Qaradawi: Kill Gaddafi

The world doesn't have enough psychiatrists and psychologists to even begin the untangling the brains of those inculcated with Islam from birth. For them Islam is so hard-wired that nothing can get it, and all the anti-social pathologies it has spawned, out. The very idea of bringing such people to our shores is not the idiocy so often ascribed, but rather is a sign certain of a deliberate plan to destroy our values. No American worthy of the title wants this, yet it continues.

The NYT, Boston Globe, WaPo, LA Times, ChiTrib, and other left wing MSM can continue to spew all this “religion-of-peace” nonsense, but fewer and fewer are buying it any more. Americans have the witness of their own eyes of how Muslims behave. Even the stupid begin to catch on after a while.

Islam is not about to change. Muslims will continue to act like Muslims, especially when there are more of them. Fortunately more and more Americans are connecting the dots. And as the dots get connected, these stories, when they appear, will simply act as signposts to real Americans as to who their internal enemies are.

Hmmm...

we have here, in "Hmmm..." either another Muslim apologist, or another Muslim troll...although he might just be a "Jihad minimizer", as well...

As for the idea that any "moronic Westerners" are supporting Qaradawi, well...we might have a lot of clueless tools who are hopeful enough to support Tariq Ramadan or Imam Rauf, or other thinly-veiled Jihadists, but I don't believe the West has *any* morons moronic enough to support Qaradawi...

...the idea that Qaradawi would respond to Western pressure to "change his views" is quite amusing, as well.

i suspect you are too old for him far too old.

"western people must really have something wrong with them if they refuse to defend the west from islam"

Bingo.

"all this “religion-of-peace” nonsense"

How in the world did that gigantic lie start in the first place?

Yes..., and I can nearly hear him crying out for his momma "allah" at this very moment.....lolllll

Mr. hmmm - Let me question you: What exactly are the views of the "many Muslims" you speak of who disagree with Quaradawy and the Muslim Brotherhood? Specifically, in what ways do they disagree? And who are they? Where are they? In hiding, maybe?

Yeah, Hmmmm does seem like a Mohammedan troll. Or how can anyone miss that the above news is just being reported, and JW is not taking sides b/w Qaradawi & Gadaffi. Even more moronic is his belief that Westerners can pressurize Qaradawi into changing his views.

On the alleged call for Tiennamen square massacre of 'unarmed protesters', we saw how peaceful they were w/ Lara Logan. Hmmmm, (pun intended), armed w/ a penis is about as lethal as armed w/ a Kalashnikov, if one is a Mohammedan.

I was wondering which side you'd pick. Thanks for telling us.

Does defender of islam support the same side as you? ;-)

Yusef Al Qaradawi is ranked the 9th most influentual muslim on the planet. He has over 60 milion Muslims watching his weekly sermons. He was exiled from Egypt during Mubarak's reign since the MB was a formerly illegal political/religious group.

Qaradawi is also considered by many to be a "Father" figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. When he speaks, Muslims listen and follow his directives.

Incidentally he also has ties to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (of Ground Zero Mosque fame). When Imam Rauf stepped out of the country during the media frenzy about the GZ Mosque he was meeting up with "Moderate" Muslims like Yusef Al Qaradawi.

Here you can find Qaradawi singing praise of Hitler and his killing of Jews and his wish to kill jews by his own hands before he dies.

"...the people have the right to kill him also."

Of course you think that way, since that's a mohammedans rite of passage. Right? Evil muhammad was a murdering marauder, so it stands to reason that his followers would be out for blood too.

Yes, but 60 million is still an extremely small minority according to Islamoapologists. There are 1.6 billion of them, you know.

fineliving56,

Thanks for your input and response to Saleem, but I believe there is a problem. Both salam and Islam share the same s-l-m root, but so do many other words with different meanings. Some of the words do have similar or related meanings (though others don't). However, where the word Islam occurs in the Quran (3:19, 3:85, 5:3, 6:125, 9:74, 39:22, 49:17, 61:7), the English translations usually have it as submission or surrender, or else just reproduce it as "Islam." I've never seen an English Quran that has Islam translated as peace.

My overall reading of Lane's Lexicon for s-l-m words (pp. 1412-1417) suggests that Islam means resignation, submission, surrender; the giving of obedience. (This is usually described in English dictionaries with "to God," i.e., "submission to God"; and Muslim is one who submits to God).

The Online Etymological Dictionary for the entry "Islam" states: ""submission" (to the will of God), from root of aslama "he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted," causative conjunction of salima "he was safe," and related to salam "peace.""

It could be argued that Islam is in a way related to peace, besides their sharing the common s-l-m root. I can see how, conceptually, peace is related to resignation, surrender, etc. One could say Islam means making peace with God. However, according to the overall messages of the Quran, a mere human can only be in right relationship with the supreme being Allah if he or she worships, obeys, prays to Allah; struggles for the cause of Allah, etc. If that is "peace," then it is a peace that entails a submissive relation to Allah, i.e., one must be a slave to Allah, as the Quran itself says. Any way you look at it--linguistically, conceptually, practically--Islam means submission.

http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
(search SIIN LAM MIIM words, and you will see the links to the relevant parts of Lane's Lexicon are in blue at the bottom of each section)

Here are the relevant pages of Lane's Lexicon:
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000136.pdf
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000137.pdf
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000138.pdf
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000139.pdf
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000140.pdf
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000141.pdf

Westerners do have something wrong with them. They have the spine of a jellyfish for starters. It wouldn't be so bad if we had the sting of one. But we have no backbone, and the Jihadis know it. If we had a spine, we would for starters clean out our own stable and send the likes of our resident trolls like DefenderOfIslam one way back to Pakistan, and go on from there.

Oy indeed. If true, it would also explain some of Gadhafi's attitudes in adhering to Islam's denial and denunciation of its infidel past.

Sorry, but "Islam" come from the word "Istislam". NOT from "Salam". Salam means peace. Istislam means "to submit". Just ask any Arab language scholar.

I know Arabic VERY, VERY well. And I know root words in the Arabic.

sean

click on the link that 'Shy Guy' (our man in Jerusalem) linked, just above, in his posting at 11.05 pm.

There appears to be a possibility that his mother was Jewish.

Of course, the other thing is that his father's ancestry may well contain a good deal of Berber (the indigenous inhabitants of North Africa) rather than Arab; and the Arab Muslims have always looked down their noses at every other kind of Muslim.

It's good to know in advance what will be the leftist position when it turns out the MoHoods did take over Egypt, in complete contrast to their predictions. So obviously the next step is to say they really support democracy (Iranian style), so they are really better than Mubarak. And being so moderate and democratic and absolutely non-violent in principle, except when violence is required, and being against al-Qaida tactics, they should really be seen as your new great ally against terrorism.

The only little thing they demand in return - and after that they will never attack you or anyone else and peace will dawn on the Middle East and indeed the entire world - is to "liberate" Israel from non-Muslim rule. Which is also quite just because everyone knows it's been a part of the Muslim empire from time immemorial and there was never ever anyone there before them. By the same rule Spain, Greece and some other little countries should also be "liberated" from non-Muslim rule, but nevermind that, Israel will be quite sufficient.

So this will take us to the next, quite predictable stage the leftists have been preparing for a long time now, the Czechoslovakia stage, where Israel is sacrificed to Islam to appease it.

After the Czechoslovakia stage will finally come the awakening to the fact the sacrificing Israel and exterminating 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Arab "collaborators" (only our fifth column will be spared) did not satisfy their "righteous anger", but rather embolden them.

Which to Israel means that we need to survive the Czechoslovakia stage, until we get to the awakening stage (even if Israel survives the Western perfidy, Westerners will realize at some point that even though they dumped Israel it did not save them).

The difference with Czechoslovakia is that Czechoslovakia was weak and needed more than just weapons from its "allies". It actually had a defense treaty with the French, but don't we (Israelis) know the French and Brits are some of the most perfidious nations on earth, so they sacrificed their misfortunate ally hoping to appease their mortal enemy. In return they got occupation and a very bloody war, and Britian, deservedly, lost its dominance to the US. Of course, that will not stop the West from trying the same trick again.

Israel is stronger than Czechoslovakia was, so we can survive for a while. What we really MUST do is find other allies QUICKLY. No matter who, even the Chinese, anyone that will protect us (i.e. won't suffocate our economy and render us defenseless in terms of weapons in face of the jihad) in return for military technology since nothing else matters. We're very good in military technology, as well as all other kinds of technology, but we're small in numbers and therefore in money. If China puts the money plus its own brainpower the sky is the limit. We need to survive and that's all there is in this world, nothing else matters.

"Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Website Establishes New Global Muslim Brotherhood Section"

http://globalmbreport.org/?p=3989

Before the Munich Dictat of 1938, Czechoslovakia was not so weak militarily. It had probably the third ranking army in western Europe after Germany and France. With the loss of the fortified frontier lands (Sudetenland) it was strategically crippled. When Germany invaded Russian ruled territory in 1941, a lot of the equipment used had been seized from Czechoslovakia.

The pressure on Israel to give up land and settlements for "peace" is just the same as was applied to the Czechoslovaks, who were not even invited to the Munich conference that sacrificed their sovereignty.

RonaldB - I totally disagree with any suggestion the US in any way encourage Muslim violence against Muslims.

Yet another totally unimformed American talking out of his a$$.

America has a lot to answer for and a lot of apologising to do. All these people in the ME now being murdered by the Ben Ali's, the Mubaraks and the Quadaffis is as a direct result of the US funding these despots to keep power, kill their people at will whilst keeping those wall-worshippers safe.

In the long run you cannot keep the Israelis safe - they will have to learn to make friends with their neighbours themselves. Communities are all about compromise and love - something that America and Israel know nothing about.

Each American needs to search his/her own heart - which is normally obese with ego and fat - look at what you have have done over 30 years - the mumber of people you have had indirectly murdered - who does that?.

America needs to grow up and also be open to change - for we all need the oil from the ME - but lets get it in an open and fair manner, with thier people controlling their resources and their destiny.

Soon you will learn that muslims can live with democracy better than you - just like you are learning that the Chinese are better at capitalism than you.

Doom-and-gloom,

I agree with your sentiments. My first loyalty, of course, is to the US, and an alliance of Israel with China would be dangerous. But, one cannot blame Israel for taking necessary steps for its survival.

However, don't despair quite yet. I'm proud to note that the US vetoed the UN security council resolution to condemn Israel. China supported the resolution. The democratic processes in the US are such that Obama, whatever his inclinations, had to assert the veto. So, the US system of government is working.

Incidentally, Clinton was trying to get a watered-down resolution that the US could "support". Abbas would have none of it, refusing to compromise in the least. It reminds me of Golda Meir's statement "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Well, best of luck.

Baklava,

May I suggest you brush up on your language skills a bit? Most people conversant with English would have understood that I was saying that I am opposed to the US encouraging any Muslim on Muslim violence. Muslims are people.

I do have a few qualifications to that, however. I agree with the US support of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. The Iranian government had just held our diplomats in barbarous captivity over a year. Payback was perfectly legitimate.

Also, I support our invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban had just hosted a serious attack on US soil. Of course, George Bush made his usual mess of things, turning an essentially military operation into a futile and costly exercise in nation building.

"In the long run you cannot keep the Israelis safe - they will have to learn to make friends with their neighbours themselves. Communities are all about compromise and love - something that America and Israel know nothing about."

Well, I think Israel is quite good in taking care of itself. And, love can only go so far when you're dealing with neighbors who see their religious duty to be invading and destroying you.

By the way, Baklava, please share your country of origin with us. I'm sure I would be interested in your country's obviously successful efforts at democracy, capitalism, physical fitness, and self-defense through love.

Spirit of 1683 you overlook one thing in your racist rant that I was born than america citizen unlike you who was not born than america citizen.

Citizenship is more than simply being born here. Care to discuss which is more important to you- the US Constitution or Sharia law?

I may not understand what you wrote, but if you were born than america citizen, where did you learn English? I hesitate to ask the reason for your unique style of prose, assuming that not one of your American teachers would ever accept the credit or blame for helping you develop it.

John Knox, the Scottish Presbyter, used to deliver fiery sermons on whether tyrants ought to rule over Christians, but he could never point to the words of Jesus to justify violence. Jesus never endorsed violence, not even in Matthew 10:34.

What justifies Muhammad's violence, and why does Islam deserve defense?

You're not an American because your loyalty isn't to America or its citizens. Your loyalty is to every infidel hating Islamofascist on the planet, and that means 85% plus of all Muslims. You are far more Pakistani or Saudi than American because you have Pakistani and Saudi values of hatred towards the infidel. When Zawahiri opens his mouth, that is you in an echo chamber. So back to Pakistan you go, barbarian.

I know you brought some references….but I have to tell you , even the so called scalars most of them are muslim bias they want to pull the blanket there way to make the mass naive muslims to submit to Islam and there for SUBMISSION to the greed that they have in there hearts for POWER, WOMEN AND MONEY .
Any Arabic person will never use the word ISALM instead of Istislam in a sentence for example ….Al mar'ah Istislamat lilamer al wakiaa ….means the women submitted to reality ….we never use islam in the place of istislam in that sentence because no one will understand it correctly ….there is 2 thing are going on here : 1- the muslim bias scalars wont us to think Islam is submission to submit and 2- the muslim moderates wonts us to think Islam is peace for us to forgive islam and right off as misunderstanding …do you see that …both are using translation to fool people …but believe me the meaning of islam is peace but it is just in the name what is in the any reality is a different think all together.

Exactly--it's all about the sex with these muslims.

fineliving56,

Thanks for the reply. Can you provide me with a reference to an Arabic dictionary, or Arabic etymological dictionary, that says that Islam means peace?

To Tom Billesley and also to RonaldB,

Oh yes, I'm very aware of all the similarities. BTW, Israel did offer the Arabs about 100% of Judea & Samaria (93% plus land swaps that would make it 98-100%), but they rejected it. They have other irrational demands that Israel can't accept without committing national suicide. This is not discussed very much in your media because it doesn't fit the impression they want to create in the public (Israel evil, refusing peace, Arabs good, only victims defending themselves). This is also why they only show you the map of "west Palestine" (the part left after the Brits already gave most of mandatory Palestine to the Arabs) - they only show you this map so you will see a big Israeli "Goliath" vs. a small "Palestinian" "David". The real maps you should see to understand what enemy Israel is really facing are those of the Arab League states (in yellow) vs. Israel (in blue), and Muslim states vs. Israel. Does it really look like a territorial conflict, or is it more an obsession to erase that little speck of non-Arab non-Muslim "dirt" off the map?

I'm very aware of the similarities, but there's also a big differnce. While Judea & Samaria have enormous strategic importance in terms of territorial depth (let's face it - with this size and this shape any piece of land has enormous strategic importance), the Sudetenland was crucial to Czechoslovakia not just in territorial terms, but it was central in terms of industry and economy. In Israel the industrial and economic center of gravity is in Gush Dan, in central Israel, around Tel Aviv. So this will weaken us, but not destroy us.

Israel also has the strongest army in the region. People sometimes tend to overestimate it or underestimate it because of the results of this or that war, but in 1967 Israel won so fast because it preempted and destroyed the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground, and in 1973 Israel had a hard time because it was a surprise attack (that shouldn't have been a surprise), not because the Egyptian army suddenly became vastly superior to what it was in 1967. One shouldn't underestimate nor overestimate the Arab and Muslim armies.

The Muslims believe Hizballah and Hamas defeated the Israeli army because their way of thinking is total and also delusional (they believe in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"). They don't understand why Israel was in Lebanon in the first place, nor why it withdrew - these were both tactical decisions based on security concerns, on preventing terrorism and rocket attacks and saving lives, and what is the best way to do it. This was not an existential war in the sense that the enemy is actually in a position to conquer your country, so they haven't experienced the full force of the IDF.

As for the borders after they'll force the new "Munich Dictat" on us - we survived in these borders before June 1967. In 1948 it was far worse, if you ever saw the borders back then - they were truly indefensible. Worse yet, there was an arms embargo on the Middle East, but the Arabs were already armed with British weapons. The Jordanian army was armed and trained by the British and unofficially also had British commanders (the Brits had a lot of interests in the ME and were far better served by the Arabs who control an enormous part of it, with only Persia and Israel in their way to full control). The country that did sell Israel weapons in spite of the embargo was... Can you guess? Czechoslovakia! What goes around comes around.

And as for desretion by "allies" - we have already been through that with France. We survived that too.

Don't sell us short - the Jews have a knack for achieving the impossible, and the majority of Israelis are Jews.

And as for China - it'll be more dangerous for us since from experience whatever we'd sell them will find its way to our enemies right across the border, as well as our enemies at large. But we can condition any cooperation on them not selling it to the Muslims. That can hold for a few years until they extract the most of our knowledge (do you know how much Israeli technology the American army uses? It's not crap technology, trust me, in some fields we're better than you). By then hopefully the "Czechoslovakia stage" will be over and the West relizes selling out Israel had not saved them, and be our (temporary as always) "allies" again. Then, of course, the Muslims will be stronger as they will acquire the Israeli-Chinese technology, but that's what you get when you let senseless appeasers and delusional leftists run the show. There are two kinds of enemies - those who have some limited "grievance" that you can compromize with and make peace, and infinitely ambitious mortal enemies that only use "grievances" as an excuse and a tactic to weaken you. Appeasing the former makes a lot of sense, making concessions to the latter might kill you. What we need in power is people who can tell the difference, and right now the West doesn't have them in power, so expect things to get much worse.

I'm still hoping it will not have to be China, but India. That will be good for the US as well.

Of course, there's also the seemingly insane idea of a Muslim-Israeli alliance (if they had any sense, that's what they'd do, but they're too fanatic).

pulsar182,

What you are quoting re the Islam means peace myth, from the Religion of Peace site, appears to be taken from the MSA site addressing the same issue.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm#islammeanspeace

I'm no expert on Arabic, but I have investigated this particular issue in some detail. What they say doesn't look correct to me. Neither the MSA site, nor the Religion of Peace site which quotes them, provides authoritative dictionary references or other such sources to back up what they are saying.

That said, I've had variations of this discussion with Muslim apologists (and some Islam critics) over the years, and none of them have ever presented an authoritative source that says (1) salam (peace) is the "root" of Islam, or (2) that Islam means peace (and not submission).

s-l-m itself is not a word. It is a triconsonantal grammatical root form, out of which many words can be made. If you examine the studyquran and Lane's Lexicon links I provided above, you will see that some of the words sharing this root have similar or related meanings, whereas others that also share the same root have quite different meanings.

Kinana of Khabar
hi ….I understand how easy to be confused even with all the references we have at hand
the biggest problem with translation from English to Arabic is the vowels in the beginning ,middle and the end of a word ,,, vowels are NOT INCLUDED LIKE ENGLISH IN THE WORD THEY ARE AROUND THE WORD …for example …LETS TAKE ..SLM …IF IT HAD / ON TOP OF S AS SOUND A IN ENGLISH …..AND '' ON TOP L AS DOABLE LIKE ll ...AND / ON TOP M THE SAME LIKE A SOUND …THEN IT MEANS TO SAY SUBMISSION IN PAST TENCE….. NOW …SLM WILL CHANGE IF ..S toped with O and L TOPED WITH [SOKKON MEANS NO VOWEL JUST A STOP ] AND M TOPED THE SAME LIKE L …THEN SLM MEANS PEASE LIKE SALAM AS A ROOT WORD FOR SLM .
NOW ISLAM COMES FROM SALAM AND SLM THE ONE TOPED WITH …O,SUKKON,SUKKON …NOW THE ONE TOPED WITH ../ , '' , / THIS SLM COMES FROM ISTISLAM AS ROOT WORD …I hope it was clear some what …you were asking for references , I never got it from any where ..I learned it school ..like you learn vowels English in school …I looked in my dictionary

The dictionary I was referring to, is written by J.M. COWAN …I hope it helps ..again Arabic is my native languish and I am not scholar in the Arabic languish …I left my country long time ago to the US and I studied fine art here ….my life is about painting and a lot of reading to fight agents Islam after I became an ex Muslim …I post here to vent …I am surrounded by moderate muslims who have no clue and do not want to have a clue …any way …thanks

fineliving56,

Thanks for this reply...glad to hear you have left Islam, a brave move as you know.

I'm not a speaker of Arabic but I have studied some words and have learned briefly about the triconsonantal structure, so I understand the concept of what you are describing.

The English-Arabic dictionaries I've seen define Islam with terms like submission, resignation, etc. I'm not sure which one of J M Cowan's works you referenced, but there's one on Google Books by Hans Wehr and J M Cowan, and again it simply defines islam as "submission, resignation, reconciliation (to the will of God)" [p. 497, in A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (Arab.-Engl.) Hans Wehr, J. Milton Cowan (1979)]

Anyways, if your J M Cowan source defines Islam with the word "peace," if you have the book available, please quote it and provide the full reference.

The New Encyclopedia of Islam (also online) defines Islam as follows: "The word islam is a verbal noun (Ar., masdar) in Arabic for the action of submission or total commitment, usually referring to acceptance of and submission to the will of God. It is the name identifying the faith tradition and community of those who believe that there is one God and that the prophet Muhammad was God's messenger, and the person who sub-mits is a "Muslim.""

T. P. Hughes' Dictionary of Islam (also online) uses phrases like these to define Islam: "Resignation to the will of God [...] ‘Abdu ‘l-Haqq says it implies submission to the divine will [...] In the Qur'an the word is used for doing homage to God.[...]"

As for etymology, there is no misunderstanding the obvious point that words like salam, Islam, etc., share the s-l-m root form (grammatical structure). However, in what appears to be a description of historical origins and development of the words, one of my sources (mentioned above; the Online Etymological Dictionary) says Islam is "from the root of aslama, "he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted,"".

Another source indicates that, etymologically, islam comes from salima: "islam : Islam [salima] Aze islam, Ind islam, Per eslam, Swa islamu, Tat islam, Tur islam borrowed from Ar." The square brackets there indicate the etymology of the word. The same source has this for salima: "salima : be intact; greet [Sem s-l-m, Mal sellem (greet), Akk shalamu (be intact), Heb shalam, Syr shalem (accord), JNA salame (peace), Meh selom, Amh selam, Uga shlm, Phoen shlm] Swa salimu borrowed from Ar" Online source: http://www.freeweb.hu/etymological/
Andras Rajki's A. E. D. Arabic Etymological Dictionary 2002

I note that your typepad id is typepad.com/looon ...

Does this indicate you have visited here from loonwatch ?
If so, have the courtesy to note that you have been free to comment here, despite the vitriolic against JW posted on your favoured site. Note also that I, and a few other JW posters have attempted to comment on loonwatch, and have never had our comments posted. That should tell you something ....

Your comments about the West and Q are simply too silly, and have been ably refuted by other posters.

You're a hit and run merchant, aren't you ? One comment, then you disappear, no attempt to answer your respondents - ah well, typical muslim ....

I think he's from loonwatch, and would like to think he is a 'moderate' muslim. Note it's the fault of the West, not the islamic world ! Sooo typical...

A bit ambiguous - I meant he would probably like to think of HIMSELF as a 'moderate' muslim...

Doom-and-gloom,

Thanks for a very informative post. I agree with you that India is a much better ally than China, both for Israel and the US. The US used Pakistan as an ally when we were supporting the Afghans against the Russians. I don't know enough to second-guess that decision, as it helped to end the USSR. However, the blowback from alliances with totalitarian, unstable, religiously-based dictatorships is obvious. You correctly realize that any alliance with China will take the same risks.

Jan,

In fairness, I have posted the same arguments (essentially) at loonwatch as I have here, and they are online for you to see.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/02/mr-shirk-cannot-stand-by-his-own-words-too-cowardly-to-name-loonwatch/

Incidentally, Roland banned the author of the article at loonwatch from JihadWatch. The reason was that the author accused Roland of wanting to move Muslims into enclaves. I decided to duke out the issue on loonwatch, and they posted my comments.

RolandB,

The Loonwatch folks are mostly bad news. They've launched vicious smear campaigns against Robert Spencer, and they routinely mislead readers about Islam and the beliefs of Muslims today. Among the writers and commenters there are supporters and admirers of Qaradawi--just to give you some idea of where they are coming from.

From what I've read from other JW commenters over the last couple of years who've tried to post at Loonwatch, while a relatively few have had some posts appear, most people have not gotten through. My own experience was essentially this: One of my posts--which merely disagreed with the author and described the kind of evidence that he needed but which he failed to cite to support his argument--was held "in moderation" for several weeks, and was never allowed to appear in the comment section. They have an officially-stated policy of ensuring that pro-Loonwatch point-of-view posts dominate the comment section.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/03/do-you-love-loonwatch-if-so-do-your-part/
"Take the initiative, and go the extra mile to help out, so that we absolutely dominate in the comments section of this site."

It would seem that they are not only getting help from a small number of loyal followers--and think carefully for a while about who could possibly a loyal follower of a site like loonwatch--but they are helping themselves by blocking most of the contrary feedback they receive.

Hello Kinana,

I have no explanation for why Loonwatch posted my comments and didn't post yours. I would not continue to send posts there if they didn't eventually put them on, so we'll see.

I'm not really concerned which viewpoint has the most posts on a website. I'm interested in looking at the arguments and evaluating them for reasonableness or non-reasonableness. I disagreed strongly with their characterization of Roland Stark, and wrote detailed posts there as to the reasons for my disagreement.

I think they have some interesting points of view also. I'm also reading the English website of the Muslim Brotherhood, although of course, they don't allow me to post there. :)

I enjoy your posts, although I have to confess to kind of skimming the exchange on the Arabic root of "Islam".

RonaldB,

Thanks for those generous words.

Re the (off-topic) posts about the etymology and meaning of some words--topics which are tedious for many readers--I address these issues only because Muslim apologists, in their efforts to advance Islam, have put these (refutable) claims onto the table of discussion in contemporary society.

Re the number of posts per viewpoint on Loonwatch, it's not the numbers that bother me but the unethical methods they use to ensure one side (theirs) "dominates" the comment section. I've had plenty of critical things to say about their content, but that's the topic of another discussion, perhaps in another thread.

I went over to loonwatch, and read the whole debate - very interesting, and very well reasoned on your part. I couldn't but note that your respondents consistently failed to answer the nub of your arguments, and merrily equivocated away.

On that issue of muslim 'enclaves' - 'Mosizzle's' reply was along the lines of he blamed 'government policies' for this, not muslims themselves.

I've replied to this, along the lines that government policies in the UK bend over backwards to acommodate them and yet they still choose to ghettoize themselves to the point that areas of many UK towns and cities are 'no-go' areas for non-muslims.

It came up that 'your comment is awaiting moderation', so we'll see. How long does it usually take ?

Ronald B wrote:

I've been reading the website for the Muslim Brotherhood. In particular, the article

The role of Moderate Islamists in the fight against terrorism, case study of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=20940

The article makes the point that the Muslim Brotherhood may be the best line of defense against violent Jihadists in Muslim countries. I think they make some good points...
...........................

It can be very instructive to read your enemy's words. But it is important to read them with a jaundiced eye, and *not* take what they have to say at face value.

I have actually read Ikhwanweb's site any number of times myself. I have also wondered how their Arabic site differs from the English.

The whole "Muslim Brotherhood is a bulwark against terrorism" is a message for the West. I don't believe we should take it seriously.

More:

I think the Muslim Brotherhood may very well be the face we see in Egypt. They are not al Qaeda...
...........................

Al Qaeda pretty much grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood. I think this is a classic case of the "fast Jihad" and the (relatively) "slow Jihad".

More:

Also, with the Muslim Brotherhood, Israel will have to stay in a permanent state of war preparation. The Muslim Brotherhood will not consider it terrorism to liberate Israel territory from non-Muslim rule, although they will probably not countenance suicide bombers.
...........................

Qaradawi certainly supports suicide bombers.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Ronald. I look forward to reading your posts.

I just think we all—myself included—need to take *any* supposed "moderation" of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood with a large grain of salt.

The meretricious "Baklava" wrote:

In the long run you cannot keep the Israelis safe - they will have to learn to make friends with their neighbours themselves. Communities are all about compromise and love - something that America and Israel know nothing about.
..............................

Ludicrous. Israel's "neighbors" have repeatedly tried to drive her into the sea, until she handed their asses back to them.

Baklava is just trying to get Israel's allies to abandon the only democracy in the region, and then further policies that will increasingly weaken her.

All I can say is "what's love got to do with it"?

Jan wrote:

I think he's from loonwatch...
.........................

I think you're right, Jan.

Doom and Gloom

while you were brainstorming possible alliances, you wrote:

"I'm still hoping it will not have to be China, but India. That will be good for the US as well."

I'm an Australian. When I look out from my 'platform' at the neighbourhood I see three very large countries to the north and west of us.

I see China - huge, wealthy and smart, but also dangerously aggressive, greedy, and cruelly totalitarian (their 'one-child' policy which, though defied here and there, because of the Chinese cultural preference for sons, has still been enforced enough to produce a dangerous gender imbalance, and is enforced by horrendous cruelties and breaches of human rights - e.g. forcible sterilisation of women, and forcible 'abortion' and lethal injections to kill, in the womb, a woman's unpermitted second child, even on the verge of birth.) I see Indonesia - hundreds of millions of Muslims, rapidly sharia-izing. And I see India, freer and more 'human' than either Indonesia or China, though having plenty of problems of its own, including its dangerous Muslim minority as well as a couple of nasty Maoist insurrections.

On balance I'd rather cozy up to India than China; and I'd like us to have as little to do with Indonesia as humanly possible, and to use a very long spoon when dealing with China's rulers.

Allying with India makes all sorts of sense for Australia as well as for Israel and the US. From Australia's POV, if India can stay free, de-dhimmify a bit (big IF, of course) and get their fifth-column of Muslims under control, then India as a friend outflanks and outweighs both China and Indonesia.

Hey, joint space program, anyone? India, US, Israel... and can we Aussies join in? Alternative energy research?

Australia, of course, has something that India desperately needs: lots and lots of the hot stuff, namely, uranium.

If Uncle Sam were to break off the dead-end and deadly relationship with Pakistan and woo Mother India instead, then Australia would have the US at one side across the Pacific and India at the other side across the Indian Ocean...and I would feel a bit safer, as I contemplate the very narrow strip of water that separates Australia's exposed northwest coastline from Indonesian-occupied West Papua, and West Timor.

(The other countries in SE Asia that I think my country should be building relationships with, are Singapore and the Philippines, besides the links we already have with S Korea and Japan. ).

Something else, on the subject of India: there was a very smart Israeli guy named A Carlebach/ Karlebakh who wrote a famous article for Ma'ariv in 1955 in which he called Islam 'the worst of all plagues'.

I went googling him once and discovered that in the final years of his life he had visited India and written a book (in Hebrew) about India and Indian culture which was immensely popular among Israelis, and became a kind of unofficial guidebook for many Israelis who went backpacking or doing business in India. Have you read it? If so, what is it like?

It sounded fascinating: I 'd love to know whether anyone has ever translated it into English, it sounded like it'd be worth reading.

Post scriptum: have you heard of a book called 'The Undercover Zionist'? It's about the Australian diplomat H P Evatt and what he was doing just prior to the historic UN vote on Israel in 1947. You'll remember Australia 'broke ranks' with Britain, the Mother Country, when that vote went down; we voted Yes. We'd already begun to see the US as our next 'protector' but at that stage I don't think we knew how the US was going to vote; I think our vote was in some sense a vote of conscience.

I don't suppose anyone will be reading this as it's too old, but anyway !

Just as I thought. My comment hasn't been posted. Not really a bit surprised, as I pointed out that in the UK, where the govt bends over backwards to acommodate muslims in every possible way, they CHOOSE to refuse to integrate - muslim 'enclaves' in many British towns and cities are in fact no-go areas for coppers and non-muslims. So 'Mosizzle' saying that 'government policies' are to blame, not muslims, is just nonsense.

DDA, you are hugely, stupidly, and horrendously mistaken if you think the gender imbalance and abortion of girls has to do with the one child policy in china (which i don't approve of)

India, which has no such policy, has conducted massive abortions of female fetuses which have started to show a MASSIVE gender gap and imbalance, India is suffering "Gendercide" against women as well. Not only that, women are nearly treated like sh*t and sex toys in India.

"Rapes of Women Show Clash of Old and New India"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/world/asia/27india.html

"No place for girls in 'shining India'"

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20110413-273361.html

"The decline of India's girls"

"Economic growth hasn't brought gender justice, as sex-selective abortion means more boys than girls are born every year"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/10/missing-girls-dark-side-india-abortion

"India’s gender imbalance ‘worst in recorded history’"

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/indias-gender-imbalance-worst-in-recorded-history/

"An urgent need to preserve and value baby girls in India"

http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/industry-insights/economics/an-urgent-need-to-preserve-and-value-baby-girls-in-india

"India Gendercide: A Great Threat To Security – Analysis"

"THE result of 2011 census of India is almost all heartening. Literacy is up; life expectancy is up; family size is stabilizing. But there is one grim exception- India’s already skewed infant sex ratio is getting worse. India counted only 914 girls aged six and under for every 1,000 boys or 75.8m girls and 82.9m boys. This sex ratio is the worst in the recorded history of the modern Indian."

http://www.eurasiareview.com/india-gendercide-a-great-threat-to-security-analysis-14042011/

"The Devastating Impact of Sex-Selection Abortion in India"

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/04/the-devastating-impact-of-sex-selection-abortion-in-india/

"War Against Women Starts With Killing Baby Girls in China, India, and"

http://unaskedadvice.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/war-against-women-starts-with-killing-baby-girls-in-china-india-and/