El-Gamal says he is calling the shots on Ground Zero mega-mosque, and isn't moving

Cornelius, your excellent point is well-taken.
These people are no-doubt aware that the "media shelf-life" of stories like this is typically pretty short. So they reason that if they can keep a low enough profile (as they did in the property-purchase itself) they can make progress while the dust settles. So they figure time is on their side; throw out some deceptive conciliatory statements and go full-tilt behind the smokescreen.

So the ball will be in our court to keep this alive--and in a way that won't tire the public about it. So far, the bad-guys are helping keep this afloat with their MSM appearances.
And they're putting their worst foot forward with el gamal. Perhaps that will be the saving-grace, and their Achilles Heal here--that their egos will always subvert their logos...

I appreciate what you're saying, but it's important to realize whom we're dealing with. They're not rational adults: they have the mental development of children; they're spoiled brats who throw temper tantrums if they don't get their way. Then, add to that, that most of them are bonkers: their hung-up on some of the craziest things imaginable, such as that pigs "desecrate" land. It's important to capitalize on your enemy's weaknesses.

I agree with your and many other's descriptions about them. Many people have worked very hard, such as RS and PG, to educate millions of Americans and thousands outside the US. Our way should be to fight off any misrepresentation of our views in the media. We need to actively expose Mr. El-Gamal and his ilks.

There is one hell of a great thing going for us, we have 71% N-Yorkers support the same theme - NO GZ MOSQUE. The Media can't keep silent about that forever.

The "Pigs Way" will bring on a wrath of media frenzy and that will upset many good Americans. We need their support. MoSlums will love that. They will build the Mosque nevertheless.

I think several years back someone tried a similar method at some place in Denmark or the Netherlands. MoSlums built their Mosque despite all that.

""In Seville , Spain , the City Council authorized the construction of a Mosque on one of the empty pieces of land. The citizens did not want the mosque built in their vicinity and found a brilliant solution. They buried a pig in the land, and made the news public. The Islamic law prohibits the construction of a mosque on lands desecrated by remains of pigs, therefore the Muslims had to renounce the construction on this desecrated land..."

This information is thoroughly incorrect on all accounts. First of all, the masjid in Cartuja 93 is scheduled to be completed this year. Construction for this site didn't move, no amount of pig corpses are going to prevent the construction of a masjid. While it is true that Muslims are prevented from consuming pork or keeping pigs as pets and must perform wudu(ablution) after touching one, there is no verifiable prohibition on construction of a masjid anywhere near where a pig had died. I'd certainly like confirmation from a non da'eef hadith concerning this.

Something else to consider, some Muslims consider pork to be acceptable, depending on the situation. For example, the Maliki madhab argued for the consumption of pork, carrion, dog and snake under certain circumstances such as starvation and famine. Or, how about the Hanafi madhab's support of the consumption of ALCOHOL, provided it was not wine which is literally prohibited. Yes, the very first of the madhabs argued that alcohol was permissible and it remains a minority opinion to this day.

BlueRaven is correct in stating that this kind of protest would be counter productive for your movement. Local to my area, some of your ilk staged pig races on the site where a masjid was to be completed. They hemmed and hawed and shouted obscenities at us, but they still failed. We still built the masjid and we worship there without incident. The only thing they achieved was bad publicity for their movement. They honestly believed that we would be offended by this or that it would halt construction, in reality they gave us a gold mine of publicity.

Heck, maybe I should be ENCOURAGING you to act this way... forget what I just typed to you, feel free to pour malt liquor, bury dead pigs or sodomize a toaster (we find that offensive, but it's not technically forbidden). In the end, we'll quietly laugh amongst ourselves and pass out high fives as your protest self destructs.

pdxnag wrote:

It is just business. We could just swap Sharif El-Gamal with Michael Bloomberg and swap buzzwords like Green and Sustainable for pro-Sharia. I can assume that Sharif El-Gamal is an atheist and he could act the same way as he is doing now, and the same as Mayor Bloomberg would. The word Sustainable is infinitely malleable. Perhaps he (they) could toss that in too, if the pro-Sharia stick meets with public disapproval. It is just business.
.................

With all due respect, pdxnag, you are making a mistake here. Many people assume that they are being hard-nosed "realists" when they boil down most people's motivations to "just business".

People like Imam Rauf would be far, far less dangerous if their only motivation was money. The truth is, Jihadists will not only act asgainst their best financial interests to further Islam, they will not even care about preserving their own lives.

That doesn't mean that El-Gamal would mind fleecing the foolish Infidels along the way—far from it. But I think it is a great error to assume that greed is their primary motivation. Especially for Imam Rauf, the spread of Islam comes first.

Eh, I'm hanging in there duh. I may self destruct before I have to leave to visit my wife's relatives in Aceh. It's a wonderful place, the people are super friendly, the food is great, the views are spectacular but... we're also talking about a part of the world with no movie theaters and shari'a police ensuring that I don't gently pat her bottom in public.

And don't give me that "I told ya so!" look...

So, why are you giving tips to us Kuffar, Mohammedan? But never mind. It'll likely take more than pigs' blood to stop these creeps. They want it soooooo badly. Hey, there's a little clue, eh?
I'm more concerned about the MUSLIM intent to desecrate the place where humans' blood was spattered. You know, where the planes were flown into those buildings. By MUSLIMS who hijacked those planes, MUSLIMS who murdered the flight-crews and MUSLIMS who slaughtered 3000 innocent people. And, I'm concerned about lying MUSLIMS who tell us this is "outreach to us," when it's so transparently only for THEM.

NOTHING GOOD COMES FROM ISLAM

Including you...

That's fine, I can totally accept that you don't like me and I shouldn't be expecting any "Christmas cards" this year from you wishing me a solemn and dignified Ramadan. My advice to you comes from my desire to see some of your goals realized (women's rights, halting the advancement of legal codes from the Middle Ages, protecting apostates from becoming decapitated, etc.) and also from a desire to not experience additional harassment.

Believe it or not, being a Muslim in America isn't all it's cracked up to be. Since I'm white, people look at my religious affectations and assume I'm Jewish. For the rest of my family, life isn't quite so simple being that they're brown and readily identified as being "Moozlems". As much as the next people, we really don't enjoy being the objects of offensive displays and intimidation. In relation to the construction of new masjids, there have been death threats, attempted arson and even an attempted sexual assault here locally. I know some of you post that Muslims fake these events to garner sympathy but seriously? This kind of stuff happens and it happens because people are frustrated with Islam and they want to DO something.

So here's what you can do: you can learn about it, you can educate others, you can oppose it financially, you can oppose it politically and (preferably) you can work with honest/compassionate/secular Muslims. Threats, intimidation, misguided sacrilege and so on, will sabotage your movement and only strengthens the resolve of the fanatics in my own faith. I'd have a lot easier time convincing my fellow Muslims that we're not at odds with the West if we had more educated and civil adversaries who weren't burning books or committing arson.

Yeah yeah yeah, nothing good ever comes from Islam, us/them, blah blah blah. Look man, there's almost 1.5 billion (perhaps more) of us in the world today. Trying to marginalize that many people is a fool's errand. There's no way in hell you can tell me that a Sunni Muslim is the same thing as a Alevi, there's all sorts of various beliefs out there. I grew up in America, to atheist parents whose ancestors were Catholic and crypto-Jewish. Who knows? Maybe one day I'll fly off the deep end and go wage jihad fisibillah from my couch but I seriously seriously SERIOUSLY doubt that.

"Believe it or not, being a Muslim in America isn't all it's cracked up to be."
"we're also talking about a part of the world with no movie theaters and shari'a police ensuring that I don't gently pat her bottom in public."
"In relation to the construction of new masjids, there have been death threats, attempted arson and even an attempted sexual assault here locally."
"his kind of stuff happens and it happens because people are frustrated with Islam and they want to DO something."
"Look man, there's almost 1.5 billion (perhaps more) of us in the world today. Trying to marginalize that many people is a fool's errand"
"Who knows? Maybe one day I'll fly off the deep end and go wage jihad fisibillah from my couch"
"My advice to you comes from my desire to see some of your goals realized (women's rights, halting the advancement of legal codes from the Middle Ages, protecting apostates from becoming decapitated, etc.) and also from a desire to not experience additional harassment."

Reading through your postings, you are a seriously confused person. Why didn't you go and seek some professional therapy? You chose Islam instead. Now you are sucked into that hellhole like other 1.2 billion morons (it is not 1.5 billion as most MoSlums claim). It is amazing that there are 1.2 billion Morons aka MoSlums. You didn't produce a single statement about anything good about Islam.

Why dont you help your family to leave the evil cult? Why do kneel and follow that pedophile Mo's sermons. He was so blatantly evil.

GerbilTea wrote, replying to Duh Swami:

Eh, I'm hanging in there duh. I may self destruct before I have to leave to visit my wife's relatives in Aceh. It's a wonderful place, the people are super friendly, the food is great, the views are spectacular but... we're also talking about a part of the world with no movie theaters and shari'a police ensuring that I don't gently pat her bottom in public.
..............

And why do you think that there are no movie theaters in Aceh, along with the oppressive presence of Shari'ah police? This is Islam, applied in larger doses than you will find yet in the rest of Indonesia. But this is what your creed wants *for all of us*, not just in Indonesia and the rest of Dar-al-Islam, but in the West as well.

GerbilTea wrote, replying to George:

That's fine, I can totally accept that you don't like me and I shouldn't be expecting any "Christmas cards" this year from you wishing me a solemn and dignified Ramadan. My advice to you comes from my desire to see some of your goals realized (women's rights, halting the advancement of legal codes from the Middle Ages, protecting apostates from becoming decapitated, etc.)...
..............

GerbilTea, you may not have noticed that the West *has already realized these goals*—now we just have to protect them from the depredations of your more fervid co-religionists.

The thing is, GerbilTea really does seem pretty close to a "cultural Muslim", and in fact rejects many of the gaudier aspects of Shari'ah. This is a good thing.

On the other hand, like so many "moderate Muslims", his stance is quite troubling. For one thing, he wants *us* in the civilized West to exert ourselves to protect *him* from the uglier aspects of his own creed—I have seen no indication that he is doing anything himself to stand up against them. Why bother, when Infidels will both do the work *and* take the heat from Jihadists?

Moreover, despite his realization of the disturbing aspects of his creed when fully applied, he still wants to see the rampant and unobstructed spread of Islam in the West—and we all know where that leads.

"Super-friendly" Aceh just approved *stoning* a couple of years ago. Perhaps he and his wife won't be able to attend one on this trip, but it is surely coming.

I'd like to second, George, what you said about Cornelius' point being well-taken. Not surprising though, since Cornelius regularly makes trenchant observations. And I agree too with your assessment that nothing good comes from Islam. The world without Islam would be a far better place than it is with it. In fact, anyone who would argue otherwise is either culpable of mendacity or ignorance.

Yep, can't let our guard down. Cornelius is right. No slumber allowed when dealing with Muslims or their dimwitted (but energized) dhimmi apologists in the West. Till the fat lady sings it ain't over till it's over. My best to you and yours, George. Take care.

Well, since you are one of my favorite apostates, I wouldn't want you to be at risk in Aceh...It would be best if you don't making any wrong moves and attract attention to yourself...You know how easily your fellow Mahoundians get their feelings hurt, and how efficient the Sharia police are...You could end up in an ally as dog food, or worse you could get arrested by the Sharia cops and sent to their
rest home and rehabilitation center...Watch your back...if you get caught, don't tell them you know me...That will just make your situation worse...Good luck, may Allah protect you from Allah...

GerbilTea, thank you for responding to my request for further information about "Porky's" submission. I'll pass your information along at the other website (already referenced). In your response to "George", you offered some advice:

"So here's what you can do: you can learn about it, you can educate others, you can oppose it financially, you can oppose it politically and (preferably) you can work with honest/ compassionate/ secular Muslims. Threats, intimidation, misguided sacrilege and so on, will sabotage your movement and only strengthens the resolve of the fanatics in my own faith. I'd have a lot easier time convincing my fellow Muslims that we're not at odds with the West if we had more educated and civil adversaries who weren't burning books or committing arson."

Given that advice, I can understand why you have a "desire to see some of your goals realized [presumably in Muslim countries]…", especially your desire for "protecting apostates from being decapitated." Thus, I assume that you realize that, if you're suggesting that you are one of those "honest/ compassionate/ secular Muslims", then "true Muslims" would consider you an apostate and seek your death.

But I have the suspicion that there's more to your becoming Muslim than what you have informed us, leading me to suspect that you haven't learned as much about Islam as you recommend to us. What's the chance, for example, that you (a "white" American) fell for an Indonesian lass, her parents wouldn't let you marry her unless you became a Muslim; so, you learned a little (e.g., that "Islam is a religion of peace" and similar platitudes that are fed to unsuspecting initiates), passed the exam, and were permitted to marry her?

If anything similar to the sketched scenario did occur, then you might be able to understand why most of us will continue to be skeptical of you. I'll briefly mention two obvious possibilities:

• You may be just an average American male who considers brown-skin girls to be beautiful, jumped through the required Muslim hoops, and now know a little about Islam. You are therefore dangerous to free people, because later in your incorporation into the ummah, you may learn the complete meaning of jihad and attempt to murder some of us kafirs (since as you'll learn later, we're worse than vermin).

• You may already be a full-fledged mujahideen, but you're now practicing taqiyya, attempting to lull us kafirs into thinking that there is such a thing as an "honest/ compassionate/ secular Muslim."

What I have learned is that the only Muslim that can be trusted is an ex-Muslim -- and even then, one must be careful, because Muslims are permitted to pretend that they are ex-Muslims to advance Islam. Therefore, as I wrote elsewhere (http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2010/09/five-foundational-evils-of-islam.html ), the only ex-Muslims that can be trusted are those (such as Al Sina, Ibn Warraq, and Wafa Sultan) who actively and effectively attempt to exterminate Islam -- and who, thereby, deserve western freedoms more than the majority of westerners.

In any event, what seems obvious is that you hold beliefs more strongly than relevant evidence warrants; therefore, I consider you to be a threat to me and my family.

Ok, if you are starving eat some pork...But what about praying...Will you pray in a place that has been contaminated by pig oils?...

Have you found a wife young enough to have children yet?

Wellington, thank you.

Back when Western movies were popular, the good-guys would say about the bad-guys, "Better sleep with one eye open tonight..." Not sure if John Wayne himself said that--but it surely sounds like him!
And I think it surely applies here.

On balance, I think this mosque-issue has been a net loss (so far) for those pushing it. More than just a symbol, it has become a focus-point for all the ugly ancillary issues hovering around islam--issues that beg for answers that are no more forthcoming than the promoters themselves. But anything that produces public discussion, revelation and truth about islam is BAD for islam. They chose this venue, chose this time and this territory for battle. Let them reap the whirlwind for their attempt at premature islamization!

Regards to you & yours from the Rocky Mountain West!
G

"On the other hand, like so many "moderate Muslims", his stance is quite troubling. For one thing, he wants *us* in the civilized West to exert ourselves to protect *him* from the uglier aspects of his own creed—I have seen no indication that he is doing anything himself to stand up against them. Why bother, when Infidels will both do the work *and* take the heat from Jihadists?"
------------------------

It's easier to stay quiet and not rock the boat. The punishment for apostasy is death and its hard to tell when your fellow Muslims would call you on "going too far".

I have been doing the best that I can to educate myself on the issue and I do rather enjoy debating GT, though at times he can be frustrating :P I do learn a bit from him, like Taqiyya is a muslim hat as well as deception.

I do wish more cultural or moderate muslims would speak out and guide us or tell us what we can do to help. Otherwise we will do what we have to do to protect our Constitutional values in this country. It if means coming to blows so be it. I'd rather not see this happen since it does go against the spirit of this country to be able to practice your religion (no matter how repulsive to some it might be).

The line in the sand is drawn when Islamic Jihadists or Islamic Supremacists hide behind the religion Islam to push their political aspirations (Sharia Law). I'm sure even GT would agree, if Sharia ever supplants the US Constitution then the US could very well become like Aceh Indonesia.

Two questions, genius...

1) What race is Islam?

2) Where in the hell did you learn how to spell and put sentences together?

Drunks at our bars make more sense than you, after they’ve downed a fifth.

DOI said If than muslim was force to eat pork to stay alive in the wildness willnot be pumint for eating pork by than Islamist court.
--------------------
Make sure you smoke those pork ribs for 2 1/2 hours or more before you put them back on the grill. Turn all the burners on high then slap on the bbq sauce. YUMMY!

BTW if you still don't have your muslim bride, consider the neighbors goat. I hear they don't talk back to you. You can also put burqua on them to hide their "true nature".

I think this mosque-issue has been a net loss (so far) for those pushing it. More than just a symbol, it has become a focus-point for all the ugly ancillary issues hovering around islam--issues that beg for answers...

Bingo...Unintended consequences...Rauf, Daisy, Gamal and comp did not expect this much opposition, nor exposure...It's hard to operate in the shadows when people keep shining a light on you...

"It's hard to operate in the shadows when people keep shining a light on you..."
-----------
Which begs the question, what else do we not know about that isn't in the media spotlight?

If the MSM media was doing their jobs we would probably be finding all kinds of ties to various politicians on both sides of the aisle to Saudi Petro-dollars with the intent to influence things like Mosque building, pushing Wahabbists version of Islam (Sharia) in 80% of American Mosques, distorting the news reports (Saudi prince with ties to News Corp and Fox Network) and pushing laws like the UN version of Blasphemy of Islam.

About DOI The poor guys starving for a young wife to make babies with...
He's over 60 so his window of opportunity is closing...Desperation will soon set in...I hate to see him suffering like that, but it is Allah's doing not mine...

I heard that Helen Thomas is single...

Thanks to George and Wellington for the affirmation.

I believe there have been at least 2 and perhaps 3 times over the last 4 months that I've heard reports the mosque will be moved...only to have the proponents insist otherwise a day or two later. They'll cave only if (or when) the pressure is irresistible...and we ain't there yet.

Wellington,

Your Steelers are kicking ass...without Ben. One commentator insists they're so good they'd be winning with Grandma Moses playing QB.

I thought Polamalu's timed leap on the QB Sneak was one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen in the NFL. The guy is a phenom.

Take care, Amigo.

LOL...

"GerbilTea, you may not have noticed that the West *has already realized these goals*—now we just have to protect them from the depredations of your more fervid co-religionists.

The thing is, GerbilTea really does seem pretty close to a "cultural Muslim", and in fact rejects many of the gaudier aspects of Shari'ah. This is a good thing.

On the other hand, like so many "moderate Muslims", his stance is quite troubling. For one thing, he wants *us* in the civilized West to exert ourselves to protect *him* from the uglier aspects of his own creed—I have seen no indication that he is doing anything himself to stand up against them. Why bother, when Infidels will both do the work *and* take the heat from Jihadists?

Moreover, despite his realization of the disturbing aspects of his creed when fully applied, he still wants to see the rampant and unobstructed spread of Islam in the West—and we all know where that leads."

Sure, it has achieved those goals and there is the long term potential for it to see more of that (honor killings, apostate killings, implementation of moonbat religious law) on its shores. In some instances, this has already happened. To the degree with which it happens is up to all of us here and I think we can all agree that religious law in America, France, England or even in Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a bad thing. We can't really do much about Egypt or Saudi Arabia, but we certainly can have a very vocal and active resistance to it here in America.

What does "vocal and active resistance" refer to? If things are as bad as you say among the Muslims with a penchant for offing apostates, I'm in much much much greater danger than any of you. For example, in my past, I had relations with men and with women. This is considered completely terrible, blasphemy, disgusting and unforgivable behavior. I'm not ashamed of this and I tell Muslims who ask about it and why I do not feel that homosexuals should be executed for the choices that they make. While I don't feel this kind of behavior is appropriate for someone who is a Muslim, I'm not really interested in approving of his/her "Muslim-ness". In some circles, this definitely makes me an outsider.

Also, I reject most of the sunnah on the grounds that we rely on a chain of transmission from often dubious sources. A good example would be the hadith concerning men wearing gold, which is forbidden in most schools of fiqh. This hadith is considered sahih, yet the chain of transmission goes back to a SILVERSMITH. There's a definite conflict of interest there, only a moron would choose to believe a hadith forged centuries after Muhammad's death was genuine. Again, blasphemy, a clear sign of a lack of faith to a pious Muslim.

All I have to "do" when it comes to trying to make a change in Islam is to be a Muslim who is secular. This isn't the sort of change that will come overnight in a religion that claims that have the immutable word of God. In the end, I have to worry about taking heat not only from the self styled salafi and mujahideen, but also from folks who believe that all Muslims are a fifth column. No matter what I say here, someone will write it off as being "taqiyya" (which shouldn't apply to a Sunni, such as myself) or will suggest that I wouldn't dare say these things to Muslims. I do say these things to other Muslims, I tell them frequently that we should be executing figures like bin Laden on the grounds that they have violated our code of conduct concerning warfare. I tell them that we should be outraged not just at the United States, but also at our own scholars, politicians (for those who hail from dictatorships or medieval monarchies) and other leaders.

Yeah, I see big problems with the way it has been implemented in Aceh, that's an understatement. The people there are great, they really are legitimately pleasant and caring and most of them don't make the rules concerning the implementation of the shari'a. Some of them are victims of its implementation, most support it out of a desire for ethnic chauvinism (the Acehnese are a distinct ethnic group and are VERY big in separatist politics) and a fair number are starting to realize the dangers involved. I don't want that here, I don't want my kids to grow up thinking that men and women shouldn't mingle or that flogging someone is a valid way to get him to quit gambling. The implementation of this kind of law and the spread of Islam do not necessarily have to go hand in hand. They go hand in hand among people who support a literal interpretation of the Qur'an, a blind acceptance of the Sunnah and a lack of critical thinking supported in education.

You CHOSE to be muslim?????

At one point in today's discussion I though you might be rather intelligent but now I'm not so sure.

So many points I could make but I'll only make two: 1) Any religious law (your term) that exists in America, France or England is completely unlike religious law that exists in Egypt, Saudi Arabia or a score of other Muslim nations. Secular law in Western countries often times enshrines religious directives or proscriptions. When you pass laws against murder and rape, you are legislating morality and codifying previously existing religious commandments. By contrast, in Muslim nations, Islamic religious law goes way beyond being compatible at times with secular law. It controls law or is the law, not just for believers but for non-believers as well (this in part functions as a reason why Muslims in Western nations can practice their religion far, far more freely than non-Muslim folks in Muslim nations can practice their religion of choice). Talk about tu quoque reasoning on your part. Couldn't get much more egregious or off base than you exhibited by your equivalizing here.

2) Time to give up the ghost. Islam was founded by a brutal, psychopathic, pedophilic control freak. All down hill from that point onwards. Any good in Islam can be found elsewhere and yet there is much rot in Islam that can be found nowhere else among the world's major religions (e.g., death for leaving the faith for another religion or the hideous doctrine of jihad, of making war upon the unbeliever---and spare me the spiritual struggle crap). There is absolutely no unique good that can be ascribed to Islam. None. Join another religion or have none at all. Either beats Islam by a mile.

DOI types like a lot of deaf people sign. English is obviously a second or third language for him. You get used to it after a while and don't have to think twice after you read his sentences.

Thanks for your comments, Cornelius, about the Steelers. Yes, they're very good even without Bad Boy Ben. And Polamalu, when healthy, is arguably the single greatest player in the NFL. He would have fitted in quite well with the likes of Ham, Lambert, Green et al. from that storied decade for the Steelers. As always, good to hear from you and hope you and yours are doing just fine.

I'm a little hesitant to answer this, not because I don't think there are good examples but because knowing the general tone of the forums here I don't usually find people receptive to someone suggesting that Muslims get ANYTHING right. Usually, there's a good bit of time spent detailing how any history that suggests that Muslims contributed something to humanity or at least helped to preserve some kernel of knowledge that would have been snuffed out otherwise. I do think it's fair to say that, having inherited (i.e. conquered) the Sassinid Persian Empire and half the Byzantine Empire nearly off the bat they also inherited the most technologically sophisticated societies in the Middle Ages. From that, they certainly did maintain some knowledge and added some new bits to it.

Let's take for example, the concept of the university. The very first university was founded by Muslims and these institutions didn't just educate Muslims. Moses Maimonides, for example, was educated not in Christendom but by Muslims at al-Fayyum. Now, how does this past glory relate to what's going on with Islam NOW? Well, between all 50 something countries of the OIC, there's less than 1,000 universities. That's 1,000 universities split between about a billion people. In contrast, the United States has at least 5 times that many universities ALONE. So, did the Muslims suddenly lose the ability to found universities or is there more going on? I take the latter approach as being the most reasonable answer, I think there is definitely a hostile social and political climate that has a lot to do with Islam but also has to having so many darn medieval monarchies and dictatorships instead of pluralist democracies.

Keep in mind, this isn't just a problem with Islamic states. I'll happily compare notes on majority Christian nations with similar political profiles in Africa or South America. Right now though, there really isn't a Muslim nation that has those desirable traits you mention. Turkey may be the closest, and it got dragged there kicking and screaming. Indonesia is there in some respects, it's a country with over 100 recognized ethnic groups and even more languages. It's not perfect, but the nation does go much further than most other Islamic countries when it comes to protecting its other citizens. Even in a shari'a compliant autonomous province like Aceh, I've seen women who are not Muslim go uncovered.

From these countries, it might just be possible to see a fledging pluralist democracy. This will take a lot of education, a lot of political savvy and a lot of time. They just need to quit dwelling on the past glories and accept that there's a reason why the West leapfrogged beyond them. Once they get past being butt hurt, I do truly believe they can advance.

And yeah, I understand why you're angry because I'm angry. Anyone who is an American that isn't angry people who want to blow Americans up not just because of their foreign policy, standard of living or political affiliation but purely for an ideology is being blind/stupid. I'll be blunt, no other religion recently flew planes into buildings so we're going to be taking this heat for the rest of my life. I don't really want that hanging over my head and I don't think other people who are Muslim want that either. What I ask is that you respond to Islam in a fashion comparable to the way Julian the Apostate responded to Christianity.

Julian recognized that Christianity's most powerful weapon was martyrdom. If you engage in persecution (real or imagined) it galvanizes the faithful and merely strengthens them. His solution was to support all other religions in the Empire, preserving the traditional cultural values of pagan learning. This method was very successful, had he not died fighting the Parthians we may not really have Christianity as it exists today. So do that, bolster your own indigenous faiths to the exception of Islam. If your religions are indeed the better option, then Muslims will either abandon Islam or become frustrated at the lack of conflict. Monotheism NEEDS conflict in order to propagate, it validates the world view that they are the righteous and all other belief systems are either false or demonic.

And sure, I like civil exchanges. I appreciate all questions and discussion, even if it gets heated.

"So, GT, Can you tell us what kind of positive things Islam would contribute to American Society or has contributed in the past? I'm just curious about the answer coming from a Muslim perspective."

I'll answer this and address Wellington's comment at the same time. According to him, Islam offers no unique good. I agree with this, there's comparable good found in all world religions and I'm not sure that any of them teach something other than "don't steal, don't murder, don't covet your neighbor's waffle" and so on. Islam's big strength (and problem) is that it is the most absolute brand of monotheism. With Christianity, we have an obligatory religion that is tempered with polytheism. Christianity can be adapted to suit the needs of whatever the climate culture is, so you see 1 gajillion sects of Christianity. With Judaism, you don't have obligatory religion so you don't have proselytizing (in the modern age, perhaps not in antiquity. highly debated) but you have absolute monotheism. This religion can not be easily adapted to suit the needs of a new population or a diaspora population, sometimes causing tensions.

With Islam, you have an obligatory religion (meaning, our way is the highway and if you don't like it well you can go to hell, literally) that is ALSO absolute monotheism. There's a major push to spread the faith and a definite effort to remove your personal ethnic identity in favor of an Islamic one. I'll be honest, I actually like this aspect of Islam. I think there's a lot of potential in a religion where people tend to overlook their ethnic and social ties in favor of a new faith. I don't think this is purely unique to Islam, but I've only sincerely ever experienced this with Muslims.

I'll give you an example, as Muslims we have a liturgical language of Arabic. There's usually some degree of fluency in this language between all believers and we usually have many shared traits and customs. Anywhere in the world, I can greet another Muslim with "as salaamu alaikum wa rahmantullahi wa barakhatu" and get a reply in kind. Every time, I have been invited into the homes of complete strangers to share meals, stories and well, pretty much everything. When the Muslims call me brother, they really mean it. When we pray, we all prostrate in the same fashion, all side by side. No matter who you are, rich or poor, black or white, Whig or Bullmoose you're a Muslim.

Maybe this sort of collectivist attitude is dangerous to some, perhaps some of you will liken it to a cult or a desire to belong. Honestly, I think that's way off base and I feel that the good I have experienced with the Muslims has, anecdotally, proven to me that Muslims (in more parts of the world than just America) have a legitimate interest in other Muslims. Now, getting them to feel the same way about other belief systems and "heretics"... there's the trick.

Thanks, B. For a minute there I thought he wanted to play Scrabble.

Well, I didn't laugh not because I found it exceptionally offensive but it wasn't super funny. I mean, I suppose that kind of publicity is good for you? Yes, we get that you're Jewish and have a vested interest in making Islam look bad for the benefit of resurrecting a kingdom that hadn't existed in over 2,000 years. I'd like to see more Christians involved in comparable commentary on Islam. At least with the Christians I don't always see a nationalist motive. With some Jews, I constantly have to deal with criticism of Islam based on their desire to support Israel no matter what. Honestly, if the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem had survived and the Levant had a majority Christian population today we'd see comparable Jewish criticism of Christianity to that of the criticism they give to Islam.

Never mind that Christians have still not changed anything in the New Testament that implicates Jews in the death of, well GOD. If you believe that they've all suddenly changed their minds on the 2,000 year old deicide charge I dunno what to tell you. Within living memory, we have seen Jews killed for this reasoning by Christians, this isn't some distant concept or ancient history.

There's a problem with fanatics in all three Abrahamic faiths, keep that in perspective and I'll laugh at your videos all day long. Also, don't suggest that I get giddy for acts of terrorism. I mean, really?

"Given that advice, I can understand why you have a "desire to see some of your goals realized [presumably in Muslim countries]…", especially your desire for "protecting apostates from being decapitated." Thus, I assume that you realize that, if you're suggesting that you are one of those "honest/ compassionate/ secular Muslims", then "true Muslims" would consider you an apostate and seek your death.

But I have the suspicion that there's more to your becoming Muslim than what you have informed us, leading me to suspect that you haven't learned as much about Islam as you recommend to us. What's the chance, for example, that you (a "white" American) fell for an Indonesian lass, her parents wouldn't let you marry her unless you became a Muslim; so, you learned a little (e.g., that "Islam is a religion of peace" and similar platitudes that are fed to unsuspecting initiates), passed the exam, and were permitted to marry her?

In any event, what seems obvious is that you hold beliefs more strongly than relevant evidence warrants; therefore, I consider you to be a threat to me and my family."

I learned most of what I know of Islam from studying it to subvert it. My main interest in Islam came from reading blogs, much like this one. I studied these blogs and accepted the words of its critics as being accurate. Then, I noticed a disturbing trend. Some of the critics didn't just criticism Islam and champion Western Civilization, they also began to call for banning the Qur'an, banning Islam, shipping Muslims out to some shari'a paradise or (rarely) calls for their demise. I found this to be at odds with what I thought I was fighting for, so I decided to study Arabic and Islam at greater detail.

Eventually, I came full circle, maybe I acculturated, maybe I allowed my interactions and anecdotes to persuade me. Eventually, I met a Muslim woman and we got married. She knows well where I stood against the Muslims and I know well the kind of background she has. I married her because she's a brilliant graduate student here in the U.S. with the same goals and desires I do.

I know a great deal about the seedy side of Islam, I also know a great deal about the seedy side of the other two Abrahamic faiths. It is my opinion that all three are extremely dangerous, far more dangerous than any other kind of religious background. This danger, however, can be tempered and goes through periods of quiescence. It's a danger that exists because these religions believe there is no god but God and all other belief systems are therefore false at best or demonic at worst. The ancients recognized this issue with Judaism and Christianity, if their religions were still around they'd probably issue the same charges.

I'm getting really irate with the constant desire to equate everything that doesn't fit into your myopic view of Islam with taqiyya. Any time a Muslim holds an opinion you feel is contrary to the monolith that Islam apparently is, it's countered with "obvious taqiyya". This doctrine is NOT considered acceptable in Sunni Islam, I don't know what you're reading or where you're getting this information from but honestly, we're NOT allowed to hide our religious affiliation, even under pain of death. Heck, believers in monotheism WANT to be martyred, it's probably the biggest honor in Islam and certainly adored by Christians and to a much lesser degree, Judaism (Akiva, Masada etc)

Gerbil Tea, nice post. I like Julian the apostates reaction to Christianity too. But I think we now should look worldwide, not just to one state as he did.

My idea of solution of the by now undeniable Islam-Democracy-controverse is in part by patient dialoque. And within that dialoque to me it is of primary importance to: Get a big part of the people very knowledgeable about Islamic teachings and Muslims interpretations, declarations and practices worldwide. Then to hold Muslims accountable for their choices.

I like us democracy-loyalists to develop that option. Just holding Muslims accountable for their choices now seems illogical, because of most of Muslims being born in Islam, and losing a great deal if they apostasize, even risking their lives often in doing so.

But our increasing knowledge serves us to point out all the consequences of Islamic teachings and interpretations, practices and attitudes of so many Muslims worldwide that are theocratic and anti-democratic. You yourself painted the situation that Muslims regard each other as brothers and thus united against infidels to a very high degree.

The Muslims and Political Correct people assure us so often of the harmlessness of Muslims to infidels. And thus, by extension, to the democratic system, that it, according to them seems only a small step to let Muslims make a definite choice between all relevant contradicting laws of democracy and shariah. However up until now, clear choices are not asked from Muslims concerning democracy and theocracy.

Maybe choosing democratic laws and interests absolutely over Islamic ones when resident in democratic countries would be the right thing to do for Muslims. Or if incapable of doing that explicitly; openly declaring being against democracy and FOR theocracy. Instead of accusing concerned, democracy-loyalists "Islamophobic". especially those who are just as well informed about Islam as the Muslims themselves. Who are often supported by Islam-ignorant Western Political Correct people.

My solution is on the road of letting our political parties make the Muslims in democratic countries choose one way or the other, for democracy or Islamic theocracy. And then let them take the consequences of that choice. If need be, in negotiations, but let them hold themselves accountable. Not for the conduct of their co-religionists but for the implications of profiting from them and siding with them on issues.

OK, GT,

Way back in Freshman English Composition we had a text entitled, "How To Say Nothing In
1000 words." Sorry to say, but I think your response could have been a featured example.

Distilling it down as best I can, I think you're conceding that there are no muslim-majority nations exhibiting those salutory
qualities about which I inquired. I'm certain that, with your personal ties to Indonesia, you are better-informed there than I; but, from reports I've seen here, Christians are an endangered species in that country. And Turkey? Really? Considering recent events and trends, you forward Turkey? That speaks for itself without further comment.

About martyrs: We have them. 3,000 of them on one day alone, and far too many since. And, yes, if you choose islam you'll have to live-with 9/11 from the wrong side, the criminal side, of that event. And all the criminal acts yet to come--and we both know these will happen. Your choice, your burden.

Oh, and about all that comraderie you mentioned in your succeeding comment. I'm aware that that sense of kinship and exclusivity also existed in, for examples, the Schutzstaffel and The Ku Klux Klan. That's a real heart-warmer, no?

Sorry, but I find nothing you've posited as evidence or persuasion against my claim that nothing good comes from islam. Further, and this is just a personal observation, but as a "thinking muslim" (and one who can fashion a cogent sentence) you establish yourself as simply the exception that proves the rule. Your viewpoint is not an islamic viewpoint. Duh Swami is correct when he refers to you as "his favorite apostate."

All that notwithstanding, thanks for answering as best you could. And be aware that only the civilized, non-muslim influence in your nature
has facilitated our polite dialogue here. You have some confusion to work-out. Good luck with it...

G

"I'll give you an example, as Muslims we have a liturgical language of Arabic. There's usually some degree of fluency in this language between all believers..."
--------
Now most all Muslims are at least somewhat "fluent" in Arabic because they have a few phrases in common?

Really? That's what you consider "fluent?"

I can say, and understand, "Ich Liebe Dich" and "Danke Schöen," but does that make me somewhat "fluent" in German? Hardly.

You can't be serious, as your handle attests.

Yeah, I overdo my posts...

"from reports I've seen here, Christians are an endangered species in that country. And Turkey? Really? Considering recent events and trends, you forward Turkey? That speaks for itself without further comment."

There is significant social upheaval against Christians in Indonesia, particularly in areas like Aceh. I would certainly say it would be dangerous to proselytize there. On Java, there's a much greater degree of tolerance. This may have a lot to do with the ethnic Han population in the area. As to Turkey, yes, I put forth that example. There's certainly a strong reaction to Kemalism but the fight isn't over yet. This has been ongoing for decades.

"And, yes, if you choose islam you'll have to live-with 9/11 from the wrong side, the criminal side, of that event. And all the criminal acts yet to come--and we both know these will happen. Your choice, your burden."

I'll deal with the future acts when we get there. For 9/11, the only thing that secular Muslims can do is to wait for time to heal some wounds and to carry on in a productive fashion. If I can raise my children to look critically at faith while upholding the best our faith has to offer (yep, I really believe that) then perhaps I can help foster a view of Islam among Muslims that is consistent with modern values. Maybe, just maybe, we can also convince some others that we're not ready to explode at a moment's notice.

"Oh, and about all that comraderie you mentioned in your succeeding comment. I'm aware that that sense of kinship and exclusivity also existed in, for examples, the Schutzstaffel and The Ku Klux Klan. "

Couldn't you have gone with Boyscouts of America? Heh.

"Your viewpoint is not an islamic viewpoint. Duh Swami is correct when he refers to you as "his favorite apostate.""

I take a bit of exception to this, I think my viewpoint is at odds with that of the fanatics. Many of them view me as an apostate but I'm not particularly upset about that. Honestly, I didn't want to be on their team anyway. If you can find me a group involved in real neo-platonism, I think I could go with that. Just don't tell the missus though...

"My solution is on the road of letting our political parties make the Muslims in democratic countries choose one way or the other, for democracy or Islamic theocracy. And then let them take the consequences of that choice."
--------
It's no solution at all, demsci. It's "to hell" with the people outside of a country that's gone Islamic who will also have to "take the consequences" of the Islamics choice for that country.

I guess we should have allowed the Nazis to "choose" Nazism or democracy after WWII? I wonder how "well" that would have worked out for Germany's neighbors had they "chosen" to remain fascist?

Islamization is a fascist cancer that won't kindly remain "inside its own borders."

It must not be allowed to "choose its own way."

"Islam has bloody borders" said Samuel Huntington in his book "The Clash of Civilizations," and every Muslim border you look at is bloody (that's non-Muslims feeling the effects of Islam, demsci, not just the Muslims who've been allowed the choice of going full-on Islamic theocracy as a result of some twisted notion of "democratic ideals" giving them the choice).

It goes a little bit deeper than that Eleanor as almost all Muslims recite specified verses from the Qur'an as well as the tashushud etc in Arabic. I added the qualifier "some degree" for that reason. I'd certainly suggest that Muslims have a greater degree of fluency in Arabic than Catholics did in Latin prior to Vatican II. When you repeat it over and over again, eh... you certainly get a decent feel for the language. I'm not saying that most of us can go much further than "nice weather, don't ya think?" but it's certainly nice to be able to communicate with people and be understood everywhere.

It's a significant advantage to have a liturgical language, try it some time.

"I guess we should have allowed the Nazis to "choose" Nazism or democracy after WWII? I wonder how "well" that would have worked out for Germany's neighbors had they "chosen" to remain fascist?"

You're suggesting that Islam and fascism are comparable. Fair enough. Perhaps you should analyze this quote from Musolini concerning the term "fascism" to see if we can argue that fascism is, in fact, a variant of capitalism.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power"

I personally think it would be highly unfair to suggest that mixed market economies such as ours shares traits in common with fascism but the fascists certainly did, though they were heartily opposed to free market capitalism and "usury".

By the same token, what traits does fascism share with Islam? Fascism relies on subservience to the state and a cult of personality devoted to a charismatic leader. Perhaps it can be argued that the Muslims do the same with Muhammad, but I suppose I can argue that for any religion with a clear founder like Islam, Buddhism or Christianity. Do we presently have a hierarchy comparable to that of Nazism? Well, no. We don't have a "Muslim pope", there's no clergy in Sunni Islam (though there is in Shi'a Islam) and we don't have a party affiliation any more so for the Ummah than Catholics do for "the Church".

Can you detail for us how Islam and fascism are connected or are you merely trying to demonize the Muslims? I know it's been very fashionable for the past six decades to compare a rival to the Nazis, but really? I think it would be much more accurate to compare radical Islam to the Protectorate under Cromwell than to Nazism.

Nice try, but no dice gerbil. Sorry.

Islam is like Cromwell's protectorate? Are you serious? That's kind of a "new" one around here, whereas the case for Islam/fascism has been hashed out over and over and over again; discussed and dissected over and over and over again. So instead of wasting my time answering your "challenge" anew, as if what I've claimed is somehow "novel" and needs evidence from me to prove it, I would instead challenge YOU to detail how Islam is like Cromwell's protectorate? Or at least, closer to Cromwell than to Hitler.

THAT, actually, is much more interesting, and certainly hasn't been discussed here hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the last year alone; in all fairness, not that you would know because you're so new around here.

If you think I'm kidding, just search the JW archives for Islam/fascism, but be ready to spend a week, at least.

Now, Cromwell?

Not a problem, I'm willing to discuss ways in which the Protectorate is more so comparable to political or "radical" Islam as we see today. I've seen previous threads discussing a similarity between Nazism and Islam, not really something I'm really surprised by but I don't think it's a fair comparison.

1.) The post of the Lord Protector was theocratic in nature. Evangelical puritanism was made the state religion to an insane degree. To the point that you were required to attend church (exceptions were made for one particular religious minority) and if you were not there you were dragged to it. Failure to comply was quite dangerous.

2.) Just like how figures such as Osama bin Laden are in opposition to an absolute monarchy such as found in Saudi Arabia, Cromwell dissolved the English crown. Both see/saw an absolute monarchy as being anathema to their values concerning the implementation of religious law. In the case of Osama bin Laden, it's the establishment of a Caliphate.

3.) Cromwell, like Muhammad, was a highly charismatic military commander. He was able to endear himself to the military elite and thus facilitated his coup. Muhammad, likewise, was in the front lines and encouraged his believers to active warfare against the enemy. Both engaged in mass slaughter (mostly in Ireland, in the case of Cromwell) to achieve their religious and political aims. Both were engaged in schismatic violence, in the case of Muhammad between Meccan polytheists and Islamic offshoots and between Protestants and Catholics in the case of Cromwell.

There's probably some other notable comparisons but those are the big three. Cromwell was certainly NOT a popular figure after his death and has been much reviled at many points in history. These groups attempt to achieve a similar aim, to overthrow the present government in favor of a theocratic system of government. That is much much closer in relation to one another than a political movement based on fervent nationalism and state control of the means of production. While religious fanatics and nazis may agree on statist principles, they couldn't be farther apart in so many other spheres.

Hi, Eleanor,

No solution then, only an important next step.

I daresay we have the same ultimate goals, don;t you?

And we agree that there now is definitely a big controversy concerning Islam and ... what? It's opposite system; Secular democracy. We are both staunch democracy-loyalists, so to speak, aren't we? Our system is better than theirs, we defend ours and then promote it against theirs. I like us to be FOR something, only then AGAINST something. It's a principle I learned from the book "The Secret".

Is there already a war, burning house, or is there still room for a peaceful patient way out of this controversy?

Because we democracy-loyalists know that freedom of speech, even with heavy insults, can resolve controversy's peaceful in the end. As opposed to violent solutions, including all-out war. That's why we LOVE democracy, at least I do.

And Democracy, when there is no emergency, cannot go around letting people choose. But Islam it is that depends on so-called Divine laws and coercion by state and community. that is one reason why we resent it so much.

Now, holding Muslims accountable is vital in my opinion. Islam is not a race, but a life-choice. BUT the Muslims and Political Correct people still seem to think Islam is an accident of birth, not a choice that carries consequences. Moreover these PC morons, ignorant as they are, keep telling us how harmless Muslims are to democracy.

So, I like democracy-loyalists to confound Muslims and Political-Corrects alike by letting Muslims choose for democracy or theocracy and TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES. From the infidels, in their democratic majority.

Either Muslims fully take our side, if they can, or they broadcast to the damned PC's that they indeed are theocratic and anti-democratic in some pretty vital ways.

Thanks for the great discussion anyway!

"Is there already a war, burning house, or is there still room for a peaceful patient way out of this controversy?"
-----------
Yes, it's a good discussion, but I'm afraid it's a burning house demsci, and we'll just be leaving it for our progeny and theirs to fully deal with, if it's not too late by then. I'm becoming more of the mind that this does not end peacefully. We're going to have no choice in the matter. It's going to come down to either do what they say or fight back.

But isn't that always the case with conquerors? "Do what we say or fight back." Aren't the choices always about the same when the enemy is burning down the gate?

And yes, we're on the same side I believe, I just don't believe that giving Muslim countries "soft" options such as we have in the past is any way wise. Piss them off? SO what? They respect firmness. They respond to strength. They walk all over weaklings.

Diplomacy is only so useful.

Just live in their own world, leave the West alone, and I'd be fine with that. But they won't. They have to have it all.

I should point out that I do consider Islam to be the enemy, and any strict adherent is an enemy as well. It's about time for people to get off the fence and declare their allegiances. We're going to "nice" and "PC" the West right out of existence if our side doesn't eventually display some real backbone.

Look at the inroads Islam has made in the West, by mostly "peaceful" methods. Germany has already declared it will be a Muslim nation.

That's too bad. And it will be too bad when we have to destroy Germany again.

This fight is existential, of that I have no doubt.

Thanks, you have some really good points, GerbilTea. I don't think, however, comparing Mohammad -- in any way -- to Cromwell, is fair except perhaps in passing as a "theological" tyrant. Charismatic? So were many men in that period, as in any period.

And now I don't think comparing Islam to Nazis is really fair, though there is, I believe, an element of fascism in Islam, as there may be in other religions as well.

So you've won me over! No more more will I compare Islam to Nazis. Of course there is some take with this give, and what I will compare Islam to -- a bit later -- you probably won't like. But one cannot have their cake and eat it too on such issues.

Now, to respond to your post in depth:

Your point about forced attendance of worship in Cromwell's protectorate is true, and he did raise hell and make an unholy mess in Ireland. The Monarchy, I belive, would have been abolished under any strong man Parliamentary "Roundhead" leader at that time, however, and not just under a "unique" Cromwell.

Cromwell did not initiate the troubles, he was merely available and in the right position when the troubles did start, and he took advantage of the situation.

The troubles would have been the same had Cromwell never been born, but that is not to say the outcome would have been the same. The point is, Charles I was an absolutist with or without the personage of one Oliver Cromwell being present, and there were an awful lot of pissed off Englishmen regarding the attitudes and actions of the King towards Parliament.

Mohammad, however, absolutely initiated everything with Islam. There would have been no Islam without him. Mohammad could have ignored Gabriel and Allah had he so chosen -- if one believes there ever were any revelations to begin with.

Cromwell didn't found any religion, didn't hold himelf up as the messenger, or prophet, of any god. Cromwell didn't create scripture in which his followers were, for all time, commanded to subjugate unbelievers and strive to rule the world on behalf of a god that only Cromwell communicated with.

Cromwell was a classic religious bigot and tyrant who just happened to live in a period where great changes were taking place in England, where the King was viewed as a tyrant, and where the written word was having a big impact on the minds of learned men.

A strong man was called for and Cromwell was the one there to fill those shoes.

No one follows or worships Cromwell today. As you've noted, he's considered a pariah by very many. All Muslims follow and (essentially) worship Mohammad today.

Apple and orange, Mohammad and Cromwell. Except that they both could be described as charismatic and tyrannical religious bigots, they really have nothing in common.

And yes, there are some theologically fanatical similarities between Cromwell's Protectorate and Islam, but not that many.

I think it might be more accurate to compare Islam to the Manson Family, actually, as the definition of "cult" pretty closely fits both, with the exception that Charlie didn't seriously claim to speak for any god except himself, and no actual "religion" has come out of it. Yet.

But I won't push that comparison tonight, dear Gerbil.

It's late, so we'll save that argument for another day.

"NOTHING GOOD COMES FROM ISLAM"

So right!
And if I may add; nothing good CAN come out of something into which nothing good ever came. The tree of islam is known by its fruit.

I am glad and quite encouraged to see that, thank God, more and more are realizing that truth.

Last Sunday I had a couple of beers with three rather leftist friends I haven't seen for years. In the past they used to indignantly condemn anyone who questioned the wisdom of letting moslems to settle in Denmark. Today they admit they were terribly wrong about Islam and agree with me that it represents the greatest menace to freedom of man everywhere. They have no doubt that should Islam establish itself firmly in the West it would hinder and reverse its progress of the last 500 years sending it into cultural, spiritual, social and economical catastrophe. I was quite amused hearing these three atheists/agnostics calling Islam a “soul killing disease”.

Good Post about Cromwell, Eleanor. Any comparison between him and Mohammed is way off base. I wouldn't even describe Cromwell as a tyrant, though I suppose he can be called a kind of dictator, but if so he was just about the most reluctant dictator in history. He filled a political vacuum, especially with his Protectorate as of December 1653, which, in effect, had to be filled. Moreover, he was remarkably tolerant for his time. He looked the other way where Anglicans and Catholics were concerned as long as they weren't too demonstrative and it was he who let the Jews back into England, exiled from there since the days of Edward I (1272-1307).

His Puritanism was restrictive to be sure and the English tired of it rather quickly (which helps explain in part the lovely licentiousness of the Restoration led by that very clever but often indolent king, Chrales II) but under him all kinds of political ideas were discussed openly for the most part and he also raised England to a status in foreign affairs it had never before seen, even under Henry VIII and that magnificent queen, Elizabeth I.

Most important, Cromwell was not a psychopath and I am convinced Mohammed was. Cromwell was also not a fraud and Mohammed is as fraudulent a major character as one can find in history. Neither was Cromwell a pedophile or just plain brutal. Yes, I know many would point to Drogheda to contradict this claim but by the rules of war at the time if you gave a fortified place a chance to surrender and it didn't and you had to take it by force, what Cromwell did was in keeping with 17th-century norms. Besides, it could be argued that he actually saved lives by his actions at Drogheda because resistance collapsed rather quickly after Drogheda. Still, Crowmell was in keeping with the English treating the Irish as something not quite fully human and that is a black mark on his record. But compared to Mohammed he was a normal human being who just happened to have great military talent and who had to run his country when the Rump, Barebones Parliament, etc. showed that they could not. I see him as a great man and certainly not evil. Contra Mohammed who was deeply malevolent and wicked down to to the depths of his being. Dante put him in the right place.

Hope you don't mind my two cents worth here. May you and yours be doing well. Take care.

GerbilTea. You stated:

"I'm getting really irate with the constant desire to equate everything that doesn't fit into your myopic view of Islam with taqiyya. Any time a Muslim holds an opinion you feel is contrary to the monolith that Islam apparently is, it's countered with "obvious taqiyya". This doctrine is NOT considered acceptable in Sunni Islam, I don't know what you're reading or where you're getting this information from but honestly, we're NOT allowed to hide our religious affiliation, even under pain of death. Heck, believers in monotheism WANT to be martyred, it's probably the biggest honor in Islam and certainly adored by Christians and to a much lesser degree, Judaism (Akiva, Masada etc)."

You're right. For example, in my "myopic view of Islam", the above is another illustration of taqiyya -- or I might yield and attribute your statement to your ignorance. As an illustration of "what [I'm] reading or where [I'm] getting this information", what follows is from Raymond Ibrahim's article in the Winter 2010 (Vol. XVII, No. 1) issue of The Middle East Quarterly (available at http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war ). I trust you'll notice that the principle of taqiyya is traced to the Koran, has support in the hadith, and is definitely NOT restricted to Shi'i communities. Sunnis such as yourself are avid practitioners of such deceit, as I assume you are doing.

In the following quotation from Ibrahim, I'll omit his references and omit adding quotation marks, but all the rest of this post is copied from his article:

The Doctrine of Taqiyya

According to Shari'a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations but may be deemed obligatory in others. Contrary to early Christian tradition, for instance, Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves, based on Qur'anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.

This is the classic definition of the doctrine of taqiyya. Based on an Arabic word denoting fear, taqiyya has long been understood, especially by Western academics, as something to resort to in times of religious persecution and, for the most part, used in this sense by minority Shi'i groups living among hostile Sunni majorities. Taqiyya allowed the Shi'a to dissemble their religious affiliation in front of the Sunnis on a regular basis, not merely by keeping clandestine about their own beliefs but by actively praying and behaving as if they were Sunnis.

However, one of the few books devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi'l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam) makes it clear thattaqiyya is not limited to Shi'a dissimulating in fear of persecution. Written by Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book clearly demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya:

"Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era."

Taqiyya is, therefore, not, as is often supposed, an exclusively Shi'i phenomenon. Of course, as a minority group interspersed among their Sunni enemies, the Shi'a have historically had more reason to dissemble. Conversely, Sunni Islam rapidly dominated vast empires from Spain to China. As a result, its followers were beholden to no one, had nothing to apologize for, and had no need to hide from the infidel nonbeliever (rare exceptions include Spain and Portugal during the Reconquista when Sunnis did dissimulate over their religious identity). Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in the place of the Shi'a: Now they are the minority surrounded by their traditional enemies—Christian infidels—even if the latter, as opposed to their Reconquista predecessors, rarely act on, let alone acknowledge, this historic enmity. In short, Sunnis are currently experiencing the general circumstances that madetaqiyya integral to Shi'ism although without the physical threat that had so necessitated it.

The Articulation of Taqiyya

Qur'anic verse 3:28 is often seen as the primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims: "Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions."

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative Qur'an commentary, explains verse 3:28 as follows:

"If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion."

Regarding Qur'an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime authority on the Qur'an, writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's close companion Abu Darda, who said, "Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them." Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, "Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]."

Other prominent scholars, such as Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi 'd-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels and worse—for example, by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy—anything short of actually killing a Muslim: "Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity—even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire."

Eleanor said - "Oh, and about all that comraderie you mentioned in your succeeding comment. I'm aware that that sense of kinship and exclusivity also existed in, for examples, the Schutzstaffel and The Ku Klux Klan. "
-------------
That is not my quote. That's in a post from GerbilTea replying to George.

I wake up for fajr to find, TWO great replies! Oh happy day!

To the both of you, I certainly would agree that Cromwell and Muhammad are dissimilar on a number of key issues and character flaws. The bit about the Manson family was a little hard to take but I understand where you're coming from in relation to Muslims. Mulling it over, I decided to bring up a much more controversial comparison for Muhammad than Cromwell...

Moses.

Now, to start, I'd like to state that in some ways this is an unfair comparison on the basis that Muhammad is a verifiable historical figure whereas Moses is a figure from the Bible. There's no evidence outside of the Bible that he ever existed so technically he's about as "real" as say Achilles from the Iliad. As a believer in monotheistic religion, I absolutely believe that Moses was a real person, as a skeptic I should also present the case in an objective fashion.

-Both came to prominence as a result of adoption or marriage into the establishment. in the case of Muhammad, it was marrying the wealthiest merchant princess. In the case of Moses, it was adoption by Pharaoh's daughter.

-Both enjoyed the exclusive ear of God, relaying information to the masses after long periods of contemplation.

-Both produced enduring religious texts and codified new law for the adherents.

-Both came from faiths which had, at one time, turned first from polytheism to henotheism and then from henotheism to monotheism. This is controversial in the case of Judaism, which appears to believe itself largely free from the "taint" of polytheism though the movement to monotheism is very sound and is evidenced by the oldest parts of the Bible speaking of Israelites reverting to pagan beliefs. Similarly, Islam is likely drawn from pagan roots, first with henotheism in favor of Allah and later to absolute monotheism under Muhammad.

-Both killed those who were apostates. When Moses came down to find the Hebrews worshipping a golden calf and thus returning to polytheism. His response to this? Kill them ALL for their transgression. Comparably, Muhammad said "he who changes his Islamic religion, kill him."

-Both subjugated nearby tribes to fuel their conquests and spread their faith. In the case of Moses it was Amorites and Midianites, in the case of Muhammad it was his own Quraysh along with their allies.

-As a result of their subjugation, the two prophets ordered brutality for the conquered peoples. In the case of the Midianites, everyone was murdered with the exception of the little girls which brings me to my next unfavorable comparison...

-Both may be rightly considered pedophiles in this day and age. Moses encourages the Israelites to take the virgin girls of the Midians as sexual captives in Numbers 31. Muhammad has biographical information to suggest that he took a child bride, further, his religion details methods for keeping sexual slaves.

-Both took slaves.

I realize that this comparison will be considered extremely unflattering by the Christians and ESPECIALLY the Jews. My point in making such a comparison is to suggest that modern adherents of Judaism still revere a man with a "curriculum vitae" much like Muhammad's, yet they are continually lauded by commentators on these forums. While Judaism has later prophets to draw upon as well, it could also be argued that Islam has previous prophets to draw upon. In both cases, these two prophets are effectively (and respectively) considered to be the best example the religion has to offer.

In what ways is Moses extremely different from Muhammad?

In what ways is Moses extremely different from Muhammad?

Most likely, in spite of popular agreement, it's possible, that neither one of them lived in real time and interacted in real events...One is a symbolic representation, the other is an invented stage prop...You can decide for yourself, which is which...

B, I still consider myself bisexual despite being a Muslim. This concept doesn't really fly very well among the Muslims but I ask them to look at the issue from a reasonable point of view concerning sexual orientation rather than "you gotta be stoned". For many of them, this is something they have never before encountered. Take my wife, before she came to America she had only the most vague concept of what homosexuality was.

It is extremely dangerous for anyone to convert to a religion with the hopes that it will change something as complex as their sexual orientation. I like men and women, that hasn't changed, though I have made a decision to be with one woman rather than continuing a life with both.

"This is probably the only aspect of Islam that I do find redeeming. From what I've seen from some of the inmates who adopted Islam as a religion but didn't follow its violent teachings they were able to clean up their lives and lead productive lives. This is not to say its exclusive to Islam only but Islam does present a very unique way for those who feel life is not structured enough. Christianity and other religions also do present this kinship, but only if one chooses it. If you talk to Christians who are very dedicated to their religion, their life is structured around the Church very much like many devout Muslims whose lives are centered around the Mosque."

Islam places a great deal of importance on being universal/obligatory. All people are welcome to join the faith and much like Christianity we are willing to take those from the lowest rungs of society. In the case of prison da'wah, we offer a comparable form of absolution to square your wrongs with God if you convert. What I think Islam has to offer convicts more so than Christianity, however, is that Islam has a lot more ritual and rigors to offer someone who is easily led astray. It's pretty disciplined to be able to wake up before dawn every day to begin prayers that total around 1 hour a day. You become accustomed to it, you learn to enjoy the routine and I think in prison people certainly need a routine.

My life is centered around God, though I certainly do attend the masjid. It's just a place of worship and honestly we don't *need* to have one. As relayed by Abu Dhar...

"Muhammad sallahu aleyhi wa sallem said, 'Whenever the time for prayer comes upon you, perform the prayer for all of the Earth is a place of worship for you."

And so we pray where ever we are. Be it in public (though not obnoxiously so... blocking sidewalks or using sajdah as a form of political expression is TACKY among other things) or at home.

I still consider myself bisexual despite being a Muslim.

Good grief man...don't tell that to the Sharia police, especially if there are any tall buildings around...

Well at least you're not a 'real' Muslim...Don't tell that to the Sharia police either...

duh, my best friend likes to tell me that if I have any more apparently conflicting viewpoints in my life the universe will implode. I suppose I could make things much more interesting by becoming a bisexual transgender libertarian socialist luddite crypto muslim. ok, so only the first and the last tags fit for me.

yeah, I intend to not tell the shari'a police anything other than "la elaha ilallah" over and over again like a broken record on Eid ul-Fitr.

"Hope you don't mind my two cents worth here..."
----------
Not at all Wellington! It's always a joy to hear your take on any given issue, and you always add so much more detail.

All is well with mine, and I hope that all is well with yours. Thanks for being a sweet gentleman! :D

When GT compared Islam to the Protectorate, it really got me thinking because there could seem to be, at least on the surface, some similarities.

But I don't think those similarities are very numerous when one tries to list them.

I know GT said he's offended when posters compare Muslims to Nazis, and I now tend to agree that's a somewhat poor comparison.

I think the Manson Family (cult) is much more apt. After all, when I think of Mohammad, I picture Charlie with a turban and a little girl (Squeaky?) on his lap.

Some characteristics of a cult:

- an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers (universal Muslim veneration of Mohammad and Allah, above even family, country, everything).

- a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. (veneration of Mohammad, the Koran, conquering the world).

- a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader (uh, dead on. The fact that Mohammad is not a living leader is irrelevant in this case).

- any system for treating human sickness (unbelief) that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease (unbelief), and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. (Mohammad claimed he was the only "prophet" who ever got anything right, and all before him corrupted everything they were taught).

Yes, I think there is a very strong case to be made that Islam perfectly fits the definiton of a cult, especially with the frenzied and fanatical devotion to Mohammad and, even more disturbingly, the imitation of Mohammad down to the smallest detail.

I dare say not many Christians ever tried to mimic Christ in such a sycophantic way.

Addition/Clarification: I dare say not many Christians ever tried to mimic Christ in such a sycophantic and universally consistent way.

Some Christians, of course, HAVE attempted to live like Christ, but their numbers in 2,000 years are miniscule compared to the numbers who mimic Mohammad as a matter of standard practice.

If Christians took it that far, a vast number would have long beards, and they'd be wearing pajamas too.

Good descriptions of what constitutes a cult, Eleanor. I suppose it is possible to describe any religion as a cult if it isn't the true faith, but Islam is a cult on steroids. Moreover, Islam intends harm in this world to others in sundry ways and Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and a great many minor religions do not. This is what really ticks me off most about Islam---the threat and use of violence to advance its cause. Other religions simply don't do this. Also, Islam's founder is repulsive in more ways than one and I have never found Buddha, Jesus, Lao-tzu, Zoroaster, Confucius, etc. repellant as I have Mohammed.

I have said before here at JW and will say here again that I think it was almost inevitable that mankind would eventually get a major religion which had far more harm in it than good. It did. It got Islam.

As for comparisons of Muslims to Nazis, I'm not quite as reluctant as you are to make such a comparison, though I tend to use the word "fascism" rather than Nazism when analogizing Islam to right-wing totalitarianism, with which it shares many traits, the forbidding of freedom of speech, an enthrallment with violence and a bastardized legal system being just three characteristics Islam shares with far-right secular ideologies.

Thanks again for your input. Your voice is a valuable one here at JW. Take care.

Nick, its not only taqiyya, its Muhammad himself who commanded perpetual warfare on unbelievers until the world is Islamic.

"war is deceit".

Add to this that all treaties with unbelievers are just "hudna", which means tactical avoidance of hostilities until the Muslims had the upper hand.

Qur'an 66:2, "Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows,

Bukhari:V7B67N427 "The Prophet said, 'If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'"

Qur'an 9:3 "Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations."
Qur'an 66:2 "Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows."
Bukhari:V4B52N268 "Allah's Apostle said, 'War is deceit.'"
Qur'an 4:142 "Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah. He shall retaliate by deceiving them."

It is therefore totally unrealistic to come to any agreement with people who adhere to such a belief system.

Disengagement from Islam is the only way to ensure our survival.

Hi, Eleanor,

None of what you or Sheikh Yer'mami above says I essentially contradict. Devise your strategy and tell me/ us about it, I like to read it.

What I suggested is just a sub-strategy, to as you say have people, especially Muslims, in our societies, to declare their allegiances.

I am sick and tired of hearing Political-Corrects around me and in the media and parliament and government that:
- Muslims pose no significant threat to our system in the future. In fact, they declare it is an irrational "phobia" to believe that. In fact, they stop listening to a word we say when we display our most of the time vastly superior knowledge on the subject.
- It is hate-speech, hurting feelings, polarising, generalising when we criticize, expose, protest Islam and Muslims.

I want clear choices from Muslims FOR our system, for help, or at least harmless neutrality, who, if you are right, they will not be able to give. At least not in an honest way.

About if they truly do mean our system no harm, and do not want to replace it with another system. That they in fact take our side against their co-religionists who do want to replace it with shariah law.

If clear choices in this matter from Muslims can be had, we can then, with the probably negative results, confront these damned PC-people. A part of whom we hope to confound thoroughly, with the result of convincing many hitherto ignorant people to be on our side.

And as Democrats we simply need 51 % on our side. Unless there is a "burning house".

sheik yer'mami, I agree with you, but I was responding to GerbilTea's taqiyya that, as a Sunni, he doesn't practice taqiyya.

"I want clear choices from Muslims FOR our system, for help, or at least harmless neutrality, who, if you are right, they will not be able to give. At least not in an honest way."
-------------------------
Since they won't be honest through Taqiyya, we simply have to put protections in place that will prevent them from unsurping the authority through Sharia. In other works, put blocks in place ahead of time that will prevent the installation of Sharia law. This will take a bit of pre-planning.

We already have their book. We already have some of them on record as stating their goals. We have already seen how they implement it in other parts of the world in what is called "creeping sharia". Now we need to move to put blocks in place that will prevent them from carrying out their plans, put things in place that will expose them for what they are. I would like to it mandatory that they state their allegiance on record. Because we know that the allegiance won't last, it will be proof to the people who don't believe in Taqiyya that this is what they do. When they do break their "treaty" they will be exposed for the liar they are. When they try to implement Sharia, they too will be exposed for the liars they are.

We have already seen evidence of their lies. One of the biggest one for me so far is Imam Rauf claiming that the Sharia Law is compatible with US Constitution. It is not at all compatible, not in the least bit. For him to say so is a slap in the face to all of us.

Anyways, my point is if we can pull off pre-planning and put protections in place, we just might head off violence that would occur here in the US.

Wellington said "As for comparisons of Muslims to Nazis, I'm not quite as reluctant as you are to make such a comparison, though I tend to use the word "fascism" rather than Nazism when analogizing Islam to right-wing totalitarianism, with which it shares many traits, the forbidding of freedom of speech, an enthrallment with violence and a bastardized legal system being just three characteristics Islam shares with far-right secular ideologies."

Wellington - just a note - fascism, nazism, socialism, are all children of collectivism - which is on the left. That it was on the right is one of the big lies told today (and if its said often enough, people will believe it). Hayek talked about this in Road to Serfdom.

As far as it goes with muslims pledging allegiance to the US, http://www.islam-qa.com/en/tree under "politics" there are answers to that - as in NOPE, NO WAY, and for muslims to enter politics in order to sweep in sharia. There is no conciliation between islam and other religions. :)

Thanks B, well said, I think we are of like mind. Oh, I live in Holland. And you know what? This week it became almost, but not wholly, clear that there will be a government in Holland which is supported by Geert Wilders.

And I have read some of the new governments policies and they look promising. Outright they said that there will be a ban on Burka's in Holland!

Bye, Demsci.

Thank you for your reply but I must tell you that I simply disagree with you that fascism is a leftist phenomenon. Fascism is replete with extreme Far-Right views such as nationalism taken to an ugly degree, repression of free speech and, actually many times, non-collectivist approaches to the economy but instead mercantalistic intiatives, whereby big business acquires monopolies and all kinds of favors from the fascistic government but is not owned by such a government. This is exactly what happened in Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain and in Nazi Germany, especially after Hitler got rid of the leftists in his party like Ernst Rohm during the Night of the Long Knives. I do concede, though, that fascism shares many traits with Far-Left ideologies, the crushing of freedom being chief among them.

Wellington

I like your reply to GerbilTea's attempt to claim that Cromwell was like Mohammed (not sure whether to call that moral equivalencing, or tu quoque), when you zeroed in on one absolutely critical point of difference.

More than difference. It establishes a flat contradiction between the two men.

You stated - "And it was he [Cromwell] who let the Jews back into England, exiled from there since the days of Edward I (1272-1307)."

Funny, that GTea either didn't know about this interesting fact, or pretended it didn't exist. And yet it makes an enormous difference. It's so huge that it makes any attempt to equate the two figures, totally ridiculous.

Cromwell: philojudaic. Invites the Jews back into England and, presumably, treated them fairly well.

Mohammed: Jew-hater - tricked them (Yathrib), attacked them, killed and robbed lots of them (including an elderly poet), raped two Jewish women (almost immediately after killing the husband of one and the fiance of the other) and stuffed them into his harem (I don't call that 'love'). On his deathbed commanded that Jews and Christians be driven out of Arabia.

Cromwell invited Jews *in* to a country from which they had previously been driven out; Mohammed drove Jews *out* of a region where they had lived for centuries.

Curiously enough, if one looks carefully at GerbilTea's attempt to pretend that Moses was just like Mohammed (the aim being to say to people 'Aha! If you want to condemn Mohammed, you have to condemn Moses, too!') one sees that he again leaves out a significant element of Moses' biography that has NO counterpart in Mohammed's.

Namely, the fact that Moses had *just one wife*, Zipporah, and not a wife that he murdered someone to get hold of; in fact, Moses rescued Zipporah and her sisters from being bullied by some local thugs, at a well. The girls took the chivalrous stranger home to dad (Jethro), and, well, Jethro decided someone like that was worth adding to the family, so Moses married Zipporah. And that was that. No other wives, no concubines, not one.

Contrast that with Mohammed's swarming harem.

Moses: one wife. Mohammed: lots of wives, including raped captive sex-slaves.

GerbilTea, of course, also glosses over another major, major point of difference: Moses is represented as talking *directly* with YHWH Himself, not with any subordinate entities (the Ten Commandments are written on the tablet of stone 'with the finger of God') whereas Mohammed only ever gets to talk with a subordinate, an 'angel' called 'Gibreel' (who as far as I am concerned, I being a Christian, was NOT the great Archangel Gabriel but a demonic pretender.

Both those differences matter enormously, because they have to do with the way human relationship is understood in Judaism vs. Islam, and with the *way* God is related to. Muslims DON'T have a direct reciprocal relationship with God: 'allah' is remote, despotic, capricious, and utterly unknowable; all they can do is grovel in terrified submission and hope for the best; whereas Jews stand up in front of God himself and talk, and expect a reply.

I'll just throw in three brilliant little articles I've linked in other threads, because they point up the bottomless gulf that divides Judaism (and, by implication, Judaism's daughter, Christianity) from islam.

The first is 'Spengler', Jewish columnist for the 'Asia Times' newspaper, talking about the difference between Islam, which permits a man power of life and death over his wife and child, and the West (based on the Biblical concept of God and man) which does not. Spengler teases out, beautifully, the full ramifications of the fact that Sharia permits wife-beating whereas the Mosaic law does not.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE25Ak01.html

Middle East May 25 2010

Wife-beating, sharia, and Western law
By Spengler

One quote - 'Sharia resembles Halakha, but by construction, for the same reason the Koran resembles the Torah: it is derived from it, with self-serving adjustments (Ishmael becomes the heir of Abraham rather than Isaac). But the principles of the two legal systems are radically different.'

Two more items that complement Spenger's work very nicely, and show us why GerbilTea's attempt to conflate Moses with Mohammed, to pretend that Moses is really no different from Mohammed, are pure nonsense.

Berman's discussion of the Sinai covenant:

http://www.azure.org.il/article.php?id=131

'God's Alliance with Man'. (Basic point: in the Sinai covenant, each individual Israelite person relates to YHWH not as a slave to a master, but as a vassal king to his sovereign. Revolutionary concept.)

and Rabbi Shlomo Riskin's discussion of the 'ezer kenegdo', 'a help opposite' which is what Woman is, in Genesis 2.

http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5768/bereishit68.htm

'Parshat Bereishit: A Help Opposite?' - By Rabbi Shlomo Riskin.

The Jewish wife is allowed to say NO to her husband; whereas any Muslim woman who does so, can expect scolding, coldness, and finally a thrashing.

The Jewish wife stands over against her husband as his counterpart; the Muslim woman is, in essence, a slave.

Moses is the traditional 'author' of the Pentateuch, which includes Genesis. So GerbilTea can't avoid the awkward fact that the systems, the theology, the whole way of thinking that sees itself as established by Moses, actually, totally at variance with that which sees itself as established or finally defined by Mohammed.

The two men are different; the religions are different and, indeed, diametrically opposed.