Islam and Islamists

what?

Daniel Pipes field of study is the Middle East in general, not Islam. Islamic Shar'iah says that the religion and state is the same, because having a ruling system based on God's law is seen as form of worship and glorification to him.

You are incorrect about Daniel Pipes, Jacob Good. Pipes has a PhD in medieval Islamic history from Harvard. Yes, he knows the Middle East in general quite well and he is fluent in Arabic, but his real specialty has very much to do with Islam itself. Few know more about Islam than Pipes does, though I disagree with him about the distinction between Islam and Islamism, which, to my knowledge, he still accepts. One of his principal points is that much of Sharia is applicable only to the seventh century. Problem is Pipes is not a Muslim and there are shitloads of Muslims who very much believe that Sharia is for all time. So do I and this forms part, though not all, of why I oppose Islam for all time.

Facebook is indeed, Cuda, not a place for intellectual excellence ordinarily, if ever, but it has become part of popular culture in our time and to ignore popular culture for transmission of truths and falsehoods, and as a barometer of society in general, would be indicative of an arid and snobbish mindset. Robert Spencer intuitively understands this I think. Apparently you don't and hence your misplaced criticism.

Well, you can call my mindset arid and snobbish if you REALLY think that my criticism of Facebook as a poor journalistic source is misplaced. I prefer to be selective and wary when presented with what people consider to be the truth and lies.

I feel that Facebook is more a barometer of an anonymous society, not actual society. The amount of hate speech and inflammatory political rhetoric on Facebook is extraordinary. Dignifying Facebook by being on it or reading/posting comments there is really just dehumanizing and self-defeating.

Does anyone really feel better for going to Facebook? I know I feel better when I post and read the comments here. I did not when I was on Facebook.

Well Pipes believes that Islam can be reformed and even was in a proces of reformation during the colonial period up to the 1960s.....

He often argues that "The Koran is like a supermarket, take from it what you want" and that Sharia is similar to other pre modern religious laws....with the difference that there was much less reform there.

In his opinion the rules of the Sharia were never practicly apliceble in fullness so medieval Ulema allways could manipulate it to let it mean whatever they wanted it to mean....thus Islam could be reformed.

In most of his views he echos Bernard Lewis with the difference that Lewis is more sympathetic thowards Islam while Pipes is while often respecting pre-modern Islamic empires, observing from a cold distance....

Look, I'm not a Facebook fan. In fact, I think Facebook is demonstrative of the shallowness of our time, but you're still missing the point, to wit, that popular outlets, rather than first-rate conveyances of the way things really are (like Jihad Watch), are often quite revealing of how loads of people think and thus should not be ignored.

Robert Spencer posted this thread to show exactly that and you went on a high horse about how relying on Facebook, essentially for any truth or insight into how others assess the world, should never be relied upon. This assessment of yours, practically an accusation I would contend, is simply off the mark. Think sociologically. Think anthropologically in a cultural sense. Think psychologically. All this if you can.

Most especially, do you deny, do you dismiss, do you not deign to regard what the 18-year old Muslim from Canada wrote above about the distinction between Islam and Islamism being offensive? Do you really want to argue the contention that whatever is posted on Facebook need not be considered? Quite the contrary for me. It is precisely with popular outlets, admittedly plebeian though they usually are, that one can detect the true pulse of the body politic most efficaciously.

Finally, what the hell you mean by an anonymous society versus an actual society escapes me. Seems to me that many in "actual society" will readily go anonymous if motivated and given the opportunity. You draw a distinction without a real difference.

I think in the question if a muslim "wants Sharia" an important factor is missed.... does he want Sharia as a kind of private family law, subordinate to the secular law of the state or does he want the full thing and as the supreme source of law for his country to which all shall submitt (the people of the book will have their own family and civil laws but only subordinate under the Sharia)

I don't subscribe to Facebook either, and am not a Facebook fan. On the differences b/w an anonymous vs an actual society, it's hard to put a finger on which one is more reliable. There are a lot of things that people wouldn't put their real names on, not just out of physical fear, but for a variety of reasons, such as not willing to be confronted on those at random when they are not on that topic. From that standpoint, anonymous opinions would seem to be more reliable, in that people would lose whatever inhibitions they have (of course, they may also be trolling and lying about what they actually believe). Otoh, when people use their real identities, it's more likely than not that while they won't be downright lying, they are more likely to take very uncontroversial positions so as not to be caught out on those by people who either know them, or may come to find out about them.

I don't really see a difference in anonymity b/w this site and facebook. One can assume imaginary names in both cases and proceed. It's just that in Facebook, and a lot of other sites that Leftists frequent, one is more likely to see those opinions voiced unopposed than here. I don't think Facebook is so much the barometer of an anonymous society, as much as it is the barometer of a random society, rather than a group of like minded people.

I also think it would be wrong to extrapolate the statements of the 18 year old Muslim student as being reflective of anything. That said, I do think he was right when he said that the term 'Islamism' was offensive. Reason I think that is that it implies that the Muslims in question are being told that they are not following true Islam, and the false Islam that they are implicitly following is rebranded as Islamism. While there may be Muslims who wish that their religious and political doctrines were different, none of them like the insinuation that those who support the 2 being the same are being 'Islamists' i.e. not following the true Islam.

Also, speaking about Pipes, his expertize is Israel, but not the Arabs, despite Middle Eastern Institute and all that. Anybody who thinks that 90% of Muslims are moderate, or that there is a difference b/w Islam and Islamism does not know about Islam. Or worse, is lying about it.

Which is it?

I agree with you that it would have been better had they asked two separate questions along the lines you suggest. World Public Opinion and PEW have asked some more specific questions of Muslims in the Muslim world, but they and other research organizations seem to have steadfastly avoided asking these questions of American and Canadian Muslims.

For the result I quoted re "settling family disputes", the question referred to sharia law in personal and family law. (The question was "Should Canada recognize Sharia law for settling family disputes?"). That's what I meant by "wants sharia" in that case.

Since these researchers and others don't seem to want to ask Canadian or American Muslims more direct and specific questions about sharia--how much of it and how far they want it applied, which aspects of it they want established, etc.--at this stage we can only draw indirect inferences based on a variety of indirect pieces of evidence.

I think one way to clarify things would be for the researchers to ask questions about specific elements of sharia that concern us.

Here's one example that could be asked of Canadian Muslims:

"1. Do you want Canadian non-Muslims to be criminally prosecuted and punished for criticizing Islam or Muhammad?

(a) Yes
(b) No

If you answered Yes, what should be the punishment?

If you answered No, what do you think should be the response to such criticism of or insult to Islam or Muhammad?"

I listed this one and some other examples here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/20-of-muslims-in-us-admit-knowing-of-support-for-jihadists-within-muslim-community.html#comment-817119

From your latter post:

"I think the question should not be if someone "wants Sharia" but rather if someone sees "Islam" as a perfect system for all situations and an answer to all problems in human society and if he wants to create a theocracy based on "Islam" since it would be the best form of state."

There is vagueness in "sharia" as there is vagueness in "Islam as a perfect system." What percentage of Muslims are going to deny that Islam is a perfect system? Even some moderate secular Muslims might want to say Islam is perfect, and they could do so by imagining that "Islam" refers to their ideal of it. While I do think such general abstract questions should be asked, we need more specific questions, and even concrete examples of critical cases (e.g., the Muhammad cartoons) mentioned in the questions so we can get a clear idea of what Muslims want to be done. For example, in a British study, 78% of U.K. Muslims wanted the Danish Muhammad cartoonists to be criminally prosecuted and punished. So on that issue in that specific case, 78% of Muslims in a major Western country "want sharia" to be applied to non-Muslims.

If we don't have results for more specific questions about blasphemy, apostasy, adultery, etc., and we only have results for general questions about "sharia" or "Islamic law", defenders of Islam can always play around and claim that support for sharia doesn't refer to these harsh elements, that sharia law is rich and diverse and moderate, its all about dental hygiene, politeness, charity, and prayers and so on.

"Dont forget: British, French and Russian Muslims 1914 mostly lived under Sharia in their comunitys and it was exactly this muslims who, after their Khalif declared Jihad against their colonial masters, stayed loyal to them and in large numbers fought their Islamic master the Khalif.....
Despite living under a local Sharia their MAIN LOYALTY was not to Islam.....THus they were not Islamists."

Yes, I'll accept that for argument's sake, but...we are currently living during a massive world-wide Islamic revival where support for sharia is increasing, Muslims are becoming increasingly devout and fervent, the Muslims who are more devout have more children, the Muslim populations in the West are rapidly increasing. Meanwhile the West is much weakened and compromised. Muslims know this.

As I mentioned, some Muslims can support sharia without being Islamists (which I take to mean those who are active in attempting to establish sharia). A general vague question about support for sharia would certainly not be a valid substitute for a direct question asking about loyalty. Questions about loyalty could also be asked, directly or indirectly. But the inclusion of the specific questions about support for the harsh elements of sharia would be enough for me, and I think for most of the public, to help come to a decision about Islam and what we ought to do in relation to the growing Muslim populations in the West.

What most concerns me in the context of the demographic Islamization of the Western countries is that there is a relative lack of opposition among Muslims to sharia, and that Westerners do not see Islamization as a high priority long-term issue of concern. Polls suggest most Westerners oppose sharia, but what percentage actually is willing to do what is necessary to stop its advance and indeed ban it? Where are the politicians to oppose it? Polls suggest there is a minority of Muslims who oppose sharia, but what percentage of them feels strongly about this and is willing to do or support actions to stop it and ban it?

@demsci: "The Muslim present did then indeed say that there was only one true Islam, that of the 5 pillars, which he pointed out, as if that was all there was to it.

But there was no time/ room for me to ask him: Is then this one true Islam then so massively misunderstood? "

This is an important point that cannot be overstressed: Is there only one Islam, or are there many Islam's subject to 'interpretation'? They must be made to come clear on this. They can't have it both ways. One way they are Jihad fanatics, the other way, they are Apostates.

As mentioned on earlier post: CAN'T BE BOTH!!!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/underwear-bomber-the-koran-obliges-every-able-muslim-to-participate-in-jihad-and-fight-in-the-way-of.html#comment-827764

Clear, Infidel Pride, but it is not just Pipes who holds that Islam and Islamism are different. It is implicitly virtually the whole political spectrum in Holland, except for the Freedom Party (PVV). In the sense that all politicians except PVV always talk about "not tarring all Muslims with the same brush", THE Islam does not exist (oh, yes, that's a favorite one, even among Christians), it is not Islam that is to blame, it is culture or all sorts of reasons, but NOT Islam, that is to blame, for all mischief done by self-confessed Muslims, regardless if they are invoking their holy texts as motivation.

So perhaps we can take all of these Muslim-defending and Islam-defending people, press and politicians to their word and ask above all: CLARITY. About whether there are indeed many different respectable acceptable submovements in Islam as they say or imply. That indeed are as harmless as they say, and not the culture-contaminated Islam that according to THEM is responsible for any apparently Islam-related terrorising and oppression.

Will they turn to the, in their eyes, non-radical, non-Islamist, non-culture-contaminated Muslim friends and ask them to present this alleged harmless legitimate version of Islam in a CLEAR, accountable way?

Because if counterjihadist only recognize and denounce ONE TRUE destructive, Islam, then Muslim-defenders will always fall back in their comfortable position; "there must be many different submovements in Islam, many of whom must be very, very neutral and harmless.

Totally ignoring Muslims AND Counterjihadists that in great numbers say that there is only ONE TRUE ISLAM. I think that THAT attitude of Muslim-defenders should be put under scrutiny and pressure.

Thanks a lot, Battle-of-Tours!!!

Well dont forget I wrote "and if he wants to create a theocracy based on "Islam" since it would be the best form of state."

So "Islam is perfect" isnt the end of it....
I for once cant imagine many Christians who would say that "Christianity" is a perfect "System" for all problems in life and society rather then a way to salvation, a relationshop with god ect....

In Islam there is no distinction between the "sacred and the profane" BUT in the last 2 centurys such a distinction was established by colonial rulers and by europeized native rulers, so tuday many Muslims see Islam as an individual and comunal faith and not as a system that should encompas the political sphere and whouse laws should govern states.
So if someone says his religion is perfect he dosnt have to mean that his religion is soooooo all encompasing that it even tells you how to go to toilete or how to conduct treatys with other states. Islamists think that "Islam (not some all encompasing moral values but real concrete laws and rules) is the solution" for all things.....secular Muslims dont.

As for modern day problems....well as I sayed European powers de facto ruled the whole islamic world less then a century ago and despite anything that the Sharia told them (like obaying the Khalif for example) the puppet Imams declared haram and halal whatever Europeans wanted to be haram and halal, the problem is not that Sharia is not changeble, the problem is that we Europeans dont want to use our still great power to crush the "death to the west, give us more money" forms of islam among the imigrants to our countrys while favoring forms of Islam which are as we want them to be....like by training Imams in our countrys in a way we want.

I dont think it is impossible to change Islam, our ancestors proved it....when we got out of our colony the Muslim world was faaaar more liberal then when we went in, even the most Islamist countrys dont impose Jizia today for example (well the Taliban did but they dont rule Afghanistan anymore) also even Islamists like Qaradawi try to prove that Sharia can comply with western (they call it modern) norms. I mean it all started by force, when Europeans abolished slavery or the dhimma in the muslim world (or forced local rulers like the Ottoman Sultan to abolish it), the Ulema and much af the population was extremly hostile, they rebeled and resisted because Sharia was broken.....but after they understood that resistance is futile they had to live with the new situation and slowly "mainstreem" islamic thaught adopted to new realitys and Ulema (who at the begining resisted the "tyranical" decrees form the Europeans or the European pressured despots (the British clearly stated that either the Ottoman Sultan declares equality of all his subjects or they dont give him more money and stop supporting him against the Russians)) and today many Ulema honestly believe that slavery and Dhimma are un-islamic. While anti western forces are on the rise one has to remember that the Muslim world is still faaaar more western then it was before our ancestors conquered it long ago, there IS a real posibility to reform Islam this history has shown on the other hand it is also a fact that Islam reformed only under outside pressure and now after the outside pressure has declined, its slowly returning to the old rules, in contrast to Christianity Islam never reformed by itself but rather was swept away by the powerfull rise of the Christian world and was forced to submit to its power.....a power that we still have.

Kinana, I want to react to the demographic issue that you brought up. Have you heard about Emmanuel Todd and Youcef Courbage? Or about Spengler-who-really-is-David-Goldman? And about the UN and CIA-predictions about demography worldwide?

It seems a sigh of relief is in order. Spengler, the apparently conservative religious Jewish man, in this on our side, described the anguish of Erdogan and Ahmadinejad, because both Turks and Iranians are now on 1,5 child per woman! Tunisia on 2! Indonesia is down, Bangladesh on 3 and falling. Pakistan and Egypt and sub-saharan Africa are still high in birth-rates but really falling a bit too!

It may be that the demographic transition has run it's course for the most part. It is due to urbanisation (going up to housing 75 % of mankind) and education, literacy and work for women. So for Muslims the only viable alternative is to keep their women uneducated, sheeplike and dumb, but then their sons will remain less well raised, their countries will fall back.

Even in Israel and the territories, the Jewish women are closing the gap with the Muslima's as per children per women.

If the Muslims do have chances, a shot at taking over, because of them having more babies, whole countries or parts of them, it's only a matter of time before this window of opportunity is closed.

And just as they "knew" the numbers were working for them, now, in addition to the Turkish and Iranian leaders, they are in for a terrible disappointment, which they cannot reverse.

Actually, IP, Pipes' specialty is not Israel, which can easily be seen by looking at the titles of all the books he has written. He has written two on Syrian politics alone, not to mention a work on Egyptian colloquial Arabic. I offhand know of no specific book of his treating with Israel per se, though, of course, Israel comes up innumerable times in many works of his which deal first and foremost with the Arab world.

"From your own fairly accurate description I gather that rather than changing Islam, our ancestors actually suppressed it."

Not exactly.... Let me show a proof:
All of the Islamic world 1800: Jizia must be taken from non Muslims and they must be subjected to specific laws that show their inferior status
2011: Even in Sharia states like Iran no Jizzia is taken from non Muslims and there are no laws of clear discrimination (sure the IDEA that Muslims must dominate the non muslims is still there but it has taken other forms even in Sharia states).

Being a Christian in modern Iran is surly better then being one in 1800. When the Jizzia was outlawed in Iran under western pressure the clergy was OUTRAGED, but between that time and 1979 when the clergy actualy took power the "facts on the ground" that were created by the west crept in to the fanatical skull of Khomeni thus when the clerics took power they didnt go that far as to reestablish Jizzia and all the other humiliating laws.....

This I believe is proof that Islam can be changed.

Want another one?

Slavery:

1800: 100% of the Ulema believe that slavery is ok
(evil Europeans come and abolish it/force rulers to abolish it)
2011: less then 10% of the Ulema believe that slavery is ok for today, many Ulema radicly reinterpret the Hadith and islamic history to prove that Islam came to gradualy abolish slavery (noone even thaught this 1800)....
since the Ulema represent Islam I think this is suficiant proof that Islam can be changed once you force it to adapt to realitys you create. In bouth caces Islam didnt change by itself thats true, but its also true that the "unchangeble Sharia" proved to be easialy broken under the preasure of overwhelming force.

Something similar can be done with other aspects of Islam that dont fit into our idea of right and wrong (which has been declared "uneversal" by now).....

Apostacy:
1800: 100% of the Ulema think that Apostacy = death
Europeans or rulers under western preasure or just wishing to become like the winners, force the abolition of apostacy laws on the Ulema, 1958 Nasser forces Al-Azhar university to make a clear statement against the death penelty

Sheik of Al-Azher: "But the PROPHET (SAW) sayed: If someone changes his religion kill him..."
Nasser: "well he may have sayed whatever he wanted, but I now say....IF THIS SHEIK DOSNT CHANGE HIS RELIGION KILL HIM!!!" (firing squad enters room)
Sheik of Al-Azher: "got it, apostacy isnt punisheble by death"
In contrast to slavery and Jizzia most Ulema still think that Apostacy = death
I would say the opinion is split this way:
10% think apostacy isnt punished on earth
30% think that apostacy is punished by the Islamic state but not by death
60% apostacy = death

So while its true that in this point (as in many others)Islam has proven difficult to break the situation is better then 1800......some fancy forms of Koran and Hadith interpretation have arisen after the west became dominant to justifie the changes enforced by the west (the Ulema dont want to lose face completly after all...)

We often refute the charge that Islamophobia is racist w/ the question - what race is Islam? Or more accurately, what race are Muslims? (Actually, since the target of such opposition includes white converts to islam who engage in jihad, the answer is not one particular one, but if one looks statistically, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are non-White, even though they are of different races - Aryan, Arab, African, Turkic, Hui and so on)

But for people who claim that the aspects that make Islam problematic are cultural, not religious, I'd turn things around and claim that they are racist. Like others, I don't mean to use the racist tag lightly, since (like rape), it is a serious charge and loses its edge if overused. But in this case, the shoe fits perfectly. Essentially, by alleging that the factors that make Muslims a problem are cultural, one is implicitly alleging that Muslims of other (non-Western) countries and origins have problems that originate from their being Somalian/Lebanese/Iraqi/Moroccan/Algerian/Paki/..., but Western Muslims - either converts or Western born Muslims - are not a problem. This is hogwash, since the bulk of Western converts to Islam tend to be either criminals, or Nation of Islam recruits, and those born Muslims are typically the descendants of people from the above mentioned nationalities. Yet they all display the same sociopathic tendencies - from terror to honor killings to attempts to subvert Western law. However, the people making the cultural excuse are essentially berating the foreign nationalities, while giving a pass to Western Muslims. Also, by removing religion from the criteria, people from the same regions - e.g. Indian non-Muslims in UK - get tagged w/ the same labels when the 'cultural' argument is used, even though no such problems exist w/ these groups.

While Muslim defenders will always make their excuses, it wouldn't be trivial to point out that all of the jihad problems that the west faces is from a wide variety of Muslims, and not just Wahabis/Salafists/Shia/____ (what have you). There is no Muslim country that is a pleasant place for Infidels to live - just look @ Malayasia. There are those who point to fringe groups like Sufis, Ismailiyas or Ahmadiyas, but fact remains that these people are statistically insignificant to be of much use to the discussion.

There are 2 ways to demonstrate one's case. One is what Kinayna was arguing above - show statistical poll results that analyze these trends in detail, and use that to butress one's points. Such trends make use of Muslims that have already migrated to the West, regardless of where they came from. Other approach - take the 5 most populous Muslim countries - Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and throw in India's 140m+ Muslims in it. Analyze jihad trends in all these countries. Pakistan is in the news everyday, and the most active Jihad place on earth. Indonesia is pretty restive as well, and even aside from Aceh, places like Sulawezi have been/are being islamized, and have tensions b/w Christians and Muslims wherever Christians are still present. Bangladesh is a hotbed of jihadi activity against India, which itself occasionally witnesses terror attacks, in which their Muslims are involved. The next countries population-wise are ones like Egypt, Turkey and Nigeria, and apart from Turkey, both are pretty restive. The countries that are not restive are already either 90% Muslim or more, or don't have much of a population to begin w/ e.g. Algeria or Turkmenistan.

If the onus is put on the defenders of islam (not our fav poster) to prove their case, and these countries used as exhibits, their case will just collapse.

Unknown998 -

Restating your point several times doesn't prove it any better*.

If anything, you repeat - with some measure of contradictio [I underlined for convenience] - that, quote: "the "unchangeble Sharia" proved to be easialy broken under the preasure of overwhelming force".
How easy is overwhelming force if it is applied to the ongoing problems with our domestic Muslims? How will this force, i.e. welfare state dirigism play out for us, the people? (and I don't mean to complain about the hassle we've all grown accustomed to at airports).

With this question I come back to my point that you didn't address: i.e. do you realize what "overwhelming force" means if and when it is applied 'til kindome come by the progressivist welfare state?

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

* en passant it could be noted that post-colonial "secular" pressure on Islam (mostly of a leftist, i.e. national-socialist signature) exerted by local rulers is virtually on its last legs. Nasserism is dead, save for the armed forces as "custodians of secularism", as is Kemalism in Turkey. Islam was temporarily suppressed, for sure, first by Western colonialism, then by local dictators, and in both instances you'd invoke the ease of overwhelming force (and ulama opinion polls) as proof that Islam can be changed (almost as if that ease doesn't come at a cost).
But as soon as the pressure by proxy is deemed unsustainable for whatever reason, lo behold, "radical" Islam (= activist Islam; = Islam) is on the march once again.

** the suppression of slavery in Muslim countries is one feat of colonialism you and I probably agree upon as that it shouldn't be discredited as evil, save for the odd and slightly sarcastic jab at fellow commenters, which is well received by the way ;-)

Well you didnt answer why the Islamic republic of Iran dosnt collect Jizia from its Non Muslim subjects???

Why didnt the same republic reinstitute slavery???

And didnt you read my argumentation? I clearly spoke not only about LAWS but also about ULEMA OPINION, if it would be true that force can only supress Sharia and not change the minds of the Muslim majority including the Ulema, then after western presure and secular rulers disapeared (like in Iran) the whole Sharia of 1800 with its Jizia, Slavery ect....would reapear but it dosnt! Even in Iran the Sharia is westernizes and has many elements of western morality and law in it.....EVEN IRAN PROVES THAT ISLAM CAN BE CHANGED

I agree with you about the modern European elite, my problem was with your statement that islam is unchangeble...

Well, Unknown998 -

You didn't invite me to answer any of your statements that only repeated the moot point you're trying to make, which basically goes like this: since some aspects of Islamic practice have been "easily abandoned" under enormous outside pressure, Islam has thus demonstrated a capacity for change. Yes, and? Non-Muslims not systematically and severely discriminated against in Islamic republics? Of course they are.

Furthermore, I can't imagine you'd wish for a comparable situation within our Western nations, let alone Muslim countries, i.e. enormous pressure and resources wasted on Islam for some changes that basically do very little if anything to address the firmly entrenched Islamic doctrine of the mandatory subjugation of non-Muslims under Islamic law.

Therefore, I'm afraid that your general point fails to pass the "so what?" test. I'm sorry.

Cheers,
Sag.

"so what?"?

say it to the people who are no longer slaves....and are not enslaves because over 90% of the Ulema dosnt accsept slavery anymore...

And since most of this Ulema now think that slavery, Jizzia and other things are "unislamic" in the first place (they dont want to acknowloge that it was the west that forced this change on them) they dont reinstitute slavery in Islamic countrys even if they can (like in Iran).

So a change in the Sharia DID take place after all!

p.s. my latest post is in reply to Unknown998.

Paul Gottfried, OK, I'll look out for him at Donner/ Selexyz, next time I get there.

Thank country-man from Amsterdam. Always a pleasure reading your very civilized posts.

Kind regs from Rotterdam. Tomorrow Ajax-Feijenoord, eh?

Perhaps some day we can meet! I'd like that a lot.

demsci,

Re the demographic issue, I'm not quite ready to breathe a sigh of relief yet. I haven't had time at the moment to read those sources you suggest, but will soon try to have a closer look. An initial glance though suggests that they don't have data specifically bearing on the question of the increase in size of the Muslim population, compared to the non-Muslim population, in the West. Any of the clear data I've seen on this issue, where a clear distinction is made between Muslims and non-Muslims, shows that Muslims have a higher fertility rate than non-Muslims. Moreover, Muslims' fertility rates in the West are above replacement level, whereas non-Muslim birthrates (especially those of Europeans) are well below replacement level. These trends are based on deep-seated Islamic cultural and dogmatic factors and are not likely to change significantly over the long term; i.e., we aren't likely to see a scenario where Muslims have less children than non-Muslims on average for any significant length of time, if present trends and policies continue. There of course may be short-term fluctuations here and there, but over the long haul and in the course of history, the Muslim population has risen quite remarkably; Muslims are only outnumbered by Christians, who've had 600+ years more than Muslims in which to expand their size.

That Muslims will become a majority in some major Western countries is just simple arithmetic, assuming current trends continue. Exactly when this will happen is more more difficult to predict, but for Canada, for example, if current trends continue (immigration policies are unchanged viz. Muslims, and Muslims continue to have more children than non-Muslims), I think we are looking at a Muslim majority by the later part of this century. We are, I believe, going to experience a big jump in the Muslim proportion of the population between 2030 and 2040, due to the fact that the non-Muslim baby boomers (i.e., those of the baby boom generation) will be dieing off and will be almost completely gone by 2040.

As for the world averages, last time I checked the Muslim-majority countries' average fertility rate was still higher than those of non-Muslim countries. It is generally the case that Muslims have higher fertility rates than non-Muslims.

Predictions of course are difficult because so many unexpected factors and conditions can come into play. However, we should not take chances or expect this problem to work itself out. I will breathe a sigh of relief when something is done to stop and reverse these trends.

Unknown998,

In your reply to Sagunto you note that Islam seems to better or more tolerant from our perspective than it was in 1800. Thus Islam can change. That may well be true.

However, that is setting the bar rather low. Also, the trend in the Islamic world over the past approximately 3 to 4 decades is toward increasing sharia, proliferation of militant groups, and so on.

You write that sharia states (e.g., Iran) no longer extract the jizya tax from their non-Muslim minorities. That is true as far as I'm aware. However, these sharia states such as Iran of course do collect taxes from Muslims and non-Muslims alike. That may seem fair until you consider the fact the taxes are used by a state that benefits Islam and Muslims, and persecutes and discriminates against non-Muslims. So if you are a Muslim paying taxes, this contributes to a system that helps and protects you and your religion. If you are a non-Muslim contributing taxes to a system such as the Iranian regime, you are actually paying some money for your own oppression and your own demise and destruction as a cultural group. That is, of course, what the classical jizya was, i.e., a system whereby non-Muslims under the Islamic state had to pay for their own subjugation whilst also paying for Muslims' on-going military jihads directed against non-Muslims in non-Muslim lands.

To use Iran as an example, while non-Muslims do not pay a jizya labelled as such, their taxes do go to support a system that (a) punishes them for practicing their religion and traditions openly or for discussing their religion in any way that might be deemed in opposition to Islam, and (b) funds, controls, and supplies various jihad groups such as Hizballah, Hamas, and others, as well as the Revolutionary guard, all of which work to destroy and/or subjugate non-Muslims in other countries. This is not unlike the classic jizya scenario in which non-Muslims had to in effect pay for their own subjugation and death, and for the jihad killing of other non-Muslims.

Regarding apostasy, I'm not sure where you are getting your figures. We do know that in 2008, for example, most of the Iranian parliament voted in favor of the death penalty for apostasy:

Iranian apostasy law
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/023064.php

"A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled "Islamic Penal Code", which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith. Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against."

"[...] few politicians or clerics in Iran see any contradiction between a law mandating the death penalty for changing religion and Iran's constitution. There has been no public protest in Iran against it."

------------------

To the more general case, I'm not sure of the percentage of Muslim jurists in the Muslim world who would support the death penalty for the sane adult male who leaves Islam publicly, but I suspect it is more than your proposed figure of 60%. Even if we accept 60%, that's still a majority. And as you yourself propose, only about 10% think there is no earthly penalty for apostasy.

Anyways, the Muslim world today and the expanding Muslim populations in the West do not give significant cause for optimism. A realistic assessment says we are at significant risk and that we must take actions to counter these long-term threats.

demsci -

"Perhaps some day we can meet! I'd like that a lot."

Likewise, my friend.

Sag.

I am glad to have you at JW, Kinana, knowing and showing so much.

Demography is key, he? Let us watch the demographic numbers around the world like hawks.

I was elated becaused of Spengler, a.k.a. David Goldman. But I am warned again by you.

another key issue is Energy-Independence by Western countries, at least from Saudi Arabia and Iran. There may be hope on that front as well.

Most important: the ideological battlefield; look, these Muslims are strong in faith and numbers, we know that. But the real problem is this huge ignorant mass of Western Citizens. And really, counterjihadists are a minority. And both Muslims and Counterjihadists vie for the votes of this still substantial, seemingly disinterested neutral majority.

But in the past Daniel Pipes and others, they viewed Europe already as Eurabia and warnings are many that neighborhoods will fall into the hands of Muslims.

But reduced and still further reducing of fertility among Muslims, yes, also among Western Muslima's, makes it hard for Islam to win everywhere. And everywhere where they do win, they will probably make a mess of the economy and curtail freedoms in obnoxious ways, so their very success probably will help the counterjihadists to votes from the neutrals. I do hope Russia holds out against Islam though, in Russia it's even more dangerous than in Europe.

We counterjihadists at least have a fighting chance now. And who is to say that our rampaging, galloping technology, in terms of progress, will not also produce, say, very smart computers and robots, not good for Islam?

And almost universal education, hence many more autonomous women? because even most Muslims value at least some education for their children. And it seems an iron-clad law that well-educated women simply won't get many children. Perhaps urbanisation and some kind of law of natural balancing demographic transition prohibits them.

And then again; Israeli's do show that idealistic non-Muslims can start upping birthrates. Perhaps someday many counterjihadists will go that way as well?

No, long term time is probably not on the side of traditional Muslims really changing the world's power-structure.

Well with apostacy it was more of a guess and I just wanted to say with it that even the most "hard" dogmas of Sharia have got some "craks" since the West came with its scientific/industrial revolution and changed the world....

About Jizia....well Jizia has to be that Non Muslims pay higher taxes then Muslims, as far as I know in Iran they dont.
You are of course right that Non Muslims in Iran pay for a state that opresses them and uses the money to further islamic theocracy that will opress other christians.
On the other hand Islamic apologists will say that muslims in the USA pay taxes that support the "ILLEGAL INVASION, OCCUPATION AND MASS MURDER OF MUSLIMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as well, so were is the difference?

In my whole argumentation I didnt argue that TODAY the islamic world develops in a direction that is contrary to the direction in which the west went for a long time, on the other hand one shouldnt forget that between 1830 and 1970 Islam more or less moved into a direction of adoptation on to the West and its values and only after 1970 that this direction changed.

The problems we have today are very real and my argument wasnt aimed on them. It was rather aimed on a belief that is typical for Jihadwatchers and thats that Islam somhow is unchangeble and Sharia MUST remain the same it was 200 or 500 years ago, thus the only way to solve the problem is to somhow "destroy" Islam, its like with Sagunto above, despite many proofs I showed him which clearly show that the mind of most Sharia adherents about several aspects of Sharia has changed in the last 200 years (at first the laws changed under preassure but even when the preassure disapears it becomes clear that even the majority of the Ulema has adopted some of the enforced changes thus making them part of "mainstreem Islam", strangly Sagunto read out of my posts that Islamic law only bends under force but automaticly returns to its "true" self after the force disapears, which was exactly what I disproved in my posts since I showed that for instance Iran didnt return to Slavery and Jizzia even after outside preassure disapeared thus Islam has undergone some internal changes as well....

About demography in the Muslim world, Professor Lamoreaux wrote something about it here on Jihadwatch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/egyptian-journalist-the-us-will-be-transformed-into-an-islamic-republic.html

Of course were Muslims get welfare, like in Europe or the Palestinian "refugees" the birthrates remain high, but thats more the fault of the people who spend money earned by Europeans through hard work to feed lazy barbarians....

"firmly entrenched Islamic doctrine of the mandatory subjugation of non-Muslims under Islamic law"

Well even here the realitys created by the west have forced the deeply entrenched ideas about Jihad to change....

There are now several prominent Ulema (including Qaradawi) who argue that the war of dar-al-Islam against dar-al-harb was only prescribed because before the west invented the idea of a secular state with freedom of religion (and forced it upon much of the rest of the world), no non muslim country alowed full freedom to spread Islam and that this lands had to be annexed by the Khalifate to make propagating Islam easy....but now as long a state dosnt "create obstecles" to the spreding of Islam it cant be attacked but has to be Islamised via dawa, thus even the doctrin of Jihad has undergone some change under western influence....

@Unknown998 : So while its true that in this point (as in many others)Islam has proven difficult to break the situation is better then 1800......some fancy forms of Koran and Hadith interpretation have arisen after the west became dominant to justifie the changes enforced by the west (the Ulema dont want to lose face completly after all…)

I think the Koran and Hadith should be taken line by line and scrutinized publicly with world debate over each item. Of course, all imams and Ulema would go ape over it, but if any 'inter-faith' dialogue is worth its salt, that's what they must do. Though, the violence engendered by Islamists would be onerous. And if the much wonted "Arab Spring" is worth a dime, that's what they would demand. The 'reform' to Islam would be that in the 21st century this primitive 7th century theo-political ideology would either be DOA, or severely red lined in all its texts. I believe that given public information, (some) honest media, the internet blogs, You Tube, etc. this is happening by default anyway, but still only in small quarters. Can Koran and Hadith survive such intense world wide scrutiny? I suspect not. Make it truly public, and Islam is dead. But, that said, I'm not holding my breath. It will be a long, slow and agonizing death, with many 'slaves of Allah' bodies in its wake. I think as an historical event passing, kicking dust in our eyes -and making jihad bloody holy hell- Islam is already 'changed'. ... It's DOA dead.

I think you kinda read to much into the Koran.....as does everyone since it honestly makes no sense on itself thus you have to read SOMETHING into it....

You sound as if you believe that the Koran is some kind of satanic book that makes people kill by just reading it, to be honest all I found in it was Jibberish that can be taken any way you want....Prof.Lamoreux put it much better then me: "the Koran really doesn't talk about much. It's got maybe 150 commandments and prohibitions. The rest is just platitudes and half-remembered stories, and a few prayers. Give me a hour and I could make a compelling case that it's about space aliens in lizard form." http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/egyptian-writer-on-church-bombing-i-accuse-the-millions-of-supposedly-moderate-muslims-among-us-thos.html

The hadith are more problematic, there are Hadith that can be interpreted in line with "modern" (ia western) morality, others cant while third read like insane rantings....
BUT: even if a hadith is from Bukhari or Muslim, westernized Muslims can just declare that it contradicts the Koran (which is easy since the Koran is Jiberish and EVERYTHING can be made contradicting a certain interpretation of the Koran) and remove it (Shaibir Ali for instance does it allready with BUKHARI HADITH!!!).
If you remove the doctrine of abrogation and other "classic" islamic ways of dealing with Koran/hadith you have a perfectly modeble material which can become whatever you want it to become....it can be used to pave the way for muslims into the civilized world (even if I prefer conversion to Christianity myself), one just cant say that Islam is unchangeble it did civilize not bad in the time when we encouraged it to do so....no sadly we want to "respect their culture" and dont use our still overwhelming strength, instead we give MASSES of wellfare money to them so is it surprising that they dont respect us and feel themselvs stronger then they realy are?

You sound as if you believe that the Koran is some kind of satanic book that makes people kill by just reading it, to be honest all I found in it was Jibberish that can be taken any way you want….

Point taken. But whereas I "read too much" into it, you dismiss to much of it. Yes, you can 'interpret' anything you like from the Koranic texts, and Hadith, but we are not the ones to judge what is taken away from it, whether in or out of context. That is being done by the Islamists themselves. For example, why is it when a Muslim takes to seriously reading the Koran, rather than dismissing it as gibberish (which I agree much of it is), he or she becomes fanaticized to the point of taking up arms against the 'infidels' (like the recent killings of American trainers in Afghanistan by a 'trusted' Muslim soldier), or boards a bus full of innocent victims and blows up? This is not a problem of our doings but of theirs. If they were to announce systemically (the whole Ulema) that the "misunderstanders" of Islam got it all wrong to war on the infidels in Dar al Harb, I would agree with you. But as the opposite happens, and they systemically declare that it is we who 'misunderstand' Islam, then I must conclude that in the pages, line by line, in that demonic book are instructions to put all who do not agree with its tenets in harm's way. Which argument do you think the evidence by Muslim fanaticism supports? How would read verses like:

The Quran: Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."  ...   Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."   Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."  Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.  From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.   Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."   Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".  This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').   Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."  The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter.  These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah.  Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.   Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"   Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." etc etc ... Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars. Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..." Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad. Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"... etc.

Unknown998,

Before I respond to your reply I think I should challenge one of your claims to Battle_of_Tours, which I take to be hyperbole or erroneous. You claimed:

"I think you kinda read to much into the Koran.....as does everyone since it honestly makes no sense on itself thus you have to read SOMETHING into it...."

I disagree. The Quran is not totally ambiguous, as you suggest. Not even close. I've read it multiple times and have studied it in detail. Words do have meanings, and it is clear enough that the character "Allah" in the Quran states that disbelief is the worst sin-crime, the worst thing you can do, and worthy of the maximum punishment in the afterlife as well as some punishments in this life. We are talking about a book that discusses war, killing, theft, and other things, but the thoughts, words, and deeds that constitute "disbelief" are the worst, and disbelievers are the worst (whereas Muslims are the best). According to the Quran, disbelievers are, rightly, justly deserving of maximum punishment.

I could go through several other basic propositions expounded in the Quran, but that one should suffice to make my point.

This is not to suggest that there is not some room for some degree of variability in interpretations, or to deny that there are some very opaque and nonsensical parts of the Quran. However, that's not usually the case in regards to its discussion of policies applied to non-Muslims, as long as these are understood in the historical and situational context of the Quran, where the Muslims start out being relatively powerless but later become relatively powerful. Any interpretation has to be justified based on the evidence that is in the text and from what we know about it. Someone who comes away from reading the Quran concluding that its author(s) intended to say disbelief is a good thing is either being sarcastic, or is in some kind of error, or is being dishonest.

Moreover, the claim is empirically false as applied to Muslims, because the interpretations of the Quran by Muslims historically and today, worldwide, are not randomly distributed. Indeed, some interpretations which are logically available don't even occur in serious form, either from Muslims or non-Muslims. For example, if we take the conclusions (a) "A message of the Quran is that disbelief is good," and the claim that (b) "A message of the Quran is that disbelief is bad," the odds of anyone seriously believing the former proposition after having read the whole Quran are approximately zero (0), while the odds of anyone seriously believing the latter are approximately one (1).

That's an extreme example, but even a subtler statement that had a significantly-different-from-random distribution would also illustrate the point. But all you have to do is look at the distribution of the interpretations of the Muslim scholars over the ages and you will see that not all logically available interpretations are equally likely to occur.

You also claim, citing John C. Lamoreaux,
"Prof.Lamoreux put it much better then me: "the Koran really doesn't talk about much. It's got maybe 150 commandments and prohibitions. The rest is just platitudes and half-remembered stories, and a few prayers. Give me a hour and I could make a compelling case that it's about space aliens in lizard form.""

I disagree. While the Quran is certainly not a complete or adequately clear book in many instances (which is partly why Hadiths and tafsirs were used to help understand it), the claim that the Quran "doesn't talk about much" is absurd, and is indeed inconsistent with his next statements. "150 commandments and prohibitions" seems to me to be much, not "not much" (I'm not sure about his number here, but I'll take it for argument's sake). And "the rest" does include more than he suggests, and it includes a lot more warnings than platitudes. As for the remark about space aliens, this suggests to me that Lamoreaux's statements here are at best exaggerations-to-make-a-point and made at least partially in jest.

Unknown998,

You write:
"About demography in the Muslim world, Professor Lamoreaux wrote something about it here on Jihadwatch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/egyptian-journalist-the-us-will-be-transformed-into-an-islamic-republic.html "

Alright, I've read it, but again I don't see any evidence here that Muslims in the West have fertility rates that are the same as or lower than those of non-Muslims in the West.

In addition, while I claim that some major Western countries (which I listed) are threatened in the long term demographically by an increasing Muslim population in those Western countries, I did not include the U.S., which is not significantly threatened demographically by Muslims in the foreseeable future (at least at the national level of measurement; certainly areas like Dearborn have already been impacted). Lamoreaux included the U.S. apparently because that was relevant to a claim that was made in the article of the thread to which you linked. But I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that the U.S. is itself is going to be swamped demographically by Muslims in the foreseeable future.

As for Israel, again, I didn't mention Israel, but I note that Lamoreaux did not compare Jewish vs Muslim Israeli fertility rates side by side. Indeed, Muslim fertility rates in Israel are not even mentioned.

The non-Muslim fertility rates, and Muslim fertility rates, are not helpful to the issue at hand if they are isolated. Only by comparing them side-by-side for a given country can we address the point at issue.

While our discussion here is not primarily about the fertility rates of Muslims in the Islamic world, Lamoreaux cites the fertility rates of three Muslim countries and notes that these appear to be low (Iran) or dropping (Pakistan and Turkey). However, Iran's fertility rate is still not as low as the average fertility rates of the non-Muslims in Western countries. While Iran's fertility rate is somewhat below replacement level--after the population actually doubled since the Khomeini Islamic Revolution--the fertility rates of Western non-Muslims in the West are well below replacement level. Pakistan and Turkey indeed have declining fertility rates, but the current rates are still well above replacement level.

Note also that the countries Lamoreaux cites are a few exceptions; they are not the norm and are below the average among Muslim-majority countries for fertility rates (which overall is about 3.5 to 4.1, depending on how you calculate it, e.g., weighted vs unweighted means). And the Muslim-majority averages in any case are still higher than those of non-Muslim countries.

I've seen this happen many times, where someone comes along and claims we have nothing to worry about on the Muslims-in-the-West demographic issue, and yet they all fail to produce the evidence which shows that Muslims' fertility rates in the West on average are the same as or lower than those of non-Muslims in the West. Indeed, some of the comparisons are so vague and badly made that Muslim fertility rates are actually included with non-Muslim fertility rates, which skews the data and misleads people.

And this is to say nothing of massive amounts of immigration of Muslims, which, to the western countries I mentioned, is disproportionately high compared to other immigrants.

But this is not merely some abstract issue that we need to argue about based on limited studies. Common sense can help. Take a look at major cities in the Western countries I mentioned. Go to these cities and explore them if you don't believe me: Are there more Muslims there now than there were 20 years ago, 10 years ago? Yes, yes. Is the Muslim population generally younger? Yes. Is the non-Muslim population tending toward aging and dieing off? Yes. Are there growing Muslim enclaves that are threatening and dangerous for non-Muslims? Yes.

I am not sure exactly how much evidence needs to be adduced, to those who read this site and others, or for that matter mainstream news articles (ignoring the editorial bias and just examining what's reported) where most of these reports posted on JW originate, that the growing Muslim population in the West is currently a problem and appears to be a growing problem for the foreseeable future.

@Kinana of Khaybar : "Moreover, the claim is empirically false as applied to Muslims, because the interpretations of the Quran by Muslims historically and today, worldwide, are not randomly distributed. Indeed, some interpretations which are logically available don't even occur in serious form, either from Muslims or non-Muslims."

Kinana, I agree with your assessment. Muslims are notorious for saying one thing to a non-Muslim audience, and totally different to their own. They even have a term for it: Taqiyya. We in the common language call it "lying", but let's not quibble over semantics. They are all, however, unified behind the idea that Allah hates the unbeliever and loves Muslims. Lost on them is that Allah delivers them the worst trials, while blesses us with the best civilization has to offer; so they run from their Islamic worlds to our 'Infidel' worlds. But be that as it may, it never sways the Muslim mind from condemning us 'unbelievers', even killing us if the opportunity presents itself, and then bold faced tell us their 'religion' is of peace. It takes a nutcase to make sense of it. But as you say "words have meaning" and the deception perpetrated by Islamic ideology (not to brand all Muslims as true 'believers') is what constantly throws well intentioned people into making silly conclusions about Islamic texts and the violent subjugation they call for. Unknown998 may have fallen into that trap, probably because the alternative, that Islam is truly a vicious cult spawned from the deranged mind of a 7th century Beduin warlord, followed assiduously for 1400 years of looting and raping by his minions, is just too much to bear for a civilized mind. I do not fault him in his 'wishful' thinking that Islam is somehow able to reform itself, just lament that too many others faced with the same grim reality find escape in such fantasy. If there is any 'reform' possible for Islam, it will end it as a theo-political force in the world, apologize for 1400 years of enslavement and carnage, and be relegated to the dust bins of history as have other blood thirsty primitive belief systems. I think it is coming, but the wait is ... murder. ;-)

Sorry but I CLEARLY wrote:

"Of course were Muslims get welfare, like in Europe or the Palestinian "refugees" the birthrates remain high, but thats more the fault of the people who spend money earned by Europeans through hard work to feed lazy barbarians...."

Of course there is a Muslim demographic problem in Europe (especialy in Russia) but its mostly created by the wellfare state there, Prof.Lamoreaux also never denied that there is a problem for Europe.....

"Note also that the countries Lamoreaux cites are a few exceptions; they are not the norm and are below the average among Muslim-majority countries for fertility rates (which overall is about 3.5 to 4.1, depending on how you calculate it, e.g., weighted vs unweighted means)."

Ok please show me proofs that the fertility rates in other Muslim, middle eastern and north african countrys (we are not talking about Sub-Saharan Africa now), are not also falling rapidly but are falling slower then in Europe?
If one conciders that there averege per- capita GDP is lower then in Western Europe around 1913 while there fertility rate is lower then Europes 1913 too one can see why there states can be concidered "failed states".

Of course one has to make a difference between the failing Muslim world and the wellfare recieving Muslims in Europe (after all the more the Muslim world falls behind the west the more people will flee to the west to play "poor victim of colonialism" and get a wellfare check, because (as an educated Egyptian I know put it completly sincere): "every human has a right to a car, a TV and a refrigirator" (this saveges wouldnt even imagine this things in their wildest dreams, wouldnt we have invented them, but they think they have a RIGHT to the luxuarys Europeans created through their intellect and hard work.....not as a charity mind you...as a RIGHT!!!!))

About the Koran: Ok you got me here one can clearly get out of the Koran that "Allah" dont like it if people dont believe in him and obay his laws, but this is normal for every religion.

From this to a global Khalifate that attacks everything thats non Muslim and dont pay Jizia is a rather far way of interpretation (even if this interpretation is the right one in my opinion since thats how the first Khalifs acted)

fact is that a lrge part of the verses dealing with fighting in the Koran deal with defensive warfare and only 9,29 and maybe 9,5 prescribe a war of conquest against non Sharia states.....Thus if we remove the typical interpretive tradition of abrogation and some verses comming later then others we can easily transform the Korans messege concerning war into a purly defensive one (even if it will be rubbish from a historical perspective), it after all worked with slavery, Muhammad never wanted to abolish slavery but today over 90% of the Ulema think that slavery is "unislamic".....so there is a precedent allready.

Unknown998,

In an earlier post to Sagunto, you wrote:

"There are now several prominent Ulema (including Qaradawi) who argue that the war of dar-al-Islam against dar-al-harb was only prescribed because before the west invented the idea of a secular state with freedom of religion (and forced it upon much of the rest of the world), no non muslim country alowed full freedom to spread Islam and that this lands had to be annexed by the Khalifate to make propagating Islam easy....but now as long a state dosnt "create obstecles" to the spreding of Islam it cant be attacked but has to be Islamised via dawa, thus even the doctrin of Jihad has undergone some change under western influence...."

That's not a change in policy. That is the original policy: If the non-Muslims don't put up a fight to resist sharia and Islamization, Muslims can go ahead and do it peacefully. If the non-Muslims do put up a fight and resist, Muslims, if they have the military power to do so, can fight them. Qaradawi agrees with this. Read what he says about offensive and defensive jihad.

In your most recent post, you write:
"Sorry but I CLEARLY wrote: "Of course were Muslims get welfare, like in Europe or the Palestinian "refugees" the birthrates remain high, but thats more the fault of the people who spend money earned by Europeans through hard work to feed lazy barbarians....""

Yes, I read it, and I did see that you acknowledged that the birth rates of Muslims in Europe are high. However, it still seems you do not agree with my main claim, which is that this increase, in the context of very low fertility rates for the host non-Muslim populations, is likely to be a big problem in the future. You seem to be arguing that this can somehow change or not be a problem through Islamic reform. I disagree; I view Islamic reform as too much of a long shot, and too risky.

But I'm responding to other aspects of your claims and particularly the quote of Lamoreaux, which seemed inclined toward pooh-poohing the whole demographic argument in a broad sense and, since you quoted it here, somehow applicable to the issue at hand.

But as to the issue of fault or blame in your comment, if you want me to address that, I would say that there is a combination of Western fault and Islamic opportunism in the making of this mess. I would specifically note that Islamic doctrine encourages Muslims to have higher birth rates specifically for the purpose of outnumbering non-Muslims, and that this fits in with the larger project of Islam which is to make as much of the world as possible Islamic and to bring as many people as possible under Islamic rule, since everything else, according to Islam, is ignorance and corruption. Some of this, of course, has little to do with designs and intentions; plenty of Muslims come to the West for reasons that have little to do with Islam per se. But my argument doesn't require a conspiracy. It merely requires a significantly large Muslim population in these Western countries, plus a committed core of non-violent "Islamists" (in the sense I discussed above--those who actively strive for sharia implementations), plus a general Muslim population which behaves pretty much as other Muslim populations have behaved in the course of either striving for or incidentally going along with the increasing implementation of sharia.

"Ok please show me proofs that the fertility rates in other Muslim, middle eastern and north african countrys (we are not talking about Sub-Saharan Africa now), are not also falling rapidly but are falling slower then in Europe?"

"Proofs"? You are talking about projections. I'm talking about the comparison between Muslims and non-Muslims in the West, not about using rates elsewhere to try and make inferences about what's happening in the West. These projections are highly speculative and depend on one's assumptions.

I think we agree that Muslims in Europe and Canada tend to have higher fertility rates than do the non-Muslims there. Perhaps you do not agree with me that, in the long term, the non-Muslims' fertility rates in the West are dangerously low in the context of this growing Muslim population in the West. I also raised a number of points about age structures of the respective populations, etc., that you did not address. I can't see how we can discuss these western countries if we are focused on indirect issues arising from data from these other countries.

--------------------

"From this to a global Khalifate that attacks everything thats non Muslim and dont pay Jizia is a rather far way of interpretation (even if this interpretation is the right one in my opinion since thats how the first Khalifs acted)"

Agreed, but I don't think it's a stretch, on the assumption that the Hadiths, which provide this policy explicitly, are normally used to help interpret the Quran. We could talk about Quran-only interpretation, but that doesn't seem realistic. (But you could arrive at a caliphate--and the Quran does use the word Caliph along with the idea that Allah assigns power to rulers on earth and that they must govern according to what Allah has revealed--attacking anything and anyone who doesn't pay jizya or who refuses to embrace Islam, based on using 9:29, 9:33, and policies mentioned in many other verses, such as the assertion that Muhammad's message is to be taken to all humankind (34:28, 7:157-158). Mission to all humankind, a set of laws, plus imperialistic militaristic policy if the infidels refuse the 9:5 or 9:29 propositions = classic Islamic policy. The Hadiths and Sira just flesh out the policies in a bit more detail.

"fact is that a lrge part of the verses dealing with fighting in the Koran deal with defensive warfare"

All it takes is one verse that involves offensive warfare to make it acceptable. We are talking about a book that is taken as, among other things, a set of holy commands. Not one thing in it can be deemed to be wrong. (That's another assumption that would have to be rejected to start reforming the interpretation). And even if 99.9% of it were peace and reconciliation, but there was one verse such as 9:29, it is that 9:29 verse that ought to concern us; the rest would be, at best, window dressing. Likewise we would be duly alarmed about a person who spoke a lot of niceties but then made one threat to kill or subjugate those who disagreed with him on a theological matter!

There is also a problem with the notion of "defensive." Is attacking Islam critics "defensive"? Is attacking those who actively oppose sharia "defensive"? How can Islam be anything but aggressive and imperial as long as it retains its blasphemy laws and restrictions and is ever-persistently trying, with some success, to impose these rules on non-Muslims?

Before Muslims or anyone else can safely reinterpret the Quran on any such issue, you have to get rid of Islam's blasphemy, apostasy, and heresy laws, as well as change the widespread attitudes of Muslims (most of whom want restrictions on expressions about Islam and Muhammad).

"and only 9,29 and maybe 9,5 prescribe a war of conquest against non Sharia states.....Thus if we remove the typical interpretive tradition of abrogation and some verses comming later then others we can easily transform the Korans messege concerning war into a purly defensive one (even if it will be rubbish from a historical perspective),"

Get rid of the strict laws and cultural taboos in Islam among Muslims today and you will have a chance with this reformation argument. Otherwise, anyone who tries it is not going to get far without receiving death threats or being killed.

And there's the problem. This is how Islam is locked into such an entrenched position. This kind of intransigence can last centuries, even more than a millennium.

"it after all worked with slavery, Muhammad never wanted to abolish slavery but today over 90% of the Ulema think that slavery is "unislamic".....so there is a precedent allready."

I'm not sure where this figure comes from, but this only happened under strong international pressure from the West. While you may acknowledge this, I am very concerned that it seems very unlikely that the West is going to strong assert and enforce its values and laws, even on its own territory. If we don't do that, Western civilization is in big trouble.

Ok, you acuse me of not answering some of your points while it seems to me that you yourself often ignore my points for instance why there is no slavery in modern Iran and no Jizzia is extracted there (your answer to the Jizzia question was very unsatesfactory in my opinion since the same argument can be aplyed to any dictatorial regime that taxes its subjects and uses the money for things that may be oposed by most subjects)....

"I'm not sure where this figure comes from"

So in your opinion most Ulema still want to reinstitute slavery?
Do you have any proofs for this? (Ok one often hears that if a Mullah explains something he brings the role of the slave in, like Qaradawi when he explained defensive Jihad sayed that the slave can go fight without his masters premission, but this in my opinion dosnt constitute an endrosment of slavery)....

"ge rid of the strict laws and cultural taboos...."

well at least in the west very many Muslims seem to interprete Islam in a way that puts there European upbringing first (leads to absurditys like "Aisha was realy 18" (damn smart of Muhammad to sleep with her EXACTLY when she reached the exact age of accseptable marrige acording to modern European law and morality....(and even more clever of him to hide it untill the time this laws and morality actualy come into existance....). I would argue that for many western Muslims Islam, Muhammad ect are extremly "uropeized".....For many of them Muhammad represents all the values that are viewed positivly according to modern European morale (which has been given "world" status now). Most European Muslims are thus in my opinion honest when they say that Muhammad wanted to abolish slavery, give woman total equality, waged only defensive wars ect....

I disagree that anyone who dosnt espouse a traditional view on Sharia, Muhammad ect automaticly falls under death threats, there are very many prominent islamists like Qaradawi and Ramadan who do exactly this but while being shunned by some Saudi Mullahs they are Muslim brotherhood mainstreem and are rather hailed as champions of Islam then targeted for death....Who is then? If one looks precisly then thous who are seen as traitors in the struggle between Islam and the west are even if they are quiet conservative.... Sheik Kabani has HUGE problems with the muslim establishment despite the fact that he is in many ways more conservative then Ramadan....why?

I think the answer is easy....Ramaday is a "death to Israel, death to America death to the West" type while Kabani values the west and the USA and believes that the Islamic world now is inferior to it and has to learn from it, thus he is a traitor.....Would Zudi Jasser say all the things about Islamic theology he does now BUT dont be a patriotic american and call for Americas defeat and Israels distruction as well as clearly declaring Islamic superiority in exactly all this western values he espouses, I believe he would be much more accsepted then he is now.

Thus as a modern Muslim in the west (not realy in Saudi Arabia of course), you can well say that woman must have absolutly equal rights, dont have to wear the Hijab,
dont have to be subordinant to their husbands in any way and: That you support the theory of evolution, that you see science as very important, that you are against any form of racism, that you are for full equality of all religions ect... BUT!!!
That: Islam promotes TOTAL equality between the sexes ITS CHRISTIANITY AND THE FILTY WEST THAT OPRESSES WOMEN,
its the west that invented Hijabs (yeah the face vail is in truth a Byzantine invention....)its the west that makes woman (as it does everyone else who isnt a white christian man) into slaves while Islam gives them full equality....
The theory of evolution is an Islamic truth that is accsepted by the progressive Islamic world (and actualy discovered in the Muslim world long before Darvin suposedly "discovered" (in truth stole from Muslims) it....
ITS THE FILTHY WESTERNERS WITH THEIR BACKWARD MAN WHORSHIPING CULT OF CHRISTIANITY THAT RESISTS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS!!!! the filthy Americans are SOOOO against science they believe in YOUNG EARTH CREATIONALISM HAHAHAHAHA while we Muslims are progressive, allways at the forefront of scientific thinking and our religion is THE PERFECT WAY to modernity, progress and wealth while Christianity is backward, brutal and against science (after all THE CHURCH BURNED GALILIO AT THE STAKE!!!!!) And by the way....all inventions and truths about the world are allready written in the holy Koran and the great Islamic civilisation discovered all truth before the filty, young-earth creationist west invaded it and STOLE IT ALL!!!!!
You can be agains slavery IF: You declare that Islam was allways against slavery and even the slavery that existed wasnt realy slavery but rather just a different form of adoption and (despite being so benevolent) was abolished by Muslims themselvs just naturaly without any foreign pressure or civile wars (like in the filthy west). It was rather the EVIL WEST that had the real bad slavery its western slavery thats bad, horrible, racist and evil (and fully based on Christianity since the association of the Old Testamental descendants of Ham, their future slavery and black africans is purly Christian and was unknown to Islam (the apearence of this idea (Ham = Blacks = Slaves) in countless Islamic texts (including Tabars famous History) is a blatant lie and an Orientalist invention!!!!
Its Islam that first invented democracy, the rule of law and the full equality of all religions!!!!
ITS THE FILTHI WEST THAT WAS ALLWAYS FACIST, RACIST, UNDEMOCRATIC, AND OPRESSED ALL MINORITYS!!!!! (and on Churchs order ENSLAVED all its non Christian groups from the moment the Roman Empire became Christian up to the 20th century (when Islamic influence finaly let them free them (BUT ONLY FORMALY IN TRUTH LIVE IS HELL FOR ALL MINORITYS LIVING IN THE WEST EVEN NOW (thats why we go there to suffer only to bring the Islamic messege of tolerance, Equality, scientific progress that so prevale in the Muslim world (and if there are problems ITS THE FILTHY WESTS FAULT!!!!) to the beasts in human form that the evil white man are....
Oh and the most important point of all:.........
DEATH TO AMERICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From my experience you can be as much for a total reform of traditional Islam and its total Europeisation as you want, all you have to do is to declare all the European values you find nice as "islamic" and actualy antiwestern, you can then declare all the parts of Sharia you dont like in truth parts of Christianity/West which kinda came to be part of Islam because of the filthy Imperialists (dont believe me? read this:http://www.tariqramadan.com/An-International-call-for.html )
The most important thing: you must allways give no ground to the hated Christian enemy, not for a second must you go against the idea that its the West thats inferior and Islam thats superior in all things, that the Muslim world not just lost (HA!) but even may posible loose its war against Europe. So its not realy the going against traditional Sharia values that puts one in danget of being declared an apostate, but rather a pro western position that does (I sincerly believe that a Muslim who promotes Homosexuality as "islamic" but is "DEATH TO AMERICA" is in faaaar less trouble of being declared an apostate then a conservative sheik who generaly supports the west and what it brought to the world. Whoever in the Muslim world goes against the deep seated feeling of Islamic supremacism vs western inferiority is branded as a traitor and apostate while whoever reinforces this feeling is mostly ok....

When it comes to 9,29 well it dont have to be seen as some kind of "final marching order" rather other Suras (the once that prescribe defensive warfare can be declared the norm and 9,29 can be seen as "in context of the rest" thus only fighting the people of the book if they attack the Muslims, so kinda"let the Koran interpret itself method".

When it comes to Hadith of course it will be difficult to remove the whole Bukhari/Muslim (maybe even counterproductive since in some cases they contain things that could be used to mild some Koranik commands that go against our norms) BUT: Is Bukhari a prophet in Islam? no
Is Bukhari sacraly infalible in Islam? no
Yes his Hadith have with time gained the role of Holy scripture that even overrides the Koran but I think there is a theological argument that can be brought against this aproach. Thus Bukhari Hadith can be declared to "contradict the Koran" and thus removed while not realy "authentic" hadith that "fit" can be made "authentic".

Unknown998,

Whether Muslims in the West are on welfare or not, there will still be a demographic problem long-term. Suppose in the future that almost all adult Muslim males in the West have jobs. If they have jobs, they are more likely to get married and have kids, and following the traditional cultural roles the women will stay at home and look after the kids and the household for several years.

I see no empirically-based reason why the Muslim fertility rates--especially those of devout practicing Muslims--in the West will not continue to be much higher than those of non-Muslims in the West.

I see no empirically-based reason why the majority of Muslims in the West will not continue to believe that those who criticize Islam should be criminally prosecuted and punished.

I see no empirically-based reason as to why pluralities to majorities of Muslims in the West will not continue to want sharia.

I see no empirically-based reason as to why the more hard-line sharia Muslims, more Islamist Muslims, will not continue to be disproportionately influential socially and politically. I don't see why the majority of Muslims won't continue to go along with this, whether actively helping or passively enabling.

The percentage of Muslims who actually oppose sharia and want to radically reinterpret the Quran is so small that it is not significant. The few moderate secular Muslims we see in the media are influencing non-Muslims' perceptions of Islam much more than they are influencing Muslims. If they were influencing Muslims in the way they hoped, we would see reductions in Muslims' support for sharia and reductions in their support for restrictions on criticizing Islam and Muhammad. We don't see reductions in these important areas; indeed younger Muslims actually show a higher support for sharia.

You wrote: "When it comes to 9,29 well it dont have to be seen as some kind of "final marching order" rather other Suras (the once that prescribe defensive warfare can be declared the norm and 9,29 can be seen as "in context of the rest" thus only fighting the people of the book if they attack the Muslims, so kinda"let the Koran interpret itself method"."

This is wishful thinking. 9:29 doesn’t say “if they attack the Muslims.” It says fight those of them who don’t accept Islam and Muhammad, and force them to pay jizya.

Shakir, 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

Again, the problems with what most Muslims think of as "defense", and "attack" are different from Western non-Muslims' conceptions. Most Muslims today think a cartoon or a criticism is an "attack" warranting harsh responses such as criminal prosecution. Enough Muslims in the West are willing to threaten violence, or even carry out violence and killing, in order to avenge any perceived insults against Islam or Muhammad, that this is a major problem. The problem will get bigger as the size of the Muslim population grows.

You write: "When it comes to Hadith of course it will be difficult to remove the whole Bukhari/Muslim (maybe even counterproductive since in some cases they contain things that could be used to mild some Koranik commands that go against our norms) BUT: Is Bukhari a prophet in Islam? no
Is Bukhari sacraly infalible in Islam? no
Yes his Hadith have with time gained the role of Holy scripture that even overrides the Koran but I think there is a theological argument that can be brought against this aproach. Thus Bukhari Hadith can be declared to "contradict the Koran" and thus removed while not realy "authentic" hadith that "fit" can be made "authentic""

Again, how is any of this reinterpretation and change going to occur if most Muslims don't accept--indeed consider illegal and highly offensive--this sort of criticism of their religion?

Something more fundamental has to occur: Most Muslims have to reject the idea, in principle, that the Quran or Hadith and Muhammad, or clerics or jurists whatever or whomever religious texts or figures, have any say whatsoever in military, political, or legal matters. They have to accept that religion is merely a matter of personal faith and is not something to be used in politics and law. They have to accept the separation of mosque and state. But most of them don't accept that. And there is no indication that they, in significant proportion, will accept such a separation.

You write:
"Well Prof.Lamoreaux didnt distort the whole picture by showing some "exeptions", in truth most of the Muslim world has quickly declining fertility rates"

Yes he did. A distortion that I pointed out was in selecting countries like Turkey, Tunisia, and Iran which already have very low fertility rates compared to most other Muslim-majority countries.

You write:
"Ok, you acuse me of not answering some of your points while it seems to me that you yourself often ignore my points"

Of course I ignore some points in long posts. How much time do you have? You raised the irrelevant remark about ignoring or missing points; I was reacting to that.

You write:
"for instance why there is no slavery in modern Iran and no Jizzia is extracted there (your answer to the Jizzia question was very unsatesfactory in my opinion since the same argument can be aplyed to any dictatorial regime that taxes its subjects and uses the money for things that may be oposed by most subjects)...."

It seems your point re "any dictatorial regime" actually bolsters my point that Iran retains some elements of classical sharia and the dhimma, and changed only under pressure from the West, and hence is a bad example of for you to use to try and support your claim about how pliable, flexible, changeable, and reformable Islam is. Iran is a sharia dictatorship of self-appointed Ayatollahs. Iran overall illustrates the dangerous recalcitrance and recidivism of Islam; they can drop a few elements of sharia here and there, temporarily, and reintroduce them later when the West has less political and military power.

I didn't claim that Iran has slavery and jizya, or that Islam could not change in any case anywhere. I'm saying the trends in the West are not likely to change before Muslims become a plurality or indeed a majority in some major Western countries. You are not wrong if your claim is that Islam can change to some extent. But you are overestimating Islam's capacity for change, and that's dangerous, given the looming problem in the West.

You quoted me:"I'm not sure where this figure comes from"

You responded with this wild flight of fancy: "So in your opinion most Ulema still want to reinstitute slavery? Do you have any proofs for this?"

No, I didn't say that, so why would I "bring proofs" for something I didn't claim? I was responding to a figure you were throwing around without citing a source or evidence.

"(Ok one often hears that if a Mullah explains something he brings the role of the slave in, like Qaradawi when he explained defensive Jihad sayed that the slave can go fight without his masters premission, but this in my opinion dosnt constitute an endrosment of slavery)...."

Does Qaradawi anywhere criticize the Quran and Muhammad for condoning slavery? (We already know the answer to that).

You write:
"So Objective: Not destroy Islam BUT: GET MUSLIMS OFF WELLFARE!!!!"

I believe we should continue to criticize Islam and oppose sharia. I reject Islam. The basic claims of Islam are empirically false, and it contains major immoral and evil practices and beliefs which render it dangerous to non-Muslims when Muslims follow it as instructed.

I would support an ex-Muslim before I would support a Muslim reformer. This is a more intellectually honest position for a non-Muslim who rejects Islam.

We need to ban sharia, cut off immigration of those who support it, and deport those who try to establish it. We need to continue to oppose sharia and criticize the major problem with Islam until we get some results, some assurance that the large-scale long-term Islam problem in the West has been brought under control and minimized. I will lose interest in Islam when most Muslims reject sharia and the jihad imperative to impose it.