them at the top of your 'prayer and giving' list.
Dank, the self-declared born-American convert to Islam, taunted his fellow Americans thusly [in response to posters who stated that it would be best not to grant Muslims (i.e. Muslim immigrants) permanent residency in the USA]
"So what do you suggest for the several MILLION Muslims {sic: 'several MILLION' - ?? really? this is an exaggeration - dda} who are born and raised "sho nuff" AMERICANS? Execution, revocation of our citizenship, interment [sic: I think he means internment - dda] camps? No, for REAL, I'd like to know...
"I was born in the U.S. from U.S. parents > Grandparents > etc.
"I converted to Islam in my mid 20s. So according to you loving folks, did I forfeit my U.S. rights in doing so?...
So, what would y'all do with me, I REALLY want to know...".
Well, I can't answer on behalf of the Americans present - since I am an Australian - but speaking from my knowledge of world history, especially European history, there *are* options other than execution, internment, or even revocation of citizenship - though I don't see why that last one, in particular, should be ruled out. What if Lady Liberty turns to face you, Dank my dear sir, and recites the dreaded words: Talaq Talaq Talaq?
The punishment for Treason and Sedition has not always, historically, execution.
Sometimes the treasonous, the rebellious, the seditious, have been punished not by death, nor even necessarily by the stripping of citizenship, but by Exile For The Term of Your Natural Life.
The expulsion of one not born a citizen, is called Deportation.
The expulsion of a citizen who is deemed too potentially dangerous to his fellow citizens, to be allowed to remain among them, is called Sending Into Exile.
"You go right ahead and judge them individually; they are members of a herd and do not even comprehend the concept of individuality. Human rights are only important to Muslims as a ploy for grievance theater and contrived victimhood, strategic maneuvers to advance their nefarious agenda." - Susanp
Brava.
dda wrote: "When Mao ruled China we would not have permitted him to send into our lands millions of fanatical card-carrying signed-up members of the Chinese Communist Party, as 'immigrants' to set up aggressively-expanding colonies (luckily for us, he didn't think of that;...'
Dumbledor,
I loved the last sentence and it made me think that much of what we discuss is a result of our U.S. government not doing what they legally can do to solve the problems of it's citizens. We have laws on the books that cover almost every imaginable thing including our RICO law and various laws that deal with attempting to overthrow the government. The problem in the USA is that the politics of the day rules what laws shall and shall not be prosecuted and to what extent.
Thank you for standing up for us here in the matter of Dank. When I think of the word Dank, I think of dark, cold, and unpleasant as in a damp dark cold cellar with cobwebs and all. Just to have chosen the name "Dank" is descriptive enough to give us some idea of his or her mindset and maybe why he or she chose to become a Muslim. My wife once worked for a Muslim convert; a nice American lady who wore very odd pins such as a lovely large fly or mosquito pin on her dress with a snake bracelet to go with it. (She was not an entomologist.) She would always ask everyone how they liked her various extremely odd pins and bracelets. She thought they were beautiful. No doubt, Islam looked good to her.
Susanp wrote to Kilian Klaiber:
"You go right ahead and judge them individually; they are members of a herd and do not even comprehend the concept of individuality."
Klaiber replied:
"You commit the same error again and again. You show me what is wrong with Islam. Then you infer that this applies to each and every muslim. Not each and every muslim has the same commitment and belief in islam."
Klaiber commits the same error again and again. He remains obtusely myopic to the sociological dimension of the problem -- that Muslims, at best, are enculturated with an impoverished sense of the individual in a context of hyper-tribalism and xenophobia, further augmented by a fanaticism wrapped in a totalitarianism wrapped in a blueprint for world domination. Klaiber superimposes upon Muslims a Western model of society: he assumes, like the Wilsonianist, that Western Man is the model of all humans, and that there must be a Westerner inside every savage, just screaming to get out, if only we can help to nurture it maieutically.
Were Muslims not presenting a clear and present danger of horrific proportions with innumerable and impossible-to-distinguish fanatics pullulating out of their mass intent to mass-murder us in horrific ways, we could afford the ethical luxury Klaiber advises.
In fact, unfortunately Klaiberism rules the day with regard to our policies vis-a-vis Muslims: from the Bush era clear through to
McChrystal and his indistinguishable replacement Petraeus under Obama, the US and all its Western allies are in fact following Klaiber's advice in a variety of ways. If we don't adjust to reality in the coming decades, however, we will be aiding and abetting horrific consequences -- on both sides -- just as the benighted idealists who appeased Hitler in the 30s were in part responsible for all the carnage that ensued that could have been prevented had we defined the Germans and Japanese as our mortal enemies sooner, rather than almost too late.
Hi Demsci, I don't think we are far apart. I'll give you my take on what you've said. I enjoy discussing with you!
"I was totally in agreement with Eleanor about her saying that we should not be tolerant indefinitely to the intolerant and all what that entails."
I don't think we have to tolerate the intolerant. We have no obligation to tolerate public enemies. Whoever abuses his fundamental rights in order to combat the free
democratic public order shall forfeit these fundamental rights.
"Especially for citizens in Democratic countries one's loyalty to Democratic or Islamic laws, values, interests should be made somehow a CHOICE, a DECISION. With CONSEQUENCES. For now, my only solution is the administering of a very carefully worded oath to that effect."
I completely agree. This is what Robert Spencer envisioned for immigrants. The oath should encompass the basic principles of the country. In Germany, Art. 1 and 20 of the constitution, which are inalterable (Art. 79 (4)): If someone lies, then he is to be sent back to his country and his citizenship be revoked.
I do not object to these measures.
Regards
Klaiber adduces the German immigration penalty:
"If someone lies, then he is to be sent back to his country and his citizenship be revoked."
The problem we face is not merely of a Muslim lying about his pledge to uphold citizenship values. The problem we face is of innumerable and nearly impossible-to-detect Muslims pullulating out of a larger mass of Muslims whom under Klaiberism we have no choice but to accept in our Western societies, whose "lie" in this regard will be not merely a betrayal of a principle but will manifest itself as an explosion or chemical or biological attack massacring hundreds, perhaps thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of us.
What is Klaiber going to say then? "Oops! My bad!"
Hesperado, why don't you ask Robert Spencer, because questioning immigrants in this way is his proposal! Or, why don't you ask demski, because I merely agreed to his proposal.
You get so worked up about me that you attack everything I say even if I am just agreeing to someone else. This is no longer about arguments, this is personal.
I shall stop posting here because you people are so full of irrational hatred. Go ahead and condemn every muslim for being a muslim. Put them all to jail, sentence them to whatever you want.... Throw overboard the presumption of innocence, the equality before the law and all that other liberal crap;-) bye bye haters!
I shall stop posting here because you people are so full of irrational hatred. Go ahead and condemn every muslim for being a muslim. Put them all to jail, sentence them to whatever you want.... Throw overboard the presumption of innocence, the equality before the law and all that other liberal crap;-) bye bye haters!
Don't you just hate it when people lump together and unfairly brand a group of individuals?
Well big-pete I apologize to those who were actually trying to debate, like demski and co. Otherwise i feel no regrets. The majority of posters here were outright xenophobe and bigot, because they condemn each and every muslim. You big-pete are one of them.
Now that you are no longer posting on JW, then this would be a great time for you to take your fight to the real cause: islam & company. Work towards implementing change within islam and it's followers -- work towards changing the dangerous and evil tenets of islam, not our attitudes and comments here on JW. Attacking us is backwards, so stick to attacking the real enemy: islam & company.
You big-pete are one of them.
Regardless of what you might believe or think you know the fact is I am not, as you so eloquently state, "one of them" (whatever that means). But feel free to lump me in with "them" if it makes it easier for you to dismiss what people (myself included) here have been trying to communicate to you.
I understand your arguments. I have had this exact conversation many times with many people over the last few years. FWIW, the issue comes down to a trade off and this is no false choice or dilemma. This is deadly serious stuff. Do you allow a group of people into your country knowing full well that a percentage of them are deadly dangerous to satisfy an ideal or do you discriminate (as in making a reasoned choice) against that group because you cannot logically determine which members of said group might actually pose a danger.
To be clear we are not talking about run of the mill criminal behavior which is part and parcel of any group but a desire to mass murder, to commit treason and sedition, to make war, to overthrow. This, unfortunately, is what islam teaches. I did not make it so. I do not wish it were so. But it is and reality has an unfortunate tendency to bite you in the ass if you ignore it.
My position, accepting that islam is antithetical to western freedoms and civilization (a position which I'm not quite sure you accept), would be to prevent further muslim immigration into this country. As to the existing muslim population some thoughts have been put forward in this thread that you seem to agree with. So be it.
The end result would be to not import or allow to flourish an ideology that, in essence, seeks violently or otherwise to replace our way of life and governance.
PS: Not for nothing but if you are going to argue against prejudicial reductionist thinking you might not want to employ it yourself.
No big-pete. You condemn every muslim for not leaving Islam. You spelled it out. Not having left islam applies to every muslim. You condemn every muslim. You make no distinction between children and grown ups, between islamic denominations, religious fervor, religious education, fear of death....They are all condemned. Check out the definition of xenophobia. You fit right in. I am not being unfair. Take a close look in the mirror and don't fool yourself.
The amount of xenophobia here is sickening. At some point this is going to turn into a problem for jihad watch and Mr. Spencer.
big-pete,
A nicely clear riposte to Klaiber's clobbering post -- even if on one small but crucial point (the problem of the millions of Muslims already in the West) I would have wished more logical consistency.
champ and others,
I've gotten this strange feeling. Have you guys noticed a new type of commenter here of late -- those who adopt a generally seemingly anti-Islam position but then start going into odd contortions that end up engendering controversy and tension? Klaiber, "quranwatcher", and a third one whose name escapes me at the moment seem to fit this. Yet another attempt to insinuate some slightly new tactic of disruption into Jihad Watch comments?
If that is what you wish to believe, fine. Xenophobia, to my understanding, is an irrational fear of foreigners. I have no fear of foreigners. I do, however, have a rational fear of those adhering to an ideology that instructs them to subjugate anyone that is not them. This group could include foreigners and non-foreigners alike. The xenophobia sticker is a nice try but no dice.
As for condemnation you are offering up a straw man argument claiming that I condemn all muslims when what I actually said was that I condemn those that choose to remain part of an destructive ideology.
Finally, Robert Spencer can handle himself, his site and his positions quite well I think. Comment blogs are, as everyone knows, a rough and tumble medium. As far as vitriol goes this one is somewhat tame.
Well, Hesperado, I always take you very seriously and learn from you. Although there is so much I do not yet know, understand or have thought true, I try, I really do. I read a lot, I discuss about Islam & Democracy very often with people around me.
I agreed with your position that somehow Muslims should be considered "guilty" before proven "innocent". Because of the enormous risks we face. I absorbed that much. But maybe I somehow indeed am risking our society and follow a suicidal course, because .....
This is only 2010 and there is a "learning curve". There should be a realistic step-by-step-approach.
Out there, on the streets, in the media and in politics, there are many Muslims, PCMC's and plain ignorants about Islam & Democracy. By your own admission Kilian Klaiber represents an awful lot of people in politics, position of power, media and on the streets.
As Big Pete said it may be about an old discussion; Do we fight our enemy on our terms or their terms, lowering ours? To me the question is: Do we forego democracy, and it's essential principles in order to save it? Or should we maybe die, go down while upholding democracy?
Kilian Klaiber and people like him should be held on board I think, and merely respectfully engaged in deep discussion. When people from your side find agreement with people from his side, then we could well be on our way to real democratic victory, in elections. To me, that is something we MUST have, maybe suicidally so. And if you can resolve your difference with a Kilian Klaiber, then together we are that much better in debate.
And very necessary so, because the Muslim-PCMC-enemy, who can think and argue very well also, is trying it's utmost to sway the masses against us. Including the well-thinking part of it, the natural leaders in it. Who, once they grasp a matter, can formulate it better, so to influence the masses. And we need 51 % of the masses, is my position. I do NOT believe in ANY benign dictatorship.
So let us please try to bridge the opposite sides in this old, logical, essential debate. It is our democratic duty and Frits Bolkestein (anti-Islam successful Dutch politician) once said; Democracy is for the fearless, persevering, not for people who are easily scared and easily give up.
YES, YES, the Muslims will LIE, CHEAT and proceed to kill many of us, perhaps. But we MUST go the democratic way, step by step, I feel, and it is only 2010 now.
And I daresay we do see progress, witness Geert Wilders, jumping from 9 to 24 seats in june, and still rising, poised to govern!
At least we are aware, monitoring, we lie in wait, judging, explaining, broadcasting, influencing, and many Muslims know this by now. They too absorb, adapt, slowly but surely.
And also, when YOU play the bad cop, Kilian can play the good cop, with that much more influence, which he certainly would not have without you.
So,
Kilian Klaiber already is not averse to publicly declaring Islam at least in part an anti-democratic movement, with some laws flatly contradicting democratically chosen laws.
His desire for respect for passive Muslims can be fulfilled by telling him and them that we respect them, but that we have concluded that primary essential LAWS of them and us are fundamentally opposed. And so, with respect, Muslims and Democrats better part ways, somehow. But only if the accountability-factor, that of Muslims CHOOSING to be in Islam or being accidentally, irrevocably in Islam is resolved.
Kilian Klaiber is NOT opposed to let us evolve to a situation in which Muslims in Democratic countries can be held accountable for their choice of religion/ totalitarian ideology. By administering a carefully worded oath, detailing absolute preference for and loyalty to essential democratic laws, values and interests, like reciprocity in treatment of religious minorities and apostasy.
Please don't look at our differences, look at our common ground here!!!
Well Demsci, I appreciate your thought-out defense of a principle of a "common ground". I'm just not sure Klaiber is subsumed under that principle. Even if I agree he was, I would still oppose his viewpoints. I.e., I don't think a unified tent of a common ground precludes serious disagreements. But that said, there's something fishy about Klaiber that doesn't smell right.
Secondly, I must reiterate yet again that we did things to defend the free world in WW2 that, were I to propose them to you now and you never knew the West did them, you would probably recoil and reject them -- such as the internment of American citizens whom the President, Congress and most American people rationally deemed to be sufficiently suspicious they needed to be controlled while we fought for our lives, and for the lives of the free world, against their cultural brothers. I.e., we don't have to "become like them" to be tough. Democracy allows for plenty of tough measures -- including executing citizens, for God's sake! (Cf. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg) -- without us wetting our pants in anxiety that Democracy would somehow be irrevocably compromised. Indeed, with all due respect Demsci, I register it as a profound insult to the West that we could ever in a million years "become like them" (like Muslims). Or have you forgotten that the West is constituted by those who risked life, limb, blood, sweat, tears and money to defeat Hitler...? Too many Westerners have been bullied by PC MC to fear that Hitler is the real darkly lurking soul of the West, which is ever ready to pop out if we don't control our naturally evil impulses. Pshaw and poppycock! The real West is the West that galvanized itself to heal itself of the disease of Fascism (and later of Communism). The West isn't perfect, but it's the best thing going. And how good is the West? The proper answer to that is: the West is sufficiently good that it is a profound insult to insinuate that we could ever in a million years "become like them" (like Muslims). Not only is this insulting to us, it betrays a profound ignorance of the nature of our enemy.
Well Demsci, I appreciate your thought-out defense of a principle of a "common ground". I'm just not sure Klaiber is subsumed under that principle. Even if I agree he was, I would still oppose his viewpoints. I.e., I don't think a unified tent of a common ground precludes serious disagreements. But that said, there's something fishy about Klaiber that doesn't smell right.
Secondly, I must reiterate yet again that we did things to defend the free world in WW2 that, were I to propose them to you now and you never knew the West did them, you would probably recoil and reject them -- such as the internment of American citizens whom the President, Congress and most American people rationally deemed to be sufficiently suspicious they needed to be controlled while we fought for our lives, and for the lives of the free world, against their cultural brothers. I.e., we don't have to "become like them" to be tough. Democracy allows for plenty of tough measures -- including executing citizens, for God's sake! (Cf. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg) -- without us wetting our pants in anxiety that Democracy would somehow be irrevocably compromised. Indeed, with all due respect Demsci, I register it as a profound insult to the West that we could ever in a million years "become like them" (like Muslims). Or have you forgotten that the West is constituted by those who risked life, limb, blood, sweat, tears and money to defeat Hitler...? Too many Westerners have been bullied by PC MC to fear that Hitler is the real darkly lurking soul of the West, which is ever ready to pop out if we don't control our naturally evil impulses. Pshaw and poppycock! The real West is the West that galvanized itself to heal itself of the disease of Fascism (and later of Communism). The West isn't perfect, but it's the best thing going. And how good is the West? The proper answer to that is: the West is sufficiently good that it is a profound insult to insinuate that we could ever in a million years "become like them" (like Muslims). Not only is this insulting to us, it betrays a profound ignorance of the nature of our enemy.
OK, that I may have; a profound ignorance of the nature of our enemy, and Kilian Klaiber may have that also, although I am sure he will deny it. Because I, and probably he too, have been growing up in luxurious peaceful society.
But this society is the exception, not the rule, says Lee Harris in "Suicide of Reason". There is no reason why it won't prove to be just a fluke in history and no reason why it will persevere, just by itself, like soooooooo many PCMC-people take for granted.
But Stephen Pinker in "the history of violence" shows us that violence per person is declining steadily, over the 1000s, 100s, 10s of years! And there certainly is a war brewing, but mankind's ability to reason, resolve conflicts with freedom of speech, dialoque and justice-facilities is also rising.
Not particularly the West, but Democracy is the best thing going. But that demands consensus of 51 %. We must endeavour to entice it, or perish.
Now, again, to satisfie Kilian Klaiber and many, many people like him, we can try to travel a road to a situation where Muslims no longer can deny accountability for their choice between conflicting Democratic and Islamic laws, values, interests, as do they now with impunity. Which is allowed them by the ignorance and fair-minded-ness of the masses we need for democracy.
Let us go somehow for accountability of Muslims for the abovementioned choice! Forcing them to make it. Then forcing them to live up to it. Like Anjem Choudary already announced openly that he is loyal to the Islamic system over the Democratic system. And even respecting Muslims for their honest conclusion that Democracy is NOT the best thing going, but Islam is.
But THAT IS a bridge too far for Kilian Klaiber and many PCMC's.
Kilian Klaiber wrote: "I shall stop posting here because you people are so full of irrational hatred. Go ahead and condemn every muslim for being a muslim. Put them all to jail, sentence them to whatever you want.... Throw overboard the presumption of innocence, the equality before the law and all that other liberal crap;-) bye bye haters!"
Champ,
Kilian Klaiber has completely made the case that many conservative commentators have been making for years. Many commentators say that liberals hate conservatives more than our enemies. Liberals totally forget about the enemy when talking to conservatives and conservatives quickly become the objective of their complaint. They just cannot set their "feelings" aside while trying to make their point.
Mr. Klaiber must remember that when conservatives develop ideas that would bar ALL Muslims from this country, it is because we have no other workable means to protect our families, friends, country from great harm. We do this because we LOVE our family, friends, and country. This is why one of a conservative's frequent joking complaints against liberals is that they seem to like the enemy better than their country. Mr. Klaiber is a classic liberal in the truest form.
He and other liberals like him are the main reason this country is on the road to going down the tube in so many ways. The liberals' inability to set aside their hatred of conservatives allows the politicians to trick a sizable portion of the citizenry while they feather their own nests instead of representing the people and this country. (Bill Clinton has upwards of 1/2 billion dollars under his control and he never had a job in private industry.)
I wish Mr. Klaiber to know that I have no hatred for him nor do I disrespect his position as a liberal. Further, I do not hate good Muslims but I have an abundance of caution to what they might become due to their devotion to a satanic cult. As Hesperado said, we have done much more in the past to cultural brothers and sisters of our enemies.
Hesperado wrote:
"champ and others,
I've gotten this strange feeling. Have you guys noticed a new type of commenter here of late -- those who adopt a generally seemingly anti-Islam position but then start going into odd contortions that end up engendering controversy and tension? Klaiber, "quranwatcher", and a third one..."
I agree with your take on this. No way to put my finger on it. Just have to go along until it further manifests itself. Possibly there are some liberals who can't cope with the logic of holding all Muslims liable for their crimes.
Hesperado wrote:
"Were Muslims not presenting a clear and present danger of horrific proportions with innumerable and impossible-to-distinguish fanatics pullulating out of their mass intent to mass-murder us in horrific ways, we could afford the ethical luxury Klaiber advises.
In fact, unfortunately Klaiberism rules the day with regard to our policies vis-a-vis Muslims: from the Bush era clear through to
McChrystal and his indistinguishable replacement Petraeus under Obama, the US and all its Western allies are in fact following Klaiber's advice in a variety of ways. If we don't adjust to reality in the coming decades, however, we will be aiding and abetting horrific consequences -- on both sides -- just as the benighted idealists who appeased Hitler in the 30s were in part responsible for all the carnage that ensued that could have been prevented had we defined the Germans and Japanese as our mortal enemies sooner, rather than almost too late."
Excellent comment from beginning to end. I couldn't agree more.
Thanks Spot on. That makes one of you :)
test
"I've gotten this strange feeling. Have you guys noticed a new type of commenter here of late -- those who adopt a generally seemingly anti-Islam position but then start going into odd contortions that end up engendering controversy and tension? Klaiber, "quranwatcher", and a third one whose name escapes me at the moment seem to fit this. Yet another attempt to insinuate some slightly new tactic of disruption into Jihad Watch comments?"
Definitely, Hesp! ...In fact, I just commented about "quranwatcher", on two other threads, as one such poster that seemed nice enough in the beginning and against jihad, etc, but has now revealed himself as a lying mohammedan out for blood. qw is spreading egregious lies about other posters, which is always a red-flag that the charade is over.
Champ,
You are the authority on trolls. I accept your take on Hesperado's question.
"Well Demsci, I appreciate your thought-out defense of a principle of a "common ground". I'm just not sure Klaiber is subsumed under that principle. Even if I agree he was, I would still oppose his viewpoints."
So Hesperado would oppose Mr Klaiber's viewpoints even if he was on common grounds with him....
What a nice conclusion of this discussion;-)