Obama Administration passes the buck on Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero

Is this administration that stupid or just too clever for its own good???

I regard to the Gates case, Rasool Obama was asked if it was appropriate for the President to get involved in local issues, he relied 'Yes'...Can we believe anything he says?

"We are not at war with a religion but an idea which has corrupted a religion." So says Gibbs, in a succinct summary of a policy failure of immense proportions.
...................

Yes, I saw this covered on FOX News. Even this profound level of cluelessness, however, does not in itself excuse the complacency over the proposed Ground Zero Mosque, since anything more than the most cursory reading of Imam Rauf's work shows him to have embraced much of that troublesome, 'corrupting' idea himself.

"an idea that has corrupted a religion"

I want to know what that idea is that has "corrupted the religion" of Islam.

Is it the idea that the Muslims are the "best of peoples"?

Is it the idea that under the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, non-Muslims at best can expect to endure life as dhimmis, that is as people who are locked into a permanent status that guarantees deliberate humiliation (as in the conditions that accompany the payment of the Jizyah), degradation, and physical insecurity? (See Antoine Fattal, Le status legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam)?

Is it the idea that the world belongs to Allah, but that right now, that world which belongs to Allah is divided between those parts where Muslims already rule, the Dar al-Islam (the House, or Domain, of Islam), and Dar al-Harb (the House, or Domain, of War, where Infidels not yet subject to Islam still dominate), and that it is the duty of all Muslims to participate, directly or indirectly, in the Jihad or struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam?

Is it the idea that a state of permanent war, though not always of open warfare, must exist between Believer and Unbeliever, Muslim and Infidel?

Is it the idea that women and non-Muslims are permanently inferior to Muslim males in a well-ordered society, that is one where the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a, prevails?

What is it, exactly, that Mr. Gibbs, and behind Mr. Gibbs the Administration for which he stands, thinks is the "idea that has corrupted a religion," the "religion" (a Total Belief-System really, which offers a system of Complete Regulation of Life, and is not only a "religion" as we carelessly use that unexamined term, but also a politics and a geopolitics) being Islam?

We all want to know.

And we all want to know, once you have stated that "idea," what Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Magdi Alam, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and many other former Muslims, articulate and well-educated Defectors from the Army of Islam, think of your -- Mr. Gibbs', President Obama's, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security and Terrorism John Brennan's, und so weiter -- understanding of what Islam inculcates, what Islam -- taken straight up and not on the rocks - is all about.

And then we shall be exmaining what the great scholars of Islam and of the history of Islamic conquest, , beginning but not ending with Goldziher, Schacht, Snouck Hurgronje, Jeffrey, Lammens, Lal, Vajda, St. Clair Tisdall, Vryonis, Dadrian, and many dozens of others who wrote in the period 1870-1970, before the Great Inhibition set in, made of Islam, understood of Islam, after many decades of devoted and disinteressted, and linguistically-informed, study.

Then we shall all talk about it. Then we shall compare notes. Then we shall come to some conclusions as to those who utter such things as this:

"We are not at war with a religion but an idea which has corrupted a religion."

The delusion of nondiscrimination. A hundred years from now, a great historian will write:

"In the 21st century a syndrome, exponentially more dangerous than acquired immunodeficiency syndrome but not given one-tenth the attention, spread across Europe and its linguistic and intellectual descendents. It was a self-diminishing syndrome manifestly characterized by an aversion to discrimination—not among race or gender—but of values. Millions at a time abandoned the faith and values that motivated generations before them to assert themselves. Parasites invaded and incubated from within, enabled by their hosts’ inability to discriminate between its own antibodies and the parasites. One hundred years later they are indistinguishable to us as cuckoos are to magpies."

He's not at all stupid, but he's certainly not at the level of what is needed at this point. He's boxed himself in with that appalling farrago of nonsense and lies he delivered in Cairo (which speechwriters were responsible for that, possibly the worst speech by any President in American history?), and now he's stuck in Afghanistan far longer than he should be.

And we will remain in Afghanistan because in the next year or two the situation in Iraq will disintegrate (not a bad thing, but eveyone in the United States will think it a bad thing, or interpret it to be a bad thing); the Sunnis will not give in, the Shi'a will not give in -- it's all predictable and was many times here predicted, and as the prospect of giant oil revenues starting to flow loom larger, the situation will become even more volatile and unstable.

And that will put more pressure on this President, so fearful of appearing weak in foreign policy, and so impressed with the wrong people, such as his Deputy Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security and Terrorism (whew!), John Brennan, whose idea of dealing with Islam is to placate and appease, to tell Muslims exactly what he thinks they want to hear, and still worse, to try to convince his fellow Americans that what he says, when he describes Islam in a way that he thinks will not only not offend but please Muslims, is true, thus adding to the general confusion, dismay, depression, despair -- pressure to "stay the course," the goddam course, in Afghanistan, so that the "mistake" in Iraq, or even "the loss of Iraq," is not repeated.

The "conservative" or "right-wing" or "Republican" (choose whatever ready-to-wear epithet you want off the rack) diehard loyalists for "victory" in Afghanistan, apparently remain incapable of realizing that there is no game in Afghanistan worth the current candle, that the three trillion dollars squandered (using the figures of Stiglitz and Blimes, not what the Pentagon puts out) in Iraq and Afghanistan, have already given Muslim terror groups, including Al Qaeda, a victory -- by bleeding the Americans dry (it costs one milion dollars to keep one American soldier in Afghanistan, and a few hundred dollars to keep a member of Al Qaeda or the Taliban there, or any Afghan who might in the future join those groups or a dozen others determined to smite the Unbelievers).

And to them we must add Christine Amanpour, putting Nancy Pelosi on the spot with a picture of a noseless little Afghan girl, her nose cut off, and asking if we, the Americans, can really "abandon her" -- nota bene, please, that this same Christine Amanpour has been for several decades incapable of recognizing what Islam is all about, and has been nasty about those who early on saw what Islam teaches, and that even now, while apparently demanding that Americans stay in Afghanistan forever to prevent the most fanatical Muslims from acting on what Islam itself inculcates and that they take most fully to heart, and the admirers of "Three Cups of Tea" and of the good works of Sarah Chayes -- in other words, those who recognize that women and girls are mistreated, but refuse to recognize that as long as the hold of Islam remains strong, that mistreatment will naturally arise, and only weakening Islam will improve the lot of women and girls in Afghanistan.

Obama can't get out of Afghanistan, without suffering terrible political damage, as the man who "lost Afghanistan," unless and until he swallows everything in that idiotic Cairo speech, and pulls troops out of Afghanistan while doing other things to show that he is leaving not because he thinks Islam is not a threat, but because he now recognizes that it is, and that he wants, by pulling out, to no longer rescue Muslim states from the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures that they suffer from and that are a result of Islma itself. No, he wants them to suffer those consequencs, and in as many places as possible, so that the stage might be prepared for possible local ataturks to arise. And in any case, we don't have the money, and we don't have the time - many other things,including the rise of China, and above all global warming, and the economy, and whether this country is going to preserve its cultural cohesion -- these things all call, all demand attention.

Will Obama be able to figure this out? God knows.

"We are not at war with a religion but an idea which has corrupted a religion." So says Gibbs, in a succinct summary of a policy failure of immense proportions."

Robert Gibbs is a slimy snake. You can tell just by looking at him. And, of course, by his ignorance about Islam.

Every slimy thing he says comes from our Muzlim president, Hussein.

"We are not at war with a religion but an idea which has corrupted a religion."

Congratulations, Robert Gibbs - you've taken banality to a new low.

The lack of understanding of the jihadist threat and its relationship with Islam, as well as the lack of leadership from this Democratic administration, will be debated at the local level, all over the country, and the results will be in on November 2nd.

"Wildjew" , excellent commentary.

"President Obama is very clever."

"clever"-syn: wily, foxy,cunning, crafty, tricky, cagey, sneaky , weaselly,, underhanded, secretive, stealthy.....none of these is positive or denotes intelligence.

Barry has made it infinitely clear which side he stands on, we just can't prove how much he was involved in pushing this triumphal 911 mosque through.

Here's what Gibbs might have said:

"We are not at war with Islam. We are only defending ourselves against those who have decided to make war on us, the world's non-Muslims, in the belief -- one which we allow ourselves to is mistaken -- that the classical Islamic concept of Jihad requires them to make war on all non-Muslims, in order to ensure that Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere. And of course we recognize that the instruments of such a Jihad are not limited either to terrorism, or to conventional warfare, but may be pursued by many means now available."

Now that would be something.

But it could be done, in calm and measured terms, using "Jihad" synecdochically for Islam, and leaving an out, both rhetorical and real, for any Muslims who wish such an out.

But this kind of language, expressing a much higher level of understanding, and coming close to, skirting the truth, would hearten non-Muslims, and put Muslims on notice that there is no longer any eagerness to continue to participate in the opera-bouffe as before, that we have decided to express, not completely but obliquely, what the well-informed about Islam know to be true, and that it is the duty of those who presume to instruct and protect us to show us, to reassure us, that they know too.

"We are not at war with a religion but an idea which has corrupted a religion." So says Gibbs, in a succinct summary of a policy failure of immense proportions.

Political correctness will kill us all.

If Obama had been president in 1941:

December 8, 1941 -- Washington D.C., (Washington Post) -- The Obama administration let it be known today that it considers the explosions at the Pearl Harbor naval base in Hawaii to have been a local issue.

"Anyone who criticizes the Japanese for the work of a few renegade pilots is unfortunately letting their inherent racism dominate their emotions," said a smiling Robert Gibbs.

"We would also take this opportunity to reinforce our warning about criticism of Germans and Germanaphobia for the policies of a few extremist Nazis who have hijacked a party of peace," Gibbs told the gathered reporters.

The Council on American-Japanese Relations (CAJR) is rumored to be purchasing all of the land around Pearl Harbor and will build a combined Shinto temple/Shinto air base/Shinto submarine port there to promote peace and good will.

Gibbs said, "This generous act by the Japanese show they are valuable members of Western civilization. The increased tourism that this center will bring will be very useful. We welcome the Japanese cultural center with the same open arms that we welcome the huge German hotel, railroad center, Zyklon-B chemical factory, and incinerator complex the Germans are building in New Jersey."

Gibss was asked about some curious reports that all tickets to the New Jersey resort are one-way.

"That's probably just German culture. At any rate, we greatly appreciate the generosity of German people to help our economy," noted Gibbs.

Fritz Kuhn's Bund played the role, in 1939-1941, that CAIR does today. Read John Roy Carlson's "Under Cover."

"We are not at war with a religion but an idea which has corrupted a religion." So says Gibbs.

I'd say that Islam is what is doing the corrupting, not what is being corrupted. Basically Mohammad took a whole bunch of ideas -- from Judaism, various strains of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Arabian paganism -- and corrupted them into a religion he said he got from Allah. Islam reminds me of one of those dishes on the menu in a Chnese restaurant, called something like "four treasures Shanghai-style", where chicken, pork, beef, and shrimp are all cooked together with some vegetables in a sauce. They usually turn out pretty tasty. But the mixture that went into Islam turned out nasty.

"We are not at war with a religion but an idea which has corrupted a religion."

At least Gibbs admits that Islam is corrupt...

Robert's intro is right on the mark. Liberals who are so accustomed to running roughshod with their 'Big Government' mentality hypocritically use the "local issues" and "state's rights" argument whenever it is useful to their purposes. A perfect example was the recent Supreme Court decision striking down local gun-control ordinances. The minority opinion, expressed by the liberal wing of the court, reasoned that federal protection of gun rights (i.e., the 2nd amendment) is a violation of state and local jurisdiction.

Hypocrites!

Regarding poor little kids with their noses -- and other parts-- cut off. We can't save the Muslims from Islam.

This line that the terrorists have corrupted the ideology of Islam is the most banal and irresponsible response imaginable to a real and daily threat. Anyone who doubts that the terrorists aren't using core, basic Islamic doctrines to justify their actions should read:

http://www.annaqed.com/en/content/show.aspx?aid=16330

"Are the Radical Muslims Following a Basic or an Extreme Version of Islam?"

Just a specific note here. Everyone of the first eight amendments to the Constitution protects the rights of the individual against the group. Every damn last one. Telling how liberals want to argue that the Second Amendment doesn't do this. Any liberal out there who wants to counter this contention and tell me why?

What the people of America need is a rallying cry akin to the "Remember the Alamo" by Texans. This time it will have to be something like "Remember the Jihadist Memorial mosque" and this must be used during November elections. Maybe somebody can come up with something more catchy and vote capturing phrase.

The Mosque is than local issue. Az illegal law on immigration isnot than local matter but than matter of than state of racist passing than racist law.

Mr.Gibbs,

This is not a local issue.It is greatly important issue for all patriotic American citizens who have a sane sense of patriotism and responsibility.
Let me ask you that:

Is 9/11 attack a local issue for New Yorkers alone?

Is all economic hardship and all the inconveniences at security check-points imposed after 9/11 ?
Please answer all this.

This reminds me of the time when Caesar Bloomberg was asked whether or not he supported the war in Iraq.

He said it was a " national issue ", and would make no further comments about it.

Hmm, the last time I checked, the Supreme Court takes a lot of interest in state and " local ", laws and issues. Isn't the Supreme Court a federal agency ?

I suppose that the Supreme Court justices can now rule on any case by saying " it's a local issue ".

Would building a mosque near ground zero be as much as a local issue as building a mosque next to the pentagon? Mr. Gibbs? anybody?

In this regard,the union of the families of SEPT.11 victims should take out a massive protest procession condemning the Government attitude towards Mega Mosque at ground Zero.Where ever President Obama appears in public,they must take a protest march,shout slogans while Obama talks. That is the only way you can bring the government back to it's senses.

Islam not Terrorism

Video:Islam says no to Terrorism
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/318588
book: Islam and Terrorism
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/51789
other book : What Does Islam Say about Terrorism?
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/185863

Jesus in Islam
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/31/viewall/

have a question about islam or converting to it ?
Live Help by Chat
http://www.islamreligion.com

For a previous poster, who is posting across articles the same advertisements;

“Indeed, the likeness of Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said to him: ‘Be!’ and he was.’” (Quran 3:59)

John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

I AM is in Greek present tense, but just so you cannot miss it, only divinity can make the claim "I am", not a single human being can make this claim since we all are born. I hope you can understand what Jesus said, He IS god.

It's not a local matter.

It isn't even just an American matter.

It's a *world* matter.

For it concerns all those non-Muslim countries whose citizens were also in the World Trade Centre on that dreadful day - working or visiting - and so perished; whose ashes are now inextricably commingled with those of their American hosts, kin, co-workers, friends, allies.

There's a list here, broken down by country of origin.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

The proposed Ground Zero jihad victory mosque - this massive piece of insult architecture and triumphalist gloating, this dance on the graves of the dead - is not just an insult to the USA who suffered hugely with more than 2600 people, including the passengers and crew on the planes, murdered in the attack on the Towers).

This obscene mosque is *also* am insult to, most notably, the UK (67 citizens murdered), India (41), South Korea (28), Canada (24), Japan (24), Colombia (17), Mexico (16), Jamaica (16), Philippines (16), Australia (11), Germany (11) and Italy (10). Each of those countries lost 10 or more of their citizens as victims of Jihadist ritual human-sacrifice on 9/11. There are other countries represented by smaller numbers of dead - e.g. Israel lost 5 people and Ireland 6.

I am Australian; I say that the 9/11 mosque insults *me*, it insults the families of the eleven Australians who were murdered there. It insults the families and nations of the murdered - human sacrificed - Canadians, Britons, Indians, Koreans, Japanese, Columbians, Mexicans, Jamaicans, Filipinos, Germans, Italians...

O it isn't a local matter, it concerns the entire non-Muslim world, for non-Muslims from every continent were murdered there, 310 people from outside the USA and from all over the world.

"to allow them to fail, and in failing, to create the conditions of such massive and obvious failure that allowed Ataturk not only to come to power in 1923,"

Hugh repeats the quasi-Wilsonianism he thinks he is rejecting, by adverting to Ataturk as a model, when he was the remarkable exception that proves the rule -- that rule being that Muslims have had centuries of failure to see the folly of their way, and have never seen that folly, and never will. Never. Not in numbers sufficient for our needs. Not until the cows come home, the fat lady sings, or Jesus returns.

Once we get that through our heads, we can begin to fashion a politics based upon Realislamik: i.e., of an implacable foe -- not figuratively "implacable", but grimly, really implacable.

Dumbledore's comments are so spot on. The site of this atrocity will fade in the memory of future generations if given over to some sort of revisionist interpretation of historical fact. The politician in this clip is the worst example of duplicitous misrepresentation that had the brass neck to today pass itself off as a representative of the voice of the people.

Awake America! through the eyes and ears of the internet the people of the free world are watching and united behind you and will follow where you lead.

greaticon
I have lived in many countries( saudi arabia, america, europe ) and when Watched TV (which is the most powerfull source of information) in each of these countries, they are full of ideologies and theories that support the country in which i am watching, whether it was news or cartoons. Has'nt it occurred to you, all of you guys who have posted all these things about islam to be probably incorrect. where do you all get your info. the internet? where every one can write anything they want? or the news? where nowadays all thats said is personal. now anything related to islam seems wrong to. it is nothing but a religion. if a man bombs a building saying "in the name of allah" it doesnt mean he is truly islam. just the same way a man in america saying "jesus christ" when he is spooked doesnt mean he is truly christian or a gang member wearing a huge cross around his neck while robbing a bank doesnt mean he is truly christian. if you have taken college psychology you would know what i am talking about. people are stupid (no offense) because they always like to look at things in a way the like it to be and eliminate every factual aspect out of it. when they see a muslim woman wearing a hijab ( scarf)they want to look at it as an oppression, but when a nun wears it, it is a faithfull act. When muslims in dont drink alcohol or eat pork they are called extrimist and strict, but when "some people" smoke weed they are chillin' and relaxing. when an arab does something like murder, islam is blamed for it by the americans, but when a man in america goes on a wild shooting spree in high schools the first thing they say is that he was stressed by the tax or because he had a terminal disease and got mad. even if they dont justify it atleast they dont broadcast it on the news for a long time. but an arabs attempt for murder that havnt even happened it discussed by the news and politicians for atleast a month. Let me put it in simple terms. If a man driving a perfect car just bought from the company (not toyota) had an accident, who do you blame, the car or the man. In this case the car is a religion. Islam never said anything about killing people for allah or any such thing, it only said fight the ones that are fighting you. wouldnt you do that. ofcourse killing innocent people is wrong and that is also written in the quran, i read it from cover to cover twice and it had nothing about killing people for allah. in arabic if switch the grammar of the word "fight", it turns to the word "kill", which is why non-arabs are confused. jihad doesnt mean killing for allah or any twisted or perverted word. it exactly translates to hard work. jihad is everything you do to please allah, like praying five times a day or giving money to the poor or fasting or going to mecca. it is hard work you do by sacrificing your time. now why are people frustrated about building a mosque near ground zero. it is not some evil plan by muslims to spit on the martyrs of 9/11. it is only a way to sympathize the dead. ask your self the question. do you think a religion that lasted long, that went side by side with christianity and judaism for a long time, or any other religion as a matter of speaking would ever allow taking innocent people's lives. how could women including mothers and wifes, and how could children believe in it if it had such rules. I had alot of american friends in saudi arabia which were surprised when they lived peacfully without hearing news about people being murdered or mugged or mugged and murdered. with all the respect i think there is alot more shootings in the U.S than in saudi. i know from personal experience. My own nephew was shot to death in a parking lot just a few days ago and he just came to america. and i still know that america is a great place to live in and what happened was just fate just the same open minded people know that whats the arabs or other muslim nation peple do is not waht muslms do, but it is what every group of people do. shotings and kllings and domestic violence happen every where. it happens in saudi,india,kores,china,america,england,australia. You name it. manythings if not everything happens every where. it is up to us human beigs to use our minds the way they were made, and to have our own sense of judgment and to decide. not the media. To america islam might seem too extreme, and islam america might seem to liberal. no comunity has any rights to insult the other. just live in the community that suites you and make your own judgments because you cant live without one. but the important thing is that you keep it to yourself. to environment that you live in is the reality that is normal to you and everything that is different from it is a joke.

"when they see a muslim woman wearing a hijab they want to look at it as an oppression, but when a nun wears it, it is a faithfull (sic) act."

Oh please. The Muslim woman is forced, the nun chooses. In addition, the nun's habit doesn't have "eyeslits" forced upon them by misogynist males. And no one will throw acid on the nun if she chooses not to wear her habit. Whereas Muslim females risk getting bleach or acid thrown on them by the hate-filled oppressive Muslim males if they discard the hijab.

Oh, why am I bothering to refute a double-digit IQ?

@Hugh
Laser-precision. Excellent stuff. As for Christine Amanpour, she strikes me as a mere oppertunist who, in Dylan's words, just wants to be on the side that's winning. I've known her from time, as they say, and year's back, at the end of the Balkan conflict and long before I got wind of the jihad and started to educate myself through JW, she had a 'golden mike' on display and photo of slick willie and Kosovo. I'd considered her an unremarkable person until then, as I still do, though I must confess that at times it's a real eye-opener to see behind-the-facade.

Abdallah0091,

..."the martyrs of 9/11"

"My own nephew was shot to death in a parking lot just a few days ago and he just came to america."
"just live in the community that suites you and make your own judgments because you cant live without one."
"To america islam might seem too extreme"

Was your nephew a convert to Christianity?

"We are not at war with a religion but an idea which has corrupted a religion."

Utterly indistinguishable from the Bush policy. The vast majority of public conservatives also believe this. The alternative explanations for their ostensibly demure posture with regard to this problem are inadmissible -- that they have been bought out by "Saudis" (in which cause they would be evil); or that they are that stupid; or that they are that wimpy as to allow "liberals" to bully them in the public arena. As Sherlock Holmes said, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth: And that is, in this case, that most public conservatives sincerely believe it is 'bigotry' to indict Islam itself, and thus flowing from this to indict most Muslims who must be 'decent moms and pops like the rest of us'. I suspect that most conservative non-elites, or at least a slim majority of them, also hold to this sincerely benighted bromide.

I dare anyone to show me more than 17 living conservative intellectuals, public analysts and/or politicians who have said or written publicly that Islam itself is (synecdoche for Muslims are) at war with us.

Of course, there are likely by now thousands of people in the West who have graduated on the learning curve to believe this; and among them it is reasonable to suppose many (if not most) are conservatives. But where are their public representatives, in the media, in the political arena, in the arts?

I have never seen so many incompetent people put together in federal Govt. at the same time. They are calling Mosque issue is for local govt.todecide. They are poking their finger in Arizona. Then why can't they stop this nonsense going in NY. BUNCH OF CRAZY'S. CHIPPING AWAY SLOWLY. jUST WAIT WHEN THESE M00SLUMS start asking for sharia law.

Wellington,

While you make some good and sound comments, part of your post are nonetheless lacking in accuracy and/or perspective here.

To say that Islam believes the process of jihad warfare can be applied against any non-Muslims simply because of their being non-Muslims [which appears to be what you're saying] is, at best, an inaccurate generalization and one that is not held by the bulk of contemporary Islamic orthodox jurists and theologians. If you're claiming that the bulk backs what you appear to describe, you will not be able to demonstrate this. If you're going to claim that the bulk of contemporary Islamic jurists and theologians don't know what they're talking about and/or are holding something that is not plausible within Sharia, it is your burden to prove that, something that I highly doubt you'll be able to do.

With regard to punishment of apostates, my understanding is that execution is a possible, licit punishment, but not a mandatory one. While an unjust position to be sure, it is also the normative halachic legal position of Orthodox Judaism as well, so I, as a Jewish convert to Catholicism, am technically subject to possible execution in a future Torah theocratic state, a state that standard orthodox Judaism holds will, without fail, return into full existence at some point in the future.

As for preaching one's faith in public, again, a true point, but one that Orthodox Judaism also would hold, to the extent that any religious belief deemed 'idolatry' will not be permitted any existence, even within private homes and houses of worship and no public evangelization, in the land of Israel.

I'm sure you know that, at a minimum, the public law of Catholicism had heavy public non-Catholic restrictions prior to 1965. Even with Second Vatican Council's Dignitatis Humanae, only the public worship and propagating of non-Catholic monotheistic religions is deemed to be naturally protected from government suppression. This does not apply to non-religious political speech, nor to atheistic secular humanist speech, nor to any non-Catholic paganism, polytheism, or animistic speech, which a Catholic confessional state has every right to restrict as it deems fit for Catholic society. In addition the right to be free from public speech suppression for non-Catholic monotheists in a Catholic state is within 'due limits' according to Dignitatis Humanae, with regard to the need to uphold the public peace, the objective moral order and public morality as enunciated by the Catholic Church. Any Protestants or Jews who want to clamor for legalized abortion can have free speech or religious freedom abrogated by a Catholic state in the name of upholding public morality.

You can have your own opinion, but you cannot have your own facts.

I know I'm late. I just want to be on record as reminding Bey Obama that building apartments in Israel is a local matter as well.

Abdallah0091: At what age are you saying that Muhammad first had sexual relations with Aisha, and upon what do you base your position?

Wellington,

You're, at least in part, conflating the empirical and theoretical in this matter. I'm talking about theological ideas and principles, apart from how folks may or may not actually act in particular situations.

The bulk of today's Islamic orthodox jurists and theologians clearly hold that being a non-Muslim is not in and of itself a sufficient basis for subjecting anybody to any aspect of the process of jihad warfare. Your claim that Muslims are only exempt from jihad warfare if they convert or live as second-class citizens under Islamic rule is not held by this bulk of contemporary Islamic leaders. You seem to have confused the process of theological jihad warfare held by them with the justifying basis for starting any of that process. You also seem to be unaware of the various levels that ijtihad can function at, and how that appears to be a key component of these folks' views on jihad warfare theology. Your views, at best, are unbalanced and incomplete on this subject.

With regard to death for apostates, I agreed with your moral assessment. But, again, folks like you are shifting between the empirical and the theoretical. First, with regard to Orthodox Jews, these things do go on; the fact that they don't endanger the U.S. the way certain Islamic militants do does not mean they don't happen and they are not a moral problem. Do you have any idea what Christ-believe Jews in Israel have been facing, such as the Ami Ortiz bombing?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1812430,00.html

Also, your understanding of Judaic law is wrong, as it is very much like the hermenuetic of Islamic Sharia though, in fairness to being accurate, the scope of its claimed theological jurisdiction is largely reduced in comparison to Sharia. Both religions have theological development. But both also say that their normative traditional law is divine in origin and eternally binding and unchanging. The fact that Judaism has much of its law suspended for the past 1,900 years does not mean it is not eternal, does not mean it is no longer binding in principle,and does not mean it is not coming back into practice in the future. Ask Chabad. Ask Aish HaTorah. I spent 4 years in Orthodox yeshiva and have spent countless hours of my youth in discussion with orthodox rabbis.

With regard to Catholicism, again, I'm talking about what official, authoritatively binding Catholic doctrinal teaching holds, apart from how it has been soft-peddled and largely ignored in this area for the past several decades. I assure you there are more than a few of us in the traditionalist orthodox Catholic camp who have every intention of praying for and working toward future Catholic confessional states that will make use of doctrinally allowable state prudential suppression of 'free speech' and 'religious liberty' as is warranted for the good of Catholic society.

One other area to comment on: while in certain respects, Islam can lend itself to being more confrontational than other monotheisms, I believe it ultimately is a matter of degree more than a matter of kind. One key difference for the pronounced difference in appearance among adherents of these faiths in our time is that Muslims still tend to take religion seriously in significant numbers. In Christianity, overall, we do not. Christianity has in our time obsequiously submitted itself to secular overlords, so people will tend not to take it as seriously, and therefore, tend not to move into hostility over it. A number of folks, from Islam's Hossein Nasr to Catholicism's John Rao, have written about this.

Our 'hostility' today, tends to be expressed by way of ideologies, nationalism, constitutionalism, and patriotism, rather than religion. One only has to look at the threats, vandalism, and ongoing rancor stemming from the passage of Obamacare to see that.

Wellington:

Typo on my part:
"Your claim that Muslims are only exempt from jihad warfare if they convert or live as second-class citizens under Islamic rule is not held by this bulk of contemporary Islamic leaders."

That should have been non-Muslims.

Here's a non sequitur far less blazing than the above currents, but important to mention in case it is not on anyone's radar:

Regarding the protest on 9/11 against the planned mosque at Ground Zero (protest to take place at Ground Zero following the scheduled morning program - I heard this somewhere - did anyone else?):

I just want to mention that 9/10, 11, and 12 are the three days within which span will (almost certainly) fall the ONE day on which Eid-ul-Fitr, the official end of Ramadan, will be celebrated. Since this is the BIGGEST HOLIDAY of the ENTIRE ISLAMIC YEAR, it would behoove those planning the event to consider implications & usages of this fact.

Also note - Rosh Hashanah is September 9 and 10. Ditto on implication/usages . . . ??

BTW, who is organizing this 9/11 protest?

Just so long as we're clear, Wellington. You can't say in an initial response that you actually care about facts and expect to be taken seriously when you proceed in the next post to say you don't give a damn about this, or screw that, or exhibit the mindset that you aren't interested in being confused by the facts. For all of the problems with Islam, the Islamic theological sciences deserve to be taken as seriously as those of any other religion.

By the way, Islam does not, as a matter of normative, immutable sharia law, as held by the mainstream of today's orthodoxy, divide the world into a Land of Islam and a Land of War. If you care.

What I find amusing are the near-constant references by any number of folks to Bolshevism and Nazism. They of course are not products of anything Islamic. They are products of Western liberalism. Something to think about.

Fairuzfan, above, claims that Islam has nothing to do with Nazism, that Nazism is wholly a product of western thought.

Wrong.

Hitler admired Islam and when he invented Nazism he had been avidly studying a jihadist tract by an Indian Muslim.

Andrew Bostom, not so long ago, unearthed the information that Hitler, in the early 1920s, had read and studied - with attention, and interest - the work of a Muslim from India named Al-Mashriqi (b. 1888).

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/10/22/hitler-and-jihad-part-1/

Hitler had read a translation of Al-Mashriqi's Tazkirah. Al-Mashriqi actually *visited* Germany, by his own account, and during that visit he personally *met* with Hitler. And in 1930 Al Mashriqi sent Hitler a copy of another work of his, the Isharat.

Furthermore, Johann von Leers, a German Orientalist scholar who became one of Goebbels' propagandist pets, had studied - and greatly admired - Islam. Indeed, after the Nazi defeat, von Leers ran off to the Middle East (as did so many other fleeing Nazis) and very soon (like so many other Nazis who took refuge in dar al Islam) converted to Islam, all the better to hate the Jews and go on trying to destroy them.

I think I am seeing a LOT of islamic tayyqia or LYING going on here.