There is obviously much deception in Islamic religion, but I think it is also true that some part of Islam is sincerely devoted to genuine peace and I think that that part is just plain people. And I'd add mostly women. Quite probably.

We ought to debunk Islamist's deception in Arabic, and in the Middle-East. Big style. With the best material, the best philological tools, the cream of experts, and much, much people around. And the whole thing broadcasted via webcams around the web.

Or so.

Ask Muhammad what he's got, in the face of his world.

Posted by: ajm at March 26, 2005 8:48 AM

This apologetic /taqiyya nonsense it why we who know must work to spread the truth .
Americans will not lose there birthright to conniving liars who require you to be ignorant for their lies to be convincing .People don’t want to believe Islam could be a threat from the ground up and will grasp at any straw to avoid the ugly truth.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Schopenhauer

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 26, 2005 9:13 AM

One hopes for, longs for, a moderate Islam that can live in peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims and that does not hold them in disdain. Islam will always be a danger as long as the Koran is considered to be irrefutable in all its parts and the marauding Mohammed the perfect example of a man.

Hope springs eternal... then reality sets in.

Posted by: epg at March 26, 2005 9:24 AM

You are being too kind. Muslims in FMCAT know perfectly well how little most Infidels know about Islam -- not the texts alone, but how those texts seep into minds, not necessarily to be acted upon, not even necessarily fully accepted, but to settle as a kind of mental substratum even on those who are outwardly "moderate" -- and that substratum can be disturbed, like sediment on the ocean floor, and cause a change in behavior and attitudes, triggered by all sorts of reasons that may be purely personal in nature, but which result in a "moderate" Muslim (one who is not fully observant, one who may be nonchalant or even ignorant of the full content of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, one who out of filial piety "goes along" but in so doing, helps to deceive Infidels in the nature, and effect, of this ideology that has been so dangerous for Infidels).

Kamal Nawash et al. are not innocents. He himself has run for office, thought up this FMCAT (which has, in toto, just a few other names attached), has a website that emphasizes the Importance and Availability for Media Interviews of Kamal Nawash, and has every outward and visible sign of being an adjunct to the next political race he tries to run (he ran, and lost, two years ago). The goal is transparent.

Again, all one is asking for is the following:

Tell us precisely how, in what way, you think the Qur'an can be reinterpreted? Would the doctrine of naskh (abrogation) be itself abrogated (one Khaleel Mohammed, who collects checks for giving speeches in synagogues, suggests that "naskh" is a minor problem, a late invention that no Qur'anic commentator holds to, but this native of Guyana is not deeply versed in Qur'anic studies)? Would someone, Irshad-Manji-like, storm the gates of ijtihad (personal interpretation) and fling them open? And just how many Believers would believe this "new" Islam, this Islam which would interpret away vritually the entire geopolitical aspect of Islam -- the need for which prompted the invention of Islam in the first place, by Arabs needing a doctrine that was separate from, but sufficiently recognizable by, the relatively large populations of Christians and Jews, more settled, advanced, and wealthy (and then later, of Zoroastrians), whom they conquered early on in the Middle East and North Africa.

And the Qur'an cannot be the only canonical text so treated. What about the Hadith and the Sira? Is Muhammad a model for all mankind or is he not? If he is, what about the assassination of Asma bint Marwan, and several others, or the execution of the hundreds of prisoners of the Bani Qurayza, or the attack on the inoffensive Jewish tribe in the Khaybar oasis, or dozens of other events in his life, including the consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was nine, which has taken on great significance because it has had practical consequences -- in the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of Khomeini's first acts was to reduce the marriageable age of girls to 9 (Khomeini himself had married a 10-year-old when he was 28).

What about those Hadith? Will someone anoint himself a new Bukhari or Muslim, and winnow the stories differently, casting out as "inauthentic" (and on the basis of what isnad, or transmission-chain?) all the Hadith that spell trouble for Infidels, and for the ability of Muslims to exist peacefully, and not aggressively, not with a relentless urge to ultimately not only spread Islam but to ruthlessly dominate whatever non-Muslims survive, and to continue the pressure through the disablities of dhimmitude?

The entire history of Islamic conquest, and Muslim rule over non-Muslims, suggests that this is a tall order. It will not be filled by those seeking to fool Infidels further, and to prolong or spread their unwariness. It will not be filled by those who have political ambitions in a non-Muslim polity and who consider this kind of activity a useful and necessary political move. It will not be filled by those who are in the businesse of giving paid speeches before audiences of Jews and Christians telling them that they have nothing to fear as long as the "good" and "reform" Muslims such as they, and of course their organizations -- which ladies and gentleman you can contribute to simply by going to.....(fill in the blank here) --- grow and grow.

How transparent. How silly. How dangerous.

Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2005 9:52 AM

This may be a bit OT but Dr.Elmasry has shot himself in the foot again,the "Friday's" updates came early because of the holiday(BTW,I still haven't heard Muslims demanding to work on Christian holidays or refuse the Paid-day-off.) and low and behold Muhammed Elmasry tried to compare a "Opinion" piece from a Jewish student
that was in public view in a local paper,to a
Islamic schools "Call to Jihad and Sharia" by a Palestinian boy that's now Canada's problem.

The hypocracy and paradoxical irony is amazing,the Jewish boy is seen as a oppressor
of Muslims and the actual "Jihadist" boy for Islam is a victim and only wrote a "fictional"
essay that must be kept in "Context".
I still feel Elmasry is a pathetic frustrated old man that is far too stupid for the amount of years he has been on Earth,the C.I.C. website
spews antisemitic rants on a regular basis and
our weak "Hate-laws" encourage Yahoo's like him to test the "Free speech" parimeter that seems to grow outward with every un-opposed action from the Politicians and Police.

**************************************************

Here's Elmasry's moral equivalent to a willfuly
suppress essay about murdering Jews and the teachers praise to Allah for the boys report.

CIC Alarmed at What Students Are Learning in Canadian Hebrew Schools

The Canadian Islamic Congress today urged Jewish community leaders to re-evaluate what Canadian Jewish youth are being taught in Hebrew schools, saying the viewpoints that influence students could threaten healthy relationships between many Canadians in our multicultural and pluralist society.
In a letter to the editor published by the Kingston Whig Standard on March 17th, 2005 a nine-year-old Jewish student wrote:

"I learned at my Hebrew school that Israel doesn't want to fight. It only wants to protect itself. Jews have been trying to protect themselves in the land for 3,000 years. The war in Israel has been going on since Israel became a state in 1948. The reason there's war is because when the British divided the state, the Palestinians wanted more, and invaded Israel, wanting to push the Israelis into the sea. The Palestinians lost the war and now have the West Bank. Israel doesn't have a 'war leader,' but it has leaders who want peace."

"There is both a challenge and an opportunity here," commented CIC national president Prof. Mohamed Elmasry. "Much could be accomplished by teaching the children of our communities fair and accountable historical facts. If young Canadian Jews and Muslims knew about each other's faith and history fairly and accurately, we could build a broader basis for dialogue instead of conflict."

CONTACTS:

Dr. Mohamed Elmasry
(519) 746-4107 (O)
(519) 577-2267 (Cell)
e-mail: np@canadianislamiccongress.com

Mrs. Wahida Valiante, CIC's National VP
(905) 771-1023,
e-mail: nvp@canadianislamiccongress.com

FOR FRENCH MEDIA:
Dr. Mohamed Nekili
(514) 745-1255
e-mail: mohamed.nekili@videotron.ca

**************************************************

What a crock,Elmasry doesn't get it,we all know
about Islam and Muslims so that's where the problem lies.
With every attempt by Muslims to whip the dead horse of "Peaceful" Islam,people get more turned off the denial and paranoia leading to the "Islamophobia" or "Racism" label that placates the Politicians.
I really doubt the Islamic school in Ottawa
has only one student that praises murdering
Jews,Elmasry himself defended his comments last October by claiming it was his "Palestinian" friends that expressed the desires to murder Israelis by way of suicide bombings.

Now he claims the Palestinians are the Peaceful ones wanting a end to the disputed areas,com'on
Muhammed,you can do better than that,we know
you hate Jews and I know you do from the protests you attend where Muslim kids burn the Israeli flag along with the American one.
The 9/11 hijackers WERE Muslims and used the Quran to defend their slaughtering of civilians.

Posted by: ala-sux at March 26, 2005 10:04 AM

An easy way to see through all of the wishful thinking of the Islamopolgists is to do a quick thought experiment.

When you see the word Islam, change it to another religion and see how it would sound.

The Christian Republic of Uganda?

The Hindu Republic of Canada?

The Jewish Republic of Romania?

The Mormon Republic of Bali?

Then it becomes clearer what the impact on the people inside such states would be. The dominant religion would second-class them all, by default, since they are not in the very name of the land.

Islam is determined to be the law of the land. For all lands.

The other faiths have given up this lust for government- finally. After millenia of warring among themselves and with others, their followers got sick of the internecine carnage and put non-priest in power,

Islam wishes to be The Power. Exceutive, judicial and legislative.

Governmental Holy Men decreeing morality has that glorious tendency to become The Inquisition, whatever creed gets the reins.

NO Muslim can rewrite the Koran. (The Koran says so.)

As nice as the 'semi-believers' in Islam may be (probably a de facto majority), it's time they wised up to the core dogmas of their creed and risk the Holy Rule of Allah -that says those who leave the faith must be killed- and bail out before they are turned totally schophrenic.

Posted by: BigSleep at March 26, 2005 11:07 AM

FMCAT would be far more convincing if they publicly renounced islam and became Rotarians.

Why would anyone, in good faith, associate himself with an organization with which he was in substantial disagreement? It doesn't cypher.

Deport them all.

Posted by: Havoc at March 26, 2005 12:01 PM

Khaleel Muhammad, mentioned above as one of those Muslims who are now making a good living before Infidel audiences (to be distinguished from the "defectors" from Islam -- whether Christian, as Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat, or freethinkers, such as Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq), giving them a bit of a Halloween-scare -- will soon be making the rounds of synagogues in South Florida, so if you are in the neighborhood, and can enter, you can catch his act. He will scare (and entrance) his audience with tales of Muslim antisemitism, and then of course he will The Offer the Way Out (patent pending, inventer: Khaleel Muhammad), which is to say -- through out the doctrine of abrogation, forget about the Hadith and Sira, and tinker just a little bit here and there, under the engine of Islam -- oh, hand me that oilcloth, will you?

Yes, catch that act. Or that of Khaled Abou El Fadl, who didn't manage to persuade Harold Koh and the Yale Law School that he really was the world's "leading scholar of Islam" as the website devoted to him (and maintained by whom exactly)boldly states.

Ah yes, and to supplement the money from the gullble churches and synagogues, there is always government and grant money to be obtained for the "Peace-Between-Civilizations" Project, or "On Common Ground" or "The Children of Abraham Summer Camp" or -- oh, good god, fill it up with your own inventions. You get the idea.

What a waste. Meanwhile, inexorable changes come to London, Paris, Rome, Madrid. Worried?

Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2005 12:20 PM

Moderate muslims? islam is a death cult and all muslims are members. Don't like the beheadings, the stonings, the misogyny, the slavery? Then leave! But don't say the jihadists have it all wrong, they don't. Their philosophy is straight out of the divine cult book.

Posted by: butterfly at March 26, 2005 12:35 PM

Another way to look at Spencer's point, I think, is by applying the Ali Sina's idea that Islam, as a belief system, defined by surrender to the directives of stated in the Qur'an, hadiths and sira, is a pathology, and that the collective (umma) constitutes a cult, whose members follow the directives of the cult to varying degrees.

(I hope Muslim readers keep following after this point. Think about it. Dropping one's attention at this juncture is a sign that Ali Sina is correct. If Islam is a pathology, then one under influence of the pathology would be unable to rationally consider what will be proposed here. The mind will shut it out with irrational, knee jerk responses, maybe claims like 'ignorance', 'Islamophobia' or any other idea that suits the moment. Since the response is irrational, the reaction, which would surely be emotional or 'enraged' could take any form.)

Simply asserting the replacement of certain cult-directives with others will not be of much help in a system that ruled by the immutable authority of the directives in the foundational documents, a system that is based on the total rational and emotional surrender to those directives. The system can accomodate inconsistent directives, since the entire system is irrational, but the belief system and pathology will always come under the primary influence of the orders, commands, directives in the foundational texts and those recognized authorities that speak from those texts; so something must be done to rationally confront directives that call for the alienation of non-cult members (after inviting them for membership in the collective) and, of course, directives for mistrust, suspicion, subjugation and violence against those who so much as challenge the cult. Competing assertions will have little effect other than muddying the waters of the pathology, which perpetually clouded.

But there is a deeper problem that Spencer is addressing: what Spencer is calling for, I think, is reason and argument to be introduced into the foudation of the system. Explaining convincingly why the directives that inspire alienation of non-Muslims and violence should be ignored is the first step away from a collective cult mentality, that relies on acceptance of raw assertions, orders, or directives. Reasoning will naturally involve an honest denial of the assertions in the foundational documents that influence violent and other behavior dangerous toward non-Muslims, and, perhaps, set in motion a methodology that is based on rational dialogue rather than surrender to commands; this kind of methodology will challenge the dynamics of the collective. The issue will not be 'who is in and who is out' but 'why are you wrong and why we are right'? One will begin to identify with a position based on argument rather than a position that 'gets the orders right'; these are transformative steps to be sure, enormous challenges, but Spencer is on the mark.

Posted by: JTF at March 26, 2005 1:39 PM

Is there a difference between 'moderate' Muslims and Rumpelstiltskin? Not that I can see. I would relegate both to the "fairy tale" file.

Whatever their intentions, moderate Muslims are NOT going to be able to modify Islam in order to keep it in line with present day mores and values. (Which is a bummer for the rest of us).

It should be kept in mind that the supposed founder of Islam "Muhammed" was a mass murderer, bigot,liar, and criminal. It is not for nothing that his followers have been referred to as 'Muhammedans.'

For Muslims to deny the validity of Muhammed's teachings and actions while still retaining their identity as disciples of Islam would be like Christians attempting to deny Christ's teachings (not that I out them on equal footing...far from it!! I am merely citing this as an example!!)and miracles and adopting more of Muhammed's teachings and behaviorisms and still calling themselves Christian.

What these supposed moderate Muslims are really trying to do is occupy two separate ideological spaces at a single time and it can't be done.

No matter how many times we add up two plus two their sum will always equal four. It's nonsense to pretend otherwise. Reality is non-negotiable even when accompanied by a good heart and good intentions.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 26, 2005 2:32 PM

The one thing that is bothersome, ambiguous, and revokes the attempt at moderation of FMCAT is this part of its position statement:

"The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism does not seek to change the tenets of the religion. However, the Coalition believes that the Koran only provides general principals of governance which leaves the faithful with substantial flexibility to modernize popular Muslim practices and beliefs."

If there is no attempt to change the "tenets of the religion," then the entire effort of FMCAT is dissimulation. Although the Koran is a mish-mash, inconsistent--depending on the mood or psychological condition of the originator--and contradicts itself, the tenets on which jihad is based are clear.

Expurgating or rewriting the Koran would be a fruitless. By what authority would the expurgators proceed? Unless the same unearthly voice can be contacted again to reverse itself and declare the instructions calling for violence, war, enslavement, plundering, cutting off of limbs, necks, etc. were only symbolic (yeah, sure), then any reform the clings to the "tenets of the religion" is invalid.

How can there be moderation is what is essentially an instruction manual for subjugating or killing all those who refuse to believe in what was supposedly revealed from a source that cannot be questioned nor asked to explain inconsistencies, contradictions, and reversals?

Until the "tenets of the religion"--and the description of Islam as a "religion" instead of an ideology in the guise of religion is misleading--are abandoned, how can there be "moderation" in Islam?

Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 26, 2005 3:55 PM

Good day and thanks for letting me come in and post the truth. Most posters do the same but a few post emotionally based rants that constantly contain little or no facts. The end result from these ego-centric agenda oriented gasbags is a fictional opinion based on their own skewed and illogical interpretation of reality and their own prejudices and racisms.

Some poster inquired as to why Nassem, Timbo, Whitequeen (I will add) and a few other filthy flatulent exhaust holes are not posting as often as they used to. The answer is that they are embarrassed and are tired of getting their flawed posts shot down. Their one decent post for every 10 posts is not worth reading. Just a waste of time is what they were. Good riddance and let’s hope they never return.

However, there still remains a poster who possesses a persistent and pernicious strain of secular liberalism. One with a grandiose view of itself who is in reality a delusional freak.

A recent confession from this secreting colostomy bag is…

“As a former right wing fundamentalist Christian (now a free thinking atheist)” bla bla…

Now let’s examine this confession more closely. You will begin to realize the common flaw contained in all liberals and people of this ilk. They change with the tide. They bounce from one extreme to the next. What will this individual claim to be in 1 year, 5 years? They could easily decide that this secular atheism free thinker thing isn’t working anymore, doesn’t feel right anymore and so may convert to Islam. It could very well happen. The point is that this person and others like this have no core values. Moral relativism is what they subscribe to. They cannot be trusted because they only do what is convenient at the moment. They may convert to Islam just as soon as it looks like an Islamic takeover is inevitable and be the first ones to point out the rest of us to the Islamic authorities in order to gain some favor. They are the lowest and most cowardly opportunists among the free people in the world. We don’t need them to help us win this war, they are a hindrance and an obstacle in the path to victory. Don’t believe them when they say that the rest of us need them to help fight this threat. They need us, we don’t need them

Posted by: cross at March 26, 2005 5:01 PM

Join me and the others who want to do more than flap their jaws over current events and help change the course of human events. Join use who know the threat is not terrorism but Islam at its base.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 26, 2005 10:09 PM

“Join me and the others who want to do more than flap their jaws over current events and help change the course of human events. Join use who know the threat is not terrorism but Islam at its base.”
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 26, 2005 10:09 PM

Dear kaosktrl,

That statement is an insult to the host Robert Spencer. See below all the current event postings and the comments he has made regarding each one.

You seem to think that you are somehow above others here and are too good to discuss current events. You come across as another self important clod and I for one wouldn’t be interested in joining you. As if you have any chance in hell of "changing the course of human events". Quite a lofty goal for someone like yourself to attempt, wouldn't you agree?

131 more members of the tiny minority of extremists seized in Iraq

Moderate Muslims use Quran against jihad

"Orahovac Albanians in Kosovo may be the leading cadre of terrorist recruits, recruited by al-Qaeda"

Rohmat said he joined Jemaah Islamiyah knowing it fostered "pure Islamic teachings"

Japan Warns Visitors To Indonesia On Terrorism - Kyodo

Malaysia Tells Religious Police Not to Copy Taliban

The Terror Threat From the Sea

Qatar Bomber's Action Baffles Family, Friends
Ex-Detroit Metro screener charged with hiding bin Laden sympathy

FMCAT condemns Al-Qaeda, suicide bombers

Ukraine's orange revolution inspiring jihadists

Holy War on the Homefront

Pakistan heading toward an armed rebellion

March 24

London "faces election terrorism threat"

Egyptian Students call on Arab League to declare war

No doubt this is just a coincidence

The Iraqi Al-Qa'ida Organization: A Self-Portrait
Broken Homes Blamed for Turning Youth to Terrorism
Manila foils Easter 'bombing plot'

Posted by: cross at March 26, 2005 10:56 PM

I assure you, as a member of the leadership of FMCAT, that no deception was involved in drafting this resolution, just ignorance and misguided good intentions. I strongly advised against this resolution. It was a mistake, and Kamal was warned every step of the way.

I have consistently advised that FMCAT try and develop a theological basis for making such assestions. We have three religous scholars who could be involved, but nothing has come together. Many of the Chapter Presidents and several Board members rushed to judgment. The result is, as we all see, an empty meaningless statement that echoes similar resolutions from CAIR.

I have personally worked to highlight the three main evils facing Islam: 1. Sunnah; Nafs (Abrogation) and 3. Traditional and contemproary Qur'anci exegesis. This organisation has failed to address these issues in any meaningful way. Mr Spencer and Mr Fitzgerald and othere have challenged us to substantively counter the jihadists with strong theological argument. But we have not done it.

I have just receieved some assurances from Kamal that such a plan will be impelemnted. I won't hold my breath, and neither should any you. FMCAT, in my view seeks short term gains, and wants to convince non-Muslims of our committment. We have however, neglected the longer term strategy of convincing Muslims.

We must do this.

Thomas Haidon
Advisor
Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism

Posted by: Thomas at March 27, 2005 12:09 AM

I see one of 2 options here:

1. Clean up the Koran/Islam. Meaning purge it of jihad, honor killings, and anything else in that category.

2. Allow Islam to die out as a religion. As in extinct.

I prefer option #2.

Posted by: abad at March 27, 2005 12:17 AM

Only in Canada folks,here's the link to a non-citizen suspected of Al-Qeada ties with the Khadr family in Canada,after the loony leftist protested
for the release of this victim of "Islamophobia"
the guy joins a rally to denounce the Security Certificates that are legal and allow Police to detain foreigners until they prove who they are.
The guy mocked his ankle transmitter and claims to be a man of peace and doesn't want to hurt canadians,hey Bozo,I know you don't want to kill people but it's the Quran that orders you to do it.
He even did the usual scam of marrying a Canadian to help his cause,taqiyya and Jihad
go hand in hand and I just don't trust the man
since he married a non-Muslim and that's Harram
in the Quran.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1111870885262_52/?hub=TopStories

Posted by: ala-sux at March 27, 2005 12:51 AM

Why do the members of FMCAT, and similar 'reformist' Muslim groups, trying to "civilize" Islam's Koran -that triumphalistic and sadistic rant by a desert warlord and pedophile- even bother? Really, I'd like to hear the answer.

You'll have as much success as medieval alchemists hoping to turn lead to a noble metal.

Just leave the cult of intellectual headlock.

Whether you need a new spiritual resource to replace it (I'd suggest Taoism, a peaceful vision -where at least you can drink some plum wine and write poems to the moon and not be forced to name The Source or pretend to speak for it) -or if you simply suspend judgment about The Big Question, you'll at least be free of the internal self-contradiction that can only drive you nuts.

Trying to get "love" out of "hate" is impossible.

Trying to re-make the Koran into anything but a small mind's constriction of the Infinite is absurd.

Get out while the rest of the world is strong enough to protect you.

The more you delay, the bigger the cult, which you are making logically lame excuses for, GROWS.

Join the free.

1350 years of living under a rock is enough, don't you think?

(The last three words say it all.)

Posted by: BigSleep at March 27, 2005 1:43 AM

Robert, I think you are pushing shit uphill with that one.

How can you trust anyone who has deception at the heart of their religion? You can't. They will always lay low until the time is ripe to strike.

Of course, it may be possible for the countries involved to somehow become secular and non-religious like post WW2 Japan. I'm less familiar with their religion though, and am unsure as to whether they advocate the analogue of Taqiyya or not.

So, while we should push for mass religious/cultural change (or as a last result, genocide), that's not enough. It must be coupled with an end to Muslim immigration, deportation of illegal Muslims, and possibly depending on demographic realities (i.e. if they can remain Muslim and sustain high birthrates as second and third generation Muslims), deportation of all Muslims on Western soil.

Posted by: 2468 at March 27, 2005 4:59 AM

To clarify that, what I'm unsure about is whether Shintoism had a holy book that laid the foundation for Taqiyya. Since IME Japanese are usually very honest, I doubt it. So without that, it makes it harder to generalize to the example of Islam.

Posted by: 2468 at March 27, 2005 5:06 AM

Muslims should be kept out of the West, as much as it still is feasible (which is not much at some place), but that won't help without a strong movement from within Islam.

If Islam has had and has some success, it is also because many Muslims learned to live within it and keep their sanity in spite of it, while believing it was thank to it. That aspect is not dominant nowadays, granted, but it is there.

Grounded on it, it should be possible, I think, with some real serious public research on the origin of Islam, to create a reform movement that would be sustained by the bulk of Muslims. By the people.

In the same time, Muslims who love their religion for what reasonable people would consider good reasons must be allowed to define what they figure out their religion is.

I guess it will look like a normal religion. It always was a delusion. Now, let's make it real. Let's remake Islamic Scriptures according to the vision of its people, and let them choose. Let's write the People's Koran:
http://madrid.opendemocracy.net/debate/thread.jspa?forumID=12&threadID=159&messageID=1740#1740

Posted by: ajm at March 27, 2005 5:25 AM

AP ran dhimmi copy on some non-existent stampede of "moderate Muslims." All for show, folks:

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2624511

Posted by: smokem at March 27, 2005 6:42 AM

Hmmmm...Islam "Light" huh?... sounds good...but then I'm sane...Islam "light" to Muslims will be seen as an Islamic "Infidels" club and we all know what Muslim infidels get from other Muslims....Whack Whack...Nice try but it won't fly!

If we could just get Muslims to define “All the World” as the plot of ground under their feet at that time we would be doing well….They could then get their “obedience” in line and not worry about anyone else’s, then jihad would really mean the inner spiritual battle to be a good Muslim and please their god.

Too bad both Islam “Light”, and a redefining of the meaning of the jihad in Islam are just daydreams…

This world has a true nightmare on our hands folks, and no one seems to be awake enough to realize that. Listening to the lies of "Cair" is just like hitting the snooze button...

Posted by: Susanc at March 27, 2005 8:05 AM

My dear 2468:

"Robert, I think you are pushing shit uphill with that one. How can you trust anyone who has deception at the heart of their religion?"

Where exactly did I say that I trusted him?

Apparently you missed the sentence above in which I explicitly raise deception as a possibility.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 27, 2005 8:16 AM

I t is not meant to be I just want to encourage myself and others to do more than stay up to date on the crimes and lies of the bloody Islamic glacier that is moving across the earth.
.Any effort to moderate Islam is a fools errand concocting chicken salad from chicken shit .
As long as people mollycoddle the hate group and applaud efforts of alchemy Islam gains time and success.
Islam grows and spreads , it’s a delaying tactic Islam must be rejected publicly and the Prophet renounced loudly..
Vile intolerant hate group like Nazism & Islam and the Klan are not refashioned veneered , whitewashed.
They are not to be tolerated while they sort out a popularly acceptable & proper tone of hate

The Quran it is either the changeable word of god or rubbish .
We don’t need to go down the road of equivocated incremental hate .

No more falling for conn jobs or appeasement just education and truth. Either accept Islam for what it is a murderous conqueror religion and start killing or reject it .

But don’t try to change it that’s not fair to good Muslims who believe. They wont put up with half measures and innovations either.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 27, 2005 8:51 AM

The challenge is to give Muslim folks what they think is genuine Islam and show them that that precisely means rejecting the original heritage of the Koran.

It sounds delicate, but I think that it can be done. Because, looking closely at it, in my opinion, the valuable part of Islam is made of reactions to its violent, aggressive core.

Posted by: ajm at March 27, 2005 9:01 AM

Robert, I was replying to this:

"There are many Islamic sects, and there is room for another that teaches peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims instead of jihad warfare."

I do realize that most of the rest of your piece was raising objections that it would actually work, and there was nothing said that you would trust someone. Perhaps there IS room in Islam for such a sect, just I'm questioning how much it can be trusted and how useful it is.

Bear in mind that my thoughts haven't fully coalesced yet on the matter of what to do about Islamic terrorism. I'm starting to think along these lines:

1. A fundamentalist in any religion goes to the holy book of his religion and attempts to divine a set of rules to live his life, to which he religiously adheres.

2. In any population, you will find a majority of hypocrites but a minority of fundamentalists. This is unavoidable, it's a statistical inevitability.

3. While I've yet to make a thorough study (but plan to) of the Koran to discern how exactly a fundamentalist would interpret it, I have reason to believe the following:

a) One should live their life by the Koran.
b) A Koran with anything excised (Satanic verses do not count, as Mohommad himself excised them) cannot be called Islam, probably by definition.
c) You are required as a Muslim to make war on unbelievers unless they convert or submit to dhimmitude. And such things as rape etc. is perfectly fine against infidel.
d) Deception against infidel to promote an Islamic agenda is sanctioned and encouraged.

This leads to the following conclusions:
1) If I don't want to live my life by Islam under any circumstances, followers of Islam must not be allowed to be in a position to strike against me.

2) Since it is permissable and effective for them to act as trustworthy people until they feel it is opportune to strike, Muslims cannot be trusted under any circumstances.

3) It is not the deception per se that is the problem, it's the combination of deception with the invocation to slay or rape infidel, commit acts of terror etc. I.e. white and blue collar criminals are almost always deceitful. But they do not have a religion that leads them to crash aircraft into buildings (among other things), or nuke a Western city.

4) You can't effectively restrict immigration against Muslims (because they will lie in order to immigrate), you must restrict against POSSIBLE Muslims. i.e. Restrict against immigration from Muslim countries with a significant population. In addition, you must also restrict against countries where Muslims can easily immigrate to, otherwise they will immigrate in a two step process.

4) Another way to successfully restrict would be to limit immigration by DNA. There would be certain subsets of detectable DNA (haplotypes, or mini-races) that are known not to have many Muslims at all. For instance, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Northern Europeans, maybe Southern Europeans.

5. Even if reform of a religion is possible, not everyone will reform. Consider the protestant movement in Christianity. Protestantism did not destroy the Roman Catholic movement, or even change the underlying bible of both sides as far as I know. This means that even if a reform movement occurs in Islam, not everyone will convert and probably not even the majority.

6. Even if the entire Muslim world reforms (virtually impossible), it is impossible to know that they have reformed because of taqiyya. And the intelligence required to infiltrate every Muslim home is unfeasible.

Ok. These deductions then lead to:

1. If Islamic fundamentalism is to be reduced to zero within Western countries, a necessary condition is total removal of likely Muslims on US soil.

2. Depending on how effective zero Muslims on US soil is in terms of preventing Muslim attacks on the West, genocide of likely Muslims is either necessary or unecessary. Genocide will be necessary if it is feasible for Muslims to simultaneously nuke a minimum number of Western cities. Likely with a good missile defense system and non-permeable borders, the most they could ever do is nuke all the port cities. But I'm not sure on that, maybe they could get to a city like Chicago through smuggling in a container ship.

I'm not sure how to go about number 1 constitutionally. Likely, we can figure out who is Muslim and who isn't, covertly, at the moment. Getting Muslims out of government should be the first priority so they can't interfere with this. Doing the Hitlerian Yellow Star of David treatment for Muslims is probably not unconstitutional, as a similar thing is done with sex offenders.

Perhaps the next thing to do is to declare following Islam a treasonous activity, and to deport everyone identified to a small island under US control. Or perhaps push them into Iran.

---

Of course, this analysis is dependent on me being able to come up with the Islamic basis for this:

a) One should live their life by the Koran.
b) A Koran with anything excised (Satanic verses do not count, as Mohommad himself excised them) cannot be called Islam, probably by definition.
c) You are required as a Muslim to make war on unbelievers unless they convert or submit to dhimmitude. And such things as rape etc. is perfectly fine against infidel.
d) Deception against infidel to promote an Islamic agenda is sanctioned and encouraged.

Let me know if you can pick holes with any of my premises or conclusions.

Cordially,

Posted by: 2468 at March 28, 2005 9:04 PM

So, Robert, is it possible to construct this argument from Koranic sources, and that these injunctions don't conflict with other high level (Koranic) sources?

a) Everything in the Koran is a written directive from the hand of Allah, nothing can be excised.
b) Deception to promote Islam is encouraged and sanctioned by the Koran
c) As a follower of the Koran, (when in a position to do so) you are required to give infidel the opportunity to convert, submit to Dhimmitude, and if they refuse, kill them.
d) (Kind of ancillary) Raping infidel women is perfectly ok under any circumstances.

Thanks,

Posted by: 2468 at March 28, 2005 9:10 PM

This sounds just like somebody trying to put the fire out with gasoline.

We have to get our government to outlaw that sinister cult and forbid Islamic activities altogether.

Why should we have to live in fear of them?

Why do we allow them to preach hatred, to corrupt our governments, to spread lies and disease among us?

Mass deportations NOW!

http://www.terrorists-suck.org/fight/winds_of_jihad.html

Posted by: Terminator at March 29, 2005 4:33 PM