Why is Geert Wilders "anti-Islam," and what is his message to the Muslims?

Freedom fighter Geert Wilders makes an important and illuminating statement at MuslimsDebate.com: "Muslims Debate asked Mr. Geert Wilders why he became anti-Islam and what is his message to the Muslims?"

I first visited an Islamic country in 1982.

I was 18 years old and had traveled with a Dutch friend from Eilat in Israel to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh.

We were two almost penniless backpacking students.

We slept on the beaches and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea.

I clearly recall my very first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people.

I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: It struck me how frightened these friendly and kind people were.

While we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Mubarak happened to visit the place.

I remember the fear which suddenly engulfed the town when it was announced that Mubarak was coming on an unexpected visit; I can still see the cavalcade of black cars on the day of his visit and feel the almost physical awareness of fear, like a cold chill on that very hot day in Summer.

It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants and yet, the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I wonder how Saudis feel when their King is in town, how Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his coming, how Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was near. A few years later, I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, "cast terror into their hearts" (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).

From Sharm el-Sheikh, my friend and I went to Cairo. It was poor and incredibly dirty. My friend and I were amazed that such a poor and filthy place could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we discussed their poverty, was that they were not in any way to blame for this affliction: They said they were the victims of a global conspiracy of "imperialists" and "Zionists", aimed at keeping Muslims poor and subservient. I found that explanation unconvincing. My instinct told me it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.

I made a mistake in Cairo. We had almost no money and I was thirsty. One could buy a glass of water at public water collectors. It did not look clean, but I drank it. I got a terrible diarrhea. I went to a hostel where one could rent a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. There I lay for several days, a heap of misery in a crowded, stinking room, with ten other guys. Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?

In the late 1890s, Winston Churchill was a soldier and a war correspondent in British India (contemporary Pakistan) and the Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan allowed him to grasp with amazing clarity what the problem is with Islam and "the curses it lays on its votaries."

"Besides the fanatical frenzy, ..., there is this fearful fatalistic apathy," he wrote. "The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist where the followers of the Prophet rule or live. ... The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. ... Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it." And Churchill concluded: "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."

There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.

The "indecently" dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building. Officers of the Mutaween, the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice," as the Police are known in Saudi Arabia, also beat passers-by and firemen who tried to help the girls. "It is sinful to approach them," the policemen warned bystanders. It is not only sinful, it is also a criminal offence.

Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father's "face darken and he is filled with gloom" (sura 43:15). Nevertheless, the incident at the Mecca school drew angry reactions. Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love - that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice."

However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.

I am an agnosticus myself. But Christians and Jews hold that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves, as free and rational beings capable of love, they can come to know Him. They can even reason with Him, as the Jews have done throughout their history. The Koran, on the contrary, states that "Nothing can be compared with Allah" (sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is preposterous to suppose that Allah created man in his image. The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either. The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model.

Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the notion of man as a responsible agent is not much developed in Islam. Muslims tend to be very fatalistic. Perhaps - let us certainly hope so - only a few radicals take the Koranic admonition to wage jihad on the unbelievers seriously. Nevertheless, most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals. This is the "fearful fatalistic apathy" Churchill referred to.

The author Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the 1920s, made the following observation: "About the immediate causes of things - precisely how they happen - they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. 'Do you think it will rain?' you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. 'If God wills,' is the answer. You pass the native hospital. 'Are the doctors good?' 'In our country,' the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, 'we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.' All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth saying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. ... They have relapsed - all except those who are educated according to Western methods - into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy."

Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.

As a Dutch, a European and a Western politician, my responsibility is primarily to the Dutch people, to the Europeans and the West. However, since the liberation of the Muslims from Islam, will benefit all of us, I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: "Fatalism is no option; 'Inch' Allah' is a curse;

Submission is a disgrace.

Free yourselves. It is up to you.

Geert Wilders

| 266 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

266 Comments

| Leave a comment

Hooray for Geert Wilders !

Amazing insightful analyis from a person who is dubbed a "hate monger" by the unthinking slaves to Islam, and even ignorant westerners. It is not he who preaches hate, it is Islam. If reason and truth causes them to hate, then the hate lies in their subjugation to their beliefs, and not in the narrator of the truths.

Muslims must rise up against Islam as much as we must fight against it. We must ally ourseleves with these forces.

In Iran they did and Obama kept silent. Does he support democratic and moderate voices anywhere in the "muslim world"? I doubt it.

I love that man.

The "indecently" dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building.

There are millions of such examples of less-than-human behavior by Moslems, although they are human. Go figure.

*** 3:19 ***

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

And it's expanding, filling the vacuum left by the desire among the balance of the world's population to celebrate life (not death). It takes years to construct a great building or create a fine piece of art; it takes seconds to destroy it. That's the Moslem's inherent advantage in this endless war they declared on the rest of us some 1,400 years ago.

*** Tabari 234 ***

About the immediate causes of things - precisely how they happen - they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes...

So much for the wonders of Islamic science, Barack.

I fell asleep half way through.

So glad no Dutch party wants to form a coalition government with him.

Geert is the greatest man in the world right now. And, RS, too.

Hussein our president is the most pathetic, along with Ahmadinejad and other Islamic dictators, such as Libyan Barbarian al-Gaddafi.

Hi Muslim Debaters!

Please answer these questions:

If Allah is all-powerful, why did he only come to Muhammad? Why did he not to choose to make his message known to everyone in the world all at once?

If Allah is the only God, what are the Jinn, what are the angels, what is the devil?

Why did Allah change the Qibla?

Why did Allah intervene in Muhammad’s personal affairs to allow him to marry his adopted son’s wife?

Why did Allah incorporate the pagan rituals of pilgrimage to the Kaabah, the stoning of the devil, etc. into the religion? If Allah was bringing a new message, why would he keep so many pagan things as part of Islam?

Why are there so many religions in the world? Why should one of them be right and the others all wrong?

Why did Allah give Muhammad personally one fifth of the booty from any razzia or battle that the Muslims won?

Why did Allah allow Muhammad to have more wives than other Muslims?

Why does Allah hate the Jews so much when at the same time he adopts so much of their religion as his own? Why would you imitate someone you hate so much?

Why does Allah misunderstand and misinterpret so much of the Christian and Jewish traditions that he mentions in the Qur’an?

Why was it necessary for Muslims to make war on other people to ensure the safety of their religion? If the message of Islam is so perfect and beautiful, why do people all over the world not immediately adopt it?

Why do Muslims make up most of the terrorists active in the world today?


lol.

You're just as pathetic as every other brainwashed pathetic moon-god-worshipping Islamic Barbarian. You're in Barbaric Yemen, right? Stay there. It's where you belong, Barbarian.

"islamic empire" = YAWN

"I fell asleep half way through."

You have been sleeping all your life. Time to wake up to the truth: islam is evil.

"So much for the wonders of Islamic science, Barack."

Exactly. There is no Islamic "science." Without the West, Mohammedans would still be wandering illiterate bedouins in the desert. Like "islamic empire."

"Why do Muslims make up most of the terrorists active in the world today?"

Mentat - cross out "most" and put "all."

Because Islam is the Religion (political ideology) of Terrorism, that's why.

Excellent essay. I have said that (most) Muslims are victims of Islam, and Wilders echoes my thought with his comment about Islam robbing people of their dignity. That's it.

The dhimmis and apologists for Islam will insist that Wilders "hates Muslims" because they are desperate to obfuscate his message, which would no doubt appeal to most people once they hear it. Therefore it is essential that he be shouted down...

I fell asleep half way through.

Not surprising. If it doesn't involve beheadings or child rape, Muslims get bored pretty quickly.

I fell asleep half way through.

No sweat. Reading speeds tend to be slow among Moslems. Take a few more hours and you should be able to get through it.

*** Tabari 1:299 ***

Can't make any promises about the reading comprehension, though.

"that Wilders "hates Muslims"

What's wrong with that? I hate Fascists and Nazis, too. Anyone who follows evil should be despised and hated.

Jail him immediately. He's a threat to the EU.

"... The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property..."
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/07/perfect-man.html

I suspected it for a long time. Wilders can actually think independently and conduct a rational analysis.

Because of Islam Muslims tend to create tribal societies steeped in jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation.

The anthropologist Dr. C.R. Hallpike, among others, has concluded that the thought process of people in small scale (tribal) societies are incapable of comprehending causality, time, realism, space, introspection, and abstraction as utilized in Western science.

Indeed Wilders knows what he talks about and like me he see the Muslims as the primary victims of Islam. We Westerners all have a moral obligation to free Muslims from Islam, but first of all we have an obligation to protect our own societies and culture from Islam as we historically have done with other aggressive totalitarian, fascist and supremacist ideologies such as the Catholic Church, Nazism and Leninism/Stalinism.

Submission to Islam is indeed a disgrace for any free man who wish to remain free but humans in all societies are far from being rational agents so we have this recurring phenomena of mindless admiration for authority and fascism in its different disguises.

The most clever disguise is probably as a religion because people got the irrational notion that religion represent the highest and most ethical aspirations of humans. Despite the historical fact that the religions are responsible for despicable acts of violence and genocide against the innocent. This tendency for evil was only stopped when the Christian religion was forced away from the political power in the secular democratic nations build upon the ideas from Enlightenment.

And now god has returned with a vengeance in the form of Islam trying to strangle free speech and rational thoughts. Assisted by the usual bunch of useful self-hating, irrational idiots who lost their belief in Marxism.


I find nothing in Mr Wilders' statement showing bigotry against Muslim peoples. What I do find is his rare ability (among politicians) to see through an ideology and reach out to its victims as other human beings. Unlike many others who base their opinions on reports and third-hand information, he has formed his conclusions from personal experience.

We need more like him in every level of government in every country.

Youre wasting your time. There are no Muslim Debaters only fanatic believers. The brainwashed Islamist doesnt want to debate. If he had the slightest power of reason he would have left Islam long ago.

I believe this is the most compelling single piece I've seen on islam, it is simply brilliant. Geert Wilders is a very important man in our world today, as is Robert Spencer.

Oh, and dismalic umpire: Keep sleeping, Mo-ron!

'What's wrong with that? I hate Fascists and Nazis, too. Anyone who follows evil should be despised and hated."

Dont worry, Geert does hate Muslims, he just cant say it openly...yet.

Muslims are inseparable from Islam, how can you have less Islam in the netherlands with having less Muslims? What is Islam without Muslims?

"Muslims are inseparable from Islam, how can you have less Islam in the Netherlands without having less Muslims? What is Islam without Muslims?"

Exactly. Islam/Muslims two peas in a pod just like Fascism/Fascists and Nazism/Nazis.

I'm disheartened, but I suppose not surprised, to find Jihad Watchers so uncritically embracing the incoherent manifesto of Geert Wilders, with nary a caveat in the house.

"In the late 1890s, Winston Churchill was a soldier and a war correspondent in British India (contemporary Pakistan) and the Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan allowed him to grasp with amazing clarity what the problem is with Islam and "the curses it lays on its votaries."

As long as we're quoting Churchill might as well discuss his views on hindus: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.'"

source: Times of India (15 January 2007),The Blood Never Dried: A People's History of the British Empire,John Newsinger.

Here's another gem from the man himself:

"I do not admit...that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia...by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place."

"Indonesian clerics: Our mistake - you're facing the wrong direction during Islamic prayers..People in the world's most populous Muslim nation have been facing Africa — not Mecca — while praying." No wonder their prayers wernt being answered.

"N. Carolina Man Appears to Be Top Editor of Al Qaeda Magazine, U.S. Officials Say"
"..his website, which called for the death of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and featured blood-drenched videos of U.S. troops injured in combat. Khan declined to comment, saying only that the messages on his blog “represent Muslims.”

In a later e-mail sent to FoxNews.com, Khan lashed out at the "arrogance" of the media, saying it should focus instead on converting to Islam. "When you go down in to the earth six feet deep, nothing will matter except what Religion you died upon," he wrote."

"Citing free speech laws, U.S. officials never charged him with a crime, arguing that Khan’s website never crossed the line from inflammatory rhetoric to violence."

Yes that makes sense. He only praised violence and "called for the death of U.S. soldiers" - he didnt actually kill them. You should wait for that before jumping to conclusions.

"I'm disheartened, but I suppose not surprised, to find Jihad Watchers so uncritically embracing the incoherent manifesto of Geert Wilders, with nary a caveat in the house."

Hesp - what's "incoherent?" Please, explain your view.

Any sane rational thinking human being would be against Islam and those who follow it.

Muslims obviously do not think for themselves and follow the religion with blind fold on their eyes and minds leaving all thinking for their imamullahs. Of course, they are not allowed to think for themselves as Mo/allah has already done this for them. Consequences of thinking for themselves are drastic as it could lead them astray and out of the the religion. That's why Mo/allah doesn't permit them to think.

Wilders says: "Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom."

Indeed that is true but Muslims don't want any freedom. They love slavery and being a slave to Mo/allah or his reps on earth - caliphs and all those imamullahs. Muslims do not want freedom for themselves as well for all non -Muslims.

Concept of freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to worship any god that you want, etc all kinds freedoms are alien to Muslims. In fact the very idea of being free scares Muslims. They don't know how to behave as a free and sane human being. That is why they are against democracy. That is why all our efforts to bring democracy to Muslim world, specially right now to Afghanistan and Iraq will be wasted. As soon as the US troops leave these countries, they will go back to Saddam like dictatorships and Muslims all over the world would be happy. The sooner we leave those countries the better for us.

although, I was born and raised a muslim, I hate Islam. just as much as I hate any other religions. one thing the reader here should consider is dark days/ages of christianity. that faded and is gone but it took centureis. this what we are facing now. the Islamists. they empowered and emboldened to take aim at us and try to shove it down in our throat. this needs to be STOPPED. the reader should also clearly discern that muslims in general are not out to get us. this is for sure. there are groups highly religous, zealots whose interperation of Islam goes back to 7th century. and guess what, that is Islam. but the modern muslims do not go this way. those groups, such as Taliban and the Wahabi muslims from Saudi Arabia, yemen and Pakistan are largely responsible for all these bombings, Sharia laws etc... these groups have to be dealt with brute force. this is the only thing they understand and respond to. period. what we also need to invest in is education. remmeber when people are being fed, when there schools, hospitals, roads, jobs etc... they support the provider. most muslim countries with the exception of few are pathetic and they are run by brutal dictators whom we call allies. such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen... most people in those countries are starving and a few elite are enjoying the show. to that end these radical groups feed into it a nd a population who is eager for a better life, joins the. it is a viscous cycle. we give Egypt 20 billion a year and half of Cairo does not have zip code!!! so the radical Islam feeds into all of these inequality and that radicalzes some of the population. as for this fellow Geert, I feel for him. three years ago I was dating a dutch woman who lived in Amsterdam and she does event planning. she drove me to 9 different countires in Europe and I was shocked by what I saw. Mulim women in Burqa, all covered up, muslim men in robes etc.... it was disgusting to see this in Europe. I work in New York City and I see this every now and then which makes me sick, but nothing to the extend that i saw in Europe. the Neatherland is smaller that NJ. so one can see how ammplified and iluminated this can get. Being from Iran, you have a better chance of sootting a polar bear than a women in Burqa!!!! the Idea of of not letting muslims is as Geert is suggesting is obsurd. this is a global economy. if we don't let them in, they will not let us in. so I am not sure what the sulotion is, but getting emotional and calling everyone a terrorist and asking for their expulsion or elimination is not a sulotion either. sorry for the misspelling..

anton wrote:
"What is Islam without Muslims?"

You can separate the individual from the ideology analytically, but in the absence of of a complete reformation of Islam, (which is all but assured at this point), only complete abandonment by the individual of the ideology is acceptable, which therefore implies that they are indeed. inseperable.

Superb stuff from Wilders.

Muslim apostates exist all over the place. They are just silent out of sheer terror. As well, the process of leaving a faith is usually incremental; it doesn't happen all at once. When you leave a faith, you leave all your friends and often your family behind. It takes incredible courage to leave any faith. Leaving Islam is particularly difficult. Ask Wafa Sultan. Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali. So, I don't think that I am wasting my time. One question can lead to another. One crack in a dam can sweep the dam away.

As Frodo said to Sam:

Frodo: I want to help him, Sam.

Sam: Why?

Frodo: Because I have to believe he can come back.

You can sleep your way to hell, for all we care. Hey enjoy your eternal stay with muhammad & company ...

Why did Allah change the Qibla?

When he got pissed at the Jews, he knew he needed a change and so turned to that seedy cubicle tourist trap in Mecca.

*** 33:51 ***

Why did Allah intervene in Muhammad’s personal affairs to allow him to marry his adopted son’s wife?

Allah was wrong a lot, and had to correct his divine truths to fit particular situations for Mohammed's direct benefit.

*** 74:43 ***

Why did Allah incorporate the pagan rituals of pilgrimage to the Kaabah, the stoning of the devil, etc. into the religion? If Allah was bringing a new message, why would he keep so many pagan things as part of Islam?

He was making it up as he went along, and being an unimaginative pagan he needed raw material.

*** 93:4 ***

Why did Allah give Muhammad personally one fifth of the booty from any razzia or battle that the Muslims won?

Sales commissions in the form of booty. Call it a divine incentive program.

*** 66:5 ***

Why did Allah allow Muhammad to have more wives than other Muslims?

Sexual perversion in the form of booty. Call it a divine one man swingers club.

*** 2:64 ***

Why does Allah hate the Jews so much when at the same time he adopts so much of their religion as his own? Why would you imitate someone you hate so much?

Cuz the Western Arabian Jews knew he was a ridculous but violently ambitious man, and so they laughed in his face. Mistake. They shoulda armed up before they did that.

*** Ishaq 180 ***

Why does Allah misunderstand and misinterpret so much of the Christian and Jewish traditions that he mentions in the Qur’an?

Illiterate. Also, he took counsel from an illiterate slave.

*** Bukhari Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 220 ***

Why do Muslims make up most of the terrorists active in the world today?

Cuz terrorism works. At least for those with vacuums for hearts. And, oh btw, most?!

Anton posted:
"Dont worry, Geert does hate Muslims, he just cant say it openly...yet."


I don't believe Geert Wilders hates anyone.
The horror and compassion he feels is evident when he speaks of those poor unveiled girls.

He pities muslims. He sees potential in muslims, and hopes they will somehow free themselves from the curse of islam.

For the sake of western civilization, I suppose we must all try to hope along with him. Sadly, I'm not as optimistic as Mr. Wilders.

Awsome piece! Who is Geert's speechwriter?

I absolutely agree, anton. This is man who has to sleep in a different safe-house every night thanks to muslims--he knows the score.
That he is savvy enough to lay-down a little "reverse-taqiyya" is only further testament to his cleverness...

Wilders is not only in the mold of Winston Churchill but also of Abraham Lincoln, noting as he does, just like Lincoln, that one can hate the sin without necessarily hating the sinner. Wilders compassion for many Muslims mirrors Lincoln's sympathy not only for the slaves but the slave masters because slavery debased everyone, both master and slave, even though many slave masters didn't realize this (though some did). Islam too debases everyone who accepts it whether they realize it or not.

Wilders is brave, insightful and a leader. Shame on good men like Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol for dismissing him and calling him a bigot. Despising intolerance is not bigotry and nothing is more intolerant than Islam. Wilders knows this to the core of his being. He's a damn good man.

He can stay asleep. We'll all be safer.

Mentat, as a Christian of the Gereformeerde (since we are speaking of a Dutchman here) persuasion, I have a few replies to your questions. They of course reflect a Christian persepctive rather than an Islamic one.

I have numbered your questions. My comments prefaced with **

(1) If [God] is all-powerful, why did he only come to Muhammad? Why did he not to choose to make his message known to everyone in the world all at once?

**This can be raised against any Christian who takes seriously Jesus' statement "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6).

**This objection may also be raised against any Jew who takes seriously the Torah's affirmation of Israel's election (Dt. 1-8).

**First, God has made known his infinitude, eternality, and omnipotence in the things made as well as in the mind of man himself. The heavens themselves declare the glory of God (Ps. 19) and the things that are made declare that raising any created thing to the level of the Creator is the rankest folly. (Rom. 1:18-23). Further, the law of man is written on the human heart (Rom. 2:14). Of course, people being what they are, they break the law of conscience (natural law) as readily as they break the written law in Scripture. The quickness of fallen man to find excuses, excuses, and more excuses for his own failings and those of his clients is yet another witness to what Paul is talking about in the first chapters of Romans.

**And God is free to do with his creatures as He wills. Since the sinfulness of man is universal, God's revealing himself only through the line of Abraham and choosing his house to be the vector through which all families of the earth will be blessed and through which the Messiah is destined to come (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:16-17,4:4).

(2) If Allah is the only God, what are the Jinn, what are the angels, what is the devil?

**God made spiritual beings of various kinds, including the angels, some of whom fell into sin and became demons. We infer this because Satan transforms himself into an angel of light (II Cor. 11:14). Christ also affirms that he saw Satan fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). Angels are helpful spirits to those who shall be heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:14). However, we are not to worship them (Rev. 19:10). Further, the angels and demons can do no more than God allows or commands (see the first chapters of Job).

**Also, God is not parsimonious. He is abundant in His works. He has created a wealth of material things; he has also created a wealth of spiritual beings.

**As a Christian, I do not know a thing about Jinn, and am not obliged to believe in them. I leave this to a Muslim to answer.

(3) Why did Allah change the Qibla?

**The Christian has no Qibla. As it is written, "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" (Ps. 139:7). Under the Old Testament, believers prayed towards the Temple, for there was where atonement was made. With the final, complete atonement made by Christ, and since it was designed for the sins of people of every tongue and nation, the Christian may pray facing any direction.

(4) Why did Allah intervene in Muhammad’s personal affairs to allow him to marry his adopted son’s wife?

**A question for Muslims only.

(5) Why did Allah incorporate the pagan rituals of pilgrimage to the Kaabah, the stoning of the devil, etc. into the religion? If Allah was bringing a new message, why would he keep so many pagan things as part of Islam?

**All good gifts are from God. Hence, Paul may quote a line of Cleanthes to the Athenians, to show how God did not leave himself without witnesses among the pagans. Hence a Psalm or section of the Proverbs may echo something from Akhenatn, the Ugaritic literature, or other writing from the ancient Near East. It is possible for a people to have a few right elements in a wrong framework, just as it is possible for people to have some wrong elements in a fundamentally sound framework.

(6) Why are there so many religions in the world? Why should one of them be right and the others all wrong?

**There must be heresies among us to show which are approved (I Cor. 11:19). There must be a multitude of religions prior to the end to show how not all of them can be true.

(7) Why did Allah give Muhammad personally one fifth of the booty from any razzia or battle that the Muslims won?

**Practicality? Ask a Muslim.

(8) Why did Allah allow Muhammad to have more wives than other Muslims?

**A question for Muslims only.

(9) Why does Allah hate the Jews so much when at the same time he adopts so much of their religion as his own? Why would you imitate someone you hate so much?

** Paul says that God will call the Jews at some time later than his own writings (Rom. 11), as well as the fulness of the Gentiles. Those hateful to God, including you and me, may cease being so through repentance and faith.

**But--on a light note:

**How odd
Of God
To choose
The Jews,

**But odder still
Are those who choose
The Jewish God
And hate the Jews.

(10) Why does Allah misunderstand and misinterpret so much of the Christian and Jewish traditions that he mentions in the Qur’an?

**This is one reason why I am a Christian rather than a Muslim.

(11) Why was it necessary for Muslims to make war on other people to ensure the safety of their religion? If the message of Islam is so perfect and beautiful, why do people all over the world not immediately adopt it?

**Well, I accept an Augustinian Just War doctrine rather than opt for Anabaptist pacifism.

(12) Why do Muslims make up most of the terrorists active in the world today?

**Obviously something's wrong with their religion. Then again, any threatened community will fight. Ask the Hindus of Sri Lanka and the Christians and Muslims of Burma and the heirs of the Chinese Christians martyred by the Boxers if Buddhism is really all that peaceful and tolerant.

anton, if by any chance you named yourself after the late Mr. LaVey, you should know that his actual first name was Howard. You have the characteristic lazy cynicism of his accolytes, who prefer taking cheap shots to acutally thinking. If you don't want to listen to Wilders, how about you shut your trap for as long as it takes to read miriam rove's comment, since she actually knows a great deal about the issue and you know nada, tonto.

Let Wilders end up forming a government in the Netherlands, and we'll see that he very quickly becomes respectable. I suspect that there will be a few who will discover the subtleties in what he says after and admit they may have been wrong to call him a bigot earlier once he's in the Netherlands government and the "hate speech" charges against him fail.

Islamic Empire
"So glad no Dutch party wants to form a coalition government with him."

That's not true, the VVD wants to, but PVV, 24 (from 9), and VVD, 31 (from 22), only have 55 seats in Parliament. Therefore it needs the severely "beaten" party CDA, with its remaining 21 seats (from 41). And that party has been holding off.

So under investigation and negotiation came the forming of a government of the VVD with PvdA, 30 (from 33), D66, 10, Greens, 14 or so.

But in the polls the strangest thing happened when these negotiations went on; The VVD-seats went down to 23 and the PVV-seats went up to 35, it was in the newspapers today. The apparent explanation was that VVD-voters did not like the VVD trying to form a government with the leftist parties and therefore went over to the PVV.

In campaigning time the VVD also had a policy-point of strict immigrationcontrol and that's why analists think a lot of people chose the VVD, ahead of the PVV. In contrast, the CDA-leader, prime-minister Balkenende, had distanced the CDA from the PVV when asked if the CDA could form a coalition with the PVV. He actually pointed to some sort of "racism" inherent in the PVV.

And when the elections of 9 june were shown, we saw apparent massive defection from CDA to PVV across the country, but especially in predominantly catholic southern parts of Holland. And even now, in the polls, apparently CDA get's punished still further for refusing to cooperate with the PVV, because in the polls they fall further to 18 seats.

Only disagreement I have with miriam is that unfortunately we have got to the point where the fundamentalist Islamists will have to be defeated before we can consider any more handouts to "peaceful" muslims who are passive and not doing a thing to oppose the savages who now run the charnal house to which their religion has reverted. We were able to help lift the Japanese and Germans back up, but only after we had defeated them soundly. And we are not obligated to bail out any of these people if they won't lift a finger to fight for their own freedom. I share your frustration with religion in general but Islam is undisputed owner of the booby prize for this round.

No Wilders does not hate muslims.

"Muslims are inseparable from Islam, how can you have less Islam in the netherlands with having less Muslims? What is Islam without Muslims?"

Islam is the ideology and believing muslims are the carriers of that ideology. When the Quran calls on muslims to kill the infidel and subjugate him, it is the muslim who believes and carries out that command, who is the one to be opposed. But muslims being humans can be seperated from that ideology. Then they become human again.

It is true that the more muslims we have in our countries the greater the threat. Firstly we should limit the influx, without which we will be simply overwhelmed. Then our laws should not respect their laws or seperatist practices. They should ban their religious schools where they indoctrinate children.

In a free competition with rationality this ridiculous religion would soon disappear. But there is no free competition. They maintain and spread their beliefs through fear, intimidation and indoctrination. All of which should be made unlawful.

No need now, tomorrow, ever, for there to be further transfers of wealth from any Infidel countries to any Muslim countries, or within our own countries, for Infidel taxpayers to continue to endure the massive fiddling of the system of benefits -- I have the generous welfare states of Western Europe in mind -- by Muslims, who do not wish the countries they sponge on well.

Kepha:

Those are interesting Christian apologetics; however, despite my obviously secular bias, my questions were directed at Muslims only (even though, as you correctly surmise, some could apply to any number of other faiths). The bottom line is that I am not here to proselytize for atheism. I'll leave that to my more militant co-religionists such as Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris or Dennett.

Geert for President! ...hey Obama got elected, in spite of his questionable US citizenship.

We love you, Geert! xoxo

I would caution, miriam, that hating all religions equally is not justified. Islam poses a far greater threat to freedom and equality under the law than does any other religion by far. As for Christian killing in centuries past, that was always done in spite of Christian doctrine, not because of it. It's the reverse for Islam and that's part of the reason why Islam is wicked and Christianity isn't.

I also disagree with you about not letting Muslims into Western countries. Muslim immigration should be stopped and Islam should be identified publicly as inimical to Western values (thus the reason why Muslim immigration must cease). If Muslims respond by not letting us into their countries, big deal. Other than oil we don't need anything form Muslims countries and, yes, we'd figure out a way to solve the ensuing energy gap. Oh, by the way, The Netherlands isn't smaller than New Jersey, either in land area or population. In fact, it's about twice as big in both these categories than that New Promised Land which is the Garden State.

Hatemonger? He wishes Muslims well. He wishes the one thing that would do so much to make them well: liberation from the mind-forged manacles of Islam. For it is Islam that explains the habit of mental submission, Islam that stunts mental growth, Islam that discourages initiative, Islam that encourages societies based on despotism, Islam that removes the possibility for compromise and creates societies where aggression and violence and conspiracy theories are the norm.

It is Geert Wilders, and not the Western leaders shovelling hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to every Muslim country or people, it seems, who forgot to be born with oil and gas reserves, who is attempting --though his main goal must remain that of working to prevent the islamization of Western Europe -- to make those Muslims who are not fanatics to see Islam steadily and whole, and to draw the appropriate conclusions where they are able to think, and act, freely.

'Submission is a disgrace'

I love it when anti-jihadists talk like that...

Go Geert...

Kim,

The incoherence at the heart of Wilders' message is his disconnection of Islam from Muslims. This incoherence becomes even more acute to the degree that he shows awareness of how bad Muslims are (e.g.: his approvingly quoting Churchill who noticed the "fanatical frenzy" and the "fearful fatalistic apathy" of Muslims; his accurate observation that "Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them"; etc.).

The only way to make this disconnection coherent is to hypothesize elaborate theories that try to explain how multitudes of Muslims aren't "really" Islamic -- but are somehow "ignorant" of their own religion; or are "victims" of some elite of imams and other "extremists"; or are through their sheer inner humanity more "relaxed" about their faith; and so on. All these remain conjectures based on two things:

1) The ostensible superficial appearance of certain numbers of Muslims who just happen to be not exploding, not holding up "Behead those who insult Mohammed" signs, not honestly expressing their hateful and supremacist xenophobia, not stabbing someone in a religious frenzy, not beheading someone, not rioting, not gang-raping, no lynching; etc. The assumption is made that because one sees Muslims not doing any of these things, those Muslims must be signs of hope for reform in Islam.

2) Closely related to #1, there is an implicit prejudicial assumption that many, or most, Muslims must be like us, and therefore cannot be the monsters which all the mountains of data about Islamic history, culture and the news screamingly indicate they are.

Wilders never resolves his incoherence into the Wilsonianism it seems to be, because his highly attuned sense of the dangerous defects of Islam prevent him from doing so. He's trying to maintain a middle balance that is untenable, and he can do so forever, as long as he never thinks things through.

Well, there is that native-born requirement..... maybe he could be our Symbolic President!

Wilders says: "Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom."

Indeed that is true but Muslims don't want any freedom. They love slavery and being a slave to Mo/allah or his reps on earth - caliphs and all those imamullahs. Muslims do not want freedom for themselves as well for all non -Muslims.

Precisely.

Recently, Lawrence Auster penned a near perfect analysis of this problem:

He wrote of --

"...the mistake of thinking that Muslims can, as a group, be reformed. They can't be reformed, because they don't share our moral framework, they don't even share it enough to reject it. What they're doing is following Islam, which is a radically different moral framework from ours and has nothing to do with ours. So long as we see them as people who are behaving immorally (that is, immorally according to our moral framework), and who therefore can be persuaded to reform themselves and behave better, we are failing to see what they are and why they do the things they do. From their point of view, their behavior is not a failure to conform to our moral framework. They don't care about our moral framework, it's nothing to them. They care about Islam. In killing infidels and funding jihad and immigrating into infidel societies and deceiving the infidels who welcome them and doing all the other wicked things their religion commands them to do, they are simply being good Muslims."

Read it all.

Alarmed Pig Farmer wrote:

He was making it up as he went along, and being an unimaginative pagan he needed raw material.


Exactly! Being a student of Rabbinic literature, I am amazed just how much of the Jewish written and oral traditions Muhammed simply copied and pasted as part of his "revelations." Little of the Quran is original.

Kudos to Geert. His discoveries in Egypt, and his thoughts about what he found there, closely resemble my own road to Damascus revelations during my sojourns in Muslim countries over the years.

I see Geert as a modern Thomas Paine, freely speaking truth to power and willing to accept the consequences.

Inshallah fatalism - I like Hugh's take on this - says it perfectly.

"'that Wilders 'hates Muslims''

What's wrong with that? I hate Fascists and Nazis, too. Anyone who follows evil should be despised and hated."

Apparently, you don't agree with Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer that there are good Muslims of conscience in spite of their Islamic religion. That means they don't agree with you.

I hope you change your prejudiced and self-righteous stance.

Islamic Empire, your free will has been asleep at the switch your entire life. If Geert Wilders words can't wake you, I'll save my pity for the mongrel that roots for garbage in the alley.

Basically, I'd like you to lay off and stop addressing my comments with your personal insults as I'm tired of the "beef" you have with me.

I hope you change your prejudiced and self-righteous stance. Now, lay off. Go comment on others' posts, if you think you can manage it.

Mentat,

Nice reference to LOTR:

As Frodo said to Sam:

Frodo: I want to help him, Sam.

Sam: Why?

Frodo: Because I have to believe he can come back.

But we know that JRRT played out the narrative correctly: Gollum was NOT redeemable, thus sacrificed himself for possession of The Ring of Power.

Frodo did get Sauron to destroy himself in the end. Thus the analogy with Islam is precisely the same:

Geert Wilders is the "modern" Frodo. Feel free to agree/disagree with this crazy analysis.

"The incoherence at the heart of Wilders' message is his disconnection of Islam from Muslims. This incoherence becomes even more acute to the degree that he shows awareness of how bad Muslims are (e.g.: his approvingly quoting Churchill who noticed the "fanatical frenzy" and the "fearful fatalistic apathy" of Muslims; his accurate observation that "Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them"; etc.).

The only way to make this disconnection coherent is to hypothesize elaborate theories that try to explain how multitudes of Muslims aren't "really" Islamic -- but are somehow "ignorant" of their own religion; or are "victims" of some elite of imams and other "extremists"; or are through their sheer inner humanity more "relaxed" about their faith; and so on. All these remain conjectures based on two things:

1) The ostensible superficial appearance of certain numbers of Muslims who just happen to be not exploding, not holding up "Behead those who insult Mohammed" signs, not honestly expressing their hateful and supremacist xenophobia, not stabbing someone in a religious frenzy, not beheading someone, not rioting, not gang-raping, no lynching; etc. The assumption is made that because one sees Muslims not doing any of these things, those Muslims must be signs of hope for reform in Islam.

2) Closely related to #1, there is an implicit prejudicial assumption that many, or most, Muslims must be like us, and therefore cannot be the monsters which all the mountains of data about Islamic history, culture and the news screamingly indicate they are.

Wilders never resolves his incoherence into the Wilsonianism it seems to be, because his highly attuned sense of the dangerous defects of Islam prevent him from doing so. He's trying to maintain a middle balance that is untenable, and he can do so forever, as long as he never thinks things through."

OK. Well, what changes would you make to Wilders' message?

How honest & true! I feel like I have just taken a cool shower after being covered in the daily deluge of feints, half-truths & outright lies.

"Ipso Facto" I thought your post was excellent, thank you.

********************
Whoever was complaining about Churchill & supplied the quotes...no one is perfect but he came close , we may not like everything he said but at least he always spoke his truth.

********************
Geert Wilders is a man who has the courage along with others we know & love to fight the evils of islam and put his life at risk on a daily basis. How many would do that? I love this man.

"..there are good Muslims of conscience in spite of their Islamic religion."

Cherry-picking the humanity out of the detrious that is Islam makes you something else. All or nothing, anything else and you are guilty of being an apostate. If they wouldn't mind me labeling them as Cherry-picking Quisi-Mulsims to make them feel good about not totally abandoning their faith, and they don't want to destroy me, sign me up!

Miriam rove (and others): I, for one, am so tired of the idea that it is our resonsibility to help Muslims.
yesterday I was reading some of a book by Waris Dirie, a Somalian who is running a campaign against FGM. She was expressing outrage about a woman from Nigeria who wanted asylum as she feared her daughter would be forced to undergo FGM by her Muslim inlaws. WD thought EVERY woman with such fears should receive asylum - and then general acceptance, a job or welfare, etc. As I flipped through the book there was barely a mention of Islam, but plenty of entitlement-talk.
Miriam rove wants us to save Muslims, while letting them overrun our countries...globalization and all that.
Muslims (and this includes many ex-Muslims)seem to be divided into two groups, those who hate us and those who expect us to solve their problems by giving them money, a new home or both.
NO.
In Australia we are having an election soon. I despair: as far as the population/Muslim problem goes, it has been reduced to one thing: we need more infrastructure to cope with the population increase. Neither side dares to suggest a lower figure for immigrant numbers. A "debate" has been mildly suggested but EVERYONE knows what the majority of Australians think ALREADY.

“And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model.”

I’m glad he said it, openly, publicly. Everyone speaking against jihad and sharia should pull those rotten bricks from Islam’s foundation into the light at every opportunity. Mr. Wilders does it here with compassion and reason. Well said.

Cornelius is right, Hesperado. You are an ideologue. You make many sound points but you are also very rigid in your thinking. Take, for example, your two points to Kim in your 3:42 P.M post. You assume in your first point that Wilders assumes that those Muslims not actively spouting hateful and dreadful Islamic doctrines (of which there are plenty) are somehow all OK. Wilders isn't this naive. Surely you can see this. What Wilders implicitly is conveying is that at least some of these Muslims are all right, and yes, we have to be extra careful, and take many steps, to separate the chaff from the wheat here, but, I would argue (as I am convinced Wilders would), this is within the realm of the possible.

You also reject the idea in Wilders' assessment that many Muslims, most Muslims, are like us. Hell, but they are. And you can't see this. You're so blinded by your assessment of Islam (which is correct) that you also want to dismiss virtually all Muslims. Not only is this not a wise idea since, if the forces of freedom are to prevail, desertion of Islam by millions of Muslims is a key factor in such victory and your assigning all Muslims to enemy status insures the negation of this, but it is equally not a noble or humane idea . You effectively end up treating all Muslims as animals, reprobates, untouchables, enemies, etc., and refuse to consider their humanity, either entirely or to such a degree that it amounts, effectively, to entirety.

Once again I would tell you that you are in the tradidion of William Lloyd Garrison and not Abraham Lincoln. And Lincoln was the far wiser of the two. Loosen up. Wilders' approach is eminently correct, in part, because it includes a divide and conquer strategy. Your approach will set almost all Muslims against us when this is not necessary. Indeed, it is foolish. Reconsider.

My sincere apologies for offending you. While I maintain my position, I wish I hadn't said all the other things I said that offended you.

The problem is in distinguishing the 'good' muslim from the 'bad' muslim, especially since taqiyya is accepted and practiced by seemingly GOOD muslims. At this point, erring on the side of caution is most prudent, especially since there isn't a fail-safe method is distinguishing the two.

Having said that, not all muslims are terrorists, but certainly most terrorists are muslim. Again, how are we to know for certain which is which? Which muslims is bad, which muslims is good. This is a tough question. Anyone raising their hand confident enough to risk your own life, or that of a loved one. I know that I can't raise my hand with certainly and confidence.

"certainty", not certainly

Wilders is being a bit too kind to many muslims in my opinion, but considering how far out on the limb he has gone to defend Western Civilization against them I find it hard to nitpick at him. Often it is difficult to separate the issue of people one knows and likes who are Muslim but who still try to defend the ideology. A lot of people see the irrationality in various religious, philosophical and political systems but have not faced up to the need to take a stand. Personally, I think any reasonably well educated Muslim today who still refuses to acknowledge that his/her precious religion is mucking things up all over the world is a bit of a coward. At the very least, way to adept at compartmentalizing their morals than is good for them or anyone else.


jeez, my grammar sucks tonight, lol ...

sigh.

"I fell asleep half way through."

Precisely! You made his point, though he did fail to include in the catalogue of Islamic 'virtues', ignorance and the spirited determination to remain so.

A politician that actually tells the truth and says it so openly and honestly this is a great moment! Geert Wilders is much loved by the real Dutch people, let the elites choke on their own words. When looking at the first victims of islams, Muslims being born and raised in such an environment it would be such a strong person to realize the evil coming from islam is warping their own society. For such Muslims coming to terms with their own death cult is amazing for them to realize the truth about muhammad! Geert Wilders is amazing!

Isn't it amazing how many people on JihadWatch have a "personal vendetta" against you? As the only constant, did you ever consider that you might be the problem?

Carefully crafted and exactly right. So far so good.

Bravo Geert! Great Essay!

Have donated several times to Geert Wilders on his web site. A noble cause. He deserves moral and surely monetary support as well. Truly a noble writing. Geert has the sense of purpose we should all have.

OT:

DC POLICE REVERSE POLICY: WILL NOW GET INVOLVED WITH REMOVING FEMALES FROM MOSQUE...AGAIN:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/blogs/capital-land/dc-police-back-in-mosque-controversy-98329254.html

Germany: Turkish Police in Problem Areas?

Because imported problems like ‘no-go zones’ have become unmanageable, some genius had the idea to employ Turkish police and give them their own uniforms to police these ‘problem areas’.

That’s what you call ‘outsourcing’ nowadays. Some are wondering why it took so long and why Germany doesn’t import Turkish viziers & kadis to rule these areas according to sharia…..

http://sheikyermami.com/2010/07/19/germany-turkish-police-in-problem-areas/

Keep in mind that all this is from someone who has little use for Islam.

Actually, I'm a bit wary of blanket condemnations and mass deportations (at least of the generally law-abiding) myself. Often the exaggerated numbers of American Muslims thrown out now and again by the likes of CAIR is reached by totting up the numbers of people from Muslim-majority countries national origins--and counting Armenians, Copts, Mizrahis, Zoroastrians, and suchlike as Muslims. Also, nobody gives a thought for people who, apparently Miriam Rove is one, who simply don't stay Muslim. We have secularized people among originally Muslim immigrants and their offspring. I myself have seen Iranian and Afghan immigrants starting Christian churches--and people with names like Hassan, Ali, and Ghulam rather than Hovannes. The leader of the Christian group banned from evangelizing in Dearborn was himself an ex-Muslim immigrant from Pakistan. In the school system where I teach, we have lots of West African immigrants, and there's been a movement from mosque to church among them. And, even among people who remain Muslim, we have people who become at least political Americans. A lot of the info on radical imams that reaches the authorities comes from people who go to mosque and get worried. Something tells me that there's a fair number of Muslim immigrants in the USofA who wanted to come here simply because they knew that our Kufr country was better-run and more just than what they had at home (a little like other immigrants from other parts of the world, perhaps?)

I think a very important task in resisting Islamicization is for Westerners to simply renew a little confidence in their own culture. We can and we should help immigrants assimilate.

However, I will join those who do not think that the USA has an obligation to help Muslims who are in trouble simply because of circumstances beyond America's control. Our attempts to save Iran from Stalin's embrace back in the 1940's and '50's ended by making us the scapegoat for all of Iran's ills--including the rain that fell on Ahmadinejad's family picnic. Similarly, if genital mutilation was truly so evil for African women, why don't those African women rise up and give their village powers-that-be the old feminine what-for? It should not be the burden of Americans to try to save half the population from Cairo to Capetown and Somalia to Sierra Leone frorm this practice!

Last of all, it ill behooves the US government to stand as the sponsor of some kind of modernizing Islam. The Soviets tried the same thing in Central Asia, and did nothing but throw the door open to the Wahabbis. It seems that as I write, the more official America calls for reformed Islam, the more radical the Muslim world becomes.

"It seems that as I write, the more official America calls for reformed Islam, the more radical the Muslim world becomes."
---------
I think this is a problem that Hugh has highlighted many times in that when Islam is confronted about changing, they seem to believe that what is really needed is MORE Islam, not less or watered-down Islam; as if by being more strictly observant, the problems will be solved.

They fail to understand that the root problem IS Islam, so they believe that by being more devout and more observant, they will cure all the ills.

They fundamentally fail to understand that all that is wrong with their lives, their relationships, their finances, their very happiness, is rooted in Islam.

It's like a permanent Moslem brain-freeze. They just don't seem to "get" it.

I believe I am as anti-islam as they come. For me it did not take 9/11 to understand the dangers of this fascist ideology.

But this does not translate into hating Muslims and nor does it for Geert Wilders. I am not even sure what "hating" any Muslims looks like but it may well not be an ideology better than Islam itself. Most Muslims are born into the ideology and carry that label of Muslim by virtue of the culture they are born into. It is quite confronting and even dangerous in Islamic societies to be an apostate.

If I "hate" anyone, it is those individual Westerners that choose to convert to Islam to wage Jihad, and those on the Left that opportunistically support the expansion of the fascist ideology of Islam.

"And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model."

Excellent point, Geert! ...who in their right mind would follow after this man and his evil ideologies?

This thread IS about our reactions to Geert and his comments regarding Islam and "Islamophobia."

Please, don't involve me in your "march to the tower to get the monster" personal issues with others.

I have nothing to do with them, your issues with them, or with you for that matter. I do not wish to get involved in others' emotional flairups.

I posted my comments. They are about the issues at hand.

I would remind the posters that this blog is about education concering militant and radical Islam, not in attacking others. Those who do otherwise are just embarassing themselves and destroying the thread.

I believe Robert already discussed this issue, and the need for appropriate responses, in his earlier posting welcoming new readers. His words said it all.

In any event, my comments about Geert were already posted above.

Please, AGAIN, do not involve me in these issues.

Thanks

"Excellent point, Geert! ...who in their right mind would follow after this man and his evil ideologies?"

“Ye that love the LORD, hate evil...” — Psalm 97:10

Yep, hate Islam - it's evil.

Looks like the "ravening wolves" have split the scene to coil up under their bridges and rocks. Yahoo.

"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate." -- Proverbs 8:13

"Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked." -- Psalm 97:10

~~~~~~~~

The Bible is clear on how to deal with evil, so I don't have a problem hating islam. I am offering only two examples, and there are many more in the Bible ...

Kim,

"Well, what changes would you make to Wilders' message?"

Good question. I'm afraid rewriting it would be too elaborate, but I can give an indication of what I mean by the following interlinear commentary:

the portions in brackets are my additions;
ellipses (...) just indicate stuff I left out that's not pertinent to my critique;
bolded text represents Wilders' words I would positively delete;
and bracketed italicized comments are my comments on why I would delete those bold passages:

I first visited an Islamic country in 1982...
We slept on the beaches and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea.

I clearly recall my very first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people. [Of course, being at the time a young idealistic college-age person, I took shows of kindness at face value and did not think there could be anything more sinister behind it -- whether the "taqiyya" we have come to learn is second nature with Muslims as inculcated in their religious culture, or whether there might be some form of culture of hospitality which they follow not because they really believe in hospitality to the outsider but because they have been programmed through the blueprint of their Sunnah to behave that way, or a combination of both: such sophisticated insights were beyond me at that young idealistic age.]

I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: It struck me how frightened these friendly and kind people were.

While we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Mubarak happened to visit the place.

I remember the fear which suddenly engulfed the town when it was announced that Mubarak was coming on an unexpected visit; I can still see the cavalcade of black cars on the day of his visit and feel the almost physical awareness of fear, like a cold chill on that very hot day in Summer.

It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants and yet, the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I wonder how Saudis feel when their King is in town, how Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his coming, how Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was near. A few years later, I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, "cast terror into their hearts" (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).

[Explanation for bolding the above: Wilders is taking lengthy trouble to telegraph a message between the lines that the ordinary Muslim masses are being controlled by a small number of tyrants, and that if they were freed from a Mubarrak or a Gaddafi or a Saddam Hussein -- what? They would also give up the tyranny of Prophet Muhammad in their hearts & minds? Secondly, at the end of that bolded passage, he implicitly (contextually) transposes the targets of those suras he quotes, from non-Muslim Arabs whom the original tyrant Muhammad was terrorizing, to Muslims today (and perhaps throughout the centuries) whom he apparently considers to be the "victims" of a small number of tyrants and thugs, and as such, not really meaning the Islam they otherwise continue to support.]

[The next four paragraphs are fine, about how bad Egypt is then quoting Churchill -- skip to:]

There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. [However, the word "hate" is not relevant here. It may sadden] me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity. [But then, "dignity" is not the most relevant concern here. Our most relevant concern is the safety of our societies, as it is increasingly under threat by those Muslims who are trying to follow the dictates of their Islam, which includes fanaticism, supremacism and a blueprint for conquest of all lands and all peoples who have not yet submitted to the rule of Allah and his Muslim proxies.]

What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.

[This part really gets incoherent: he has to frame this cruel action by Muslims who intentionally forced girls to be burned alive in a strangely passive way: "what Islam does to Muslims". It wasn't "Islam" that burned those girls, it was Muslims, following their Islam. Willfully, devoutly, fervently, consciously following their Islam. Secondly, how many of those girls had they lived and grown up would continue to enable our Muslim enemies? It is a safe bet that too many of them would, if not most of them, even all. I.e., they are not merely "victims" of Islam either: they are enablers of evil who happened to get caught up in the Molochian maw of the very same evil they would enable.]

...

Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love - that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice."

[Here, Wilders is confusing the internal welter of unstable, contradictory and pathological forces within Islamic societies, which often erupt into Muslim-on-Muslim violence, with signs of genuine reform that could be hopeful for solving the problem and danger Islam presents to us. The Muslim firemen and the Muslim journalists he cites are not signs of hope for reform -- they are enablers of the very same evil that erupts time and time again in various atrocities within Muslim societies. Then Wilders seems to backtrack:]

However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.

[So which is it? There are signs of hope for reform in Muslim societies -- signs that represent a sufficient, and sufficiently growing, number of Muslims who could help us solve the problem of Islam? Or there isn't a sufficient number? Wilders doesn't answer this dilemma, rhetorically created by his own logic.]

_____________

In sum, were I to draft a speech like this, I would include all those sentimental parts about how "Muslims are human just like us" etc., but I would be sure to note that the problems presented by the fanaticism of a metastasizing number of Muslims all over the world poses a danger that makes the existence of good Muslims not terribly relevant, because of taqiyya; because most allegedly peaceful and modernizable Muslims are not doing anything to stop this metastasis of fanaticism in their own culture; and because the dangers posed by that fanaticism are too horrific for us to wait another 100 years for Islam to evolve.

However, since the liberation of the Muslims from Islam, will benefit all of us, I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom.

[Yes, the liberation of Muslims from Islam WOULD help all of us, if it were realizable. But is it?]

Is Kim the recently departed Darcy?

Whatever happened to Darcy, anyway?

Islamophobic hate speech:

"Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world."

Muslim hate speech:

"Behead those who insult Islam."

Hmmmmmm...how much moral equivalence would I have to muster to consider both statements 'hate speech'—or worse, lambaste Wilders while giving the pious head-choppers a pass? That this is not uncommon these days is perhaps the most shocking point of all.

Here's my tribute to the stalwart Geert Wilders, as part of my Heroes Against Jihad series:

http://s478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/gravenimageartist/?action=view¤t=JWHGW.jpg&newest=1

It is quite confronting and even dangerous in Islamic societies to be an apostate. --raven

I attended a Voice of the Martyrs conference over the weekend, specifically to hear a couple of Muslim apostates give testimony.

The talks were riveting. People are leaving Islam in significant numbers, and more want to leave--especially women--but have dire fears according to these men. One man was from Pakistan, the other from Gaza.

Both asked us not to hate Muslims, and to pray for more conversions. Islam is evil, the bitter fruit of Satan. But it can be overcome and will be overcome, I pray.

I'm glad to see you here! A civilized person, along with champster, of course. Thanks for taking the time to analyze Geert's message.

"Wilders is taking lengthy trouble to telegraph a message between the lines that the ordinary Muslim masses are being controlled by a small number of tyrants, and that if they were freed from a Mubarrak or a Gaddafi or a Saddam Hussein -- what? They would also give up the tyranny of Prophet Muhammad in their hearts & minds?"

I know what you're saying but I'm afraid to reply or even agree lest the attack dogs set upon me once again for criticizing the followers of Islam as well as their rotten belief system. Don't be using the word "barbarians" anymore or the attack dogs who believe they run this site will assail you with vicious and venomous opprobrium! Oh, and never mention "moon god!" That really gets the "defenders of Muslims" riled!

But I do agree with you. At the same time I support Wilders in his every action and word because he is the hero of our time.

Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.


Wilders speaks the truth, that it is Islam that robs such a large swatch of humanity of its freedom and dignity, and its ability to achieve greater things. Islam traps them in a closed circle of fatalistic, destructive self-degredation, as all the Islamic countries attest. Any traveler to these God forsaken lands will tell you the same, and ultimately it leaves one with a profound distaste for what Mohammed brought on all these people, how he robbed the people of their better humanity. Individuals can be beautiful and gracious, but collectively their world rots.

Where are the great achievements of Egyptians, they who built the pyramids? Where are the great achievements of Assyrians, they who first codified law and writing? Where are the great achievements of Iran, they who once ruled a great empire? There are none. All these accomplishments were BEFORE Islam. Now under Islam they are all brought down to the low level of slavery (to Allah and their mullahs), so creativity and personal self worth counts for nothing, and obedient slavishness in total submission to those who robbed them of humanity is everything. A world of slaves is not acceptable, and that is all Islam can produce. The results of their impoverished spirits, made manifest in their impoverished backwardness, is the legacy of centuries of Islamic zombie oppression.

The Muslims who first migrated to the West had hoped for a better life, but in their train came the mullahs and imams who cast a wide net over them and their offsprings, to drag them back down from where they came. And in the process they drag down the West to which they migrated. It must not, cannot happen. Islam must throw off its yoke bearing down on them from their pernicious religion. Freedom, something they had never known, is the only answer. They must fight for it, same as we of the West fought for ours. We cannot fight this battle for them. They must throw off slavery of their own, or re-migrate back from whence they came.

As Wilders says: "Fatalism is no option; 'Inch' Allah' is a curse; Submission is a disgrace. Free yourselves. It is up to you." May we see the light of liberty shine on the Moslem world, improbable that this is, or else they will find themselves increasingly isolated as more people understand what Islam is all about: slavery. For all humanity's sake, as yours, cast off your blinders and set yourself free.

"Morris Wise" wrote:

Emergence of a progressive middle class in the midst of Islamic Tribalism is necessary to free some of its people from ignorance. Those having a better education or ability will separate themselves from the savagery of the Muslim masses. A ruthless secular minded leader who supports the rise of modern ideas is needed. With no other choice he must dispatch helicopters loaded with poison gas to exterminate a stone age culture that refuses to enter the 21 century. Freedom loving people will welcome the deaths of millions of savages that want to brutally impose sharia law on the planet.
.................

The repulsive "Morris Wise" evidently hopes that someone will take his meretricious comments at face value, and say something impolitic.

I doubt this egregious Muslim apologist will have any luck with this here. That he puts this on a thread following the humane and measured remarks of Geert Wilders shows just how ugly he is.

"The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam"

I always get irritated when people confuse India and Pakistan, or think Indians are Muslims. When you're considered an 'islamic expert' you need to take care that you are accurate in what you say.

Agree with the rest of the article though...

Is Kim the recently departed Darcy?

Whatever happened to Darcy, anyway?
-------------
Funny you should mention Darcy...I wrote the following many months ago, just doodling and "speculating" one late night. I've debated whether or not to post it because it's really just ridiculous, but what the heck? It's just a joke. Please don't be offended if you feel I've "mischaracterized" you:

"WHO REALLY IS WHOM ON THE JIHADWATCH COMMENTS BOARD?"
(unsubstantianted and ridiculous speculation)

-Robert Spencer is Robert Spencer.
-Robert Spencer is also Allah Snackbar, Hesperado, traeh and SheikYerMami (Robert NEVER sleeps)!!
-Marisol is Marisol.
-Marisol is also sewsalot and kaffirchick.
-Pamela Geller is lilredbird and susanp (and occasionally Isabellethecrusader).
-Hugh Fitzgerald is Stephen Hawking.
-Wellington is Walid Phares.
-dumbledoresarmy is David Horowitz with help from Robert Spencer.
-Question_Everything is split between Robert Spencer and Walid Phares.
-Darcy is/was Ann Coulter.
-Ann Coulter got tired of the name "Darcy" and rechristened herself "Jane Smith."
-Champ, desidude and Annie Oakley are S.E. Cupp
-Ebonystone is Lt. Col. Allen West.
-DefenderofIslam is Michael Bloomberg with help from John Brennan.
-gravenimage is Chuck Close.
-fjordman, eastview and tanstaafl are Geert Wilders.
-Isabellthecrusader is Melanie Phillips (who is also sometimes Kim).
-George is W.
------------------
This was before I was aware that a few commenters I thought were guys were actually gals, so that's why the disparity! LOL

'Who do you trust'?

Since jihad is an obligation of all Mahoundians, and there is no way to tell who is serious about that obligation and who is not, or when the spirit of Allah will overwhelm them and they have a Sudden Jihad Syndrome attack...I do not trust any of them...I have worked with the most violent, dangerous and unpredictable people anyone could imagine, and one thing I learned really fast...'never underestimate anyone'...I bet Undaunted would agree with that...


Hesperado is correct:

In the US and Western nations generally, most Muslims have a choice to be Muslim or not. With a big cavaet: Except in Muslim enclaves where oppressive Islamic cultural influence stifles liberties. But generally, most choose to become or remain Muslim by choice. They believe what Muhammad, the Qur'an, and Islam teaches. I cannot have pity on them, defend them, or respect them. They made the choice to identify with a supremacist, intolerant, hateful ideology.

In Islamic countries, I assume there is less of a choice or no choice. Any light of God they might have had as human beings is buried and snuffed out by the oppressive culture and indoctrination of Islam.

But it does sound more "politically correct" and compassionate to suggest "love the Muslim - hate Islam." Sort of like "love the sinner, hate the sin." That's often tough to do. Unfortunately, most sins we encounter are more easily overcome than the indoctrination of a devout Muslim. That is when a Muslim and Islam are one and the same and cannot be distinguished. At what point is it futile and perhaps Satanic to love little Hitlers?

That made my day!

Exactly, duh_swami! ...I don't trust any of them, either.

-Champ, desidude and Annie Oakley are S.E. Cupp

That's hilarious, El, because she and I even look alike, and I love wearing pearls, lol ...

Wait ..I thought desidude was a DUDE, though ???

Greetings Hesperado,
You said:

The incoherence at the heart of Wilders' message is his disconnection of Islam from Muslims.

You insist, if I understand you, that there is no practical need for Islam-critics defending the West to distinguish the varieties of connection that Muslims have to Islam. You think that anyone who calls himself Muslim, by that very fact makes himself responsible for the evils of Islam. Therefore, to you, it is invalid to try to distinguish the ideology of Islam from Muslims as individuals.

This incoherence becomes even more acute to the degree that [Wilders] shows awareness of how bad Muslims are
To you, all people who call themselves Muslims are by that fact sufficiently bad that there is no point in distinguishing between some Muslims and others. If there are good Muslims, in your view it should not be particularly relevant to the defender of the West, because even the "good" Muslims, you seem to think, support Islam sufficiently to enable it eventually to destroy the Western way of life.
The only way to make this disconnection [between Islam and Muslims] coherent is to hypothesize elaborate theories that try to explain how multitudes of Muslims aren't "really" Islamic -- but are somehow "ignorant" of their own religion;
Not "somehow" ignorant; as you know, the theory (which is not so elaborate), is that because the Qur'an according to itself only exists in Arabic, and Muslims generally only recite it in Arabic, most of them don't know what they are reciting when they pray. Four-fifths of Muslims in the world are not Arabs and do not understand Arabic. The remaining Arab fifth, I gather, frequently do not understand the archaic Arabic of the Qur'an.


You don't buy that many Muslims are ignorant of many of the central facts of their religion. As for those Muslims who are ignorant of Islam, you perhaps think they are too few, and too powerless, to be relevant to questions about how to defend the West. I guess you choose not to waste any compassion on those individuals, because that would conflict, you might say, with compassion for those who want to preserve Western values against totalitarian ones. Therefore Muslims, you perhaps think, should be viewed first of all as a collective, not as individuals among whom we are to try to make distinctions as to whether they should stay among us or leave. In seeking to defeat Islam, we should in your view be seeking to remove from the West all those who call themselves Muslims.

The only way to make this disconnection [between Islam and Muslims] coherent is to hypothesize elaborate theories that try to explain how multitudes of Muslims aren't "really" Islamic ...or are "victims" of some elite of imams and other "extremists"; or are through their sheer inner humanity more "relaxed" about their faith; and so on. All these remain conjectures based on two things:

1) The ostensible superficial appearance of certain numbers of Muslims who just happen to be not exploding, not holding up "Behead those who insult Mohammed" signs, not honestly expressing their hateful and supremacist xenophobia, not stabbing someone in a religious frenzy, not beheading someone, not rioting, not gang-raping, no lynching; etc. The assumption is made that because one sees Muslims not doing any of these things, those Muslims must be signs of hope for reform in Islam.

I have very little hope for reform of Islam. Nevertheless, I see a point in distinguishing, in some ways, between Islam as ideology, and Muslims as individuals. The centrality of the individual and the unique value of each individual is a core Western value. Your dispensing with that will, understandably I think, arouse opposition among defenders of the West. All who call themselves Muslims must somehow be called to account on the evil elements in the core of Islam. But your attitude, Hesperado, which basically means, as far as I can tell, refusing all friendship or compassion to any individual Muslims, treating every single one as worthy of contempt and nothing more, seems to me to represent some sort of an ideological crimping of vision. A problem with your overall view, and please excuse me if I misunderstand you, is that you consistently seems to express a dehumanization or collectivization of Muslim human individuals, who are not in your view to be attended to as individuals. In that way, you can maintain a certain kind of purity of ideological vision. But that kind of purity I think is achieved only by exclusion of significant swaths of reality.

2) Closely related to #1, there is an implicit prejudicial assumption that many, or most, Muslims must be like us, and therefore cannot be the monsters which all the mountains of data about Islamic history, culture and the news screamingly indicate they are.

You there make no distinction between the individual and the illness/evil that afflicts him. Or you think that any such distinction is irrelevant to your purposes. I think "There, but for the grace of God, go I." I might have been born into a Muslim family. Nevertheless, because of the evils of the ideology, I want a moratorium on immigration of Muslims to non-Muslim nations, until there is freedom of religion for non-Muslims in a majority of Muslim nations. To that extent I'm willing to treat collectively all those who affirm the ideology of Islam. But I don't see objectivity in speaking as you do, without any sense of compassion for many of the Muslims who would thus be excluded. One can support a tough policy without turning off all compassion for those who will be victimized by it, and some innocents will. Can't one be tough and compassionate at the same time? Doesn't one have to do a balancing act between those two poles? If you don't do such a balancing act, you will not be trusted, you will be feared as an ideological machine that could with the lubricated efficiency of a silent conscience devour huge masses of human beings. But I guess you think that compassion for individual Muslims will make it impossible for the West to do what you think needs to be done: get Muslims to leave.

"Wait ..I thought desidude was a DUDE, though ???"
---------
My niece (19) has been calling her girlfriends "dude" since I can remember...seems to be a trend...so I think "desidude" could be a girl? LOL!

Glad you didn't mind the "speculation." I don't wanna create enemies here :D

Later I found out graven and dda were girls, but when I wrote that I pictured graven as a very elegant, slightly greying, artist type, and dumbles pretty much the same (didn't realize she's down-under, either). I found out early you were a girl when you "yelled" at some troll or other that you were!

Still, the question that I do think about: What happened to Darcy? I really thought for awhile that she became "Jane Smith," but then that person disappeared too.

You get to like the regular posters on here and when a prominent one vanishes, it leaves a bit of a vacuum...and you wonder if they're okay, and where they went...

errata sheet (important addition):

"I pictured graven as a very elegant, slightly greying, artist-type MAN..."

@Hesperado, there you go again, attacking Wilders' "incoherence". Well, as long as you keep on riding that hobbyhorse of yours, I'll repeat to no end: Islam is a disease and Wilders is fighting it, not the patient.

Among the foremost victims of islam are the children of muslim parents. I'm glad that Wilders doesn't condem those kids, as if they where born with some innate desire for enslavement. Your posts are "coherent" and I still like to read them in spite of their repetitiveness, but they are flawed in a way that Wilders' great fight for liberty isn't.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
forever city of Theo van Gogh,
Sag.

God bless you Mr.Wilders; the entire civilized world is in your corner.

If Geert Wilders would become Prime Minster of the Netherlands, I wondered would he be welcomed in the White House?
Geert Wilders saying that the Koran should be banned.
Obama in his speeches, Islam has so much to offer (not his exact words)
Geert Wilders and Pim Fortuyn would have made a great team in the Netherlands.
I wonder how many people still remember his name,how he talked about death threats against him, a couple of days before his assassination.

Medina

you wrote - "I attended a Voice of the Martyrs conference over the weekend, specifically to hear a couple of Muslim apostates give testimony.

"The talks were riveting. People are leaving Islam in significant numbers, and more want to leave--especially women--but have dire fears according to these men. One man was from Pakistan, the other from Gaza.

"Both [apostates] asked us not to hate Muslims, and to pray for more conversions. Islam is evil, the bitter fruit of Satan. But it can be overcome and will be overcome, I pray."

I pray also. Every Friday I pray for the defeat of the Jihad and for the conversion of Muslims to Christ. I *know* as I do that, that Muslims are busy, down at the mosque, cursing Jews, Christians, and all non-Muslims. But: YHWH the Holy One is infinite whereas the grubby bloodsucking little war-demon of the Arabs is NOT. I know which prayers are being heard by someone who really can do what He promises, and which are not.

You, and other professing and practising Christians amongst our number, might like to take part in the '30 Days' of prayer which Christians will be conducting, even while the Muslims engage in their Ramadan starve-by-day gorge-by-night fake 'fast'.

http://www.30-days.net/

Like Joshua walked around and around Jericho, calling upon the power of the Lord, let us Christians walk around and around the bleak black citadel of dar al Islam, that Dark Tower, praying that its spiritual/ psychological walls will fall down flat...not so that those inside may be destroyed, but rather, that they may be released from spiritual, intellectual, emotional and physical bondage.

"For He has shattered the gates of bronze, and cut the bars of iron asunder".

"Is anything too hard for the LORD?"

Excellent essay! Four cheers for Geert Wilders!

Now I understand why liberals love Muslims and visa versa.

Muslims are people, many (or most) of whom are oppressed by Islam and who have had their existences diminished (or destroyed) by Islam.

Islam is a hateful ideology of death, destruction, and subjugation that needs to be exposed and fought.


Hating Muslims distracts from the real issue - Islam. I am not religious, but if I were say, a Christian, Muslims would be right up there on the list of people I would be praying for.

Saying you hate Muslims derails the debate, takes the focus off of Islam and gets yo into defensive mode against accusations of "racism."

Hating Islam but not Muslims is an example of hating the sin, but not the sinner.

If the Christians shall save the Muslims from Islam who shall then save us all from Christianity?

But of course we have to be practical. Coming back to reality must indeed be hard for a Muslim apostate, so instead of a Cold Turkey Christianity can offer a stepping stone with another dose of magical thinking - of a kind the Muslims are used to - and a much lesser evil as long as the members of the secular democracy are rational enough to keep the Church out of political influence.

Theologically Martin Luther designated Islam as a Christian heresy, so you got a point. If you take the heresy out of the Muslims they become born again Christians.

However, Luther did not arrive at this simple conclusion. Because he rejected trying to convert the Muslims to Christianity by force. Let them keep their belief and tenets in peace, he said, and leave the fighting on the battlefield to the emperor and all his men. Two regiments indeed! ;-)

How do you convert somebody to rationality and common sense, or can reason find its own way to the truth all by itself? That is still an open question more than two thousand years after Confucius formulated the Golden Rule and Aristotle laid the ground rules for logical reasoning.

You quote the Bible so let me quote one of the great thinkers of our time:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." (Albert Einstein).



We are at war with people who want us all to accept eternal slavery= Islam ( translation from Arabic = submission).

Consider this:

The chief of the operation that killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics just died. What is telling is that the man whom Obama and the rest of the world is calling on Israel to give land to, to essentially capitulate to, Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, just sent a letter to the murderer's family in which he praised him for his service to Palestine and the enemies of Israel and Judeo-Christian society.

http://www.jewishdailyreport.wordpress.com

Ipso

if *you* think that I, or for that matter our host here, Mr Spencer, or any of the other professing Christians on this forum, are Christian out of 'fear of punishment and hope of reward', or that Christianity is primarily about being nice to people in order to earn brownie points with God, then you are much mistaken. You have completely not understood what Christianity *is*...and for that matter, what its matrix, Judaism, is all about, as well (for a simple exposition of that, see Cahill, 'The Gifts of the Jews'; for a more complex exposition, see Rosenzweig, 'The Star of Redemption').

I shall tell you something.

I once heard a young priest describing, in a sermon, how on one occasion, as a young student, he had sat down on the lawn outside the university, to re-read the Gospels. Instead of reading just a bit here and there, he simply sat, and read, and read. And as he read, he had the most overwhelming sense of the *person* that Jesus was - and is. He said to us, "I caught myself saying out loud, GOD how I love this man!!!".

*That*'s Christianity: being hit fair between the eyes by what David Bentley Hart calls "the beauty of the form of Christ", by the fire of the infinite, by the sheer overwhelming goodness and godness of the person and personality of Jesus of Nazareth; by an encounter with the Holy One; and by a conviction that He is not dead and gone and long ago, but alive and active *here and now*.

Or, as the children's song puts it: "Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so; little ones to Him belong; we are weak but He is strong".

Corrie ten Boom found that out, during World War Two. If you have never read her book, 'The Hiding Place', I suggest that you do, before you do any more sniping and sneering at Christians and damning of us with faint praise, and before you get too excited by the prospect of a world from which every trace of Christian faith and practice has been rationally extirpated.

“Hating Islam but not Muslims is an example of hating the sin, but not the sinner.”

“Hate the sin, but love the sinner” is a popular evangelism but you won't find it in the scripture. Actually it is a quote from Mahatma Ghandi, not Jesus Christ.

So how do you separate sin from the sinner? According to common Christian theology you can't:

“Even if sin is not separable from sinner, we are still inseparable from God. In his typical hyperbole, Martin Luther remembered Paul's reassuring words of Romans 8: "No sin can separate us from God, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day." Yet one sin has indeed sought to separate many from God: the sin of casting judgment.”

But logically you can separate Muslims and Islam because they are in two different categories: the metaphysical and the empirical category respectively. Islam is an abstract instruction in sin but from this you can not deduct that then all Muslims necessarily must be sinners. Whatever you believe in you are not a sinner until you commit an unethical ACT. Otherwise you submit yourself to magical thinking.

Admirably Robert Spencer understand this distinction even if he claims to be a Christian:

“Q: Do you hate Muslims?

RS: Of course not. Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. To call attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence within Islamic texts and teachings, and to show how jihadists use those texts and teachings, says nothing at all about what any given Muslim believes or how he acts.”

Hate is a very negative motivation and destructive emotion. It leads nowhere but to more sin, and it solves no problems. Fighting Islam is a spiritual and intellectual battle but fighting specific Muslims who acts in accordance with the unethical tenets of Islam is a battle we must fight for the sake of our own survival and for the sake of giving peaceful Muslims an alternative to Islam.  

Christianity has the potential to be just as deadly as Islam is today - the Cathar genocide, the Inquisition, the opposition to science (evolution) and technology that can potentially save millions of people from death or a miserable life with full paralysis (stem-cell research), even the preaching against contraceptives in AIDS-ridden modern Africa conclusively prove this. The recent pedophile priests scandal and cover-up also proves that Christianity in its organized, dogmatic form is not as benevolent as it claims to be.

What's even more shocking, throughout history, in practice most of Christian dogma was (and in many cases still is) in opposition to the spirit of the teachings of Jesus. Why is that? Because religion functions like a virus of the mind, that spreads not because of its usefulness (like science, or moral principles like the ones pointed out by Plato and Aristotle and Jesus), but because of its continuous adaptation to the process efficient spreading of itself into other minds. Religion exploits the biases that our imperfect human brains have evolved to have, biases that may have been helpful to ensure survival before the invention of technology (like a strong desire for an afterlife, for example), but in the age of modern medicine and industrial robots they are simply allowing people to be easily exploited by ideological viruses.

Religion usually thrives by mixing and matching good, useful moral principles ("Thou shalt not kill") that can also exist independently of it, with bad dogma that gives it its viral nature and helps to ensure its own survival as a whole (without dogma, religion simply wouldn't survive - people would just pick and choose the good parts and simply throw away the label and effectively become atheists or at least agnostics or theists with fuzzy beliefs, not out to convert anyone by using irrational arguments).

Islam is at the top of the food chain when it comes to adaptations that help its infection of other minds. Its virulence and aggressiveness is simply unmatched. Here is what I find the best article that I have read when it comes to describing and explaining Islam in those terms, everyone should read it and it should be taught in public schools across the Earth, smart people like Robert may even be able to devise new strategies on how to dismantle Islam for good:

The terrifying brilliance of Islam
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html

I see that Freedom of Speech has disappeared from this blog.

Anyone who doesn't agree with the prevailing winds gets set upon and viciously attacked. I really don't need your lecture, thank you. And, I can hate or despise or dislike or have an aversion to anyone or anything I choose and don't need you to instruct me otherwise in a holier-than-thou sanctimonious lecture. I'm sure you feel the same about yourself. BTW, the Muslims are the "Infidel-hating racists." Jews, in particular. Please direct your pompous insulting lectures elsewhere.

“Hate the sin, but love the sinner” is a popular evangelism but you won't find it in the scripture. Actually it is a quote from Mahatma Ghandi, not Jesus Christ." - ipso facto

That's interesting, thanks for that info. Ghandi also said that the Jews should have allowed themselves to be slaughtered by the Nazis and not fight back.

"Now I understand why liberals love Muslims and vice-versa."

Could you expound upon that statement, please? I'm not sure what you mean.

One last thing I forgot to mention: just as throughout many centuries Christianity in its ideological-viral form has mutated to behave in a manner almost completely detached from the original teachings of Jesus, I think Islam too may become detached from the teachings of Mo (even more effort than what it took to reform the Inquisition-era Christianity might be required, though). The extinct doctrine of the Mu'tazili, placing science rather than dogma as a way of discovering God might have morphed into a worship of an impersonal God similar to Einstein's God (Einstein viewed God as basically the Universe itself along with the laws of physics that characterize it). Unfortunately, rabid viral Islam proved to be more successful as an ideology and drove the Mu'tazili rebellion into ideological extinction. Another instance of adaptation of ideas for infecting other minds trumping usefulness.

Of course, I would be more comfortable if Islam simply ceased to exist, but I think this might be too unrealistic a goal for the time being.

Sin...The paramount issue...without sin there is no need for salvation, no need for a savior and no need for big expensive churches...We gotta have sin...

...Whatever you believe in you are not a sinner until you commit an unethical ACT. Otherwise you submit yourself to magical thinking...

'The thought is the father of the deed'...

Basically I'm bored with posters who tell other posters how to act and how to think...

Go Geert...

Absolutely Perfect!!!!

Demsci: Thank you for the discussion of what is going on in the Netherlands regarding the formation of a government. Amazing how little is reported (at least in English).

As best I can tell Belgium is falling apart and one rarely hears about that either.


Robert: Is anyone setting up a fund to reproduce Gert's message?


How nice to see a website offer space to an opposing viewpoint without editorial comment, snide remarks and ridicule. Perhaps Jihad Watch can take some lessons from Muslim Debate once Mr. Spencer can muster more logical and coherent arguments for his cause.

What strikes me about Mr. Wilders' comments is that he offers his personal experiences in Cairo and his observations about poverty, poor infrastructure and the government run by a dictator. Okay, so far so good. It's not about Islam, but about the government's incompetence to properly care for its people. Then he makes the leap by quoting Winston Churchill about Muslims as if this is somehow an explanation for all of Egypt's (or Middle East) ills. Is this suppose to support his argument why Egypt has unclean drinking water? Then he moves on to Saudi Arabia and the 2002 school fire. He erroneously identifies the mutawwa as the Saudi police. They are not. There is the Saudi police and there is the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Two separate agencies with separate responsibilities. But Mr. Wilders tells us they are one in the same. So if he gets this wrong, what else does he get wrong? Mr. Wilders' offers that Muslim criticism of Islamic inhumanity is rare. As any high school student knows, inhumanity is just plain inhumanity regardless of religion. It cuts across all cultural and religious lines. Yet somehow Islam is held to this higher standard. Here's something to ponder: Where do Mr. Wilders and thugs like Spencer get their information about Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries? It comes originally from Saudi/Muslim journalists who apparently have no problems highlighting inhumanity and criticizing the conduct of the people who perpetrate it. Perhaps Mr. Wilders and his sycophants like Mr. Spencer can take a page from Saudis/Muslims and engage in some self-examination.

dumbledoresarmy

Nice to see you are alive and kicking.

*I* did not say it. Albert, the agnostic Jew whom I was quoting, did. I do not claim to know our deepest motives, not even my own. There is room for mystery here. Maybe we can not live without miracles and the miracle of Christ is definitely the greatest miracle of all times. Even St. Augustine thought so when he said: “I should not be a Christian but for the miracles.”

And even Albert the humanistic rationalist and agnostic realized the importance of miracles:

“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery – even if mixed with fear – that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty; which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I cannot conceive of a good who rewards and punishes his creatures , or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such emotions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.

Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”

Putting Alberts obnoxious statement about “reward and fear of death” into its proper context makes it more clear and less offensive to Christians I should think.

Nobody is trying to take your positive emotions – the love of Christ – away from you, so have no fear.

What Albert is trying to say, and here I completely agree with him, he said shortly before he died:

“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.” (December 1952).

So that rules out all the monotheistic religions and all other beliefs involving personal gods. I would say that it rules out any form of organized religion but not the feeling of the mysterious side of existence, the experience of the “holy” - for lack of better words.

He was even more specific in 1947:

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza ...”

So I think you behave a bit unfair towards me and Albert when you say those harsh words:

“... If you have never read her book, 'The Hiding Place', I suggest that you do, before you do any more sniping and sneering at Christians and damning of us with faint praise, and before you get too excited by the prospect of a world from which every trace of Christian faith and practice has been rationally extirpated.”

Even if I am not a Christian I can easily forgive you. I can even forgive the Muslims, but not Islam.

Christianity have had 2,000 years to save the world or the soul or whatever the Christians are trying to save. It might have brought meaning, comfort and beauty to life for many believers but it also caused much misery, despair and unnecessary suffering. Maybe unintentionally but this burden of sin added to the original sin weights heavy on the Churches as institutions but not on the individual believer. That is how I see it.

Islamic Empire, I hate Hitlers best selling book, Mien Kamp. But it is not nearly as fascistic and murderous as the Koran. But I understand that it is alright for me to hate Nazis - when I tell people this they say, "Well, of course, everybody that is fully human does!" WHAT I AM ASKING NOW IS, "WHY IS IT WRONG TO HATE THE SLAVISH FOLLOWERS OF THE KORAN?" especially when you know that they hate you and they hate a whole lot?

Calm down girl.

lecture?????

"And, I can hate or despise or dislike or have an aversion to anyone or anything I choose..."

Yes you can - knock yourself out.

"... and don't need you to instruct me otherwise in a holier-than-thou sanctimonious lecture... Please direct your pompous insulting lectures elsewhere."

By the extent of your gross over reaction to my mundane, general comment, you are obviously having a bad day or something.

Take a pill honey.

"Now I understand why liberals love Muslims and vice-versa."

Could you expound upon that statement, please? I'm not sure what you mean. --Kim

Kim, My statement above DOES need some explaining. Liberals (or socialists) see themselves as the ruling class. In their minds, they see themselves as better able to decide how people should live their lives than the people themselves. They see people as stupid and apathetic.

Geert Wilders vividly describes how Muslims have no self motivation, no desire for freedom, and are apathetic in every way. They readily accept that Allah or his designee will decide things for them and they must not resist. In fact they do not want to resist.

In my mind, this woulld be a perfect setup for liberals (socialists) to have a stable of people like this to rule and the Muslims would also like the situation because they would not resist the liberals as long as the liberals acted like a Muslim sometimes. The liberals would easily accomodate this minor inconvenience, and the Muslims, though maybe fearful, would not resist the liberal rulers. (Sadam Hussein acted like a Muslim at some public events but he was most certainly a socialist.)

Wellington wrote:
"Cornelius is right, Hesperado. You are an ideologue."

Indeed he is, Wellington. His correct and learned assessmenet of Islam does not adequately offset his unwillingness to accept the simple reality of those that are born into Islam or remain as Muslims against their will, as anything less than the enemy, essentially degrading them all as permanently suspect, dangerous and defective beyond repair. It is a callous apathy for sure.

Also, in Hesperado's rigid view, those who although rightly make the valid point that discerning "good" Muslims from "bad" ones is not reliable, he accepts nothing less than the full physical separation of all Muslims from non-Muslim societies, by whatever means necessary, and criticizes all who are not in complete agreement with him in the process.

It is ironic to me that someone who is so aware of the existential adverse effects of PCMC, and who also acknowledges that the concept of Islam being an inherent threat to free society is still a pariah, can actually present the most intangible solution possible, just short of full and indiscriminate annihilation.

In Hesperado's, like Auster's estimation, all other persons and options always fall well short of the bar that they alone set and exceed.

Ipso Facto,

If you go back 2000 years or 5000 years, you will not find an easy way of life. Death was everywhere and life was short.

The life and Divinity of Jesus Christ brought people the real understanding of love and gave them hope in the future. His message of love and hope has lived on for 2000 years. Without His message, life in the West would most likely have developed along a more warlike path and I seriously doubt that the West would have had enough time between wars to develop into the present modern world that we now enjoy.

I submit to you that it is a fact of life that power corrupts, but through the ages Christianity has acted as a moderating force to bring civilization back from the brink through the teachings of love and hope as authored by Jesus Christ.

Eleanor wrote:

...gravenimage is Chuck Close...
..................

I got a huge kick out of your entire post, Eleanor.

Completely off-topic, but I wrote a paper about Chuck Close and his work—how it fits in with "Photo Realism" and the history of portraiture—when I was in college.

He is one of the few modern artists whose work I really admire.

Here's a self-portrait of his:

http://www.metapedia.com/wiki/images/Chuck_close_abstract.jpg

Incidentally, it doesn't really bother me if people assume I'm a guy—for most of my comments, my gender doesn't matter at all.

Awake,

Hesperado's view of the Islamic problem is probably the only view that will not fall short. Having said that, annihilation will never get done unless there is a tremendous upheaval here due to a war, simply because we don't have the stomach to engage the Islamic world in a serious fight. WWII is history and we have not won a war since. This is because our leaders have become sophomoric in their thinking and actions. Unless we place adults in charge of our country, we will have great difficulty in ever attaining comparable achievements to WWII.

As a practical matter, there is no middle ground solution with Islam. It is war to the death OR do things their way. Islamists live to fight. Something like the killer bees, Islam is the dominant killer strain and our sophomoric leaders will capitulate to the Islamic threat before they attempt to exterminate them like was done to the Nazis.

GEERT WILDERS is the Hero for all of us!
He is absolutely neither anti-Islam nor anti-Muslim.
He just stands for Justice,fairness and freedom for all of us!
WE ALL APPRECIATE HIS GREAT COURAGE AND HARD WORK!

"Like Joshua walked around and around Jericho, calling upon the power of the Lord, let us Christians walk around and around the bleak black citadel of dar al Islam, that Dark Tower, praying that its spiritual/ psychological walls will fall down flat...not so that those inside may be destroyed, but rather, that they may be released from spiritual, intellectual, emotional and physical bondage.

'For He has shattered the gates of bronze, and cut the bars of iron asunder'.

'Is anything too hard for the LORD?'"

You have said it well!

About that list...

Too much coffee again?!? I have the same problem.

~~~

GO GEERT!!!

Spot on wrote:
"Hesperado's view of the Islamic problem is probably the only view that will not fall short."

Hesperado's holistic assessment of a total condemnation of Islam, while in its current state, technically true, falls short at the on-set for a lack of feasibility of being accepted and/or implemented.

You speak of war, yet mainstream thought, driven by the suicidal PC mantra, is still fighting against properly identifying an enemy...the enemy...Islam.

My criticism of Hesperado is based on his absolute inflexibility to accept any gradual process in identifying Islam as treacherous, thus culminating in forced Muslim deportation and a full cessation of Muslim immigration to the West, if it comes to that, in the unforseen future.

In addition, Hesperado's reductionist approach, his holistic approach, and his relentless criticism of others who he deems to have adopted the asymptotic approach, that "elements" of Islam are the problem as opposed to Islam in unseperable totality, is wholly unproven in its ability to educate others to the treachery of Islam, any more than the gradual asymptotic approach has and will.

Geert Wilders has declared that he is anti-Islam, not anti-"Islamism", or anti "radical Islam". It is probably the most forward and provacative statement uttered by anyone in recent history who is not an anonymous entity.

Hesperado, the reductionist, rendered it an "incoherent manifesto", in his opinion.

Wellington,

"You assume in your first point that Wilders assumes that those Muslims not actively spouting hateful and dreadful Islamic doctrines (of which there are plenty) are somehow all OK."

I didn't say the assumption assumes they are all OK. I said the assumption assumes such Muslims "must be signs of hope for reform in Islam". To the negative postulate of Muslims not doing those bad things I listed (and of course 1,001 other ghastly and ghoulish things they do around the world every fucking day in our time and for 1400 fucking years), we may also add the positive postulate of the nice tea & hospitality Wilders experienced in Egypt from those nice Muslims which also informs his assumption that there exists a viably sufficient number of Muslims out there who, for the superficially ostensible fact of these negative and positive data, "must be signs of hope for reform in Islam".

adequately offset his unwillingness to accept the simple reality of those that are born into Islam or remain as Muslims against their will...

In my view it is not possible to remain in Islam as a Mahoundian, against ones will...It is possible, and probably common, for closet apostates to fake it due to their circumstances...But Allah knows they are not Mahoundians at all...Every Mahoundian not a closet apostate is a jihadi by obligation, and agreement...There is simply no good reason for kufr to trust any of them...

Eleanor,

"Robert Spencer is also Allah Snackbar, Hesperado, traeh and SheikYerMami (Robert NEVER sleeps)!!"

Spencer being me would be bizzarer even than Spencer being Hugh.

Good point, Henry ...we would never say that we hate Nazism, but that we LOVE the Nazis. No way! So then why is it acceptable to say that we hate Nazis, but not muslims? What gives?! I sense a double standard at play here ...

I never said nor implied that any Muslim should be trusted. I simply pointed to a reality that many people were and are born into Islam and some stay because they are powerless or simply out of fear.

The education about Islam's core mandates, oblgatory and pepetual war against dar al-harb, and its ultimate disgrace, primarily through the revelation and documentation of the atrocities of their prophet, is the way to go in my estimation. True Muslim males will never denounce Mohammed nor any of his horrid deeds, because it is he who empowers them.

When speaking of a solution to the Islam problem, I tend to stay grounded in a semblance of reality of what can be accomplished and to what degree, at least at this point in time.

traeh,

"You insist, if I understand you, that there is no practical need for Islam-critics defending the West to distinguish the varieties of connection that Muslims have to Islam. You think that anyone who calls himself Muslim, by that very fact makes himself responsible for the evils of Islam."

This isn't about "responsibility for evils". That can wait for Nuremberg 2 after we finally win this war ("winning" looking like something quite different, no doubt, from what it was in the aftermath of previous wars) in 50 to 100 years from now.

This is about protecting our societies from exploding Muslims -- not to mention from stabbing Muslims, beheading Muslims, shooting Muslims, flying Muslims, rioting Muslims, lynching Muslims, gang-raping Muslims, intimidating Muslims, death-threatening Muslims, deceiving Muslims, infiltrating Muslims, reproducing Muslims, aggrandizing Muslims, and so forth.

"To you, all people who call themselves Muslims are by that fact sufficiently bad that there is no point in distinguishing between some Muslims and others."

Again, "bad" is beside the point: dangerous is the point.

"If there are good Muslims, in your view it should not be particularly relevant to the defender of the West, because even the "good" Muslims, you seem to think, support Islam sufficiently to enable it eventually to destroy the Western way of life."

I don't believe Muslims will ever be successful in conquering the West. What I believe is that Muslims, merely in unsuccessfully trying to conquer the West, will generate intolerable amounts of misery, mass-murder and mayhem in the West in the coming decades, and we need to start taking measures to prevent this now.

"...the theory (which is not so elaborate), is that because the Qur'an according to itself only exists in Arabic, and Muslims generally only recite it in Arabic, most of them don't know what they are reciting when they pray. Four-fifths of Muslims in the world are not Arabs and do not understand Arabic. The remaining Arab fifth, I gather, frequently do not understand the archaic Arabic of the Qur'an."

I've already addressed this several times in comments fields (because it seems to be a popular notion among Jihad Watch readers in their need to try to save Muslims from being... Muslim). You may not have read what I have written before. I'll try to sum it up here. There are some points that militate against your theory:

1) Islam is not primarily a reading culture, it is an oral/hearing culture. Muslims don't need to be fluent in Arabic to be whipped up into fanaticism through sermons in mosque, through discussions in the antechamber of the mosques before and after prayer, through demagogic harangues by imams or self-styled Muslim demagogues in the village square, in the street, in houkka cafes, on TV, on the Internet, etc.

2) The normative baseline culturally encoded divinely sanctioned fanaticism of Islam in Muslim societies is not just instilled through reading, or through ideas communicated from one person to another: fanaticism is also instilled through a way of life, which in Islam begins when Muslims are children in a thousand different ways, many of them subtle, sociological, cultural, familial (one example of out thousands, the ritual of inducting children into beheading animals for Eid).

When news reporters visited a far-flung island in the Indonesian archipelago in the aftermath of the tsunami, they found that most of the children had the Star of David and the Christian cross on the bottoms of their sandals. When asked why, the children responded matter-of-factly (to paraphrase): "We like to walk on Christians and Jews to show our contempt for them". These children don't know Arabic, but the enculturation process of fanaticism, supremacism and hatred -- the building blocks of the terrorism that is threatening the world today -- were all there in place. How many more sandal bottoms exist throughout the Muslim world -- literally and figuratively -- which would uncover the swarming pullulating mass of hatred and fanaticism rife among millions of Muslims, which the West continues to be blithely oblivious to, until some reporter just happens, almost by accident, to see some children's sandal bottoms?

3) There are styles of networking and social grapevines that exist in Muslim societies that are foreign to our ways. We can't just assume that they process information, and imbibe attitudes and worldview, like we do. We must assume -- and there is plenty of evidence for this from the great scholars of Islam of yore and the Western visitors and observers of Islam in centuries past -- that those building blocks of Islamic terror are disseminated, permeate and take hold in ways with which we are not familiar, ways that transcend normal processes of persuasion and indoctrination we are used to from our culture.

"You don't buy that many Muslims are ignorant of many of the central facts of their religion."

So you see, it's not about "possessing knowledge of certain facts" of Islam; it's about a permeation of inculcation in a thousand ways that form Muslims psychologically and sociologically.

However, to this we must add the caveat that whenever a given Muslim claims not to know the ghastly and dangerous crap in Bukhari, for example, or even the more modern Maududi and hundreds more like him, it is more reasonable to assume they are lying to us than that they are being honest. To give the Muslim in such contexts the benefit of the doubt is dangerously reckless for our safety.

"Nevertheless, I see a point in distinguishing, in some ways, between Islam as ideology, and Muslims as individuals. The centrality of the individual and the unique value of each individual is a core Western value."

There are times when we can't do that. The fire-bombings of Germany and of Japan, and the atomic bombings of the latter, for example. Indeed, we were driven to that horrible necessity precisely because idiots did not believe in treating Germans as the enemy in 1938 but rather held out hope in their humanity.

"But I guess you think that compassion for individual Muslims will make it impossible for the West to do what you think needs to be done: get Muslims to leave."

We won't be able to "get Muslims to leave" now -- or worse when we finally get our shit together to even want to do it in about 50 years' time -- in any other way than forcing them to leave.

Sagunto,

"Among the foremost victims of islam are the children of muslim parents."

Since Muslim children are indoctrinated at an early age, pragmatically speaking your unremarkable insight becomes useful only were we to kidnap millions of Muslim children before they reach, say, age 5 and spirit them away to vast suburban tracts through the West where any incipient traces of Islam may be de-programmed and they can be enculturated in an Islam-free environment. What would such a massive operation do, do you suppose, to the easily inflammable tempers of Muslims around the world? I don't see how else we can put your insight into practical use. In fact, I can see ways your insight, if translated into policy (indeed, it already has been, more or less, through Bush's Wilsonianism and now through Obama's ghastlier Wilsonianism), is counter-productive if not dangerous for our primary goal of protecting our societies from Muslims.

That's cool...I was not challenging you anyway...only clarifying my thought on helpless Mahoundians...

Ipso Facto's peroration on the "sin" of Muslims to which my comment here is linked is beside the point.

The problem of the dangers which Muslims pose to us is not primarily about "sin", nor even primarily about "evil". There are plenty of sinful, and even evil, people out there who do not pose a danger to our societies in the horrific degree of magnitude and ingeniousness as Muslims do.

The problem with Muslims is

1) fanaticism,

and, closely related to that,

2) the remarkably effective scriptural/cultural encoding in Islam (activated by Muslims) that wires and routes that fanaticism into paths that lead to violent jihad and to the stealth jihad that is simply one of the vehicles of violent jihad.

"Good point, Henry ...we would never say that we hate Nazism, but that we LOVE the Nazis. No way! So then why is it acceptable to say that we hate Nazis, but not Muslims? What gives?! I sense a double standard at play here ..."

Also an excellent point. Bravo champ!

Or, is this Huffington Post and Daily Kos? I thought it was Jihad Watch.

"Hesperado's holistic assessment of a total condemnation of Islam, while in its current state, technically true, falls short at the on-set for a lack of feasibility of being accepted and/or implemented." Posted by Awake

Our country is totally reactionary. There is not a great amount of perseverance on the part of the average Joe or Jane to educate themselves on the deeper concepts of Islam. Therefore the vast majority of the population will not likely "catch on" to the danger of Islam in time to prevent a serious conflict within the country if we cannot properly identify and critique the total character of the entire Muslim population. Those few people that might see the danger early on will first look to those who have already studied the subject. That is why it is important to get it right even though it may not be politically correct. I do not mean to criticize Geert Wilders, whom I admire greatly, because I believe that as a political entity, he must do what he must do, politically. His article here is magnificent.

I realize that it is hard to be negative toward some really nice (Islamic) people by criticizing them and their religion but the alternative is to encourage them along in their misguided religion. I say this because I know in advance that when the "chips are down" they will turn against the kuffar and side with their fellow Muslims.

Another thing to consider is the influence "nice" Muslims have on their children. Their children will be indoctrinated by other Muslims to follow the path of Mohammed. That alone should run a chill down everyones back when you consider the demographics. Add to this the fact that the family members will all become supporters of the militants (forced or not).

I do agree that we must arrive at a doable interim effort that will stem the tide but we must never allow ourselves to be fooled into believing that "nice" Muslims are not a danger to us and our children.

Islam must be condemned as vile and the case must be made to support that conclusion in a similiar way that Nazis were condemned well before they were eventually found to have committed those horrible atrocities against Jews. I believe that Hesperado is doing this kind of analysis and it should be applauded. We may have to agree to disagree on this.

"This is about protecting our societies from exploding Muslims -- not to mention from stabbing Muslims, beheading Muslims, shooting Muslims, flying Muslims, rioting Muslims, lynching Muslims, gang-raping Muslims, intimidating Muslims, death-threatening Muslims, deceiving Muslims, infiltrating Muslims, reproducing Muslims, aggrandizing Muslims, and so forth."

Good point, Hesp ...as these types of muslims are the ones we read about every single day here on Jihad Watch -- AND, many of us have had our own personal stories and experiences with muslims that shape our perception of muslims and islam as well.

As you know, my husband and I used to own a business in SoCal, and we had 6 looooong years of experience with muslims, and NONE of those experiences were good ones. And these were supposedly "peaceful" muslims, too! So, suffice it to say, I will never trust a muslim again. Not ever. I have no good reason to ever trust them, not when there are other people in my life whom have PROVEN to be trustworthy. In fact, I have every reason NOT to trust muslims -- even if I had NEVER heard of Jihad Watch before.

I wonder how many other posters are out there that have had real, one-on-one negative experiences with muslims that regularly post on JW, but that feel a little shy about sharing those stories? I mean their (our) stories are important, too. And to the posters that HAVEN'T had these one-on-one negative experiences with muslims, but who come across as know-it-alls on the subject, then you could certainly benefit from these stories and experiences as well. I'm just sayin' ...

That isn't to say that I don't pray for muslims, I mean of course I do. I regularly pray that they would receive the truth of God, and reject the lies of allah & muhammad. I just don't TRUST muslims. There is a difference ...

henry, Courreges, and champ,

Glad to see some JWers who are seeing and not just watching, the full menace of jihad in all its myriad forms (sorry if I left out some others).

Thank you for your kind comment Spot on.

Let us take it as it comes:

“The life and Divinity of Jesus Christ brought people the real understanding of love and gave them hope in the future. His message of love and hope has lived on for 2000 years.”

I will not deny that you can make a selection of quotes from the gospels attributed to Jesus Christ that gave his followers a deeper understanding of the nature of love, hope and a new meaning of life. But on the other hand you could also make another selection that legitimized holy war, persecution of Jews, heretics and genocide against the female sex.

The four gospels themselves are made from selections of about 80 scriptures about the life of Jesus Christ, deemed non canonical and ordered destroyed, and how much is added or deleted in the canonical texts only God knows. So you have to find your own way around in the jungle of inconsistencies and select the pieces make you feel the divine truth, or as Buddha so eloquently said it: “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

Actually Christianity goes against my reason, common sense and rationality, so why should I believe in this mysterious religion of “love and hope” that very quickly evolved from a religion of love to an unnatural rigid anti-erotic movement and pyramidal power structure preoccupied with sexual sin and not much else?

Other wise men brought a deeper understanding about the nature of love and justice to their societies half a millennium before Jesus Christ entered human history. Confusius with his Golden Rule, Buddha, and Aristotle are examples of more rational and less mysterious attempts to explain the existential situation of man. As you probably know rational elements from those three great thinkers can actually be found in Christianity but transformed so they support the basic tenets of Christianity.

“Without His message, life in the West would most likely have developed along a more warlike path and I seriously doubt that the West would have had enough time between wars to develop into the present modern world that we now enjoy.”

I don't think so. It is true that central elements in Christianity are extremely pacifistic but such suicidal notions never guided the policy of the upper echelon of the clergy. Otherwise Christianity would soon have been reduced (again) to an insignificant Jewish sect and we could have had a Christian diaspora.

The pope allowed a more literal pacifistic and humble interpretation of the words of Jesus in the various orders of monks, such as the Franciscans. No harm done in preaching to the birds I guess. The different factions within the Church were manageable for the popes but sometime it came to sectarian violence, as we know so well in Islam, and the rebels had to be slaughtered like mad dogs.

Read "The Name of The Rose" by Umberto Echo for its excellent description of the monastic life in the 14th century. The action takes place at a Benedictine abbey during the controversy surrounding the Apostolic poverty between branches of Franciscans and Dominicans. The Spirituals abhor wealth, bordering on the Apostolics or Dulcinian heresy. The book highlights this tension that existed within Christianity during the medieval era: the Spirituals, one faction within the Franciscan order, demanded that the Church should abandon all wealth, and some heretical sects began killing the well-to-do, while the majority of the Franciscans and the clergy took to a broader interpretation of the gospel.

In my view the consistent suppression of sexuality and women is what lead to the disintegration and downfall of the Catholic Church. This sexual madness and the greed for wealth and worldly power culminated in a crescendo at the end of the Middle Ages in the sale of indulgence and the murderous witch hunts, a genocide against innocent women.

Luther’s successful rebellion against a Church he called “Anti-Christ” opened up the path towards secularism, scientific research, rationalism and humanism that came to fruition two centuries later.

But first Europe went through a bloody religious war - The Thirty Years' War. It was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history. The war was fought primarily (though not exclusively) in what is now Germany and at various points involved most of the countries of Europe. Naval warfare also reached overseas and shaped the colonial formation of future nations.

The origins of the conflict and goals of the participants were complex and no single cause can accurately be described as the main reason for the fighting. Initially the war was fought largely as a religious conflict betweenProtestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire, although disputes over the internal politics and balance of power within the Empire played a significant part.

The “present modern world that we now enjoy” is not the result of Christianity but it evolved mostly in spite of Christianity. I will not deny that Christianity made some contributions in various fields, such as notions of just and unjust wars, Occam's razor, etc. but its greatest contribution was that the Church had to share its political power with the emperors. And because Jesus himself demanded separation of state and church.

The protestants realized that no state could be founded on the radical obligation in the Sermon on the Mount, that Christianity consequently can not be made a social norm. Jesus never instructed how the society should be organized. His mission had nothing to do with politics. Instead he placed obligations on the individual – demands the individual should fulfill on his own behalf not on the behalf of others or the society.

Your conclusion:

“I submit to you that it is a fact of life that power corrupts, but through the ages Christianity has acted as a moderating force to bring civilization back from the brink through the teachings of love and hope as authored by Jesus Christ.”

I don´t see Christianity as a moderating force, unless you compare it to the barbarism of Islam. The Church was not a moderating force in the First World War and in the Second it actually supported the fascist regimes and gave them legitimacy.

The Church did help in bringing down the Soviet dictatorship but now it seems that many Christian Churches are more in bed with Islam than fighting for the survival of the secular democratic states.

I know it is not easy to be a Christian but the amount of irrationality and magical thinking needed to believe in the miracles is generally not something a humane and democratic society can rely upon. The conflict with reason is inevitable.


Kim,

I also support Wilders, in the wryly Jack-Nicholsonian sense that he is, so far in the West, about "as good as it gets". My hope for the unfolding of his effects on the West is not that his quasi-Wilsonianism ever gets translated into more Wilsonianism (sort of a grander, harsher and more realistic version of Bush/Obama Wilsonianism), but that rather his quasi-Wilsonianism serves as a rhetorical wedge by which to open the West up to accepting a condemnation of Islam. After that process begins to gain steam and traction, the gears of logic will ensue, augmented massively by a new ability to actually see all the horrors caused by Muslims around the world -- and the Wilsonian rhetoric will dissipate, to be replaced by common sense and rational policies to ensure our safety.

The one problem, of course, is that the longer it takes for this process to get underway, the costlier, the messier, and the bloodier will be the eventual non-Wilsonian solutions which the West will find itself forced, by the nature of the problem, to take.

I will concede for argument's sake, Spot on, that in theory Hesperado may be correct but there is no way that you could realistically implement this theory of his. Politics is the art of the possible and I submit to you and all who side with Hesperado here, as is your right, that what someone like Geert Wilders (Robert Spencer too) is doing now is already as stretched to the limits which the possible will allow.

I would also like to restate why I am against Hesperado's approach. Aside from believing it is unrealistic, I also find treating all Muslims as the enemy does two other things wrong: 1) It is not humane. All Muslims should not be relegated to the status of the Great Horrible Other (All Nazis perhaps, but with Muslims you have a world-wide religion and not a secular and ephemeral fascism limited to one nationality). This is the very kind of demonization that those who support Islam engage in with those who find Islamic doctrine vile in many ways. Don't stoop to conquer. 2) It disallows for a divide and win strategy by which alliances can be made with certain Muslims (e.g. those running Tunisia and Morocco) against others. Of course, what has not been done right is letting Muslims everywhere know we don't like their religion, in contrast, for example, to the way we worked with Tito against Stalin in the early years of the Cold War but nonetheless never pretended that Communism was a good thing. No more pretend games. Muslims, all Muslims, should know where we stand, just as Marxists did. This would mean, among other things, no more Muslim immigration to the West, a ban on certain Muslim clothing, an ongoing campaign (like Radio Free Europe during the Cold War) to wean Muslims away from Islam (important I think for final victory) and no allowance for the implementation of the uglier sides of Sharia in Western societies. Clarity should be paramount here and not a false or stupid acceptance of Islam as a good religion. Of course, the West has not done this to date, which is indefensible.

There is no disagreement as far as I can tell.

you wrote:
"I do agree that we must arrive at a doable interim effort that will stem the tide but we must never allow ourselves to be fooled into believing that "nice" Muslims are not a danger to us and our children."

I don't think myself or anyone else here on this thread is fooled by the soothing, albeit irrelevant and to date, outspoken "nice" Muslims.

I reiterate that it is impossible to discern the active jihadists from cultural Muslims or Muslims under the threat of duress from other Muslims to stand by idly, in tacit support of the supremacist core of jihad contained in Islam.

You also wrote:
"Islam must be condemned as vile..."

And that is exactly what Wilders espoused. When the focus of exposure becomes individual Muslims over Islam the ideology as a whole, then the patent excuse that individual Muslims who commit violence against non-Muslims (and other Muslims for that matter), are operating in spite of Islam instead of specifically due to it, the continued obfuscation of the true matter...Islam...continues to gain traction in mainstream, PC thought.

Understanding that over a billion Muslims worldwide do not share a monolithic interpretation of Islam is obvious. The inability to accurately judge followers of Islam individually, and that due to that blatant fact, all are potentially dangerous, renders them all as suspect as long as they continue to be Muslims.

My criticism is the proposed "solution" at this time that Hesperado puts forth, and his specific scoffing at Wilders, with the most direct statement to date by a non-anonymous public figure, put forth by him.


Hesp,

That comment is a straw-man argument, bordering on ad-hominem, and implies that anyone who does not identically share see your critical position on Islam and Muslims, as absolute, is somehow sympathetic of Islam to some degree.

Save yourself the trouble. Your petty and unfounded insults have no effect on me.

For the record, Kim did not parrot your initial criticism of Wilders in this thread.

"I know it is not easy to be a Christian but the amount of irrationality and magical thinking needed to believe in the miracles is generally not something a humane and democratic society can rely upon. The conflict with reason is inevitable."

Your comment reminds me of something stated by a gentlemen that spoke at our church last Sunday as a guest speaker who is also a practicing attorney. He did a wonderful presentation on the "Evidence of the Resurrection of Christ", and he presented it in a manner that an attorney would give in a courtroom before a judge and a jury.

He provided both the eye witness testimonies, and the circumstancial evidence, as outlined in the New Testament pertaining to Christ's bodily resurrection. He presented the evidence from every angle and supposition out there, including Habeas Corpus, because they NEVER found Christ's body (hmm, wonder why).

Anyway, long story short, the attorney concluded by saying that the evidence in the Bible of Christ's bodily resurrection goes against all natural laws, because it took a supernatural act of God to perform it. But imo, raising Christ from the dead was nothing, really -- because in truth, isn't all of God's creation supernatural? I mean it really is!

Hey your twisted-pretzel-logic is only one big distortion after another about Christianity, ipso; and it's very boring, btw, as are you.

Hey your twisted-pretzel-logic is only one big distortion after another about Christianity, ipso; and it's very boring, btw, as are you.

Are you and Kim incapable of not resorting to petty insults when somebody doesn't agree with your simplistic arguments?

What does Kim have to do with my comment to ipso? Leave Kim out of it!

You enjoy gobbling up ipso's twisted-pretzel-logic? Apparently!

And you call my comment a "petty insult" ...whoa, sensitive, aren't we?

Yet you sling petty insults at me. Hmm, do I detect a double standard? Yep!

You both follow the same predictable pattern: somebody disagrees with you and they are then met with ad-hominems and immature name calling.

Ipso posted a well written, informative post that you didn't agree with, so you respond with little more than "you're boring!" How very telling.

There are a lot of Christians on Jihad Watch, so are you going to call all of us simple minded? Hey, even Robert Spencer is a Christian, so are you brave enough to call him simple minded, too?

There are a lot of Christians on Jihad Watch, so are you going to call all of us simple minded? Hey, even Robert Spencer is a Christian, so are you brave enough to call him simple minded, too?

Straw man. I never said "Christians are simple minded."

And you really shouldn't be trying to compare yourself to Robert Spencer. He doesn't use his religion as the crux of his argument against Islam, and responds to critics with more than "you're boring!"

"The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either." -- Geert

True, which further proves that allah is NOT the God of the Bible ...

This link lays it out very succintly, here's an excerpt:

Muslims believe that there is no other God besides Allah and that he is the God of the universe. They claim that not only is he their God, but that he is the God of the Jews, the Christians and everyone else. When examining the profile of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and comparing it with Allah’s profile, there are a number of distinct differences between them that can only result in one conclusion: These profiles simply do not match! Allah is NOT the God of the Bible!

The Islamic faith, through the teachings of Muhammad, asserts that Allah is God and attempt to place him within the confines of the Holy Scriptures. When the Bible contradicts their teachings, they allege that it is flawed, has been tampered with, and has many errors. They further claim that the Koran, through the teachings of their prophet Muhammad, corrects them. However, it has already been established that Muhammad was both a false prophet and teacher. Therefore, Islam’s allegations are unsupported, baseless and without merit.

There are a number of major differences between the God of the Bible and Allah. This chapter will focus upon five reasons why they are not the same. According to the Holy Scriptures, the God of the Bible is the one true God while Allah is a false god.

http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/is_allah_not_God.html


Living in Holland, I know how much despised, vilified and opposed Geert Wilders is there, saying what he says. As Hesperado knows, the "other side", the Muslims and PCMC-people also do not accept for one bit his message of being against Islam, not Muslims, or necessarily all Muslims. They also assert that being against the one must mean exactly the same as being against the other. In that respect Hesperado finds himself in "dubious company".

I am discussing all this as often as I can with the many PCMC-people, especially Christians (CDA-voters), who are not leftist, nevertheless consider Wilders going too far in his "racism" towards Muslims, which they consider Un-Christian.

Because they consider the Golden Rule practised towards Muslims very important and are high on respect and love for Muslims and allergic to any "signs of racism, stigmatising Muslims, alienating Muslims".

I now TRY, to point out what Hesperado also said; That Muslims being bad is not the point but them being a big potential danger is. For freedom and Democracy. And I refer to a Jehovah's witness who also genuinely believes a benign theocracy to be better for mankind than our current secular democratic society.

In this veign I can now tell these Christian PCMC-people that I CAN respect Muslims for adhering to a different societal system; theocracy. I just want them to be honest about it. And go about reaching it in an enduring democratical way.

I can assert Muslims do want a different societal system, and they have no qualms reaching it and keeping it in a violent and deceitful way. Because of the propaganda and censorship they already use. And I can TRY to tell Christian PCMC-people that although they might have good reasons, the Muslim's goal simply is a big danger to OUR preferred societal system.

Muslims and Democrats should admit their differences and go separate ways, I try to say. But if the situation-analysis concerning Islam and Democracy is left as confused and unclear as it is now, then the Muslims may well have squandered all their trustworthyness for secular Democracy for Non-Muslims, with the knowledge of the teachings and behavior of Muslims worldwide now available.

So far some have seen a bit of my logic. The CDA-voters are still badly shaken by their electoral loss. And the apparent ongoing defection of CDA-voters to the PVV. I taunt the CDA-voters with the prospect of winning back those votes, if only they study hard on a different but still respectful policy towards Muslims.

Because being Respectful and loving to Muslims is SOOOOO high on their agenda, I try to save that, but at the same time I try to appeal to them to increase their respect and love and openness for Islam-critics and Ex-Muslims. Who can enlighten them in what danger their freedom and democracy really is.

"Robert Spencer doesn't use his religion as the crux of his argument against Islam," ...

His book, "Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn't", suggests otherwise.

A must read for all, btw!

His book, "Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn't", suggests otherwise.

No, it doesn't. JihadWatch is moderated as a non-sectarian site for a reason.

I would like to second what you're written, champ, to wit, that Allah is NOT the same deity as found in the Bible. For many years as a history teacher I asserted in class that the one thing Jews, Christians and Muslims could agree upon was that they all worshipped the same God, even though they differed on many other matters (to put it mildly).

In recent years, say the past five or so, I have come to realize that this earlier assessment of mine is most probably an error. Yes, it is possible to still argue that all three major monothesitic faiths honor the same deity but, even if one does this and is in pursuit of the truth unadorned, that person should acknowledge that the Muslim's understanding of this deity is quite at variance (again, to put it mildly) from how Jews and Christians see this same Supreme Being.

To be complete here, when I taught this assessment decades ago I also did my best to imply that the Muslim comprehension of this same deity was a lesser one compared with that of the Jew or Christian. But even this reservation, I now think, is not adequate enough to explain the vast cognitive difference which the Muslim has of his God versus that of the Jew or Christian. And so I have pretty much concluded that even the major proviso about Allah being a twisted version of the Judeo-Christian conception of God is still not enough. It's more than a bastardization of what came before but rather a substitute of some other deity (though Mohammed himself, delusional and incomplete in so many areas, would have hardly realized this) taken from the earlier Arab polytheistic religion, perhaps its moon good, though who the hell really knows.

Of course, you know I am an agnostic and so I don't write this to you from a Christian perspective, though there would be nothing wrong with this if I did since the truth is the truth regardless of who is conveying it, but rather from the perspective of one who examines things historically, including in such analyses the importance of religion and myth on all peoples and the genesis of these powerful influences. Hope all is well with you and yours. As always, I look forward to reading your posts, even though we have different views at times on the ultimate make-up of the cosmos and lesser matters. Take care.

Thank you for writing, Wellington ..it is always a great pleasure to hear from you, and I enjoy your posts, too.

Although I have been a Christian since age 19, just recently did I come to realize that allah is not the God of the Bible after a more careful study of both the evil life of muhammad, and by studying the character of allah as he is described in the koran: as a trickster and deceiver, etc. And for most of my Christian life I thought as you did, that Jews, Christians and Muslims all worshipped the same God -- but this never made SENSE to me. Now it does make sense, especially since I have come to realize that allah is not the God of the Bible. All is well, thank you! ...and I hope the same for you and yours :)

Wellington, as a theologically literate Christian, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your posting on the differences between the Islamic God and the God of the Bible. I am no facile interfaith-type, but hold that we need to be aware of the distinctions.

I am also a teacher, and when the opportunity arises, I register my disagreements with the approved textbooks.

Perhaps, in 7th century Arabia, where Jews were powerful and Christians gaining ground, Muhammad saw some political use in claiming the prestige of those religions for something that was essentially his own?

I suspect that your fellow agnostic Geert Wilders may have reached a conclusion similar to yours.

Thank you, Kepha, for your kind words and thanks as well to champ for hers.

Wellington, I agree with yours (to Spot On). Hesperado has dogmatized his stance against Islam into something that is not workable, IMO. He must lighten up, without alienating all who would agree with his position, that Islam is the problem, which includes the Muslims themselves. But it's more complicated than that.

RE UR: I would also like to restate why I am against Hesperado's approach. Aside from believing it is unrealistic, I also find treating all Muslims as the enemy does two other things wrong: 1) It is not humane. All Muslims should not be relegated to the status of the Great Horrible Other (All Nazis perhaps, but with Muslims you have a world-wide religion and not a secular and ephemeral fascism limited to one nationality). This is the very kind of demonization that those who support Islam engage in with those who find Islamic doctrine vile in many ways. Don't stoop to conquer.

I too am turned off by Hesperado's approach, because it is a rigid doctrine mirroring the same rigid doctrine he claims to be against. But to become exactly like the enemy is not a viable solution to the problem. Muslims are people, most of them born to the faith without any choice in the matter, and as people they have the right to get out of it if they disagree with all those violent and deceitful tenets Mohammed forced on them. Except! If they try to leave that ugly club, they are hounded and pursued by their family, their friends, their social contacts, their imam and mosque, all the way to their desperation that if they really act upon their true beliefs, they have the right to kill for apostasy. This is a monumental hurdle for the ordinary Muslim who wants to jump. And of course, most don't.

So Hesperado's hard stance against Muslims, as opposed to his stance against Islam with which I am in total agreement (it's a corrosive destructive ideology that should be put down), I do not share his hard stance on individuals within Islam. They have a difficult choice to make, if they contemplate it at all, whether to join the human family and secularize like most of the modern world, or do they remains stuck in a primitive, 7th century ideology dedicated to superstitious beliefs, but worse, dedicated to eradicating the rest of mankind with their onerous Jihad. This is a tough demand on Muslims, to leave this vicious Cult of Allah, especially for women who are already abused, to step to the next level of abuse that can be lethal.

Sure, Muslims are screwed up in their heads, acting like primitives, beheading and killing when not blowing themselves up, or gang raping women. They are modern Stone age people who, instead of using spears and clubs, have modern weapons, like AK-47s and bombs, or flying our airplanes into buildings. Okay, so they are a mess and incompatible with modern liberal, secular values of society in every way. But they are not a 'throw away people' who can be universally stigmatized by their primitive religious beliefs. Some are actually waking up to their nightmare, and they should be encouraged, not put down. Those few, the precious few, who are capable of rational thought and can see the horror of their Islam should be encouraged, though they may be hesitant at first. But given time, as more escape from the mental slavery that is Islam, more will follow. What Hesperado fails to understand, in my estimation, is that these should be encouraged to leave. Why? Because that is how you undo the evil ideology spawned by a vindictive Warlord dictator reaching from the grave 1400 years ago. It's time for Muslims to let him go. I think they will, en mass too, once the tide turns against Islam.

This is why Geert Wilders', and Robert Spencer's, stance is so intelligent, because they understands deep down that the way to undo Islam is to help those who want out to leave it. Take away its people, and what are you left with? A vacuous primitive Stone Age cult, dedicated to some moon-god of Arabian folklore, that traps its members, both willingly and unwillingly, into the nightmare of Islam; witch will melt away in history as have all other primitive cults. Education is key, for all of Western Europe, the Americas, and Down Under. Understand the horror of Islam, and help those poor bastards who are stuck with it to get out. Hesperado's rigid ideology does not allow for this, and this is why he comes across as a bigot. That is not the right way. It is far better to invite (reverse da'wa) Muslims to leave their enslaving ideology, and join the rest of humanity without fear or retribution. And in this respect, they need our help and protection from their own. That's how Wilders sees it, I suspect that's how Spencer and Pamela see it; and that's how I see it. We cannot fight an evil dogma by becoming dogmatists without undermining all we stand for. Ours is the better way, and we should continue to hold that hight moral ground - while they kill each other with abandon for their evil god - which will help more of them escape. It's the Islam, not the people, that is the horror.

Good thread. Excellent, well thought out arguments by all. In my estimation, it is in this thread that the collective message shall proceed forward.

Minus the now wiped comment by "Morris Wise" calling for an eventual genocide against Muslims, all positions are valid to a degree, and should be defended.

Robert Spencer has already made his position clear, and I think, will continue to do so.

In context: "Long live Geert Wilders and his brazen if not irresponsible statements at his own expense, to speak the truth about Islam."

Much obliged for your comment, Battle_of_Tours. I am encouraged that we see eye to eye on this issue, specifically, that one can be tough, realistic AND humane. I can detect no good reason why these three virtues can't be allies. I also share your optimism about Islam's fate. No way it will stand up to a thorough scrutiny by the world at large in modern times, a scrutiny the likes of which Islam has never known. Once this scrutiny really sets in, and we're only in the beginning stages of that now, Islam and Mohammed are goners, something which I find the most satisfying of prospects to reflect upon.

Very well said. You put the finger on all the right spots in Hesperados faulty and dangerous doctrine and saved me the trouble of refuting him.

In order to surprise the Christians on the debate I think that Matthew 16:26 sums up what is wrong with Hesperados position quite nicely:

"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?"

In my interpretation adopted to the conflict with Islam:

- If you can only win by lowering yourself to the beastly level of the enemy you have gained nothing but become like the enemy, and the enemy has won.

But of course, if it comes to that ultimate struggle, with everything at stake to win or lose...and we won't do what it takes to win...then the enemy wins anyway and we won't have to concern ourselves about the "beastly level" to which we've lowered ourselves. Those who've conquered us will see to our "correct" behavior, on THEIR terms...

Hello people!

I noticed that he quotes versus from the Quran Incompletely, hence I will quote one of them here and you check the rest yourself. Specially for Surah 43:15, I suggest you read the versus before and after from:

http://quran.al-islam.org/
(on the top right, select an English Translation, then in the scroll down select a Surah 43, click on Display)

Also a note about the Concept of God in Islam. It is true that in Islam Allah, the one God, is not comparable to anything else. When Muslims say "Allah-o-Akbar" it means "God Is greater than what can be described". For more information on God In Islam please refer to :

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/

Hope this helps you

Just a typo in my last comment:

Allah-o-Akbar :
"Allah is Greater" in literal meaning. When said by Muslims it really means is greater than anything, or in other words greater than what can be described.

"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" -- Matthew 16:26

The passage from Matthew that you are referencing is Jesus speaking to His disciples concerning a very serious matter, so your application on Hesperado in relation to his position on islam, is being grossly misappropriated here, ipso. But I think you knew that ...

“... your application on Hesperado in relation to his position on islam, is being grossly misappropriated here, ipso. But I think you knew that …”

Sure. But I did promise to surprise you Christians, did I not?

As an unbeliever who do not abide in Jesus I am no expert on souls. Hell, I don't even know what that magical word means.

Being such an expert in exegesis and misappropriation yourself do you think this put me at risk of being burned on the stake according to John 15:6, or do you disagree with the Inquisition in this serious matter?

As you know the burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)

However, I have once assisted a girlfriend in obtaining a legal abortion using false papers of my ex-wife. Do you think the Army of God will burn down my house because of this sin?

Hesperado,
You correct me in my characterization of your view when I paraphrase you as thinking certain things about "bad" Muslims. You reply that it's not, for you, a matter of "bad", but of "dangerous." Okay -- but I was just responding to your own earlier post above, in which you yourself used the word "bad" in speaking of Wilders knowing "how bad" Muslims are. So I don't think in this case you can blame me for using the word to characterize your views.

In response to me saying

"Nevertheless, I see a point in distinguishing, in some ways, between Islam as ideology, and Muslims as individuals. The centrality of the individual and the unique value of each individual is a core Western value."

You said:
There are times when we can't do that. The fire-bombings of Germany and of Japan, and the atomic bombings of the latter, for example. Indeed, we were driven to that horrible necessity precisely because idiots did not believe in treating Germans as the enemy in 1938 but rather held out hope in their humanity."

So a question then is whether it has got to that point yet, the point where just about any and all sorts of collateral damage are unavoidable. I agree that war makes the death of innocents unavoidable to some degree. The question is to what degree in particular situations.

In our discussions, Hesperado, pragmatic and purely factual concerns often seem to get confused, and not necessarily by me. What seems to happen is that I object to your painting with an overbroad brush. You respond by saying that the existing exceptions to your overbroad generalizations make no difference to certain pragmatic concerns. Absolutely true. I didn't say they necessarily altered particular pragmatic considerations. I just say that you are sometimes overbroad in your generalizations. You leap from that to the conclusion that I am opposed to your pragmatic program. You say, what does it matter if it's not relevant to the pragmatic program? But it does matter if you go around saying unequivocally that x is false, when in fact x is true 10% (or whatever percent) of the time.

Some of our conversations have gone something like this. You say, "There are only three-leaf clovers. All clovers are three leaf." I say: "well, but there are some four-leaf and two-leaf clovers." You say, "if there are four-leaf and two-leaf clovers, they are too few to make any difference to the pragmatic course that we need to follow. Why are you against my pragmatic program on clovers?" I say: "I'm not necessarily against your pragmatic program, I'm just trying to point out that there are four-leaf and two-leaf clovers, and you've been talking as if there are none."

Just because pragmatically we only attend to certain facts relevant to what we need to get done, it doesn't follow, does it, that we must also claim that no other facts exist except those we have decided to select for our pragmatic attention? You seem to think no other facts exist, because whenever I point out exceptions to your pragmatic interpretations of reality, you think I am objecting to your pragmatic program. When all I am really objecting to, to begin with anyway, is that you seem to get overly taken in by your pragmatic streamlining of reality's contours. You sometimes seem to equate pragmatic interpretation with literal truth. You recognize exceptions to pragmatic generalizations, but only to dismiss those exceptions almost to the point of their complete non-existence.

In fact I'm beginning to think that the confusion arises because, although you yield when it is pointed out that there are four-leaf and two leaf clovers, you in fact don't really believe it. You yield because you perhaps think the facts may compel it. Yet despite that you are on the other hand determined to believe there are only three-leaf clovers. So the reason you object to the statement that there are four- and two-leaf clovers is not that their existence is not relevant to a pragmatic concern; no, the reason you actually object is that you are determined not to believe there are any four leaf or two leaf clovers, though you yield when pressed on that. So maybe there is some equivocation in your own position, and maybe the real difference between us is on what the facts are, not on the pragmatic need, in pursuing some goals, to streamline interpretations in order to formulate/realize those goals.

I appreciated your explanations of why you think Muslims are not ignorant of Islamic teachings. You were pretty persuasive.

You wrote:

"However, I have once assisted a girlfriend in obtaining a legal abortion using false papers of my ex-wife. Do you think the Army of God will burn down my house because of this sin?"

What I have to say probably won't have any effect, since it is clear that you choose to sit in the seat of the scoffer. (Psalm 1)

It seems to me, since you quote Mt. 16:26, you have forfeited your own soul by stooping to outrageous baseness of both destroying a human life whose only crime was being inconvenient and by lying in order to do it.

It is not for my brethren in the faith to go and burn down your house (or haul you off and hang you after due process of law) at this point in time. However, unless you repent, your own words condemn you before Almighty God.

As for legal abortion, it is one of our cultural sins.

Ipso Facto wrote,
“…Actually Christianity goes against my reason, common sense and rationality, so why should I believe in this mysterious religion of “love and hope” that very quickly evolved from a religion of love to an unnatural rigid anti-erotic movement and pyramidal power structure preoccupied with sexual sin and not much else?

Other wise men brought a deeper understanding about the nature of love and justice to their societies half a millennium before Jesus Christ entered human history. Confucius with his Golden Rule, Buddha, and Aristotle are examples of more rational and less mysterious attempts to explain the existential situation of man. As you probably know rational elements from those three great thinkers can actually be found in Christianity but transformed so they support the basic tenets of Christianity….”

Ipso Facto,

Thank you for your response. Sorry it took so long for me to get back to the computer. I had to leave for an appointment yesterday.

If you think that I have asked you to believe in Christianity, you have completely misunderstood and misread my post to you. While I am a Catholic, I have not intended to and do not wish to engage you in a discussion regarding religious belief. That is something that each person must work out for themselves. I am perfectly happy that you are happy not believing in Christianity or any other religion for that matter. (It does bother me a tad that you go balls-out in attacking Christianity. Possibly you enjoy it as sort of a sport.)

The point of my original message is not about your distorted perception of the Gospels, not about the Catholic Church and its historical problems of corruption, or about your self centered narrow minded views of women’s liberation. Possibly you expected some kind of discussion on the merits of religion from me and you wanted to get your punches in early. If that is the case I will disappoint you.

If we look back to the first centuries A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer), there was a growing perception that the message of Jesus Christ was one of love and hope for a better future and help in dealing with the worst of problems of life including death. This message of love did encompass the Golden Rule and the concept that every person can conquer death was highly motivational. It caught on and became a movement that the Romans feared.

This Christian movement may well have died out except for the pivotal point in history when Emperor Constantine saw a vision and opened his Roman Empire to Christianity in 313 with his Edict of Milan. Constantine could have perceived his vision to be from Thor or some other pagan god of the time but he chose to believe it was the Christian God. This event launched Christianity to the forefront throughout the Roman Empire.

The Reformation during the middle ages had a multiplying effect with the dissemination of the original message of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church received some help from many Christian denominations to spread the word of Christ. Today, Christianity is the largest religious belief in Western Culture.

This brings me back to my original message to you which I restate as follows:

“If you go back 2000 years or 5000 years, you will not find an easy way of life. Death was everywhere and life was short.

The life and Divinity of Jesus Christ brought people the real understanding of love and gave them hope in the future. His message of love and hope has lived on for 2000 years. Without His message, life in the West would most likely have developed along a more warlike path and I seriously doubt that the West would have had enough time between wars to develop into the present modern world that we now enjoy.

I submit to you that it is a fact of life that power corrupts, but through the ages Christianity has acted as a moderating force to bring civilization back from the brink through the teachings of love and hope as authored by Jesus Christ.”

I believe that without the moderating force of Christianity propagated to the entire Western World, we would have a balkanized group of continuously warring religious entities even today and that our modern world would not yet exist. I say this because innovations cannot evolve while life and death warring is in place and there have been no other moderating Western religions in the past 1700 years. Added to this, the Christians were the only force that kept Islamic tribes from taking over Europe from the 7th through 17th centuries. The Americas were dominated by tribes of their own and would not have magically stopped warring with one another. Possibly an Islamic dominated Europe may have then discovered America, who knows. You and I may have been born Muslims except for the message that Jesus Christ brought to the world.

As a side note, it must be stated that atheistic entities have caused up to 100 million deaths in the past 100 years. I would not consider that to be a moderating force.

This is some food for thought every time you choose to engage in the sport of ridiculing Christianity.


"I will concede for argument's sake, Spot on, that in theory Hesperado may be correct but there is no way that you could realistically implement this theory of his. Politics is the art of the possible and I submit to you and all who side with Hesperado here, as is your right, that what someone like Geert Wilders (Robert Spencer too) is doing now is already as stretched to the limits which the possible will allow."....Wellington

Wellington, Thank you for responding. We all have disagreements because we see the Islamic problem with no complete solution in sight. I believe that Hesparado's analysis is important because, as you have said, he is theoretically correct. I agree that his current proposed solution is not practical in a humane world. That needs some work.

I agree with you concerning Gert Wilders. He is a great man fighting the political fight in Europe and making some real progress. Politics does ultimately rule and any solution will have to conform to political reality. We need to remember that defeat is also a possible political solution but that is not acceptable to anyone here discussing this problem.

I have been reviewing the solution to the Japanese religious fanaticism of WWII. McArthur defanged that religion by separating the diety from temporal power. I believe this could be done with Islam. Frank Gaffney first proposed this as a solution to the Islamic problem and I think it is probably the only practical way out of this mess. It is very humane and would leave Muslims with their self respect and their religion but without Shariah as a temporal enforcement mechanism for Islam. Islam would then be in the same class with all the other religions.

You would know more about what laws would need to be changed to accomplish this but since Frank Gaffney has done the research, I am sure it is doable. I have also heard Knewt Gingrich mention this approach. We need to get Hesparado on board to this approach. He is a one man think tank.

I always enjoy reading your well reasoned posts.

"My criticism is the proposed "solution" at this time that Hesperado puts forth, and his specific scoffing at Wilders, with the most direct statement to date by a non-anonymous public figure, put forth by him."...Awake

Awake,

I didn't take Hesperados comments as derogatory toward Gert Wilders. I saw his comment the same as I would a comment from Simon Cowell to a performer. I saw it in the spirit of correcting deviation from the ideal. We all know that Geert Wilders has his hands full dealing with all those European Aristocrats and that he is doing a great job.

I agree that you and I don't really disagree and I would like to see Hesperado consider Frank Gaffney's solution that involves outlawing Shariah. This solution is similiar to McArthurs solution to the Japanese religious fanatics of WWII and it worked.

Hi Champ,

Didn't get a chance to respond to your posts but I read them all and they are right on target.

Spot

Hello Mohammad!

Thank´s for pointing out the difference in the Islamic and Christian concept of God. I think most readers here are aware of this difference and of many of its implications:

"Allah is Greater" in literal meaning. When said by Muslims it really means is greater than anything, or in other words greater than what can be described.”

The literal and usual translation of the Takbīr is "God is [the] Greatest," or "God is Great". However, I find the first translation more consistent when referring to an omnipotent deity. This is of course just a minor technicality.

Literally “omnipotence” refers to the unlimited power of the deity (from latin “Omni Potens” meaning “all power”). In Western philosophy or scholastics omnipotence is often listed as just one of a deity's characteristics among many, including “omniscience” (the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc.), “omnipresence” (the property of being present everywhere), and “omnibenevolence” (unlimited or infinite benevolence).

Let us examine the possible implications of the unlimited power (omnipotence) attributed to a deity more closely.

The term “omnipotent” has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do.

2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.

3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).

4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.

5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.

6. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.

Under many philosophical definitions of the term "deity", senses 2, 3 and 4 can be shown to be equivalent, but I disagree.

However, on all understandings of omnipotence, it is generally held that a deity is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics, since they are not part of its nature, but the principles on which it has created the physical world. However many modern scholars hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for a deity to go against its own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so.

Another problem is the sex of the deity. It would seem logic to assign deities to both sexes. Since having only one sex would make a deity less powerful and thus no longer all-powerful (omnipotent). On the other hand how can humans possibly know how many sexes there may exist. In my view it seems more logical to assume that the deity either has all possible sexes or is beyond all such categories because they only apply to the creatures the deity created.

This is the traditional Islamic position, expressed by you as “in other words greater than what can be described.” The deity called “Allah” is “pure agency”, position 2 and 6.

The Christian deity “God” is not “pure agency” but limited by logic, position 1, and by the limitations in positions 3, 4, and 5.

On the face of it Allah seems to be “more omnipotent” and “more transcendent” than “God” because Allah only let the humans know what they needed to know to live their lives in accordance with “his” will, and “he” revealed practically nothing directly about “himself”.

One of the many problems is of course that the instructions "he" gave are not consistent and Allah allows to correct “himself” by abrogating earlier instructions with newer and better ones. This is however not a problem for Muslims because logic and consistency only apply to imperfect humans, not to Allah.

I for my part find it impossible to believe in a deity such as Allah, but on the other hand faith is not about logic and consistency or about what humans want or think is right or wrong but about believing in spite of all reason, in spite of all human nature – it is about experiencing the deity and believing without any doubt in the subjective truths that flows from the experience.

I even find it impossible to believe in the Christian God because this deity seems to be an anthropological reflection of human nature just much more powerful, omnipotence with certain limitations, because the basic characteristics of such a deity is placed in a logical dilemma. (As all possible omnipotent dieties with necessary existence are).

My position as an agnostic is based upon conceptual logic, so my remarks are of course of no relevance for the Muslim concept of and belief in Allah.

Muslim:C20B1N4597 “The Prophet said at the conquest of Mecca: ‘There is no migration now,
but only Jihad, fighting for the Cause of Islam. When you are asked to set out on a Jihad
expedition, you should readily do so.’”

Tabari VI:138 “Those present at the oath of Aqabah had sworn an allegiance to Muhammad.
It was a pledge of war against all men. Allah had permitted fighting.”

"As an unbeliever who do not abide in Jesus I am no expert on souls. Hell, I don't even know what that magical word means."

I find it very hard to believe that you do not know what the word "soul" means, given your propensity to examine and pick apart the Christian faith. Surely you jest.

"Being such an expert in exegesis and misappropriation yourself"

This smacks of being a tit-4-tat, unless of course you care to back it up with any misappropriations on my part. Waiting ...

As to the remainder of your egregious comment, I could not improve on Kepha's appropriate response; and I also agree with Spot on, that you've made a sport out of attacking Christians and Christianity.

It is also apparent that you have many warm 'n fuzzy feelings for allah & muslims, so perhaps you are closer to converting than you think ...to islam, that is. Maybe Mohammad could assist you with that. I mean you are THAT close, so go for it.


Hi, George ...

Am I correct in assuming that you're yawning at ipso? I think he's ready to convert, don't you? He has really stepped-up his moral equivalency campaign to where I think he's ready to take the plunge! Give this man a dhimmi award ...

Muslim:C20B1N4597 “The Prophet said at the conquest of Mecca: ‘There is no migration now,
but only Jihad, fighting for the Cause of Islam. When you are asked to set out on a Jihad
expedition, you should readily do so.’”
Tabari VI:138 “Those present at the oath of Aqabah had sworn an allegiance to Muhammad.
It was a pledge of war against all men. Allah had permitted fighting.”
'Islam' a religion of PEACE?

Thank you, Spot on! ...and I enjoy your comments as well, much love & peace to my brother in Christ :)

Spot on,

I appreciate your defenses of certain aspects of my position. However, I think you are not thinking through one crucial angle. Two quotes from one of your recent comments will serve to illustrate a fundamental contradiction in your stance, a contradiction it seems to me based on simply not thinking things through:

1) "I agree that his [Hesperado's] current proposed solution is not practical in a humane world. That needs some work."

2) "I have been reviewing the solution to the Japanese religious fanaticism of WWII. McArthur defanged that religion by separating the diety from temporal power. I believe this could be done with Islam."

You surely must know historically the conditions which made MacArthur's policy of defanging religious fanaticism in Japan's sociopolitical culture (and also reforming the society in general): He was able to do so in the wake of the smoldering ruins of horrific fire-bombings and atom-bombings we had inflicted on hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women and children (many of them innocent in the sense Wellington and others here would argue, though not innocent in terms cogently asserted at the time by General Curtis LeMay -- and certainly not innocent enough to prevent the US government from killing them!). So you have not thought through your theory of applying the MacArthur's project to Islam -- not if you want our project with Islam to be "humane". Unless you think it was "humane" to kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in the horrific manner of fire-bombings and atom-bombings (and to ruin the lives of thousands more in the aftermath of those bombings who were horribly injured and their property and infrastructure destroyed).

You are not alone in not thinking this through: Robert Spencer himself suggested a proposal of this application of the MacArthur project onto Islam (neglecting, of course, to factor in the horrific bombings that made that project feasible).

Ipso Facto is incorrect when he asserted:

The literal and usual translation of the Takbīr is "God is [the] Greatest," or "God is Great".

The Arabic akbar is the comparative, not the superlative.

Geert Wilders is not "anti-Muslim", and Muslims should not be "anti-Geert".

There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.

This was an extremely sad event, showing how religious fanaticism can lead to such horrors where innocent girls burn to death because they were not properly dressed to escape the fire. How inhumane can Islam get? Like this!

The reason I bring this up again is because that is how I see Muslims trying to escape Islam. They are not properly 'dressed' so are pushed back into the fire of their primitive belief system. What the West can do is help them escape to save their lives, their humanity and dignity. Sure, it will not be easy, and some will condemn the victims before they jump. But given a chance, as more and more escape, the floodgates to freedom will be thrown open throughout the Muslim world, which will be a historic event. It starts with banning the burqa, followed by banning Sharia, and finally by exposing to the whole world the truths of Islam. Jihad will lose its appeal on the Muslim masses, and Islam will start to crumble, its mosques falling into disuse. In 50 years, or less, it will have lost its appeal and relegated to the trash heaps of history as another mad cult of Arabian folklore. Freedom is a very powerful tool in society. Loose the creative spirit of Muslim lands throughout the globe, and we can see a surge in revival of human ideals on a whole new level of development, from sciences to the arts. I actually believe this will happen.

"You are not alone in not thinking this through: Robert Spencer himself suggested a proposal of this application of the MacArthur project onto Islam (neglecting, of course, to factor in the horrific bombings that made that project feasible)."...Hesperado

Hesperado,

Atom bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the alternative was possible impeachment of President Truman for deriliction of duty. He was faced with excessive losses of troops if he did not drop the bomb. People played hard ball in those days. The population universally hated the Japanese (and Germans) due to the war. All this I am sure you already know.

My specific logic is that we could possibly be successful in demonizing Shariah law as an uncivilized practice as opposed to demonizing "moderate" Islamic human beings which would not be acceptable in todays world. It would be necessary then to outlaw Shariah here, Canada, Australia, and in Europe for a starters. Through pressure, other countries would have to make a choice to be a modern country or to remain in the 7th century.

I would like for you to seriously think about this and let me know your thoughts. My worst fear is that the liberal elites would have no part of either this approach or your approach. The liberal elites may see the demise of freedom due to the increased crime associated Shariah as a benefit to their power. If this is the case, we are all just spinning our wheels. It is important that we never forget that 20% of our population hates the USA and fully supports the liberal elites. Personally, I have no problem what-so-ever with your solution. My only question is how to get it accepted by the public. I value your thorough thinking on this entire subject.

"YAWN..."

So Ditto. Lots of obtuse verbiage here, signifying nothing.

I offer up this comment by "venkat" which was posted on another thread, but it certainly pertains to this thread as well:

"i frankly think islam is not the problem muslims are. islam was found during turbulent war torn times when it was ok to kill another person who have a different color , ideology or beliefs. the prob arises when todays muslims implement those war strategies to propogate islam. think about it . i think muslims have to modify their religion as per the current scenario which they just refuse."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hope you don't mind my posting your comment, venkat, but you make an excellent point.


Hi Champ!

I am indeed yawning at the inimitable Mr. Equivalence, or Mr. Impertinence, if you prefer. I've never seen so many words add-up to so little. What a shameless demagogue! And a self-important, thread-derailing divider here, not a uniter.

Ah, well, it takes all kinds, as they say, and I don't have to take him seriously. Which works-out really well because I most surely do not!

G



Hey George!

Yeah both Mr's would describe him very well, as he is certainly very imputent and cocky (which is not the same as impotent, although he might be, lol) in his long-winded comments.

Oh, and you must be careful putting down ipso, because a certain someone may take issue with your comment and clump you in with Kim and I, as I dared to call him "boring" ...for shame!! So prepare yourself for a keyboard lashing from ASS. Sorry, I mean AS.

Hello to you Ipso!

The logic that we in the world go by, or lets say the rules of Physics/Chemistry.. and so on are defined for Mass/Energy/Waves... in other words anything corporeal/Perceptual. In Islam, God does not have a Corp and is not bound to Space/Time ( this is derived directly from not having a corp).

"My position as an agnostic is based upon conceptual logic, so my remarks are of course of no relevance for the Muslim concept of and belief in Allah. "

I disagree with this. In Islam there are two two approaches to "Tawhid" (Monotheism) . One is innate and the other is through logical reasoning. I couldn't find a good link and don't want to go over it all here(too long) but there is a logical way of Proving that there is a Necessary Existence and using logical derivations, one can prove the "Characteristics" of this Existence, which are the "Names" of God given in Islam (e.g. Samad...)

This link could give you a bit more information on "God In Islam" :

http://www.al-islam.org/concept/

"Ipso Facto is incorrect when he asserted:

The literal and usual translation of the Takbīr is "God is [the] Greatest," or "God is Great".

The Arabic akbar is the comparative, not the superlative."

I am aware of the difficulties involved in translating from Arabic to English. In many cases no literal translation is possible.

However, the literal translation of “akbar” is “greater”. The arabic word for “great” is “kebir”.

Also, 'Allah' is not simply the Arabic word for 'God,' but the name of Islam's chosen deity (i.e. the pre-Islamic moon god located in the Ka'aba) and 'Akbar' does not mean 'great,' but 'greater.' Greater than what? The answer is - Allah is greater … than whatever god you happen to believe in.

In the English translation the omnipotence of Allah is made explicit by translating the Takbīr to "God is [the] Greatest.” Then you awoid the comparative question "greather than what?". Therefore I prefer this translation and so does most modern arabic scholars and also Robert Spencer. Islam 101 on JW has: "Allahu Akhbar: "God is Great(-est)"; term of praise; war cry of Muslims."

There is a similar translation difficulty in Vulgate from Greek to Latin and then to English in the hymn Luke 2:14: “Glory be to God in the highest”. The greek word ὑψίστοις meaning “the highest” is translated to either “altissimis” (meaning “highest”) or the preferred “excélsis” literally meaning “high” (Excelsior means “Higher”).

Literally “Glória in excélsis Deo” translates to “Glory be to God on high” and not “Glory be to God in the highest”.

Book of Common Prayer (1662) translates to “Glory be to God on high”. St. Andrew Daily Missal (1952) to ”Glory to God in the highest” and so does ”ICET ecumenical version (1975)", ”Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople New Rome, Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain”, ”Orthodox Church in America (late twentieth century)”, ”Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (late twentieth century)” and ”ICEL (2007). The only contemporary exception seems to be “Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America (late twentieth century)” with “Glory be to God on high”.

So you have to be more specific than just referring to the grammatical form and the literal meaning of a word. I reject your criticism as not relevant.

CW,

Thanks for the corroboration!

G

Hey George!

Yeah both Mr's would describe him very well, as he is certainly very imputent and cocky (which is not the same as impotent, although he might be, lol) in his long-winded comments.

Oh, and you must be careful putting down ipso, because a certain someone may take issue with your comment and clump you in with Kim and I, as I dared to call him "boring" ...for shame!! So prepare yourself for a keyboard lashing from ASS. Sorry, I mean AS.

Yes, you did dare to call him boring, but that was only because you had nothing else to respond with. For someone with "religious truth" on your side, you can't seem to defend it that well. I guess it's just easier for you to throw out petty insults like you did here, implying that Ipso is "impotent." Wow, champ. You are usually just parroting the comments of other, more informed commenters when you aren't creating straw man arguments and name calling, but I would hope you wouldn't venture this low. Thanks for proving my earlier point about simplistic arguments.

hey Champ, Kim, George

I would call Ipsa a graphomaniac if he only limited himself to his own prose. But what makes him unique is that he shamelessly lifts entire pages from articles written by others and passing it as his own. So perhaps not so much a graphomaniac as pasteomaniac. Now he is quite messy so he may paste from different sources without paying much attention how the different parts fit. That what explains his scattered often non sequitur argumentation. That messiness was the thing that made me suspect the fellow is a “shoplifter”.

On the “Happy Independence Day” thread where he “discusses” with Wellington and myself I caught him stealing an entire long article and passing for his own. I responded to his brazen plagiarism with following:

“If you want to argue please produce your own replies instead of lifting an entire article of somebody else and presenting as your own. That is really not fair - not only toward the true author of the article, who BTW asks "Please do not distribute", but also toward the rest of us who are taking you seriously and spend time and effort to engage you. One can of course quote or refer to work of others, but what you are doing (I suspect, not the first time) is not that. It simply is unethical.”

Amazingly, he never as much as acknowledged the fact, or tried to explain it. He was utterly unconcerned with being caught red handed and proceeded cheerfully as if nothing happened. Incredible. The fellow is impervious to embarrassment.
When I saw on the current threat his philosophizing about omnipotence I googled around using a conspicuously professional sounding part of one of “his” sentences and, voila, quickly located the place from which it was pinched:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Omnipotent/107969999237339

I am sure some more googling will quickly yield the source of other parts of his comment. Please try. It’s fun.

Actually, you don't parrot as much as you cheerlead. Kim does the same thing. I just read through the recent Al-Awlaki thread and three posts in a row.. "I completely agree, excellent post", "lol! I thought the same thing, too.", "Hear, hear..."

You are trying to turn George, someone I have never spoken to, into an enemy of mine simply because he agrees with you on something. Let me be clear, the reason I don't respect neither you or Kim is not because you claim to be Christians, but because your posts contain very little outside of petty name calling, parroting of other people's opinions, and cheerleading.

Oops, forgot to delete the word "neither."

Hi, Thomas_h!

I find his comments to be *BORING* as hell, although some may find his twisted-pretzel-logic interesting, lol ...

Hope you are well, my friend :)

Cheerleading is FUN! ...you should try it :)

Love you!

In a comment to Hesperado you wrote:

" ... Atom bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the alternative was possible impeachment of President Truman for dereliction of duty. He was faced with excessive losses of troops if he did not drop the bomb. People played hard ball in those days. The population universally hated the Japanese (and Germans) due to the war. All this I am sure you already know. ..."

Having studied the political decision process leading up to deployment of nuclear weapons against two primarily civilian targets in Japan rather closely, I must admit, that I have never seen anything to suggest that a possible impeachment of the president, because of his conduct of the war, played any part in the decision.

Could you be kind enough to give a reference to a primary source supporting this hypothesis?

And if possible supply the names of lawmakers and/or other powerful individuals or groups who actively worked for the impeachment of president Truman?

In my opinion Truman should have been impeached AFTER the surrender of Japan for war crimes. And he would have been convicted together with other members of his government and top generals if the definition of war crimes used at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials to convict the political leaders and generals of the enemy had been applied evenly against both the defeated and the victors:

“Most difficult of all, the western states had to accept Soviet insistence that only Axis aggression was covered by the new legal instruments. Otherwise the Soviet government would have been in the dock as well, for carving up Poland in September 1939 and attacking Finland three months later.

The western powers also knew that Stalin's regime was guilty of many of the crimes against humanity laid out against the German prisoners, but were forced to keep silent in order to maintain a public face of collaboration.

For their part, the western Allies decided not to include the bombing of London, Warsaw and Rotterdam as a war crime, since they had engaged in massively destructive bombing campaigns of their own.” (Quoted from ”Making Justice at Nuremberg, 1945 – 1946”, 2005, by Professor Richard Overy).

AS,

I make no secret of my respect and affection for Champ. That said, I've found nothing in your posts objectionable, in fact, quite the opposite, I think you're on the mark, literate and funny, too. Because I respect you all, I have not participated in the unfortunate duels among you, Kim and Champ.

I wish you guys could bury the hatchet! Religious preferences aside, all 3 of you know why we're here and who the real enemy is. I understand and respect that Kim and Champ are Christians and that you are not. These are very personal choices and shouldn't detract from our common purpose. I wish you guys could co-exist under the same tent here!

So, just to let you know; I am not, and don't intend to be your enemy here. I suppose that could happen, but if so, we'll go toe-to-toe on our own terms. I know a lot of bad-blood has gone down between you guys. I hope you can find a way to work it out...

Thanks & Regards,

G


Thank you, George! ...and I love and respest you, too! xoxo

I have also extensively studied the end-of -war events with the Empire of Japan and I find that Ipso Facto is grinding a personal axe with his fatuous insistence that Truman (and by proxy the USA) is guilty of "war crimes."
Not only is this nonsense on its face, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at-hand. Except, perhaps, that this person would ostensibly prefer to lose wars than win them...

"I wish you guys could bury the hatchet!"

I love George's idea, AS ...so what do you say? I want to bury the hatchet, do you?

Doesn't mean that I'm going to stop cheerleading, or change my style in how I comment; but I see no reason in putting George, or any other poster, through our conflict any longer.

So how about it! ...lets bury the hatchet!

Shake?!

I never had a chance to reply and thank you for your much valued contributions to the very interesting discussion you, Wellington, and I had in the Happy Independence Day thread.

Suddenly everybody was gone.

At the end your gallantry even inspired me to a few lines of poetry, did you read it?

If not now you got a second chance:

"Here we fought our battles on words for the truth. We fought them against ourselves and each other in the grand style of give and take. So much more to learn, so much uncertainty, that is the condition of our existence. But all good things come to an end, and this is the end my friends:

“Honestly, what will become of me?
I don't like reality
It's way too clear to me

But really life is dandy
We are what we don't see
We miss everything daydreaming

Flames to dust
Lovers to friends
Why do all good things come to an end?

And the sun was wondering if it should
Stay away for a day? til the feeling went away
And the sky was falling
And the clouds were dropping
And the rain forgot how to bring salvation

The dogs were tune barking at the new moon
Whistling a new tune
Hoping it would come soon
So that they could die.”

("All Good Things (Come to an End)" is a song written by singer Nelly Furtado, Timbaland, Danja and Chris Martin for Furtado's third album, "Loose", 2006)."

Have the dogs stopped barking my friend?

"I have also extensively studied the end-of -war events with the Empire of Japan ..."

Excellent. Then please tell me if you can confirm the hypothesis about impeachment of president Truman put forward by Spot on?

I would really appreciate it my friend. One of the most valuable aspect of a free debate is learning from each other.

Hope you are well?

Wow! Thought I would take another casual glance at this thread and, wo boy, it's still producin'. I don't mean to go all gooey on you guys but I think there is too much disagreement among those of us who ALL have one thing in common and that is opposing what Islam has in store for the West and all the world if only it's given the chance. We need to seek more agreement than disagreement with each other (hey, I'm ready to say here I'm as culpable as the next poster to not adhering to this precept at all times). I'm with champ------time to shake.

Well, that's my two cents worth. Understand well, though, that if you want to continue ripping each other apart, I'm not gonna' get in the way. After all, freedom is more important than discretion, even though discretion is very important. Meanwhile, that Islamic monster out there is lickin' its chops. Just sayin'.


Oh, you're going to cross the Rubicon and speak directly to me now? Quick, Martha, get the camera, look at those flying pigs! Whatever...

To answer your question: I have seen nothing to suggest impeachment as an issue in the end-of-war scenario with Imperial Japan. The issue(s) were with the desperate intransigence and indecision of the Japanese government, in particular its military contingent, to end the war. Only the unprecedented intervention of the emperor himself--and only after BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki, AND the entry of the USSR--only then did the emperor intervene with the Supreme Council to submit to terms.

So, I agree that you are correct; I have not encountered anything to indicate or suggest presidential-impeachment as an issue in those events.

Which changes none of my prior observations or opinions of your act here, and is not to be construed an invitation to another 18-page treatise...


Thank you for your kind and informative reply.

"I'm with champ------time to shake."

Thank you, Wellington!

Yeah, my offer still stands, AS ...I would really like for you and I to get along. Come on, what do you say?

Friends?!

Thanks for the kind words, George.

I'm willing to bury it as well. There are more important issues to worry about in this fight against Islamic jihad.

One proviso — mutual respect must exist. I respect that you are a Christian, and I would ask you to respect that I am not one. It doesn't make me a bad person, and statements like "pay no attention to any atheists" (not sure if it was you or Kim who said this a while back) will only cause divisiveness on a site where people of all backgrounds should come together for a common purpose. We can disagree, but the back and forth immaturity and name calling has got to stop.

Deal?

Agreed, Wellington.

You are one of the most respectable contributors to this site, and I would hate for you to waste time on trivial squabbles such as this. Thank you for your insight.

Sorry, that should read "such as these." I'm clumsy today.

Deal! ...and I've never said "pay no attention to atheists", but I'm sure that I've stated other hurtful things to you in the past, so I am truly sorry for offending you.

Great, now I can get a good nights sleep, because I've been waiting for you to write me back. Thank you!

Take care :)

Same here, I apologize for offending you as well.

I once read a comment on JW, stating: "..when in a foxhole, I'm with the ones shooting in the right direction".

And that's what it pretty much boils down to for me. Geert Wilders is shooting straight and his tactics and strategy, with the limited maneuvering space he has as a politician, are right on the mark. He promises change we can really believe in ;-)


Kind regs to all from Amsterdam,
Sag.

P.s.: @Wellington, you've got both style and substance. Your way of tactfully bridging differences of opinion while not losing sight of the subject at hand, i.m.o. reflects true leadership, of this comments section at least ;-)

Take care.

Ipso Facto,

Re: Truman and Hiroshima

Sorry for the dramatic interpretation.

If Truman had NOT used the bomb and lost 1 million troops as a result and later this was discovered, he would most certainly have been impeached (in my humble opinion). As I said, people in those days REALLY hated the Japanese or "Japs" as they were called then. I didn't give much thought to this subject when I wrote it because it was not pertinant to the subject at hand. It is good to know that everyone is reading everything.

I am sorry, but I don't understand the message (is there one?).
Perhaps because I've never hear of Furtado or Timbaland. Honestly.
Otherwise, best wishes to you.

Well, that's my two cents worth.

Two cents made of 24 karat gold.

Take care, my friend.

Sagunto,

Geert Wilders is shooting straight and his tactics and strategy, with the limited maneuvering space he has as a politician, are right on the mark.

It can't be put more truthfully. And succinctly.

He promises change we can really believe in

Perhaps, "He promises change if we really believe in it".
(The underlying assumption being that we act upon our beliefs)

P.s.: @Wellington, you've got both style and substance. Your way of tactfully bridging differences of opinion while not losing sight of the subject at hand, i.m.o. reflects true leadership,...

Sagunto, too late! I had beat you to that one!

best regards,

Thomas_h (Herken je me nog?)

Suddenly this thread is filled with excuses, regrets, and - I am so sorry I hurt your feelings- statements. It makes me puke. You could all need a refresher course in the art of saying you're sorry:

“Just say you're sorry. Never say you're sorry "if." Say you're sorry.

"I'm sorry I was rude" is good.

"I'm sorry if I was rude" is not. It weasels. It implies that maybe you weren't rude. It implies that the person being apologized to has a twisted little worldview if they think "Oh, shut up, frog-lips" is rude.

An apology should give the sense that you actually feel some form of regret. "Sorry if" is a conditional apology. Conditional apologies make things worse, not better.

"I'm sorry your frog is dead" is better than "I'm sorry if your frog's death causes you pain."

Similarly, "I'm sorry I taunted you about your frog's death" is better than "I'm sorry if my taunting you about your frog's death caused you pain."

When "I'm sorry" is an apology, it conveys remorse. "I'm sorry" can also be an expression of sympathy, a thing people occasionally forget.

"I'm sorry your frog died."
"Why are you sorry? You didn't kill my frog!"
But what if you did kill their frog? "I'm sorry I killed your frog" is better than "I'm sorry if my killing your frog caused you pain."

Making the if silent does not help. "I'm sorry my killing your frog caused you pain" contains a silent if, because it still implies that your regret is not for the action (killing the frog) but for the suffering it caused (oh, boo hoo), which by implication need not have followed from the action. It implies an argument about the value of the frog, and although you may differ on this subject, an apology is not the time to bring it up. Do you say, "Sorry about your whole family being killed, but, you know, I never liked them"? No.

What if there is genuine uncertainty? That's different. "I'm sorry your frog died" contains no silent if. "I'm sorry if your frog died" is a different sentence that implies that the frog may turn up at any moment, having just stepped out to catch a movie and forgotten to turn its pager back on.
"I'm sorry if my anvil fell on you -- it didn't? -- Oh, I'm so glad."

Even worse than "sorry if" is the poisoned apology: "I'm sorry my taunting you about your frog's death caused you pain. You should seek therapy."

Taking personal frogs out of the matter enables us to take an objective look at more general apologies.
"I'm sorry that hundreds of frog species around the world are going extinct and that woodlands that once throbbed with their gladsome croaking are now silent." This denotes simple regret.

"I'm sorry that my air-conditioned car has contributed to a situation that has caused hundreds of frog species around the world to go extinct and that woodlands that once throbbed with their gladsome croaking are now silent." This denotes regret and acknowledgment of personal responsibility.

"I'm sorry that you feel that my air-conditioned car has caused hundreds of frog species around the world to go extinct and that woodlands that once throbbed with their gladsome croaking are now silent, but would you please move your bicycle?" This includes a skillful substitution of "that" for "if," and denotes faux regret and implicit announcement of imminent homicidal attack. It does not count as an apology.

Let's try some examples without frogs. (An editor suggests that these lessons are too simplistic. But first of all, you might be surprised at how hard it apparently is for certain people to understand the most basic principles of a modest apology -- it's like it would kill them to say they're sorry! Second of all, those who require this information include not only individuals but nations. And when you are explaining things to nations, you cannot make it too simple.)

"I'm sorry for what I said" is better than "I'm sorry if you took what I said the wrong way."

"I'm sorry we bombed your embassy" is better than "I regret the suffering you experienced upon learning of the bombing of your embassy, and the suffering, though it was surely quite brief, of any who were in your bombed embassy, and indeed the suffering of anyone in any bombed building anywhere in the world today is something I regret, even if it was accidental, in fact I regret all suffering. It is sad that there is suffering. I regret it. OK?"

"I'm sorry your pilot is dead" is better than "I'm sorry if your pilot's death has caused irrational national mourning."
It is also better than "I'm sorry our airplane knocked your pilot out of the air," which is in turn better than "I'm sorry if our airplane knocking your pilot out of the air is something you insist on taking as a national insult."

Having established that "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" is far better than "I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings" we might also note that specificity is also a crowd-pleaser in apologies:

"I'm sorry."
"For what?"
"Everything."

"You mean for standing me up at the restaurant, making a pass at my best friend and telling my mother it was my fault for drunkenly cracking up your car when in fact it was you who totaled it when you swerved to run over a frog?"
"Yeah, yeah."
"Say it!"
"OK, OK, I'm sorry about standing you up, I'm sorry about hitting on Chris, I'm sorry about what I said to your mom, OK? I'm sorry!"

"What about the frog? Are you sorry about the frog?"
Here the dialogue can go two ways:

"Yes, I'm sorry about the frog."
"Thank you. I appreciate the apology."

Or:

"No, I'm not sorry about the frog. The frog was asking for it. The frog kept me up all night with his incessant croaking and this whole thing would never have happened if I was better rested."

"Oh? Well, I don't think we can be together until you've learned to accept responsibility."

"Oh? Well, maybe you should tell Chris that. Chris understands how I feel about frogs. I'm going to call Chris right now."

Because specificity is so valuable, "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings," while good, is not quite as good as "I'm sorry I called you flaming dog poop."

We now understand that the "if" in "I'm sorry if my calling you flaming dog poop hurt your feelings" is not good, implying as it does:

"I'm sorry if my calling you flaming dog poop wasn't something that you were able to accept in the lighthearted spirit of give-and-take in which it was intended and in which most well-balanced people certainly would have taken it. My previous significant other -- God, how I miss that merry jokester! -- wouldn't have minded a bit."

There are various wording subtleties that can confuse the distinction between "sorry" and "sorry if." "Sorry for" is one such variant. "I'm sorry for what I did" is OK.
"I'm sorry for you" has come to be a deadly insult and is often used in "sorry if" phrases:

"I'm sorry for you if you can't understand that 'space cadet' is a term of endearment" or "I'm sorry for you if you can't see that my setting your clothes alight was a friendly joke, a gesture of intimacy."

Fooling with the basic "I'm sorry" formula is not as good an idea as you think. "Regret" and "rue" just make people suspicious. "Remorse" can work, though, especially if you describe just how eaten through you are with it.

"I apologize" is good, although if you have a history of issuing weasel apologies it can be worrisome: What kind of apology did you make? Was it a "sorry" or a "sorry if"? Tip:
If you secretly feel that your apology left your pride unbowed, it may have been a weasel apology.

To sum up:

"I'm sorry I hurt your feelings": good.
"I'm sorry I made fun of the way you walk": better.
"I'm sorry if my making fun of the way you walk hurt your feelings": bad.

These rules do not describe the entire world of apologies. Creative souls will always find their own way.

"I'm sorry if it seemed like I was making fun of the way you walk: I was bringing my sister her purse and I choked on a moth at the same time as I slipped on a dead frog and turned my ankle": good if you can carry it off.”

- And I do not apologize for stealing this text from somebody else because everybody should know by now that I could never ever have authored this crap. If I ever hurt someones feelings, religious, political or nationalistic idiosyncrasies or overblown egos, they deserved it. I am not sorry, I am not sorry. ;-)

- Last words to McMurphy the most normal person in the nuthouse:

“Which one of you nuts has got any guts?”

“In one week, I can put a bug so far up her ass, she don't know whether to shit or wind her wristwatch.”

“What are you doin' here? You oughta be out in a convertible bird-doggin' chicks and bangin' beaver."

Geert Wilders got the guts, he has put a bug far up Islam´s stupid ass, and is out banging hypocrazies. He is actually doing it, and you are changing each others diapers and leaking shit. I think I will puke again. ;-)

Thomas H, thank you for that info re your research and the apparent "lifting" discovered. I do recall the thread you referenced and if memory serves, you were right in the thick of it, but somehow I missed that comment from you. Only further proof that one who would fool JW-people would do well to set his alarm to "early-dark-thirty!" Best wishes to you, sir!

Hi Thomas H.,

You justly corrected me paraphrasing Pres. "Brakke Hoessein Oboema":
Perhaps, "He promises change if we really believe in it".
(The underlying assumption being that we act upon our beliefs)

So very true..

Thomas_h (Herken je me nog?)
Ik herken een geestverwant, maar een kleine hint zou misschien helpen? (Transl: I recognize a kindred spirit..)

All the best to you, from Amsterdam,
Sag.

To all those who wonder what was that; - it is the leftovers from the most recent fit of Ipso's copy/paste mania. As usual, he doesn't mention the source and the author. I begin suspecting he probably believes he wrote that.

Here is from where he pinched the witty stuff:
www.salon.com/people/feature/2001/08/23/sorry_ifto

The first three and two last lines about puking, or something, is genuine Ipso Facto.

Hey Sagunto,

All the best to you, from Amsterdam,

And all the best to you and Amsterdam, from Copenhagen.

Thomas

Incredible! He just couldn't stand it for another minute!

"Well your honor, the pressure just built-up in my head and I HAD to lecture them, show them the right way, MY WAY. I'm sorry if I hurt their feelings by calling them a bunch of pussies. But they proceeded without MY permission, without MY wisdom. And, and, I was puking all over myself and all that pressure in my head...so I puked all over THEM! Because they DESERVED it. Because I said so!"

Your honor, the prosecution rests...

Don't anyone sneeze or this string will start all over again.

hey George,

Thank you.

...to set alarm to "early-dark-thirty!"

I never heard it before. Very good one! Sounds like one of these curt and snappy phrases one learns in the military.

take care,

Thomas

Very funny!
I am sitting here with a few friends and we are stil roaring.
cheers

I mean roaring with laughter, of course. Otherwise we are rather genteel sort of individuals.

“Sorry for the dramatic interpretation.

If Truman had NOT used the bomb and lost 1 million troops as a result and later this was discovered, he would most certainly have been impeached (in my humble opinion). As I said, people in those days REALLY hated the Japanese or "Japs" as they were called then. I didn't give much thought to this subject when I wrote it because it was not pertinent to the subject at hand. It is good to know that everyone is reading everything.”

Now you are sorry and ask for forgiveness? You won´t get it from me. I think it is about time you got your head out of your ass and started facing reality instead of spreading conspiracy hypothesis like a rabid Muslim after 9/11.

I think it is about time you take ownership and responsibility for the nonsense you have spread on this thread.

The fact of the matter is, that the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets had little or nothing to do with the Japanese surrender.

Much more innocent civilians had actually been killed during the rain of terror from the sky with firebombings of the larger Japanese cities than the numbers burned to ashes in the firestorms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What changed the scales in favor of surrender was that the Soviet Unions – as promised in Potsdam - declared war on Japan and immediately attacked to grab some land before the country collapsed.

And of course the almost unprecedented direct intervention by the Emperor in the decision process.

The Americans were actually playing a stupid farce and double game towards Japan by sticking to the war goal of “unconditional surrender” stated by the naive Roosevelt in order to gain the trust of the suspicious Stalin who was afraid the Americans might make a separate peace deal with Germany and attack the Soviet Union together with the German Wehrmacht.

Because that was exactly what Stalin did when he made an alliance with the arch enemy Hitler and got a large piece of Eastern Poland and the Baltic republics in return.

The Soviet Union was not at war with Japan when the stupid goal of “unconditional surrender” was proclaimed, so it was not binding in regard to Japan. A political faction headed by the Emperor was desperately seeking peace on one condition – the retention of the monarchy.

A condition most members of the Truman administration was prepared to accept, but it was deleted from the draft Potsdam Declaration written by the Secretary of War, Stimson. I think that Truman was fooled into using the nuclear weapon and did not know what he had done. In his first public statement about Hiroshima he described the target as military barracks. Later he bought into the myth that the bombing actually saved millions of lives. It seems to me that Truman had lost his marbles or that they were taken away from him by cynical people in his administration and among the generals.

Truman was much smarter and more realistic about the war before he became president.

On June 23, 1941, the day after Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Senator Truman declared: 

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."

Although the sentiment was in line with what many Americans felt at the time, it was regarded by later biographers as both inappropriate and cynical.

We talk a lot about necessary and unnecessary wars these days. I would say that the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was the most unnecessary use of overwhelming force and wanton destruction of innocent lives in the history of war. All that was needed to achieve surrender was to tell the bloody Japanese explicidly that they could retain their beloved Emperor.

Had Truman not been misguided and misinformed by the cynics and achieved complete victory over Japan without committing the atomic war crime he would have become one of the greatest presidents in the history of the US.

From the test Truman knew about the immense destructive power of the bomb and used eschatological references to describe it in his diary:

“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.”

Truman never understood the moral abyss he had fallen into and he passed the buck on to the judgment of history when he later in life wrote:

"I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war ... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."

The point is nobody ever did it again. The immense war crimes committed by the West in WWII as pure retailiation and terror was never repeated during the Cold War. Civilized warfare became the norm. In a strange way I guess we could thank Truman for that.


Thomas_h,

Excellent detective-work again! I thought that rant sounded vaguely familiar as a comedy-bit I'd heard somewhere. So only the puking and "leaking shit" parts were original? LOL!

I hope you & friends are enjoying a "roaring" summer afternoon in Copenhagen!

Greetings from sunny Colorado!

G

With apologies to Spot on...but after the latest Ipsoid rant I feel a sneeze coming-on...

Ho...HO...HOORRRSESSSHIITTT !

Gezundheidt!

Danke!

I hope you & friends are enjoying a "roaring" summer afternoon in Copenhagen!

Thank you, George. We do.

To be more exact it is me, my friends and a crate of beer.
Terribly un-islamic! Could be something right out of the sunny Colorado.

You are really sharp. Are you a member of the Keystone Cops?

How much brain does it take to solve the mystery? - when I after the quotation mark in a separate chapter wrote:

"- And I do not apologize for stealing this text from somebody else because everybody should know by now that I could never ever have authored this crap."

I will let you in on a secret. Usually I always give reference to the sources I quote. In some cases I have forgotten to do this by a mistake or because the general character of a text is completely in line with knowledge I already posses and completely agree with, just expressed much more precise and eloquently that I am able to as English is not my first language.

And by the way I have never ever repudiated anybody for using copy and paste because it does not matter to me who wrote it. The only thing I am concerned with is - if it is true.

So don't degrade yourself to play this stupid and childish game of identifying original sources to score cheep points in the eyes of the gullible. If something seems highly unlikely and no reference is given, I kindly ask for the source. As was the case with the babbling of Spot on. And then I beat him up for his stupidity. That's all.


traeh,

A belated reply:
traeh,

You correct me in my characterization of your view when I paraphrase you as thinking certain things about "bad" Muslims. You reply that it's not, for you, a matter of "bad", but of "dangerous." Okay -- but I was just responding to your own earlier post above, in which you yourself used the word "bad" in speaking of Wilders knowing "how bad" Muslims are. So I don't think in this case you can blame me for using the word to characterize your views.

I was using the term "bad" in that context in a casual shorthand way: of course, "bad" can include "dangerous", and "dangerous" is "bad" but is other things too.

In response to my quote:

"There are times when we can't do that. The fire-bombings of Germany and of Japan, and the atomic bombings of the latter, for example. Indeed, we were driven to that horrible necessity precisely because idiots did not believe in treating Germans as the enemy in 1938 but rather held out hope in their humanity."

You wrote:

So a question then is whether it has got to that point yet, the point where just about any and all sorts of collateral damage are unavoidable. I agree that war makes the death of innocents unavoidable to some degree. The question is to what degree in particular situations.

Your "that point yet" is off target. My quote referred to two "points" in the analogue I posited:

1) the horrific killing the Allies had to inflict in WW2

2) the years preceding the belated declaration of war -- years of hoping that Hitler wasn't as bad as he seemed to be: years during which aggressive violence against Germans would have prevented not only #1 but also all the millions tortured and mass-murdered and killed in invasions by Hitler (and perhaps also a considerable number killed by Stalin).

Your response to my quote focuses on #1 and ignores #2, while my quote was centrally focused on #2! (I picked "1938" but my point applies to a few years preceding the Allies' declaration of war in 1939.)

You sometimes seem to equate pragmatic interpretation with literal truth. You recognize exceptions to pragmatic generalizations, but only to dismiss those exceptions almost to the point of their complete non-existence.

On the level of focusing on pragmatic truth, they are equivalent. Think Wittgenstein: "about what cannot be spoken of one must be silent". If we all agree (even awake, Cornelius and Spencer agree with me here) that it is impossible to tell the difference between the dangerous Muslim and the harmless Muslim then on the pragmatic level, the latter does not exist. Ockham's razor would also come in handy here. Your analogy of the clovers fails on one crucial point: you can actually show me a 4-leaf clover -- but you cannot actually show me a harmless Muslim: you can only show me a Muslim who seems harmless. Given what we know about Islam and the horrific potential of terror attacks to come, the seemingly harmless Muslim indeed should be considered even more dangerous than the wild-eyed bearded Muslim with a sign in the street that reads Behead those who insult Islam.

What function does asserting the literal truth have, when that literal truth in this context is useless? Those who insist on bringing the literal truth into the discussion either

1) are insisting on mentioning a hypothetical fact (that harmless Muslims must exist somewhere even though it is impossible to identify them for the purpose of our safety) that even they agree is pragmatically useless -- perhaps doing this simply to assuage their ethical anxiety at the prospect of what the pragmatic situation entails

or

2) they really believe there is a way to tell the difference -- sufficiently for the purpose of our safety -- between the harmless Muslim and the dangerous Muslim (in which case they would be disagreeing with Spencer that this is impossible).

If it's #1, it's preposterous for them to persist. If it's #2, they have to explain their magical key for making that impossible distinction (telling the difference -- sufficiently for the purpose of our safety -- between the harmless Muslim and the dangerous Muslim).

What actually goes on most of the time is that most people who indulge in this tend to waver back and forth incoherently between #1 and #2 or try to mush them together -- never quite attaining (and then explaining for the rest of us) the knowledge that would establish that impossible distinction, on the one hand, and never quite facing the fact that it is practically speaking impossible, even while conceding so, on the other hand.

P.S.:

There is a third tack taken to add to my two in my previous post:

3) They believe that even though we cannot identify the harmless Muslims for the purposes of our safety now, with enough time and influence upon them (combining both the carrot of secular seductions and the stick of a more no-nonsense tough policy against Muslims that of course, however, would never do anything "inhumane" to them), the harmless (and reformable) Muslims who must exist will actually come into pragmatic existence -- meaning in sufficient numbers to help us solve the problem of their Islam.

The commenter Wellington is the one who has articulated this tack the most, though I suspect the majority of Jihad Watchers subscribe to it, and it gives them a double comfort:

a) it assuages their ethical anxiety that doesn't want to be too unethical against Muslims (even if the "stick" involved will simultaneously be tough enough to make them feel they aren't taking a wimpy stand)

b) it gives them hope that the problem will be solved perhaps some day not too far in the distant future. And back to (a) -- what better way to help solve it, than with the assistance of masses of Muslims who will rejoin us in our shared humanity! * cue "We Are the World"...*

"Well your honor, the pressure just built-up in my head and I HAD to lecture them, show them the right way, MY WAY. I'm sorry if I hurt their feelings by calling them a bunch of pussies. But they proceeded without MY permission, without MY wisdom. And, and, I was puking all over myself and all that pressure in my head...so I puked all over THEM! Because they DESERVED it. Because I said so!"

Ahaha! ...that sums it up nicely, George. And I've never seen anyone soooo upset over two people reaching an understanding before in my life. I mean what a strange and backwards response, eh? Oh, wait ...

If I didn't know any better, then I would swear that ipso prefers seeing blood 'n guts than any, "Hey I'm sorry".

You guys are all so funny :)

Ipso Facto,

Obviously, you know you are acting like an idiot. Haven't you ever heard of manners. I knew that you would explode when someone treated you in a kind sort of way. You just can't hold it back, can you? You just can't hold back spewing your hatred and nonsense to anyone who treats you respectfully. You would rather show yourself as a disrespectful fool to any and all.

Please get this straight. I did not give my opinion on the merits of Truman's decision to use a bomb and so you are picking a fight here. I gave you my opinion on WHY he decided to use the bomb. Apparently you are unable to distinguish the difference.

Since readers may be interested, I will give you my opinion on the MERITS of using the bomb while keeping it very short. My opinion is that WWII was a very very bloody war with over 1/2 million (Rough Est.) already dead and expectations were that an attack on central Japan would kill 1 million (Rough est.) or many more innocent drafted Americans and a similar numbers of Japanese. The death toll would have been massive for both sides. So I would rather see 100,000+ thousand enemy killed than 1 million U.S. draftees and equal numbers of Japanese killed. Our draftees were innocent fathers, brothers, and sons of families from all over the U.S. They were snatched from their jobs and families and after a few weeks training with wooden rifles they were shipped to fight a merciless Japanese enemy with a high likleyhood of being killed. Btw, every family was involved in this war. Mothers, fathers, brothers, some children, and sisters. Everyone worked for the war effort. Food and gas was rationed, materials were rationed, and the war effort took its toll on everyones life.

You know this thread has nothing to do with the WWII bomb and therefore I will keep it brief while trying to straighten out your mischaracterizations of what I said.

Hesperado,

Re: Shariah ban vs. all Muslim ban as a defensive measure

My gut tells me that most Muslims would run away from Islam if their was no Shariah enforcement mechanism to punish them and no Madrassa schools to indoctrinate them. What is your opinion of this approach?

Champster,

Congrats to you and Allah Snackbar! There's everything right about having a little "feel-good" moment--especially when that gets our guns pointed back in the right direction!

I don't think Mr. Equivalence is into blood & guts. He's into "ethical war," and "moral war." Translation: "Losing with honor!"

OK, going to move over & let Traeh and Hesp. continue their on-topic and interesting discussion. And...enjoy the action in ring 2
where the Ipsonator is performing his live self-destruction act!

G

How much brain does it take to solve the mystery? - when I after the quotation mark in a separate chapter wrote:
"- And I do not apologize for stealing this text from somebody else because everybody should know by now that I could never ever have authored this crap."

No it doesn’t take brain, but it takes a lot of patience to first read almost the entire “crap”, (your very words), to find that hidden “information”.
Which brings us to a next question; why would anyone copy and paste “crap”? Wouldn’t it be much simpler to insert in the text (about you being ready to puke all over the place) a short line saying; “I have found a piece of crap to match my own and here is the link”.

Usually I always give reference to the sources I quote. In some cases I have forgotten to do this by a mistake or because the general character of a text is completely in line with knowledge I already posses and completely agree with, just expressed much more precise and eloquently that I am able to as English is not my first language.

OK, let’s unpack that one. You are saying

1. You always give reference to the sources you quote unless you forget to do so
2. Sometimes you don’t because “it is completely in line with knowledge” you already posses and “completely agree with”.

Let’s not waste time arguing the truthfulness of no. 1. It is number 2 that is unique in its silliness.

While under 1. you implicitly agree that sources should be mentioned you are under 2. saying that you are entitled to dispense with that rule when the source is “completely in line with your knowledge”. But that is one screaming non sequitur. How does the fact that you totally agree with someone who is much more “precise and eloquent” than you justifies your taking credit for HIS excellence? Do you want to say that the more precise and eloquent a person is the more right you have to pass his work for your own? Are you nuts?

You are intellectually lazy and that is fine. But if that makes you steal other people’s thought, work and credit then you are a thief. Simple like that. The fact that English is not your first language has absolutely nothing to do with that. It is pathetic of you to try to use it as an excuse. Shame on you.
BTW, English is not my first language either and I have to work hard to produce a decent comment, but it will never occur to me to follow your dishonest technique.

So don't degrade yourself to play this stupid and childish game of identifying original sources to score cheep points in the eyes of the gullible. If something seems highly unlikely and no reference is given, I kindly ask for the source. As was the case with the babbling of Spot on. And then I beat him up for his stupidity.
You are talking about degrading oneself!? What chutzpah! And spare us that rubbish that you are “only interested in truth” when it is so evident you are only interested in making impression on others even if it means stealing other man’s work.
And is “identifying original sources” (“proper owners of stolen goods is more apt here) “playing games”? And who exactly are the gullible? Or what makes them “gullible”? Recognizing a cheap charlatan in you?
Oh, so you beat up Spot on? Hmm, I thought he wiped the floor with you. Your delusion of grandeur is preventing you from seeing how miserably you lost.

Are you a betting man? I’ll bet you a bottle of Jack Daniels that is the perception shared by majority who followed the exchange. Shall we ask?

Well, since you've asked..

Thomas_h: +1
"Gazza Ladra": minus.. a lot

Gullible reader from Amsterdam sends kind regards,
Sag.

The saying goes, "the end does not justify the means." Translation: "A worthy goal does not justify an evil means."

I do not agree with Hesperado's viewpoint.

While it is true that many, many fanatical Muslims are guilty of such atrocious acts against so many, many people among Muslims and non-Muslims alike, so many more Muslims are NOT guilty of these same atrocious acts. It is simply wrong to lump them all together as being of one kind - that is, fanatic, bad, and dangerous.

Let's remember that many Muslims are Muslims not by choice, but by birth, by indoctrination/brainwashing that can be overcome, by compulsion, by death threats and by intimidation.

If a Walid Shoebat and a Son of Hamas, both of whom were formerly avowed terrorists, can be converted, then there's much hope for the majority of ordinary Muslims (who are in fact non-terrorists) to be converted also. I'm not saying it's an easy task - but definitely a noble goal that can be achieved through noble means.

This is why, generally speaking, I do not object to the immigration of Muslims into Western countries - because it is so much easier for them to be exposed to "liberating ideas" and be delivered or freed from Islam on Western soil than in their own Islamic countries.

hey Sag,

Thank you for your vote.It is doubly appreciated considering it came at the expense of confessing your gullibility.

“Gazza ladra” – Perfect! LOL! I almost hear Mr. Rossini applauding...

cheers,
Thomas

Hesperado wrote,

Precisely.

Recently, Lawrence Auster penned a near perfect analysis of this problem:

He wrote of --

"...the mistake of thinking that Muslims can, as a group, be reformed. They can't be reformed, because they don't share our moral framework, they don't even share it enough to reject it. What they're doing is following Islam, which is a radically different moral framework from ours and has nothing to do with ours. So long as we see them as people who are behaving immorally (that is, immorally according to our moral framework), and who therefore can be persuaded to reform themselves and behave better, we are failing to see what they are and why they do the things they do. From their point of view, their behavior is not a failure to conform to our moral framework. They don't care about our moral framework, it's nothing to them. They care about Islam. In killing infidels and funding jihad and immigrating into infidel societies and deceiving the infidels who welcome them and doing all the other wicked things their religion commands them to do, they are simply being good Muslims..."

Hesparado,

With a tight schedule and other distractions lately, while I wanted to, my friend, I have not had time to properly respond to your comments so please accept this belated reply to your July 19 3:50 PM post.

Your clear minded analysis of the problems we face are to be admired by all of us and I agree with Laurence Austers views on the subject as well. Muslims are most assuredly all deficient due to the brainwashing and permanent effects of Mohammad's legacy. You have made your case completely for me and I am sure most others as well. As I said earlier, I regard your critique of Gert Wilder's position much the same as Simon Cowell's critique of his contestants.

Those of us who come from a Christian background can easily identify the Koran and Islam as an evil satanic cult. Personally, I would outlaw the Koran and all of it's followers as I would any such cult. It is an evil book aimed at supporting the "dark side" of our beautiful universe. This type of cult always produces people who are trouble with a capital "T". Unfortunately, this type of cult inadvertantly has Constitutional protection in the USA and is accepted in the rest of the world.

Today due to their increasing numbers, Islamics have reached a point where they are now influencing free elections in the West and this is a terrible problem. Since we are still a Constitutional Republic, our elections make ALL the difference. In order to ammend the constitution, we need massive majorities throughout the USA. With our current electorate, it would be technically impossible to "fix" the Muslim problem constitutionally. Therefore it would take a calamity caused directly by Muslims to change the political climate enough to cause a constitutional change. Newt Gingrich has called for just such an ammendment but I know of no one who seriously believes that it can be done. Even Newt has not spoken of this for a long while. Newt is a political expert and I'm sure he knows that it cannot be done.

A lot of people have given great thought to the solution of this ever increasing threat to Western civilization. Now the socialists have thrown in their support for the Muslims and this coalition now cannot be overcome electorally by anything short of a calamity or war. No one has a workable answer and the odds are that it will take some kind of war to sort it all out. Any such war today is something we all dread because of the massive collateral death and damage caused by modern WMD's. In fact, I would guess that the Islamic's are leveraging their stealth war against us while taking this into account.

A possible "second best" solution has been kicked around and seriously proposed by some experts which would effectively demonize and outlaw Shariah law as a barbaric practice. This CAN be done without a constitutional ammendment and would need only a simple majority in Congress with an agreeable President to sign the bill. The result would be similiar to pulling the teeth of the tiger. The tiger could still roam around but would be almost totally disabled. In the wild, the tiger would die. I believe that if this were done, the Muslims would be relegated to a place, if they choose, where they would share the same kind of existance as certain Christian groups that do not intergrate into society such as the Amish. (I must add that I greatly love and respect the Amish and do not compare them or their Christian beliefs to Islam in any way, shape, or form.)

My gut feel is that Muslims would leave their religion in droves since they would be free in the West to do as they please without fear of revenge through Shariah. They would want to mix with our society without fear of reprisal. The Middle Eastern Muslim countries would probably continue on as they are but would clearly be shown to the world to be the backward societies that they are. In any event, our military could keep them under control.

This is not the perfect answer but it would be better than calamity or war. Generations from now, our decendents would most likely approve and they would probably still be able to see some Middle Eastern Muslim countries as backward societies. This would serve as a remembrance of the past and they would be of good cheer toward our efforts to solve a dreadful problem of our day.

Thomas,

Make that +2 for Thomas h. Thanks for the kind words, my friend.

Spot

Spot,

I see I forgot to correct Sagunto:

He wrote:

Thomas_h: +1
"Gazza Ladra": minus.. a lot

It should be:

Spot: +1
"Gazza Ladra": minus.. a lot -
(since I invited the gullible to vote on Spot-Ipso, not Thomas-Ipso, exchange).

So let's count the votes again:
Thomas, Sagunto vote "Spot wins" giving:

Spot: +2
"Gazza Ladra": minus.. a lot

Although I can guess your vote I don't count it because being the subject of voting you are barred from paricipating in it. Rules are rules! :)

take care, my friend

Spot on, you are spot on! You da man! :)

Very well presented and reasoned. Stop Sharia is what needs done next.

Spot on,

"My gut feel is that Muslims would leave their religion in droves since they would be free in the West to do as they please without fear of revenge through Shariah."

You are not taking into account the continuing -- and increasing -- numbers of volatile violent Muslims in the West seething with "radicalized" anger and plotting attacks not only against us, but also against those Muslims who might, as you ideally hypothesize, start "leaving their religion".

At any rate, I don't think Muslims will leave their religion "in droves" in such a situation of a West outlawing Sharia -- most Muslims love Islam, love Sharia, cannot think of a world without it, hate a world without it. But even with only a few leaving Islam in such a situation of a West outlawing Sharia, again the problems of violence we are facing now will only increase and threaten us with plots using WMDs. The only solution is to extricate all Muslims from our societies. The West will realize it has to do this, eventually. It's not a matter of if -- but only of when. The sooner we do it, the less costly, messy and bloody it will be. The longer we wait, the more horrible will be the consequences -- probably even worse than what happened when we waited too long to attack the Germans and Japanese in the middle of the 20th century.

Hesp,

I admire your steadfast non-blinking stand as I'm sure that many others do as well. You may be entirely correct, in that, our government being as inept as they are, could never pull off anything correctly short of a constitutional ammendment caused by a cataclysmic storm created by the people in the aftermath of an Islamic WMD thrust upon us. This is really out of our hands.

If you are correct, in my opinion, we are in for the misery of an ultimate war of unknown proportions with unknown ends. Any such war would cause marshal law to be imposed and we can never trust politicians to do the right thing.

Neither you nor I can know the future and we must hope for the best outcome. Let us hope that more people will see the danger that all Muslims pose to our very existance.

Hesperado,
Thank you for your reply. You said

On the level of focusing on pragmatic truth, [literal truth and pragmatic interpretation] are equivalent.

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.

Think Wittgenstein: "about what cannot be spoken of one must be silent".

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 a false split made by those who only know how to speak about the effible and the quantifiable. In other words, I suppose Wittgenstein, when he said that, had not read enough poetry, so he didn't understand -- as many do not 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.

If we all agree (even awake, Cornelius and Spencer agree with me here) that it is impossible to tell the difference between the dangerous Muslim and the harmless Muslim then on the pragmatic level, the latter does not exist.

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.

Ockham's razor would also come in handy here. Your analogy of the clovers fails on one crucial point: you can actually show me a 4-leaf clover -- but you cannot actually show me a harmless Muslim: you can only show me a Muslim who seems harmless. Given what we know about Islam and the horrific potential of terror attacks to come, the seemingly harmless Muslim indeed should be considered even more dangerous than the wild-eyed bearded Muslim with a sign in the street that reads Behead those who insult Islam.

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.

What function does asserting the literal truth have, when that literal truth in this context is useless?

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 abstractions or virtual realities. But one doesn't get that sense from you that you really do understand the suffering involved.

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 cold logic, wonderful 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 speak as you do! You need to express yourself more compassionately, if only to get your plans more widely accepted more quickly!

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 any illusions that that will not cause a whole lot of suffering to many innocent people. I know that Muslims are my brothers, lost for now in a tragic disaster of a belief system. But you do not seem to understand real people are involved, and some of them are good people.

So once again, 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 shows 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.

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
Crucified Again by Raymond IbrahimDavid LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter