Eric Allen Bell tells the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro why he no longer supports their mega-mosque

"In conclusion, I would just like to say that you have fucked with the wrong country....All the best,"

That is a great example of a very p.o'd., well spoken, cold and sardonic, kiss off!

Agreed. Bell's distinction between Islam and Muslims is incoherent -- acutely so, considering that he has considered Islam to be "worse than Nazism". How one earth could someone who follows an ideology worse than Nazism be "welcome in America"? It just doesn't make sense (though Bell does try to proffer subtle arguments to explain how Muslims can be -- and apparently usually are --... not Muslim).

LemonLime -

You are grasping at straws, looking for reasons to justify hating an entire group of people. That is bigotry and I think you would feel right at home in a hate group.

But if one uses reason, rather than emotion, to look at this situation, it should be fairly self-evident that a large percentage of American Muslims are children, or women who simply cannot safely leave Islam, or adults who were born into it, brainwashed to a degree, but if push comes to shove, are probably more loyal to their self interest - now that they are in America - than to following Islam.

Your oversimplification that all Muslims are bad is mind-numbing and your seething hatred is not even thinly veiled. You do Counter Jihad a great disservice every time you open your mouth.

Peace :)

Eric

How can one find himself supporting islam ( or everything and anything that goes with it ) , now be saying what is now being offered in the post? It looks like a glance behind to see only a corner, and flight is not a option.

I for one welcome your turn, it is in our country's best interest, and if we intends to survive as a free nation, more must awake from this dreamland state that to many are still grasping and hoping for.

We are at war with islam, and it is up to all of us to see just that, and to shout the warning. If you really want to save any of those who follow the death cult that is islam, the only way is to see islam itself as the enemy. and base all actions on that position.

Remember, to destroy the Nazi's, Germany burned.

I do wish those who are criticising you here can, for just a moment, try to see their smoldering haze of anger and hate to comprehend that yours is a mind and heart for reasoned compassion and cautioned acceptance for the potential for a reformed muslim. For example, butterfly's "Bell's distinction between Islam and Muslims is incoherent." Incoherent? That is such an awful word to use for an essentially brilliant essay. Maybe a bit overly hopeful, maybe. But, not incoherent.

"All the best" concluded your writing. I at first though it a bit incongruent to the gist of the compositionwith the the It's a kind of fig leaf

I do wish those who are criticising you here can, for just a moment, try to see through their smoldering haze of anger and hate to comprehend that yours is a mind and heart for reasoned compassion and cautioned acceptance for the potential for a reformed muslim. For example, butterfly's "Bell's distinction between Islam and Muslims is incoherent." Incoherent? That is such an awful word to use for an essentially brilliant essay. Maybe it was a bit overly hopeful at a point, maybe. But, not incoherent.

"All the best" concluded your writing. I at first though it a bit incongruent to the gist of the composition, but I almost immediately accepted it as not inappropriate, and more as a kind of a peace offering. To muslims who will accept it. Yes, islam knows not of the lovely and gentle dove. Peace is not in its vernacular. But, maybe there are muslims who do know, who do want for, who can say "Peace".
You haven't dismissed that. I, to a very deep degree, have dismissed it. But, I now will hang with you, for a little longer, on "hopeful".

Muslim women are not remotely anti-Islam - if anything, whenever they open their mouths, they always pretend that the misogyny that they are victims of is not a part of Islam. You may think of them as allies in your war against Islam, but don't tell them that: they are the most incensed when it's even suggested that they are victims of islam. Oh, and in the bulk of the honor killings, Muslim women are very much accomplices of their menfolk, since they are as much repelled by the idea of their daughters, sisters or neices even dating outside the ummah, let alone marrying.

There are too many ignoramuses who think that if a Muslim teenage girl wears jeans and a thin t-shirt, that they are not Islamic. It's a stupid and extremely shallow judgement call to make. Most of these girls - once they grow up - tend to be as devout breeding machines as that of their more fanatical sisters.

And if you think that Muslims demographically taking over and becoming a majority is not a problem, look @ Malaysia. In this site itself, look at the last articles on Malaysia written by the Pedestrian Infidel - a Malaysian Infidel who covers the problem of Islam in Malaysia, and to a lesser extent, in Indonesia as well. Malaysia is a country that's only over 50% Muslim, and already, ethnic Chinese and Indians - both predominantly non-Muslim - are 2nd class citizens (except Hui Chinese, who have the same status as Malays b'cos they are also Muslims).

If an overwhelming number of Muslims are not bad, can you point me to one Muslim country in which Muslims get along well w/ non Muslims, out of the 50 odd Muslim countries that there are on earth? Start w/ the big ones that have the bulk of them - Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, and then work down to smaller Muslim countries (population-wise) like Saudi Arabia. Oh, and feel free to throw in non-Muslim countries where Muslims are a sizable minority, such as in India, Russia, China, Serbia, and even for that matter now, much of Western Europe. Show me one place where non Muslims can freely practice their own faith.

ONE! I dare you - even ONE country will do.

There are two kinds of Mahoundians, active jihadists, and semi-active reserves...There is no way to tell when a semi-active will come into full activation...Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a real phenomena...Allah is in control of the switch...

Agreed. If Bell's posturing leads to anything substantive beyond self-promotion and leading to the closing of this mosque, then he should be congratulated for it.

That said, his typical liberal accusations of hate-speech and bigotry rings truer coming from those in the camp of Muslims and Islam apologists alike as opposed to the counter-jihad, but what else can you expect from a committed liberal who happened to be somewhat right on one issue that liberals generally do not embrace.

Bell certainly has contorted a desire in his own mind to make a distinction between Islam and Muslims, but stating the obvious that the indoctrinated, and seemingly innocuous Muslim women and children contained within the ummah does not and should not lead to delusions that the two are in fact separable in any meaningful way. The only dependable Muslim is an ex-Muslim.

Bell's calls for reason over emotion are spot on. Unfortunately. in his letter he opted for the latter as most liberals do routinely, while castigating those here in the comments who have ably demonstrated the logical weakness in his position.

All this is coming from a person who now appears on FOX, while mocking the news channel as little as four months ago, as well as being critical of religious intolerance, while maintaining a militant atheist stance and essentially declaring all deists as irrational morons.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/debate-tonight-is-islam-inherently-violent----eric-allen-bell-vs-nadir-ahmed.html

Interesting read in the comments section. Apparently it is true. You never really do get a second chance to make a first impression.

I applaud you again, EAB, for all that you have done. I may have disagreements with you here and there, but you see Islam for what it is---a totalitarian ideology which is a threat to liberty---and you have done more than your share to oppose it here in America. It's becoming your legacy and a damn fine one at that.

I do see all Muslims as problematical, just as I do all Neo-Nazis or Marxists or KKK members, but I don't see all Muslims as evil, just as I don't, for instance, see every last KKK member as evil. Confused, yes. Ignorant, yes. But not necessarily evil. Indeed, such people, at least some of them, deserve our compassion even while we try to steer them from adhering to what they believe in. In the case of Islam, if those who oppose it are to champion in the end, I have long contended that a mass exodus from Islam by Muslims who finally see the light is a feature of any winning strategy. You won't be able to do this if you treat all Muslims the same. This will just back virtually all of them into a major defensive position, a metaphorical corner so to speak. Divide and conquer I say, but of course be wary, be properly skeptical, while pursuing this approach.

And I would ask you not to give up on the comment section here at JW. Most who post here are quite reasonable and informed and appreciate all that you have done. Some, of course, believe you have not gone far enough in your thinking about Islam and Muslims, but I wouldn't let this turn you off. Spirited debate is not the same as insult and you, or anyone, has the right to cease responding to a particular individual whom you do indeed find insulting while still maintaining a general correspondence. I hope you opt for this.

Again, thanks for all you've done. My respects. And hope to see you back here again.

Thanks, Wellington :)

That's a great point, Awake. In the thread you linked to, Bell was busy lambasting Fox News, but all his recent appearances have been there. Why doesn't he go on CNN or MSNBC or any of the other 'unbiased' news channels and push his position?

Had I been a Muslim activist, I'd have been itching to debate him, b'cos unlike Spencer, Geller, Schlussel or anyone else, there are so many holes in his argument that makes it look like Swiss cheese. All I'd need to do is challenge him to reconcile his 2 statements:

• That most Muslims are good, and in fact victims of Islam
• However, they must not be allowed to build a mosque where they can practice what they believe in (which somehow must be something different from Islam)

I would not be surprised if this mosque, unlike the Ground Zero one, ends up being built. B'cos the real argument against building it are things like its impact on property values, changing the environment of the neighborhood (how would one like to move into a neighborhood where, @ 4:30am, the muezzin call to prayer is blasted out of loudspeakers?) The connections of the people to the Muslim Brotherhood is relevant, but given that the US itself supports the Muslim Brotherhood governments in Egypt and 'Palestine', why would a Muslim Brotherhood connection be a problem here?

I sure hope the other people @ TN are battling this out the right way, b'cos Bell sure as hell won't.

I simply referenced your comments when you first arrived here at this site. The irony is indicative by your reaction of being incensed by having your own comments about all religions and FOX news presented back to you which were both inaccurate, hypocritical and insulting to many.

Your evolving position(s) are laudable for sure, but your continued deflection of criticism for your erroneous positions and statements in the past is a bit troubling, no matter how "petty", "angry" or "bitter" these "knee-jerk" reactions from the "snake-pit" may be in your estimation.

As another commenter pointed out, your claim that "Muslims are welcome in America" is simply an emotional, wishful self-assertion, unless you have some empirical data to back that assertion up of course. Or would you suggest we accept that assertion simply because you said so, as an example of an ability to access abstract thought?

If you are going to make claims which, when logically dissected, serve to undermine the cause you ostensibly champion, don't be surprised when people call you on it. I'm not familiar w/ the Kos, but I am familiar w/ Liberals who argue, and few of them come up w/ such contradictory positions that tie them in knots.

For instance, while I don't visit Leftist blogs, I do frequent Slashdot, mainly for certain technical issues, but occasionally, I do see posts about subjects like Iran, Israel, Syria, Egypt and so on. When I am there, then I make it a point to underscore the Islamic underpinnings of the issues being debated. I make sure to post those anonymously, but even then, I've managed to get pretty good points on certain anti-Islamic posts despite the overwhelming majority of their readership being atheists and Left Wing.

You don't have to debate anybody in the comments section. But if you are going to try and follow the Clintonian policy of triangulating yourself from both 'Islamists' and the 'hate groups' who you disown while talking to Muslim thugs like Abdou Kattih, don't expect people here to take that lying down. Those 'apologies' tell us more about where you stand than what you claim to stand for.

Dear EAB,

Yours is a great post. Regarding criticisms, you probably already are aware that some people are good at the art of criticism while others are not. JW certainly has some posters whose comments may put one off but I can tell from my years of visiting this blog that there are also many very intelligent and knowledge-ful commenters whose posts can only help add to one's understanding of things.

"Kind of exactly like Daily Kos."

There is one major, major difference between JihadWatch and Daily Kos. Whereas you were banned within days of writing articles that people at Kos didn't like, your Free Speech will not be taken away here. I remember visiting DK just before they banned your articles, and reading their comments. I remember people were actively calling for you to be banned there. Here at JW, you/your articles may face a lot of criticism, but you will NOT be banned from posting comments.

Looking forward to a better mutual understanding :) Please keep posting.

Correction: that was supposed to be "smoothlee", not "smoothless".

"Great Letter, Eric. We do not equate Islam and Muslims as the same - or at least try not to. "

Don't speak for me. And if you read the comments here, you'll see you don't speak for quite a few others, either.

You quoted Bell writing "The vast majority of the members of your congregation welcomed me with kindness and were genuinely good and warm people. I find it tragic that they are being so misled by Islamists such as yourself" and asked some good questions.

The most pertinent question, though, is how does he know these people were "genuinely good"? Given what we know about Islamic deception, they are adept at pretending to be nice and polite.

And by the way, I doubt that Bell asked the Muslims he considered "genuinely good" the same kinds of tough questions he asked Saba the Muslima on the Jamie Glazov radio show -- for if he had, I would bet my entire bank account that all of them would have given him the same kind of evasions and obfuscations (with some superficial variety, of course) as did she. (For more on Bell's confrontation with Saba the Muslima, see the JW comments thread -- 257 comments total! -- where many commenters discussed this, along with a whole host of other more or less related issues.)

So Bell is basing his sweeping glowing description of the Muslims of Murfreesborough on superficial impressions.

Sorry, I'm not going to base the safety and lives of my family, friends and fellow citizens on the superficial impressions which Eric Allen Bell indulges in.

I agree. The logical conclusion--and this is directed at everyone else of that mind-set--is that Eric will come to understand that the "distinction" between Islam and Muslim is a figment of his imagination. It's one of the reasons why I don't rip into that fallacy. I'm glad just for the fact that he and others have "seen the light," however dim it may be at this point. Also, he deserves our respect for maintaining his position under threats against his life; he's earned it.

The bottom line is that Islam and Muslim are one and the same: one cannot function without the other.

.

@Eric

"There are a few, highly vocal commenters, who together form the impression of a hate group, as they are extremely negative about nearly everything, and continually insist that all Muslims are evil."

Put aside the glaring connection; judge them individually, on the basis of their deeds. Is that how you see it? Is that how we should judge the adherents of an evil ideology?

Knowing what we know about Islam, what is your position on those who choose (i.e., of their own free will) Islam as their belief system? Should we judge them individually, too?

Although I have my disagreements with you, I do appreciate the fact that you've taken a turn in the right direction; but I do look forward to the day of that aforementioned "logical conclusion."

Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

That's a very good point. Nobody here has ever called for banning Bell from anything, but that doesn't mean that they put their right to disagree w/ his views into a shredder. Speaking for just myself, I want Bell to put up the best defense of his position in the comments section. By his comments above, seems like he considers himself unequal to the task.

I too used to in my early days in JW (although not prior to that) make the distinction b/w Islam & Muslims, until one day, I just tossed that notion in my mind like a Rubiks Cube to see how it unravels. And it did. Islam is even worse than a lot of cults, and yet, it's dealt w/ a high level of acceptance. Only difference is that while the Branch Davidians, for instance, were just a few hundred odd, there are 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide - and they are the reason that Islam is not called a cult.

So this artificial, and meaningless distinction b/w Islam & Muslims - espoused by not only Bell, but also people like Wilders - needs to be confronted head on. Otherwise, the opposition to a lot of the things that Muslims do - how does one do that and then claim that they are not against Muslims?

Eric

A majority of Muslims are evil. In fact the overwhelming majority of them. Like I challenged you above, show me ONE country out of the 50 where Muslims happily co-exist w/ non-Muslims. People would earlier point to examples like Tunisia, but that was under the iron hands of a Bourguiba or a Ben Ali: we are seeing what happens when Muslims get their say. If a majority of Muslims are, as you say, good people, why are the Islamic parties like the Muslim Brotherhood winning in countries like Egypt and Libya?

And nobody needs to hate Muslims. I don't either. I just want them to be quarantined in their Islamic paradises, where they can make their collective bed, and lie in it. If they are really as good and peaceloving as you claim, they have their chances to prove it. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen,... the list goes on.

When Eastern Europe and Russia threw off Communism, a lot of emigres returned to their native countries from the West, and were welcomes into very influential positions, and they participated in the progress of their countries. Poland and Hungary quickly became free market economies. Czech and Slovakia very amicably separated w/o any bloodletting after the velvet revolution - something unheard of previously in history. With the exception of Russia, which has its own kleptocratic issues, most of these ex-COMECON countries embraced democracy and pluralism, and their people are not fleeing those places for other countries. That is what good people are.

Had Muslims been good people, the same example would have been emulated in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, and so on. After the Libyan regime fell, a few Jews returned to Tripoli from Italy and tried (re?)building a synagogue, only to find out that it was haram. And every day in the news, we have a new olympic event b/w various Muslim countries to see who can make their constitution 100% shariah the fastest.

Yeah, you may have met some Muslims who are great to be w/. For a few hours, they may be great to be w/. But that by no means translates into a majority of them, and that 'nice muslims' meme has been exposed time and again after every jihadi attack both in the US and abroad.

P.S.: Or he simply ignores them -- as he has done repeatedlly with Kinana of Khaybar.

butterfly,

You mentioned some of the Muslims you work with who strike you as good people -- "by Hugh’s definition they would be cultural Muslims, Muslim-in-name-only Muslims"

Hugh's phrase was "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only". I never got the sense that Hugh would treat such Muslims any different from the Muslims who are candid enough to say that, e.g., they want to behead those who insult Mohammed.

I.e., we have no way of knowing if that superficial decaffeination of the virulence of their Islam is feigned or not; or, if not feigned, is sincere in the conscientious way non-Muslims experience and, thus, would not be able tp prevent the spontaneous combustion into radical hate and violence -- the "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" which we have seen thousands of times (as documented in the mountain below us, of Jihad Watch archives over the years); which again Hugh described in his charming way as the seemingly inactive Muslim suddenly activating his Islam by "finding that old time religion" again -- a potentiality, again, that is unique to Islam, and uniquely deadly for us.

Abd which effectively undermines any pragmatic usefulness of the apparent benign harmlessness of any given Nice Muslim.

Stated with propriety. Nicely done.

I don't know much about LemonLime/Hesperado's history with JW, but there isn't much that he's been wrong about--or that I've disagreed with--that I'm able to recall at this time, at least. I suppose he could be more tactful; but I do find myself agreeing with him more. I watch the video of the Arab ("Muslim") festival in New Jersey, and I'm convinced that the Muslim reaction towards the Christians is but a hint of what is to come (on the grandest of scales). "Muslims" (by definition) could never be and will never be our friends; they are here to transform the country (the world, really)--to Islamize and/or subjugate the masses--one step at a time. This has been the case throughout the history of Islam. What's to make us think that the Islamic design is any different in this day and age?

Again, nicely done (on your comment).

Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

CORRECTION: That should be Michigan, not New Jersey.

Thank you for your comment, PGuud. Appreciated.

And yes, LemonLime/Hesperdo makes many good points but he's still not cut out for the diplomatic service (to put it mildly), now is he?. I think while most of us were raised on mother's milk, LL was raised on dill pickles (it's just a theory of mine).

Oh yes, he's pretty much right on the big issues, but, just like William Lloyd Garrison was right about the iniquity of slavery, it is almost never enough to be only right. One must also know how to be right (as Abraham Lincoln was and William Lloyd Garrison wasn't). And here LL fails more or less. I think he'll never get this. But to his credit, aside from the many specific salient points he makes, his ego is not bruised easily and this in and of itself is a virtue. An easily bruised ego is always a sign of a personality deficiency and no one can fairly accuse LL of this.

Hope you and yours are doing well. And now back to the fight.

Even "Big Tents" have their limits. I'm not sure in this regard, however, that any line has been crossed. Also, usefulness for certain members in a "Big Tent" need not be permanent, but temporary. Aftr all, Churchill invited Stalin into the Big Tent temporarily. Nevertheless, this particular meme of "Islam is horrible & deadly but, strangely enough, most Muslims are nice people" I fear has the long-term effect of strengthening, rather than dissolving, the PC MC paradigm that is the single most influential cause of Western myopia to the danger of Islamic terrorism. After all, Gell's position is not qualitatively different from the TWOEMATHI (the Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Trying to Hijack Islam)-- except that it robustly condemns Islam qua Islam, but then sneaks in a sweeping, unfounded exculpation of hundreds of millions of Muslims in through the back door, as it were.

And as such, I really wonder about even its temporary usefulness; and not, rather, its long-term deleterious effects.`

Correction (I'm making quite a few errors):

"...the TWOEMATHI (the Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Trying to Hijack Islam)..."

should be:

"...the TMOEWATHI (the Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Trying to Hijack Islam)..."

We don't save muslims from islam, we save individuals from islam. Individuals are only muslims because of islam's laws.

We must not forget that we are resisting totalitarianism, and its biggest weapon is the severe punishment for apostasy.

Wherever we can remove the fear of repercussions for apostasy from islam, islam will cease to exist. And wherever individuals announce themselves as muslims the fear, and the danger of totalitarianism, continues to exist.

There are no good totalitarians. I'm with Lemon Lime.

Respectfully.

LemonLime,

Please don’t confuse liking a coworker who happens to be Muslim with trusting Muslims in general. I trust no Muslim, not even my co-worker. I agree with your assessment and recognize the fence upon which I walk. My statement was simply to demonstrate to Mr. Bell that I don’t hate all Muslims for the mere fact they are Muslim.

I also agree with you about your perception of Hugh’s feeling on this matter. Although, it seems a bit petty of you to call me out for paraphrasing his words, or maybe, for not using the exact quote.

butterfly,

"My statement was simply to demonstrate to Mr. Bell that I don’t hate all Muslims for the mere fact they are Muslim."

I fear Bell's mind is made up and, in lieu of actually thinking, he would infer from the datum that you disagree with his distinction of Islam and Muslims that you are a bigot; and no amount of exculpatory data will suffice to change his mind's template on that matter -- short of you informing him that you have seen the light and now agree with his distinction.

It's a lot like what the PC MC MSM does to anti-Jihad folks like Robert Spencer or Gert Wilders: no matter how many times Spencer or Wilders patiently explain that they are not against Muslims (and even, as with Spencer, that he is not against Islam per se), the PC MC MSM obtusely persist in demonizing both them as, in effect, bigots and potential genocidal demagogues.

I have never said any totalitarian type was good. In fact, all totalitarian types are at least confused and ignorant. Some are just downright evil.

But I think it worthwhile to try and steer some of these confused and ignorant folks, whether Muslims, Neo-Nazis, Marxists, KKK members, etc., from what they believe in. In short, I think there is such a thing as redeeming lost souls (not meant here in a full religious sense). And it can prove to be a smart approach because it weakens the totalitarian group du jour, though caution, as I've indicated before, must always be exercised because one doesn't want to be taken in by a double agent.

I would also note that the world at large is not yet ready to consider Islam as evil. It will eventually but not yet. And that's why folks like Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders are, at this point in time, smart to make a distinction between Islam and Muslims.

Respectfully.

"...folks like Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders are, at this point in time, smart to make a distinction between Islam and Muslims."

Gotcha. So we should err on the side of recklessness, not caution.

Re Muslim women. Not all of them are jihad witches. Some at least are very, very discontented. The best thing one can do for them would be to blanket the Mohammedan world, 24/7, with satellite and radio broadcasts, in the vernacular, offering lucid and attractive presentations of the alternatives to Islam, and no-holds-barred critiques of Islam...**especially** of all its woman-hating aspects. With *lots* of female voices of ex-Muslimahs who are now happy apostates, whether Christian or secular.

Our own 'Fineliving', who was raised as a Muslim child within a Muslim family in a Muslim country, has - in another forum - very clearly expressed what it was like to begin questioning the goodness and rightness of Islam...and to be unable to shake off those questions, unable to silence them or suppress them. In the end she apostasized. She is no longer a Muslim.

See the comments thread (mostly apostates giving short shrift to a few Muslim spin-doctors furiously screeching or slyly hissing) to this fascinating little piece by one 'Ibn Kammuna' (another apostate).

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/42816
aturday, 7 July 2012
Ibn Kammuna: How Islam Stunts The Mind

Below, I will re-post a copy of what 'fineliving' wrote, in response to the article by 'Ibn Kammuna' on what Islam does to the human mind.

I found Fineliving's account most illuminating and useful. And to me, it is encouraging. Later this month, when I take part in the '30 Days' project - praying, every single day, for the liberation of all those souls that are being eaten alive by Islam, from birth; souls pickled in Islam, enthralled by Islam, hypnotised and drugged and driven mad by Islam - I will remember Fineliving's account of what it is like to be inside dar al Islam and to be unable to suppress one's humanity or silence one's doubts. I will pray especially for protection and illumination for those who are where Fineliving was at, some years ago, struggling, unable to still what I would call the voice of conscience, a voice speaking from outside of The Islam.

Anyway, here's what she said:

"Thank you Ibn Kammuna for another very good and open Article
written by fineliving56 , July 03, 2012

"I believe critical thinking is the key to open the minds of Muslims … and as the author wrote ,Islam destroys that natural ability, Muslims were born with but they lose completely after, Islam goes through their minds.

"A Muslim feels fearful, sick and disgusted with one self, when their minds tries and sneak in, some questioning of the actions of early Muslims …. and right away, the Muslim mind blames it on Shaitan [ Satan ] who [ muslim think] is trying to invade their mind and sin ….

"so they rush to their little rugs, facing the Ka'aba and they stick their heads on it and they pray and pray to Allah to help and get rid of these thoughts of Questions [ critical thinking ] to go a way.

"I am saying this because that what happen to my mind first when I started questioning Muslim women's plight all around me
…
"I remember to be stuck to my rug for long periods of times … at one of the worst nights … I most have prayed 30 Rak'as … I prayed to my Allah to save me from The devil … to not let him pull me and make me think of the unfairness of it all … to except [sic: accept - dda] the facts of life for Muslim wome, in Islam and not question the fact that Allah gave permission to my father to beat my mother…

'The next day .. My pryers did not DO one d__m thing … Life, as usual, went on as it was .. It was so disappointing and a let down … Allah did not help in any way … in fact it only got worse … and because of that, I remember the questioning got even loader and loader [sic: louder and louder - dda] to the point of no return
….

'even then I still gave excuses to Allah … I convinced my self … Allah has nothing to do with all the unfair Ayas against women in Quran … I rationalized to my self by blaming the lying, greedy Muslim men, who added the hated ayas to Quran I convinced my self that they did that, to have the chance to own muslim women's bodies,take half of their money and own their mind …

'I told my self Allah is innocent of it all … I kept held love for IT … I still prayed under my breath but only that .. I remember only praying but now I know I only prayed out of guilt, fear and desperation …. Resentment was their with no acknowledgement.

What is so strange, I still did not blame Muhammad … I dissolved him of all blame because of the preconceived notion that I held, that he was peaceful [ of course he was far from it ]… only men around him who did all the killings and even that did not wake me up …

some time I get so angry with my self for letting my self cary around that much gullibility and nativity [sic: it's clear she means naivety - dda]."

Click on the link and read the whole thread, because it's very interesting to see how declared apostates from Islam - fineliving is one of the feistiest and sharpest, but there are others who are pretty good as well- deal with Mohammedan BS artists.

Take it up with Spencer and Wilders.

"The best thing one can do for them would be to blanket the Mohammedan world, 24/7, with satellite and radio broadcasts, in the vernacular, offering lucid and attractive presentations of the alternatives to Islam, and no-holds-barred critiques of Islam...**especially** of all its woman-hating aspects."

Such a policy may well be like throwing gasoline on a forest fire in order to save all the soft and furry forest animals therein from the wolves.

Sure, it would be nice to save all the Muslim victims of Islam; but I would hope the anti-Islam movement has more important priorities.

I take it you have no desire to rescue any Muslim from the tyranny which is Islam. Arguably yours is an extremist approach. Now, sometimes extremism is necessary, not that often but sometimes, but are you sure it is in this case?

muslims have to save themselves from islam. They do that by pronouncing that they are no longer muslim. Yes there are risks. And if they are not prepared to take those risks then they are existentially part of and contributing to islam.

They do not get guarantees that they will be 100% safe when they become apostates. Just like we do not have guarantees that we will avoid totalitarian oppression at the hands of islam.

Uh, in the letter that he wrote to Abdou Kattih, he clearly made it a point to triangulate himself from 'bigots, who embarrass' him as well as the 'Islamists'. So I'm sorry, but people who consider me or others who think like I do members of a hate club (especially while addressing Muslims) are not my idea of 'an ally'.

On the points raised by Wellington and DDA above, it's an issue of priorities. Nobody minds rescuing the 'Muslim victims of Islam' who want to bail out, but as Lemon Lime and Moray Watson pointed out, the safety and security of Infidel populations come first. After that comes the non-Muslims refugees from dar ul Islam (and even there, some filtering is needed, since a lot of Islamo-Christians are there, as well as non-Muslim populations like Copts who share the Judeophobic bigotry of their Muslim neighbors). Examples like Fineliving that were cited above are an asterisk. It's worth pointing out that Ali Sina's FaithFreedom project, which started off as targeting Muslims for conversion out of Islam, later morphed into another project aiming to educate Infidels about this problem of Muslims, just like Jihad Watch and Islam Watch. In short, most of the people behind these campaigns know that as far as Muslims themselves go, it has a very low ROI and is therefore a wasted effort.

On Wellington's point above on whether this is an extreme position to take, maybe, maybe not, but stating that protecting the native populations of bilad ul Kafir, whether we're talking about the US or Canada or Israel or India or Australia or Europe or S Sudan or Ethiopia or Kenya or Philippines or Thailand or Singapore, deserves a higher priority than being overly concerned about people from Muslim countries. As it is, there is the taquiyya factor to deal w/, and now, among these ex-Muslims, they want their devout Muslim family members to be given the same pass as they are, thereby creating a back door for Jihadis to enter. In my opinion, no can do - I for one would lose less sleep over something happening to them as opposed to their family members being able to pull off a successful jihad attack in cities like Detroit, Minneapolis, Santa Clara, Montreal, Sydney, Hyderabad (India), Bradford, Malmo, Amsterdam, Paris, Cologne or anywhere else. It's also more important to me than whether Eric or anyone else gets put off by the opinions of Lemon Lime, Moray Watson, Butterfly, Awake, me or anyone else here.

If people have a problem w/ the 'abstract' distinction being drawn b/w Islam vs Muslims, or w/ concepts like 'Islamism', whether such concepts are promoted by Bell, Pipes, Spencer, Geller, Wilders, Glazov, Auster or anybody else is immaterial. Yeah, one could go hammer & tongs @ these arguments w/o naming anybody, and ostensibly, one would end up being diplomatic.

Infidel wrote:

Uh, in the letter that he wrote to Abdou Kattih, he clearly made it a point to triangulate himself from 'bigots, who embarrass' him as well as the 'Islamists'. So I'm sorry, but people who consider me or others who think like I do members of a hate club (especially while addressing Muslims) are not my idea of 'an ally'.
....................................

Well, I never would have phrased this as Eric Allen Bell did, it's true. But he also condemned Islam itself in very strong terms-terms far stronger than many Anti-Jihadists, who only condemn Jihadists' "interpretations" of Islam, and never acknowledge the baleful nature of Islam itself.

More:

On the points raised by Wellington and DDA above, it's an issue of priorities. Nobody minds rescuing the 'Muslim victims of Islam' who want to bail out, but as Lemon Lime and Moray Watson pointed out, the safety and security of Infidel populations come first. After that comes the non-Muslims refugees from dar ul Islam (and even there, some filtering is needed, since a lot of Islamo-Christians are there, as well as non-Muslim populations like Copts who share the Judeophobic bigotry of their Muslim neighbors). Examples like Fineliving that were cited above are an asterisk. It's worth pointing out that Ali Sina's FaithFreedom project, which started off as targeting Muslims for conversion out of Islam, later morphed into another project aiming to educate Infidels about this problem of Muslims, just like Jihad Watch and Islam Watch. In short, most of the people behind these campaigns know that as far as Muslims themselves go, it has a very low ROI and is therefore a wasted effort.
....................................

Well, I largely agree. Certainly, just as I agree that we cannot look to Muslims for a benign reform of Islam, we also cannot look to them for mass apostasy. Either would, of course, be welcome—but it is not realistic to expect this.

I also agree that our main focus needs to be on protecting Infidels.

More:

On Wellington's point above on whether this is an extreme position to take, maybe, maybe not, but stating that protecting the native populations of bilad ul Kafir, whether we're talking about the US or Canada or Israel or India or Australia or Europe or S Sudan or Ethiopia or Kenya or Philippines or Thailand or Singapore, deserves a higher priority than being overly concerned about people from Muslim countries. As it is, there is the taquiyya factor to deal w/, and now, among these ex-Muslims, they want their devout Muslim family members to be given the same pass as they are, thereby creating a back door for Jihadis to enter. In my opinion, no can do - I for one would lose less sleep over something happening to them as opposed to their family members being able to pull off a successful jihad attack in cities like Detroit, Minneapolis, Santa Clara, Montreal, Sydney, Hyderabad (India), Bradford, Malmo, Amsterdam, Paris, Cologne or anywhere else. It's also more important to me than whether Eric or anyone else gets put off by the opinions of Lemon Lime, Moray Watson, Butterfly, Awake, me or anyone else here.
....................................

Again, I agree—but EAB's standing against this mega-Mosque is part of that fight.

More:

If people have a problem w/ the 'abstract' distinction being drawn b/w Islam vs Muslims, or w/ concepts like 'Islamism', whether such concepts are promoted by Bell, Pipes, Spencer, Geller, Wilders, Glazov, Auster or anybody else is immaterial. Yeah, one could go hammer & tongs @ these arguments w/o naming anybody, and ostensibly, one would end up being diplomatic.
....................................

But this is just the problem. If you not only don't consider Eric Allen Bell rigorous enough an Anti-Jihadist to be considered an ally, but *also* don't consider Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Jamie Glazov, Lawrence Auster, or many others to be rigorous enough either, then you just don't have a lot of allies.

There are certainly small points where I differ with some of the people you named above, but I consider them all absolutely stalwart Anti-Jihadists.

Rather than the proverbial "big tent", you seem to be going for a very, very small pup tent. The problem is, I don't believe that a small pup tent—no matter how ideologically rigorous its occupants—can stand against Jihad and the enablers of Jihad.

I can see trying to bring other Anti-Jihadists around to your way of thinking—certainly, my own stance has evolved somewhat in the past eleven years or so—but rejecting them out of hand seems—with respect—extremely unwise to me.

In any case, I do appreciate your reply.

And I stand with you against the threat of Jihad—even if you decline to stand with me.

I take it you have no desire to rescue any Muslim from the tyranny which is Islam. Arguably yours is an extremist approach. Now, sometimes extremism is necessary, not that often but sometimes, but are you sure it is in this case?

It's not a matter of desire; it's a matter of priorities. We have to protect our own first and foremost. Not only do I see no way to do that and simultaneously embark upon a grand project of saving Muslims from Islam, I see that grand project as positively hindering our first priority.

To paraphrase the famous call on the Titanic:

"Infidels and Kafirs first!"

LemonLime wrote:

gravenimage,

I'm not the one excluding Bell as an ally. I only dared to criticize his distinction. He's the one who went further and called me a "hater" who would in his opinion be happy in "hate groups":

About my argument, Bell wrote:

That is bigotry and I think you would feel right at home in a hate group.
.....................................

LemonLime, I absolutely disagree with Bell's characterization of you as a "hater". Muslims as a group *are* a threat—and saying so is not "bigotry".

You and I may differ on some points, but not on this.

More:

He's the one excluding me as an ally; not the other way around. And yet, Alice-through-the-Looking-Glass style, you accuse me of excluding him as an ally. Surreal.
.....................................

Actually, I *never* said that, LemonLime. I was replying to Infidel, who wrote this:

"...I'm sorry, but people who consider me or others who think like I do members of a hate club (especially while addressing Muslims) are not my idea of 'an ally'."

You make a sound point, LL, when you contrast EAB saying, "Muslims are welcome in America" while still describing you as a hater. For the record, I don't see you as a hater. Perhaps someone who is over cautious (and then again maybe not), but not a hater.

gravenimage,

Re:

He's the one excluding me as an ally; not the other way around. And yet, Alice-through-the-Looking-Glass style, you accuse me of excluding him as an ally. Surreal.
.....................................

Actually, I *never* said that, LemonLime. I was replying to Infidel, who wrote this:

"...I'm sorry, but people who consider me or others who think like I do members of a hate club (especially while addressing Muslims) are not my idea of 'an ally'."

See my recent epiphany (triggered by the article there reported by Raymond Ibrahim), which I meant without a shred of hyperbole.

Infidel wrote:

On the big tent school of thought, I used to be a fan of it, but over the years, as I've seen conservative ideals get not merely diluted but contaminated and corrupted, my views of 'big tents' have changed. For instance, currently in the GOP, the big tent includes pro-Islamic congressmen and governors like Darryl Issa, Justin Amish, Chris Christie and a whole lot more. When the tent becomes so big that we start co-opting our adversaries, there's a problem.
...................................

Well, yes—this can sometimes be a problem. You don't want your "tent" to be so big that your enemies take up residence in it.

Still—here we are discussing Eric Allen Bell, while that baleful Mosque going up in Murfreesboro gets hardly a mention...

Yep, the mega-mosque is what matters.

Getting it NOT built. Or UNbuilt.

And the sort of ferreting about that EAB has done should help toward that end.

Hesperado/ Lemonlime

I would invite you to reflect on a maxim of that most devoutly Catholic English writer, J R R Tolkien, "Oft evil will shall evil mar".

And I would also encourage you to read C S Lewis, 'The Screwtape Letters'. And Charles Williams' very strange last novel, 'All Hallows' Eve' and reflect upon the figure of the magician therein: immensely powerful, immensely clever, but in the end "a lost lunatic", fatally miscalculating.

Me, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if 'shoddy and shady' *is* the way in which Muslims, for the most part, are operating. It's the main, or the only way in which they *know* how to operate. One sees that in all the accusations they make against their opponents; they constantly 'project' on others their own goals and methods. I don't think they understand *real* trust or *real* cooperation, or that people can function without being always afraid of being stabbed in the back by somebody else, and that dirty deals under the table are *not* always and everywhere the way the world works.

They have a lot of cunning, sure. To practise fraud, one must be cunning. But they lack *wisdom*, the Sancta Sophia; they lack truth and troth, and without that... There are lots of very clever people inside Dante's Inferno: but they are all 'miserable people/ who have lost the good of the intellect', il ben dell'intelletto, the Intellectual Good.

Jesus' maxim, 'faithful in little, faithful also in much' applies also in the negative: 'unfaithful in little, unfaithful also in much.'

There are two equal and opposite dangers for us today.

One is to underestimate the enemy.

The other is to *overestimate* the enemy.

Sometimes I wonder whether-even as you accuse the rest of us of *underestimating* the opponent - you yourself are falling into the opposite error, that of seeing the enemy as virtually omnipotent and omniscient.

Me, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if 'shoddy and shady' *is* the way in which Muslims, for the most part, are operating. It's the main, or the only way in which they *know* how to operate.

With -- to take one example of similar thousands one could adduce -- Huma Abedin, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked infiltrator in high places (if not, indeed, part of the "Muslim Sisterhood", as Walid Shoebat reported in this prescient pre-Egyptian Election interview), that utterly Westernized un-hijabbed Vogue model-cum-Beltway socialite who for years has had a direct ear to our Secretary of State; and with the uniquely high degree of fanaticism motivating Muslims; and with the horrific potential of the ultra-violence they wish obsessively to inflict upon us with an eye on our total subjugation to them -- it would be grievously reckless of us to underestimate Muslims. Rather, we should assume the worst, and act accordingly.

EAB's localized usefulness obscures the deeper and broader hazards which his profoundly wrongheaded prejudice reinforces -- too often echoed in one way or another by the spotty obtuseness and confused sincerity of many an anti-jihadist airing their gingerly opinions on various Internet forums and chat rooms.