What a shame it is that you have to write an eloquent article in defense of what is just right,Islamisist's try to push they're agenda any way they can spin it and would have us believe they are right.

Posted by: chuck at December 31, 2005 9:21 AM

It appears to me that what is called "radical" Islam is really an attempt to return Islam back to its pure state. What does this say for the values that Islam really represents? It is the opposite of a "religion of peace". It is a religion of war and death. It also appears to me that so-called "moderate" followers of Islam are really people who cannot quite bring themselves to the level of violence and death that their faith requires, similar to the way some Christian denominations cannot quite bring themselves to believe and follow everything they read in the Bible.

Posted by: theBuckWheat at December 31, 2005 9:35 AM

The first two posters above, your'e waaaay off. Wahid is no Islamist. He's practically a saint. He is deeply attached to the Javanese practise of Islam and he might be a bit muddle-headed sometimes, or often, but he is genuinely a GOOD guy.

When mobs closed down a Catholic school near Jakarta Wahid did his bit to stop them, see here.

See his website also, http://www.gusdur.net/. At least he's trying. He's on record as saying that many of the things in the Quran came out of the context of a 7th century tribal society and are no longer practicable today. He's too attached to his faith to see the consequences of the logical consequences of this though

Posted by: patung at December 31, 2005 9:47 AM

ROBERT: "And another thing: Morocco to Indonesia and the Philippines? What about Spain and Western Europe? And the U.S.A.? The jihadists have made clear their global intentions. Why not speak plainly about this?"

WAHID: "...and, ultimately, bringing the entire world under the sway of their extremist ideology."

This was the only slip in an otherwise excellent deconstruction. Nice job Robert. If only the WSJ would publish this piece as a counter-point.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 31, 2005 10:12 AM

Patung, Wahid is someone who's conscience is at odds with what the freaks from the najd have defined as Islam.

But the problem is that unless people like him do to these people what WE did to the KKK, these others will determine what islam is because their consciences are not trammeled by considerations that slow the rest of down.

If muslims do not agree with the Ibn Tamiyyoids, then takfir is declared and they are not REAL muslims and they are going to be consigned in the mosque and out in the world to the coercion of those who believe god made it their individual duty to enforce his immutable word.

Ending this definition of Islam is not going to be accomplished by peaceful means. Not by us out here, or by other muslims whose conscience does not permit them personally to committ or approve such acts as we have seen (regardless of what the Quran actually says..leave that aside).

It will never happen that way. THEY won't allow such a thing.

Those whose conscience is more aligned with values we hold dear will have to take aggressive and decisive action, and be prepared for all that follows.

If you can find a way around this, GOOD.

Posted by: epaminondas at December 31, 2005 10:22 AM

The poster above notes that Wahid is, in the context of Islam, a good guy. So he is. He travelled to Israel, and spoke (and not feignedly) of establishing relations with it. He is a smiler, of a particular, local variety, not the Chaucerian treacherous "smyler with the knyf under his cloke" but the real thing.

Nonetheless, his handiwork dissected above is delusional, the delusion of someone who knows something is terribly wrong with Islam but cannot face up to it, and cannot because there is no tradition, no structure, for the kind of dissent that needs to be made possible. And there is no way -- as yet -- to deny the Qur'anic text, to re-interpret away its most aggressive and hostile passages, nor to do away with the Hadith (or for some up-to-date group of self-appointed post-modern muhaddithin to throw out all the dangerous Hadith (ahadith) and thereby to assert their primacy over al-Bukhari and Muslim, and not merely assert but make hundreds of millions of Believers so believe. And then there is Muhammad himself, more important even than Allah in the mental construct of Islam -- what is to be done with his life story, with Asma bint Marwan and Aisha, the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the Khaybar Oasis, the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, and all the rest -- shall the details of his life be declared, at this point, false, or so uncertain as not to be a guide, or shall Muslims begin to question the very existence of Muhammad? Back to "sola scriptura" (as some so-called Muslim reformers like to say, assimilating their hopeless task to that of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli).

So Wahid's performance troubles not because he is a bad fellow, but because he is not. He wants to believe, or wants us to believe, just as Chalabi and Allawi want us to believe that Iraq is a nation-state and that Americans would be greeted as "liberators" (forgetting about what Islam teaches Believers to think of all Infidels) rather than as scarcely-to-be-endured Infidels, or just as Turkish secularists wish to have Turkey admitted into the E.U. in order to dilute Islam in Turkey, to make their lives easier, by sharing the problem with European Infidels in what the non-secular Turks regard as Dar al-Harb.

One can understand the desire of those, such as Walid, who were born into Islam, who have created their own private Islam that ignores the doctrines that are not difficult to tease out of it but are right there, on the surface, and that somehow think the way to deal with the matter is to tell a sanitized version of the story to Infidels and to Believers, hoping that by saying this enough times, everyone will come to believe it.

But in a world of unwary Infidels, that does harm. In a world where Europe may be islamized, and find not that it has tens of millions of Walids on its hands, but ten thousand Walids, and thirty or forty or one hundred million Muslims of the kind who believe what Muslims in Iran, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabai, or Iraq, or Syria, or Algeria, believe -- and even if the ratio is wrong, even if Walid were representative of more than a handful, even if he represented, say, 20% of the world's Muslims, that would hardly be enough to justify the risk that Europe, and other Infidel states, are now taking -- by not yet stopping all Muslim immigration, and making efforts to create, in their own countries, by refusing to give an inch on Muslm demands for changes in the laws, customs, manners, mores of the indigenous Infidels, to construct only for the purposes of legiitimate civilizational self-defense, an environment that is Islam-hostile rather than, as at present, so very Islam-friendly, with its tip-toeing around every conceivable problem and outrageous demand and, in France and elsewhere, intolerable behavior.

Posted by: Hugh at December 31, 2005 10:24 AM

Wahid should practice what he's trying to lie to us and hope we believe. How about he make reparations for those brutalized in his own country, fix the churches he's burned, compensate the families of those Christians and Buddhists whose members were butchered, compensate those women who were mutilated, bring those responsible to trial and hang them.
Fix Indonesia, show us his pure and good intentions.

This is nothing but floss for western media, to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of westerners who are too lazy to seek the truth of what is Islam, and most important of all, keep the anti war crowd on their side, and believing that Islam is the ROP.

It is also a sneaky underhanded way of getting the same anti war, anti Bush crowd to point the finger at what they perceive as Bush's Saudi friends, the oil princes of the mid- east, the cause of all the troubles in the world.
What could be more perfect but to have the USA bring one of the Shi'ite few remaining obstacles to total mid-east control, and with it control of a full 1/3 of the worlds oil it's knee's?

While the Wahabbi's are certainly no friend of the infidel, their goal is exactly the same as all Islam concerning the infidel world, the same goal of the Shi ites and sunni's. Once they are conquered, what remains is who sits on the throne of the world wide califate. That "Master Mullah" will have all the power to destroy all remaining opposition once and for all.

Like Robert says, let Wahid prove what he claims, point it out to all other Muslims, stop all the killing going on by Islam's hand, live in peace with all others, all people equal regardless of faith. A church in Saudi Arabia, women without a head to toe burka, perhaps driving a car and wearing a bikini.

Not a chance.

Posted by: Mullahmasher at December 31, 2005 10:39 AM

From RS's commentary:

"The jihadists have a coherent, developed, and traditionally-based theology explaining why they take sura 9 over 109. Does Wahid have a coherent theology explaining why Muslims should take 109 over 9 and leave non-believers in peace?"

It is clear to those of us who are not raised inside Islam, and who have studied the relvant texts, that the religion is almost totally unsalvagable. No decent human being would choose Islam over other religions, if it was an informed choice. But Islam never spread this way, as we are all painfully aware.

Good human beings of character, like Wahid, or the new Muslim feminists, or millions of Muslims who recoil at what their co-religionists are doing, are clearly beginning to cast about for an alternative. Few are willing to leave Islam, in no small part due to the threat of death that hangs over the apostate, or social, professional and familial ostracism. And there are enough straws to grasp at, the Meccan revelations like Sura 109, the bits of Islamic history when reason and tolerance asserted iself, the Islamized nations that still cling to some of their old beliefs, that those who do not wish to leave can stay within the religion and believe themselves to be in opposition to Islam's inherent tyranny of mind and nations, of which they prefer to remain unaware.

Unraveling Islam from the inside will take many committed people, and a long, long time. If Muslims of conscience decide they prefer Sura 109 over 9, 1300 years of scholarship be damned, it is a big step. We all know there is precious little theological support for a humanist reading of Islam, but the dawn of this type of thinking is the doom of the religion. Look at western religions, particularly in Europe. They are taken less and less seriously. When there is some breathing room for Muslims, less birth-to-death programming, and a frank admission of the need for secularism among political leaders, the faith will become revolting to its own, because the acts of its most upstanding adherents will not change, nor will the diabolical example of its founder.

Today, it is unreasonable to expect Muslims of good conscience to leave Islam, particularly those who live in the benighted Islamic world. Where can they go? We cannot expect everyone to be a martyr, not a "you will all die for my cause" martyr; a real martyr.

The coherent "theology" that takes Sura 109 over Sura 9 is humanism, the ideology that led to the Renaissance, the dawn of the modern era, and all the good that is in western civilization, which the rest of the world is struggling to incorporate. Its appeal is universal. Even Muslims want, and deserve, a society based on it, even though they do not yet fully realize it. Either the aspects of Islam that are in conflict with humanism will be abrogated, or eventually the religion will die.

What other hope do we have?

Quijybo

Posted by: Quijybo at December 31, 2005 11:07 AM

Robert,

Have you asked the WSJ to publish your response?

Try writing James Taranto (opinionjournal@wsj.com)?

He certainly has written some good things before in his "Best of the Web" column...

Posted by: kamala at December 31, 2005 11:10 AM

Abdurrahman Wahid is like the anesthesiologist before the big operation.

Posted by: USAFan at December 31, 2005 11:12 AM

There is much to be said for tolerance in Islam. THE perception of Islam here is that Muslims are at loggerheads with the rest of the world because their religion rejects other religions. This is contradicted by the holy Quaran & Muhammed's words.

Note that it is Islam alone which distinguishes itself from other religions so far as respect of previous religions’ apostles and scriptures is concerned. Jews rejects all scriptures except Torah revealed to Moses. The Christian recognizes the Torah, embracing its moral and ethical teachings .

Muslims abide by what the Holy Quran has laid down as an article of faith for him. His holy Book tells him to “Say: We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and his offspring and that which Moses and Jesus received and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them and unto Him we have surrendered. And if they (others) believe like what we believe then they are rightly-guided” (Al-Baqra: 135-36).

Thus, a Muslim cannot be a Muslim if he does not believe in the previous scriptures revealed to the prophets .

While it is imperative to believe in the scriptures specifically mentioned in the Quran, those ancient scriptures which have not been named therein have not to be rejected out of hand. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) is on record for having directed his followers to “neither accept them nor reject them” (Bukhari’s chapter on Tauhid).

It was in the light of this Quranic edict that the Prophet categorized all citizens of the world as: (a) Muslims (or Mominoon) who believe in the Quran and all other sacred scriptures named in it; (b) People of the Book (Ahl-e-Kitab) who do not recognize the Quran as a divinely-revealed Book but do believe in any of the scriptures named therein. It covers the Jews and the Christians.

Such a classification generated in the Muslim community a sense of tolerance of other faiths even though they did not conceal their hostility to Islam as a religion. It was the teaching of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that made Muslims to adjust themselves with the adherents of other faiths when a large part of the civilized and developed world came under political domination of Islam and which, in course of time, led to the blossoming of pluralistic and progressive societies in Spain, the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, India and South East Asia.

This kind of co-existence with other faiths, without compromising the Islamic tenets, is the achievement of political Islam which only a blind and obstinate opponent of this religion will fail to note and admire. The accusation that political Islam acted on the doctrine of ‘conversion’ or ‘the sword’ is over-rated — a canard and a concoction having a small historical basis. At best, it is an exaggeration or mis-statement of some isolated incident of high-handed behaviour of a Muslim King or conqueror and not a true instance of Islam’s official policy.

As for the official policy, it will surprise many in the West (and also, to some extent, in our own East) to learn what the Quran lays down. Those Jews and Christians living in Madina during the Prophet’s time, who had not converted to Islam were advised to continue dispensing justice and deciding their legal cases according to their own Books. The following excerpts from the Quran will open the eyes of those who allege that Islam denigrates other rival faiths.

This is how the Quran describes the Jewish Torah: “We did reveal the Torah wherein is guidance and a light by which the prophets judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests judged by such of God’s Scripture” (Al-Maida: 44). And these are the words in which the Christian Gospel is described: “We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps confirming that which was revealed before him, and we bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light... Let the people of the Gospel judge by that which God has revealed therein.” (Maida: 48).

Forced conversion at the point of bayonet is not corroborated by historical facts (distinct from fiction) and is contradicted by Quranic pronouncements on the subject. The following quotation from the Quran will prove the point being debated: “O, Prophet” ask those who have received the scripture (i.e. Jews and Christians) and those who are illiterate (Arabs of the Prophet’s time) whether they accept Islam or not. If they do so, then truly they are rightly guided; and if they turn away then it is your duty only to convey the message, as Allah is the Seer of all His creation” (Aal-e-Imran: 20).

Posted by: Naseem at December 31, 2005 11:18 AM

Qujybo,

If what you say is true, why won't Wahid and other "Muslims of good conscience" simply acknowledge that mainstream Islam says that sura 9 takes precedence over sura 109? Why pretend that sura 9 doesn't exist at all? Or claim "only the Wahhabis" believe it?

Isn't honesty and truthfulness with others (and even oneself) the first step to reform?

Posted by: kamala at December 31, 2005 11:22 AM

"We caused Jesus, son of Mary"

Shouldn't that say son of God!

Posted by: USAFan at December 31, 2005 11:49 AM

"Note that it is Islam alone which distinguishes itself from other religions so far as respect of previous religions’ apostles and scriptures is concerned. Jews rejects all scriptures except Torah revealed to Moses. The Christian recognizes the Torah, embracing its moral and ethical teachings."
-- from a posting by "Naseem" above

What the poster is attempting to expres is this: Islam appropriates, and in appropriating claims that its own, quite different interpretation of the stories and figures taken over from the two prior local monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity, are to prevail. To describe this as "respect" for "previous religions' apostles and scriptures" is something no believing Christian or Jew, aware of what has been done to those Biblical stories, or how the Muslim version of Jesus differs from that of Christians.

And how silly to charge Jews with "rejecting all scriptures except the Torah revealed to Moses" -- this implies a kind of hostility where none exists. Judaism was simply first in time, and it had no other extant scriptures to accept or reject. Later, those Jews who accepted the New Testament became Christians. Or those who accepted (or were forced to accept) the Qur'an became Muslims. There is nothing anti-islamic or anti-Christian in any of the Jewish sacred texts, and obviously there could not have been.

And early Christians, who were first found among the Jews, naturally wished to emphasize the superiority of the new faith to the old (otherwise, what would have been the point?). It is a question of obtaining market share. So of course it was important to find fault with either the Jews, or Judaism (here the Gospel of John comes in). IBM does not tell its customers that Apple is just fine, and that some of Apple's customers should stick with it. Why would it? Market share matters.

Along comes Islam, a mix of pagan Arab lore from the time of the Jahiliyya, with large dollops of misunderstood or imperfectly remembered bits from Jewish and Christian texts. It is a belief-system designed to give the already-conquering Arabs something to live and conquer and die by, something both to justify, and promote, their conquest of much more advanced, wealthy, civilizted populations (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and later Hindus and Buddhists). A political ideology of conquest, linked to a few rituals of worship, and at the center the figure not Christ-like, but of Muhammad, military commander and leader of what seemed to be, 1350 years ago, a bunch of world-conquerors, for they seemed to conquer everything in sight.

And this appropriation of previous personages -- Noah, David, Moses, Jesus, and thousands of other previous prophets in the history of mankind up till then -- all become part of the story of Islam, all become Muslims. That is not quite the display of benevolence and tolerance that "Naseem" would have us believe, but rather, an act of wholesale appropriation, or rather, a misappropriation that turned out to be one more basis for Muslim arrogance, will to power, and menace.

Posted by: Hugh at December 31, 2005 12:00 PM

It seems to me that the use of the words "true", "truth", and "truely",used to describe an emotion-based belief system is a fallacy. Don't get me wrong, emotions are important, necessary and good, and here's an interesting angle to consider, it was an easy to read book:
"Introduction to DESCARTES ERROR
Antonio R. Damasio, M.D., Ph.D.

Professor of Neurology and head of the department of neurology at the University of Iowa."
http://www.hegemon.com/error.htm
---
But the idea of a "true" islam(or any other moral expression,because that's what islam and other religions/ideologies are, ultimately they seek "the good", usually for humanity)really is an oxymoron. "The good" really is a RELATIVE term, it is based on individual and collective SITUATION and experience of that situation, it is a SUBJECTIVE experience, and at the emotional level there are no right or wrong expressions, it is only when those expressions/beliefs lead to actions that fact and truth and reality come into the equation.

What is "good"?? Simply the anti-thesis of "evil", or something desireable vs. something undesireable. Anything more beyond that becomes a subjective expression. The "Wahabis" believe they represent "good", other Muslums believe they represent "good", even devil-worshippers believe they represent "good", though they realize that their idea of "good" is not accepted by most of the world, so they play by the language rules that dominate and say they love "evil".

I don't think making the blanket statements like "islam is bad", or "islam is good", will lead to a solution. For muslums, islam is good, for non-muslims, islam can be very bad. The debate is between two different subjective realities, and those realities are REAL for the people involved. It does not matter if it is self-evident to us, it is self-evident to them as well. Clearly, islamic beliefs and Western beliefs are thesis/anti-thesis of each other, what we see with the reformers is an attempt at Hegelian Dialectical process, as a means to tame or dilute islam so it can co-habitate with others on this VERY small planet. The problem with the H.D.P. is it is supposed to be a scientific methodology used without prejudice and seeking truth, THAT WON'T WORK WHEN APPLIED TO SOCIETY OR HUMAN BELIEFS, it may work on concrete physical subjects, but it can become a vehicle for corruption and subversion in the social realm. Consensus or compromise does not necessarily lead to truth or "the good". Intentions do not determine results.

The planet has become too damn small in my opinion, planetary co-habitation with islam may be impossible now. The Pragmatic Project to change islam may be theoretically possible, but to gain control of the institutions that program the populations of those societies in the M.E. is a requirement that also gives the enemy opportunities. What I'm talking about here is Orwellianism or Brave New Worldism-- it is possible. It has already been done to varying significant degrees here. Oh, yes, it has.
The danger of islamics will never be entirely eliminated, and the existence of WMD makes them the most dangerous grouping of humans in the world.
Turning the islamic world into a huge mental hospital, removing any and all control of resources and means to power from them, and total domination over them is what will need to be done, short of extermination. They need to be held captive, just like when crazies are committed in our own societies(though the definition of insanity is highly subjective too). Of course this opens a can of worms, and implementing it may prove to be as damaging as the status-quo. It would take many generations of brainwashing to work.

But to allow a relatively small grouping of (dedicated)people( from a huge never-ending source) to hold the rest of the world hostage seems unacceptable to me. Let evolution take it's course. It's called "tough-love".
I'm just rambling.

Posted by: kentim at December 31, 2005 12:08 PM

Naseem: "Note that it is Islam alone which distinguishes itself from other religions so far as respect of previous religions’ apostles and scriptures is concerned."

Well, Nasseem, if there is such respect of the scriptures of other religions, why then is it a capital offense to display or even to possess a Bible in Saudi Arabia--Saudia Arabia, the political locus of Mecca and Medina? Why is it forbidden there to display a cross or to sing a Christian hymn? Your words are taquiyya. Islam, the great destroyer of civilizations, has to go.

Posted by: Stendec at December 31, 2005 12:14 PM

Excellent Hugh. 'Appropriation' is the first step towards expropriation.

Meanwhile, Naseem touches on Muhammad's benevolance towards the Jews of Medina. But what was the eventual fate of these tribes? Forced exile and in the case of the Banu Qureyzah, extermination and enslavement.

A great testimonial to Islamic "tolerance" Naseem.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 31, 2005 12:16 PM

Many in the West believe that Islam will evolve into a peaceful benenovelent religion and that the "right" Muslims will displace and overpower the "wrong" Muslims. Islam is wrong, period. It contradicts the bible, saying that Jesus is not the Son of God and that He did not die on the cross, making Jesus a liar and a false prophet. The koran contradicts itself numerous times and has not one single prophecy in it. It is a false religion with a false god and a false prophet. As long as Western leaders allow Islam to continue hoping that it will eventually solve its own problems, there will only be escalating violence against "moderate" Muslims and Western societies.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at December 31, 2005 12:16 PM

And amazingly enough, Wikipedia says that Robert is not an expert in Islam. So, who are you going to believe: Wiki or your own eyes?

Posted by: Seymour Paine at December 31, 2005 12:22 PM

Naseem the taqiyya queen blathers:
"Note that it is Islam alone which distinguishes itself from other religions so far as respect of previous religions’ apostles and scriptures is concerned."

What nonsense. Jews aren't commanded to kill
heathens and the orthodox Jews I've asked (see,
instead of going to a lying scum like you to find
out what Jews or Hindus believe, I go to a Jew or
Hindu. Bet your little mo' brain didn't think of that!) say that even pagans have there share in
the world to come as long as their actions are
good.

Mohammadans routinely torch synagogues, and defile Christian books (as well as young girls,
lets not forget that classy beheading!) so
no, Islam doesn't respect anyone else's religion.

So, what happens when your hubby is nailing his
nine year old raisin? I mean, if you get to
paradise too? Do you get to watch? Sounds like a
bummer for you. Does he get bored of dipping his
wick in the same 72 raisins for eternity? I
take it that you don't get nailed for eternity
by some young virgin?

Posted by: American at December 31, 2005 12:34 PM

Standec asks "if there is such respect of the scriptures of other religions, why then is it a capital offense to display or even to possess a Bible in Saudi Arabia".

Not certain maan, but I think that if you have the Koran....why do you don't need anything else.....

American you are such a lund.....why are always trying to bring the tone of the debate down to your pathetic base levels.

Islam is a house of tolerance...give it a chance!

Posted by: Naseem at December 31, 2005 1:21 PM

"The most effective way to overcome Islamist extremism is to explain what Islam truly is to Muslims and non-Muslims alike."

This, above all else, is why I have no trust whatsoever with ANY Muslim... This so called "moderate", along with all his fellow conspirators in Islam, maintain that we, who have no genuine spiritual interest in their so-called "religion", are nevertheless REQUIRED to immerse ourselves deeply in it's absurd pollution, to contaminate our otherwise clean and well lit lives with the darkness and insanity of the sewage which spewed 1300 years ago out of an illiterate heathen dessert rapist and thief -- Their Muhammad, he who raped, pillaged, and murdered his way to the top of his stinking heap of human trash over a millenium ago in that God forsaken Arabian crap hole...

I am utterly outraged at this and other similar proposals from Muslims... That WE somehow must do more to understand... Implicit in this fallacious assertion of fact is the innuendo that WE somehow are also responsible for the horrors spewing from the gash of Islam because we don't understand it enough.

Excuse my french, but BULLSHIT.

How can ANY of my fellow countrymen buy into this nefarious lie -- one which does nothing real to counter their collective Jihad against us, but only promises to promulgate more Islam rather than less ... They will laugh as they watch us vainly struggle to "understand" them more, hopelessly hoping that our "understanding" will somehow assuage their murderous hearts, or alter the basic tenet of Islam that Islam must rule all... While we desperately flail to help "solve" the "Islamic problem", approaching it in a gentle and civilized manner, they will gain strength, gain converts, gain territory, and gain momentum... We must begin fighting its brutal fascism and annihilating its devoted followers with brutality if they refuse to surrender their embrace of their evil supremacist ideology... We did it to Japan... We did it to Germany... Nothing short of Muslim capitulation will do... Otherwise the raging fires will burn on perpetually until all mankind is consumed in the smoldering ruins of Islam's aftermath...

Islam is poison... Muslim spread the poison... I have seen enough to know that "reforming" this foul scourge is insanity itself -- and following this doomed-to-fail path only strengthens the hand of the Muslim, and weakens the hand of the non-Muslim...

Islam must be destroyed -- along with all the Dawa masters like this execrable liar -- Islam MUST GO!

Posted by: jsla at December 31, 2005 1:23 PM

Can I just interrupt this important discussion to wish everyone at JW a Happy New Year?

It comes sooner here, and it's my turn to do the party - ie put the booze in the fridge, then pass it round.

Cheers - all the best for 2006!

Posted by: Interested at December 31, 2005 1:47 PM

Forced conversion at the point of bayonet is not corroborated by historical facts (distinct from fiction) and is contradicted by Quranic pronouncements on the subject.

Check the "historical facts" about the conversion to Islam in Oman ... and this is only one example.

Camp your horses elsewhere if you refuse to be honest.

Posted by: Jack at December 31, 2005 1:51 PM

Interested,
Happy New Year to you too! And to every other
nonmuslim out there, regardless of other
differences, a Happy New Year!

Naseem,
I don't make fun of your poor grammar or
word choice, but "lund" is neither an expletive
nor does it appear close enough to anything
(lunk, Londoner, what?) to be meaningful. Try to
be properly insulting, will you? At east "raisin"
is close to the target.

Bringing the discussion down? That's funny!
Your prophet nails a nine year old in her bed
full of tot toys, worse than the nastiest redneck
incest jokes I know, and somehow a few WORDS that
I write over the net is bringing things down?
Beautiful! And you still couldn't answer my
questions. What's the matter, afraid that an
old prune like you won't be as tasty as a raisin?
Certainly in the mohammadan tradition, it's the
young girls and boys they crave. A religion for
dirty old men, that's just wonderful.

The camel isn't in the tent yet folks. I
suggest we stab it in the nose.

Posted by: American at December 31, 2005 1:58 PM

"The most effective way to overcome Islamist extremism is to explain what Islam truly is to Muslims and non-Muslims alike."

This is the most important thing we can do. Every since I've discovered Jihad watch, I have sent out links of newspaper articles, and pointed out articles written by Mr. Spencer, Mr Fitzgerald, and of course Mr. Watson to all my friends. And have done lots of printing for those friends without an internet connection. I can honestly say it has made a significant difference with 80% of my friends and acquaintances, as it has with me. Where all had a Hollywood vision of Islam before, they now have a much deeper understanding of what is going on, and why.

Thank God for the highly educated people I've already mentioned, and ones I haven't, and thank God for the internet that makes it possible.

Posted by: USAFan at December 31, 2005 1:59 PM

Robert - An excellent article. Too bad it had to be written.

"Good" or "moderate" Muslims may exist, but sooner or later they will find themselves face to face with extremists that will demand to know whether or not they put Islam first as the Koran mandates or find themseves labeled apostates or fall under the extremists' knives. Wahid may believe what he wrote; if so, he is as deluded as are those that would believe his words.

Posted by: epg at December 31, 2005 2:38 PM

Quijybo:

A truly excellent post.

I am sincerely grateful for having discovered this web site, and now spend a considerable amount of time pondering how the inevitable transformation or implosion of Islam is going to play out.

Most of us here (with occasional exceptions, e.g., Naseem) fully realize that the problem is not "Islamic fundamentalism" or "Islamic extremism," but rather Islam, as revealed by its specific texts and ghastly history. If 3,000 lives lost on 9/11 (not to mention untold millions before and after) resulted in anything good, it would be that finally, some people in the West have taken their blinders off to discover what precisely it is that has mesmerized one-fifth of the world's population.

I grew up as the son of a U.S. foreign service officer, and lived primarily in the Middle East, including Turkey, Afghanistan, and Egypt. I currently practice immigration law, and for obvious reasons, have a large number of Muslims as clients. I know full well that many Muslims are decent, honest, and thoughtful human beings, and that many do not wish ill on us infidels.

However, that being said, there are forces at work that make it an almost herculean task for Muslims to ever openly question their faith or, God forbid, leave Islam. Those who do face ostracism from families and the community, not to mention far more menacing fates if they return to their home countries. Some of my most satsifying cases have been Iranian "murtads," who have converted to Christianity while in the United States and, as apostates, face almost certain persecution if they were to be sent back to the hell-hole that is Iran. However, once they are granted asylum, they have to change their lives dramatically, and are usually cut off from families and their community. It is extraordinarily sad.

It is people like Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq who ultimately might make a difference, albeit slowly, so slowly. People who have left this wretched religion and see it for what it is, and who have the courage to do so and damn the consequences.

My dilemma at this juncture is whether, or how much longer, I can continue to effectively represent Muslims in immigration matters. It's easy to compartmentalize and justify what I do by noting that if I didn't take some of these cases, someone else would, and, in any event, Muslims are a very small percentage of the U.S. population. However, this rationalization is becoming more difficult to maintain, I must admit.

Messrs. Spencer, Fitzgerald, et al: Please continue to perform what is such a valuable service. You have more readers than you can possibly imagine.

Best Wishes to All Infidels for a Happy, Peaceful & Prosperous 2006.

Posted by: Matt at December 31, 2005 2:47 PM

Notice how Naseem selectively responded to his/her critics, and how he/she avoided Hugh's refutation. I've noticed this selective response game from other Muslims who come here -- they consistently cherrypick in order to give the impression they are being responsive while managing to avoid the tougher questions.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 31, 2005 2:48 PM

We should coin a new term, Wahidism, to denote the standard PC-friendly, moderate Muslim Apologia that has become globally dominant (among Muslims and PC non-Muslim Westerners alike). Abdurrahman Wahid has penned a classic example of it, and the proof that PC has become dominant in the West is that the Wall Street Journal should give it such a prominent venue (its Friday paper, the day it is most read for its news & commentary).

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 31, 2005 2:53 PM

Abdurrahman Wahid is yet another apologist for ISLAM. He is going over everything that we already know - what is wrong with Islam. He has no remedy for the disease nor does he discuss how to treat this malady.

Posted by: faqi at December 31, 2005 3:18 PM

I do not know Mr. Wahid, but I trust he is a nice fellow. And, I trust that the Muslim sorority sisters, who have been the subject of an article that has run on CNN online now for several days, are also decent and friendly kids; perhaps they are good students; perhaps they do service to their unversities and communities.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/28/muslims.and.greeks.ap/index.html

But, Muslims who choose to ignore certain principles and doctrines in the Qur'an and Sunnah are not the problem; nor have they offered any coherent solutions, as Spencer and Fizgerald have argued above. The issue we are dealing with is Islam, the ideology, the effects of that ideology worldwide, the dangers, the violence, the brutality, the broken lives, the social uphevals. And, as Spencer so clearly points out above, the source of the 'problems' is Islam itself, not some extreme, perverse strain of Islam, like Wahhabism or some mythical 'fundamentalism', but what the Qur'an and Sunnah say. It is really that simple. Spencer continues to do the world a great service by repeating again and again that simple point: read the texts. Violence, dangers, and problems exist to the degree that Muslims take those texts to heart.

The issue of Muslim integration in Europe, worldwide terrorism, the so-called 'insugency' in Iraq, the Iranian nuclear program, the Islamic war against Israel, violence in Dafur, Algeria, and the jihad in Africa, civil strife involving Muslims in India, Central Asia, China, Pakistan, Bangledesh, South Thailand, terrorism and violence against Christians in Indonesia, Islamic attacks in the Philippines, and now riots in Austraila: all these problems, issues, events can be linked, explained and understood as effects of Islam, as natural outcomes of the belief system inspired by the Qur'an and Sunnah.

So, we need to say it again and again: this violence, these dangers exist worldwide to the degree that Muslims take seriously the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Posted by: JTF at December 31, 2005 3:36 PM

Wahid's article brings up this question: As many Westerners there are in denial of the dangers of global jihad (as well as its firm entrenchment in the core of Islam, not some later innovation), how many Muslims are also in denial?

Perhaps, in that state, this is the best Wahid and many others can do, having been brought up in a localized interpretation of Islam that simply looked the other way from some of the more bloodthirsty sections of the Quran and Hadith. I take that to be one of the chief "innovations" that Wahabbism sought to stamp out. That one source of denial-- it's not they Islam they were brought up in. And that denial leaves the jihad doctrine as a ticking time bomb for whenever circumstances cause them to seek a more orthodox practice of their religion.

Add the next source of denial: what seems invariable is the sense of moral superiority among Muslims, almost to a level of self-worship (are they worshiping a deity, or their own identity as Muslims?). Remember all the Muslims in central Asia who spoke in defense of bin Laden because they refused to believe such a "holy" Muslim could order the 9/11 attacks?

Thus, there's the the dual denial that Islam is really "that way," plus the belief that Muslims are inherently better people, which stops them from policing their their fellow believers, who are comrades in this exclusive club of superiority.

I would compare Wahid to someone with a burlap bag over his head, with just enough light coming through to tell him something's not right. But he'll keep the bag on to keep having to face exactly what the problem is head-on.

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 31, 2005 3:46 PM

Friggin typos... I really need to stop dictating my posts to the cat. ;)

That last sentence should read "keep from having to face exactly what the problem is head-on.

But before I forget, Happy New Year to all. May there be rampant "clipping and kissing." :D

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 31, 2005 3:51 PM

OT - To our Aussie friends: I happened to see the amazing fireworks display at Sydney on Fox News. It was just beautiful! I wish you a happy and prosperous New Year! (And a solution to your increasing muslim problems - my heart goes out to you)

D

Posted by: Den_Man at December 31, 2005 4:12 PM

Naseem said "Islam is a house of tolerance...give it a chance!"
Since Muslims believe everything in the Quran to be eternally valid, let's examine some of these "tolerant" commands Naseem would like us to believe:

Qur’an 2:216 “Jihad is ordained for you, though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.”
Qur’an 3:61 “If anyone disputes with you about Jesus being divine, flee them and pray that Allah will curse them.”
Qur’an 4:90 “If they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.”
Qur’an 5:10 “Those who reject, disbelieve and deny Our signs, proofs and verses will be companions of Hell-Fire.”
Qur’an 5:17 “Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.’”
Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”
Qur’an 5:72 “They are surely infidels who blaspheme and say: ‘God is Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ But the Messiah only said: ‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’”
Qur’an 5:86 “Those who reject Islam and are disbelievers, denying our Signs and Revelations —they shall be the owners of the Hell Fire.”
Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”
Qur’an 8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”
Qur’an 8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.”
Qur’an 9:30 “The Jews call Uzair (Ezra) the son of Allah, and the Christians say that the Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying from their mouths; they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s (Himself) fights against them, cursing them, damning and destroying them. How perverse are they!”
Qur’an 9:33 “He has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the Religion of Truth (Islam) to make it superior over all religions, even though the disbelievers detest (it).”
Qur’an 9:113 “It is not fitting for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for the forgiveness for disbelievers, even though they be close relatives, after it is clear to them that they are the inmates of the Flaming Hell Fire.”
Qur’an 47:4 “So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”
Qur’an 47.33 “Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger! Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the Cause of Allah, He will not pardon. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace. You have the upper hand.”
Qur’an 60:1 “Believers, take not my enemies and yours as allies, offering them love, even though they have rejected the truth that has come to you, and have driven out the Prophet and you because you believe in Allah! If you have come out to struggle [fight jihad] in My Cause, and to seek My Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love with them: for I am aware of all you conceal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path. If they were to get the better of you, they would be your foes, and stretch forth their hands and their tongues against you with evil.”
Qur’an 60:5 “We reject you. Hostility and hate have come between us forever, unless you believe in Allah only.’”
I'll leave out similar comments from the hadith since Naseem considers them "unreliable".
Yep. Real tolerant and peaceful guy, that Mohammed.
Happy New Year, everybody.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at December 31, 2005 4:26 PM

Naseem says: Not certain maan, but I think that if you have the Koran....why do you don't need anything else.....

That is not true at all Naseem. Once again, you are being dishonest. Without the ahadith, the koran makes little sense. It is a disordered jumble. Muslims wouldn't know when to preform their pagan rock worship rituals, run between two mountains, trow pebbles at the devil, kiss the black Allah rock, etc.

Admit it Naseem, be honest with yourself. You are taught to RECITE the koran in Arabic, a language you don't even understand. You don't have a clue what you are reciting.

Amazingly, to become a Jr. entry level Imam, all you need to be able to do is recite the Koran. You don't need to know how to read or write, or even know how to tie your shoes, brush your teeth.
Further "religious training" comes in the form of an illiterate Imam repeating what he was told the stuff you are reciting means, plus a healthy dose of Jew and Christian hatred, twisted and revised history, lies on top of lies. You are taught to hate.

I don't really blame you personally for your ignorance, it was forced upon you, you have been brainwashed. Maybe you have even been introduced to other horrible, unmentionable things by an Imam in the madrassa you were forced to attend.
I can only hope you were not.

To make the statement that the Koran is all you really need is a glaring lie. The koran standing alone is worthless unless you are able to put it in order, knowing why, when and under what circumstances Muhammed made up the sura's.

And make no mistake Naseem, the Koran wasn't handed down from "allah" (which means "the god", not god) through a demented "angel" that beat muhammad up, and who Muhammad was terribly afraid of. So afraid that he was contimplating suicide, because he felt (And he was right!)that he had become possesed by Satan. Remember, Satan does disguize himself as an angel of light, and has control of the elements, wind, rain etc.

Naseem says: American you are such a lund.....why are always trying to bring the tone of the debate down to your pathetic base levels.
Islam is a house of tolerance...give it a chance!

Posted by: Naseem

I'll give yo a chance, Naseem. Show me where Islam is tolerant.

Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”

Is that tolerance?

Qur’an 4:168 “Those who reject [Islamic] Faith, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them to any path except the way to Hell, to dwell therein forever. And this to Allah is easy.”

Is that tolerance?

Qur’an 4:114 “He who disobeys the Apostle after guidance has been revealed will burn in Hell.”

Is that tolerance?

Qur’an 33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy—a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering.”

Is that tolerance?

Bukhari:V1B11N617 “I would order someone to collect firewood and another to lead prayer. Then I would burn the houses of men who did not present themselves at the compulsory prayer and prostration.”

Is compulsory prayer tolerance?

Bukhari:V4B52N260 “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’”

Is that tolerance?

Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends.”

How about that?

Tabari VIII:130 “The Messenger said, ‘Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.’ Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: ‘Allah has given permission for you to be expelled.”

That sure doesn't sound like tolerance.

Qur’an 60:5 “We reject you. Hostility and hate have come between us forever, unless you believe in Allah only.’”

It's quite clear you are being less than truthful Naseem. Is that the "good" that Islam teaches you?

Instead of reciting the koran, and taking the word of you clerics and Imam at face value, why don't you read it for yourself, and see what it really says?
There is a reason your Imams do not want you to read Islamic "scripture". They are afraid that the spell will be broken, that you will discover the truth and leave the cult. Would a real god that knows all created the universe and all that is in it say the world is flat, the sun sets in a muddy pond, and the moon is a sun? That heaven is just a few miles above the earth, the stars are lanterns hanging on it's walls? that the sun wears clothing?

Qur’an 4:90 “If they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.”

That is not "tolerance. Look up the meaning of the word.

Posted by: Mullahmasher at December 31, 2005 5:54 PM

Why even bother with the likes of "Naseem" . His or her brain is completely fried and she cannot think out of the box or see the obvious when so many have pointed it out to her. She is like an old record that keeps on playing the same tune which cannot be deleted. One has only to feel sorry, we cannot do anything for the likes of Naseem.Islam has currupted her "hard disc", besides a brain transplant there is no other remedy.

Posted by: faqi at December 31, 2005 6:16 PM

Excellent marshalling of sources, Bohemond and Mullahmasher. If Naseem returns, I will not rest until he/she responds directly and in detail to your posts.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 31, 2005 6:45 PM

The questions are simple and I don't understand why they are not asked every time one of these "wisemen" want to expound upon their religion.

1. Did or did not God literally dictate the Koran through Mohammed?

2. Is or is not the Koran the literal word of God?

3. Was or was not Mohammed the true Prophet of God?

4. Is or is not Mohammed and his actions the most perfect example of the most perfect man in God's eye.

5. If the answers to the foregoing are affirmative then there is no argument against the radicals for they are not that.

6. If the answer to any of the forgoing questions is negative then the ultimate question is: How can one be a Mohammedan yet reject the foundations of Mohammedanism?

Once those questions have been answered, out loud, I will listen to what they have to say.

Why is it journalists/diplomats/politicans cannot bring themselves to ask these questions? Because they are so smart they know that religion is just pretend, a fantasy created to keep the ignorant in line. They are half right. I was often told while growing up, "There is such a thing as being too smart."

Posted by: Tumbleweeds at December 31, 2005 8:08 PM

Wow, jsla, you cut right through the crap, man... Absolute fricken COLD-HARD-no B.S. reality!

I'm not thinking I want to play this insane game for the rest of my life either, and I'm thinking this game will probably be going on for at least 100 years. I spent 30 years living with the Cold-War and all that that entailed, and now we got this B.S.
But we gotta dance around and play "lets pretend" humoring a bunch of nutcases. We'll totally lose our sanity before this is over.

Posted by: kentim at December 31, 2005 8:52 PM

Mullamasher writes: "would a real god...say the world is flat, the sun sets in a muddy pond, and the moon is a sun? That heaven is just a few miles above the earth, the stars are lanterns hanging on it's walls? that the sun wears clothing?"

(Please forgive my ignorance; I'm new to Jihad Watch but have just finished R. Spencer's book, The P.I. Guide to Islam).

Are those statements found in the Quran? I don't recall seeing them addressed in Spencer's book. If someone could provide some specific verse numbers, I'd love to confirm it.

Unlike most of the Quran, which deals with faith, behavior, and spirituality (which cannot be "proven") these are provable, factual errors. How can Allah have revealed such laughable nonsense? Doesn't this clearly indicate that the Quran should not be considered divine? How do Muslims reconcile these egregious errors from Allah?

Posted by: skyking77 at December 31, 2005 9:13 PM

Wahid says:"

It is time for people of good will from every faith and nation to recognize that a terrible danger threatens humanity. We cannot afford to continue "business as usual" in the face of this existential threat. Rather, we must set aside our international and partisan bickering, and join to confront the danger that lies before us."

To me, it looks as if he is using another "brand" of Islam. We should know where his point of view in reliation to the "others".

He also must be willing to state his thoughts on the areas of his faith where he differs with the others in his.

The us of "every faith and nation" (infidels?) surely understand the threat and also see from where it is comming.

He also states in the above that " and join to confront the danger that lies before us". How can the faith of Islam join with other, (lesser infidels) in partnership? This is in conflict with the teachings of Islam.

Others see the threat of Islam, but do those who willfully follow it?

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 31, 2005 9:41 PM

skyking77, here are a few of Mohammed's "pearls of wisdom" on science and astronomy:

Qur’an 18:83 “They ask you about Dhu’l-Qarnain [Alexander the Great]. Say, ‘I will cite something of his story. We gave him authority in the land and means of accomplishing his goals. So he followed a path until he reached the setting place of the sun. He saw that it set in black, muddy, hot water. Near it he found people.”
Tabari I:234 “Then the Prophet said: ‘For the sun and the moon, Allah created easts and wests on the two sides of the earth and the two rims of heaven. There are 180 springs in the west of black clay-this is why Allah’s word says: “He found the sun setting in a muddy spring.” [18:86] The black clay bubbles and boils like a pot when it boils furiously.’”
Tabari I:233 “When the Messenger was asked about that, he replied, ‘When Allah was done with His creation He created two suns from the light of His Throne. His foreknowledge told Him that He would efface one and change it to a moon; so the moon is smaller in size.”
Tabari I:233 “When the Messenger was asked about that, he replied, ‘When Allah was done with His creation He created two suns from the light of His Throne. His foreknowledge told Him that He would efface one and change it to a moon; so the moon is smaller in size.”
Tabari I:234 “Allah thus sent Gabriel to drag his wing three times over the face of the moon, which at the time was a sun. He effaced its luminosity and left the light in it. This is what Allah means: [in Qur’an 17:12] ‘We have blotted out the sign of the night, and We have made the sign of the day something to see by.’ The blackness you can see as lines on the moon is a trace of the blotting.”
Bukhari:V4B54N421 “I walked hand in hand with the Prophet when the sun was about to set. We did not stop looking at it. The Prophet asked, ‘Do you know where the sun goes at sunset?’ I replied, ‘Allah and His Apostle know better.’ He said, ‘It travels until it falls down and prostrates Itself underneath the Throne. The angels who are in charge of the sun prostrate themselves, also. The sun asks permission to rise again. It is permitted. Then it will prostrate itself again but this prostration will not be accepted. The sun then says, “My Lord, where do You command me to rise, from where I set or from where I rose?” Allah will order the sun to return whence it has come and so the sun will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the statement of Allah in the Qur’an.
Tabari I:258/Qur’an 15:26 “Allah created Adam from sticky clay, meaning viscous and sweet smelling slime, being stinking. It became stinking slime after having been compact soil.”
Qur’an 80:17 “Be cursed man! He has self-destructed. From what stuff did He create him? From nutfa (male and female semen drops) He created him and set him in due proportion.”
Tabari I:258 “Allah sent Gabriel to the earth to bring Him some clay. The earth said, ‘I take refuge in Allah against you mutilating me. Then He sent the angel of death. He took some soil from the earth and made a mixture. He did not take it from a single place but took red, white, and black soil. Therefore, the children of Adam came out different.”
Bukhari:V4B54N430 “Allah’s Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, ‘Regarding the matter of the creation of a human being: humans are put together in the womb of the mother in forty days. Then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period. He becomes a piece of flesh for forty days. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things: the new creature’s deeds, livelihood, date of death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched. He will do whatever is written for him.’”
Bukhari:V4B54N482 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hell Fire complained to its Lord saying, “O my Lord! My different parts are eating each other up.” So, He allowed it to take two breaths, one in winter, the other in summer. This is the reason for the severe heat and bitter cold you find in weather.’”
Tabari I:278 “Adam went inside the tree to hide. Eve cut the tree and it bled. Then feather that covered Adam and Eve dropped off. So Allah said, ‘Now Eve, as you caused the tree to bleed, you will bleed every new moon, and you, snake, I will cut off your feet and you will walk slithering on your face.’”
Tabari II:106 “Allah sent gnats against the Babylonians, and they ate their flesh and drank their blood, and nothing but their bones were left. But Allah gave Nimrod a single gnat which entered his nostril and went on beating the inside of his head with hammers for four hundred years. The most merciful of his friends was he who bunched up his hands and beat Nimrod’s head with them.”
Tabari II:107 “Nimrod vowed to seek out Abraham’s God. So he took four eagle fledglings and nurtured them on meat and wine so that they grew up tough and strong. Then he tied them to a chest and sat in it. He suspended a piece of meat over them and they flew up trying to reach it. When they had risen high in the sky, Nimrod looked down and beheld the earth. He saw the mountains crawling below like creeping ants. When they had risen still higher he looked and saw the earth with a sea surrounding it. After climbing still higher, he came into a region of darkness and could not see what was above him nor what was below him. He became frightened and threw the meat down. The eagles followed it, darting downward. When the mountains saw them coming near and heard their noise, they became afraid and almost moved from their places, but did not do so. As Allah says in the Qur’an, ‘Verily they have plotted their plot, and their plot is with Allah, even if their plot were one whereby the mountains should be moved.’”
There are many more.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at December 31, 2005 11:17 PM

Bohemond, Thank you for such an in depth analysis of the madness found within the Quran. I was especially surprised to learn that about one-fifth of the Quran is incomprehensible, even in Arabic. And that Arabic was not the language of Mohammed. The more I learn about the Quran, the more I see the urgency to expose it's ugly underbelly and to question it's very validity to exist in a modern world. Again, very well written post, worth the time to read.

Posted by: skyking77 at January 1, 2006 12:23 AM

Naseem writes

American you are such a lund..

"Lund" means penis in Urdu.

Naseem is not a woman.

Posted by: Sandracottus at January 1, 2006 1:06 AM

Sandracottus,

Thank you for the factoid. On second thought, maybe not so thankful, actually. :)

But anyway, naseem often strikes me as schizophrenic. Other commenters have pointed that out as well, and have suggested, plausibly, that naseem is an identity used by a group of people to post comments at JW/DW.

Posted by: del at January 1, 2006 1:56 AM

Mr. Wahid is wrong. There is no turning back to his former mellow Islam. The threat cannot be called Wahhabism. Wahhabism is only one of the elements of present-day global Islam.
Yes it has been fueled by money mainly from Saudi Arabia, but also wealthy Pakistani expatriates in England, for example, have been fueling this present day global Islam.
This present-day Islamic monster has swallowed all former mellow variants of Islam Mr. Wahid is talking about.
I don't think a trurning back is possible. Islam has drunk the cup of wrath to its dregs and, as a result, ALL OF ISLAM IS GUILTY.

Posted by: rocky at January 1, 2006 2:50 AM

Mr. Wahid is wrong. There is no turning back to his former mellow Islam. The threat cannot be called Wahhabism. Wahhabism is only one of the elements of present-day global Islam.
Yes it has been fueled by money mainly from Saudi Arabia, but also wealthy Pakistani expatriates in England, for example, have been fueling this present day global Islam.
This present-day Islamic monster has swallowed all former mellow variants of Islam Mr. Wahid is talking about.
I don't think a turning back is possible. Islam has drunk the cup of wrath to its dregs and, as a result, ALL OF ISLAM IS GUILTY.

Posted by: rocky at January 1, 2006 2:50 AM

Sandracottus writes:
""Lund" means penis in Urdu.

Naseem is not a woman."

Don't be so hasty. Maybe Naseem is turned on by
all this talk of the profiteer's pedophilia. And,
with hubby looking for raisins the hereafter,
well, just think about it. It is an unusual form
of insult for a muslima, no?

Sorry honey, but even if I weren't married, I
find mohammadans a big turn off, even without the
burkhas. But, if you ditch the mo crap, I promise
to talk dirty to you if you want.

Posted by: American at January 1, 2006 2:52 AM

Skyking77, someone once said "If I can see over the tops of the mountains, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of Giants". I am simply making use of the work others have so painstakingly researched before me. When confronted by the obvious contradictions and errors in the Q'uran, Muslims will often argue that the Q'uran cannot be understood properly when it is translated into another language. However this presents another problem: since some 80% of the world's Muslims do not speak Arabic, that means they cannot understand the Q'uran and are therefore no better off than an infidel, or inferior beings. Many Muslims seem to suffer from a problem known in psychology as "cognitive dissonance". This is a condition that occurs when knowledge previously learned and believed to be true is confronted by new, contradictory information, producing unsettling feelings in the subject, often accompanied by anger. For example: Muslims are told in the Q'uran that they are specially chosen and superior to all other people and cultures. They are taught that the West owes its cultural advancements to things that were originated by Islam. They are told that the Q'uran is the only uncorrupted word of God, and that the bible and torah are in error. When they discover that the belief system they have been taught since childhood is in error, and that they are not actually superior, they get angry and take their anger and frustration out not on the system that lied to them but the one that showed them the truth. Imagine a child who is told by his parents that Santa is real, and then when confronted by another child that proves Santa cannot be real, so he beats up the child who told him the truth. You will see much of that kind of behavior from Muslims here. Muslims believe the Q'uran to be eternally valid, and will never dare argue against it, for fear of being branded apostate. However, if they do not respond to the accusations made by people who quote the Q'uran to show its errors, they are guilty of not honoring the command in the Q'uran to defend their faith. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So they take their feelings out on the people who expose the lies. I hopeyou enjoy your visits here. Happy New Year.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at January 1, 2006 1:10 PM

sheik,

[Wahid] threatened his fellow Indonesians that he will bring out 'martyrs in their thousands.."

Do you have evidence of this? This would be a juicy nugget of information for me to use when I write my letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal. Thanks.

PS: Also, do you know if Wahid attended the October 16, 2003, Tenth Islamic Summit Conference in Putrajaya,Malaysia? (That was the Conference at which the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamed gave that infamous speech (where among other things he blamed Jews for the evils of liberalism!) and was given a standing ovation by all the Muslim dignitaries from around the world.)

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 1, 2006 1:20 PM

Wahid has warned that his ouster could lead to a more violent response from his followers -- some of whom have reportedly formed suicide squads to protect "Gus Dur" -- a nickname for Wahid, meaning "brother Dur."

To the nearly 30 million members of http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/indonesia/wahid_6-01.html-- the world's largest Muslim organization, led by Wahid until his 1999 election -- Wahid is more than just a head of state -- he is a religious icon.

"We can't predict what will happen if Gus Dur falls. It will be hard to control [his followers]," said Muslim cleric Gus Ipong, a religious leader in East Java, in an interview with Reuters last month.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/indonesia/wahid_6-01.html

His family founded http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/indonesia/wahid_6-01.html
My question is what was Wahid doing in 1965

1965
August
Violence between PNI and NU supporters on one side and PKI supporters on the other heats up in Central and East Java.

September 30
In the evening, Lt.-Col. Untung, head of the Cakrabirawa Regiment (Presidential Guards), other Diponegoro and Brawijaya Division soldiers, and PKI supporters gather at Halim Air Base, with Gen. Omar Dhani and Aidit present. The forces are under the tactical command of Brigadier-General Supardjo, who had recently been commanding guerilla forces in the Konfrontasi against Malaysia. They leave and attempt to take seven top army generals. Nasution escapes by leaping over the wall of his house, his young daughter is shot and Lt. Tendean, his aide, is taken away. Gen. Ahmad Yani is killed at his house, as are two others. Three other generals are taken alive with Lt. Tendean and the bodies of the dead to Halim, where the remaining live captives are murdered and thrown in the well called Lubang Buaya.

October
At 7:00 A.M., the radio announces that "Movement 30 September" (Gerakan 30 September, or G30S) is pro-Sukarno, anti-corruption, anti-United States and anti-CIA.
Suharto announces on radio that six generals are dead, he is in control of the army, and he will suppress the coup attempt and protect Sukarno.
Senior leaders of Nahdlatul Ulama go into hiding. Ansor, the Islamic youth organization associated with Nahdlatul Ulama, releases a statement that it and NU have nothing to do with the coup attempt (despite claims by the rebels that four NU leaders are part of G30S).

October
Ansor releases a statement urging its members to help the Army restore order.

October
Nahdlatul Ulama issues a statement calling for the PKI to be banned, possibly under pressure from Ansor activists. Senior NU leaders do not sign it until the day after or later.

October
Mass demonstration in Jakarta (possibly of more than 100,000) demands the dissolution of the PKI. PKI headquarters in Jakarta are burned.

October
Ansor holds anti-Communist rallies across Java.

October
Nearly a hundred Communists killed in battle with Ansor youths. Beginning of general massacre of PKI supporters in Central and East Java.

November 22
Muhammadiyah second largest moslem group) declares jihad against PKI. Sukarno pleads with Muslims to give dead proper burial. Anti-Communist movement spreads throughout Java.

1966
January Roundups continue of PKI supporters, degenerate into random, unplanned violence in many areas.

July
Members of Nahdlatul Ulama and other parties in the Assembly attempt to have the "Jakarta Charter SHARIA LAW" of 1945 recognized officially.

1967
February
Dewan Dakwah Islamiyah Indonesia convenes in Jakarta to promote and plan for Islamic evangelism (da'wa), and to counter a perceived growth in "kristenisasi" (Christianization).

April
Christian churches are attacked in Aceh. Several days of anti-Chinese demonstrations break out in Jakarta.

July
Nahdlatul Ulama holds congress in Bandung. The congress demands quick elections, and an end to the ban on civil servants holding membership in political parties (which prevented civil servants from being members of NU).

October
Anti-Christian riots in Makassar; Suharto speaks out against religious violence.
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/asia/indonesia.html

CAPTAIN INDONESIA(former president Gus Dur)
On a morning television show on March 14, President Wahid asked for forgiveness for the 1965-67 massacre of suspected members of the banned Indonesian Communist Party (Partai Komunis Indonesia, PKI), and for the role of his own organization, Nahdlatul Ulama, in the killings. .
http://www.fomi.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=16501&highlight=#16501

Wahid is nothing but pure taquiha

Posted by: shiva at January 1, 2006 2:38 PM

The first four link should not be there....I should have pasted Nahdlatul Ulama

Posted by: shiva at January 1, 2006 2:45 PM

Islam exists because of conquest. Islamic tolerance is that of the conqueror toward the conquered. Read history.

Posted by: PacRim Jim at January 1, 2006 7:52 PM

You remark that Wahid is trying to do a balancing act with a religion that is discriminatory towards women and "unbelievers".

But what you don't dare openly ask is whether or not Islam is in fact the Word of G-d. This is the primary advantage, actually, the only advantage which the Jihadi has over you. He believes that the various Suras', etc, are in fact, the dictates of the Creator.

If that is the case, how do propose to "reform" this religion? How on Earth can you convince a man to change or modify what he knows to be the Word of G-d, regardless of what the teaching states? You complain that Islam is cruel to women. So what? If G-d demands that we commit crimes, then we must commit them. Period. The only real arguement you can make at this point is that it is not G-d who is demanding these crimes, but a flawed man. But you are unwilling to boldly state that. You imply it in your argument, but you are simply not willing to make the statement.

I personally do not believe in Islam. I regard Mohammed as a schizophrenic lunatic who had a number of halucinations which were conveniently held in private with no supporting evidence to back his assertions that he was in communion with the Creator of Heaven and Earth.

But that's me. How do you propose to convince several hundred million Muslims who DO believe that the dictates of Mohammed, ie. the literal Word of G-d, should be modified? Unless you will bluntly assert that his statements were NOT the Word of G-d, I do not see why the average Muslim would not simply dismiss your words as the ramblings of a fool (I do not regard you as a fool, but I am trying to look at it from their point of view).

No one is willing to challenge the basis of their faith. Which is interesting, given that both Christianity and Judaism are constantly trashed and mocked in public. If you are unwilling to challenge them, it means that you have already conceded the ground that their faith is based on truth. If their faith is true, then that implies that Mohammed spoke true prophecy. If it is true prophecy than why should they modify anything whatsoever?

Because you will shake your head at them?

Even if you would then claim that they will back down because you have superior weaponry, so what? History is filled with examples of lesser cultures destroying scientifically greater ones. Rome vs. Carthage, Allies vs. Axis. Even the last go-around, it was the Muslims who had the superior science and culture. On the other hand, if G-d is truly on their side then it is irrelevant how much weaponry you have. In the Universe, a nuclear blast is a feeble thing compared to the terrible energies released constantly throughout our own Solar System. Everyone knows this in their heart.

Besides, people make the assumption that it is Islam which holds back their science and culture, and I am not sure that is quite the case. I could very easily see them throwing away, or at least burying, those aspects of their religion which hold them back, and proposing a "leaner" Islam which would allow them to advance in science as well as in cruelty. Cruelty, as we unfortunately know very well, does not hold a culture back from scientific progress. Look at modern day China for a current example.

In time, several hundred million people can achieve tremendous things if they are united in purpose. We would be very foolish to underestimate how quickly they can learn and adapt. They are human beings after all.

It seems to me that the real question of our age is not which is true "Christianity" or "Islam". But whose practice of faith is in keeping with G-d's will. Those who practice restraint and tolerance or those who act with aggression and intolerance.

-ron

p.s.

Personally, I bet on Judaism. But again, that's just me.

:)

Posted by: ballantrae at January 1, 2006 9:31 PM

What does it say about Islam as a whole when a "right" Islam is desperately trying to win over a "wrong" Islam (and pleading with non-Muslims for help).....except that it is truly a "religion in pieces".

So much for "perfection". 1400 years gone by and it *still* ain't right. Time for Allah to go back to the drawing board.

Posted by: yadayada at January 2, 2006 12:10 AM

Notice how Naseem selectively responded to his/her critics, and how he/she avoided Hugh's refutation. I've noticed this selective response game from other Muslims who come here -- they consistently cherrypick in order to give the impression they are being responsive while managing to avoid the tougher questions.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 31, 2005 02:48 PM

Naseem didn't compose that post; perhaps it was penned by a friend, her husband, or maybe (gasp!) she plagiarized it.

I don't know who wrote it, but it wasn't Naseem.

Posted by: Susanp at January 2, 2006 12:52 AM

I wrote a lengthy response to the WSJ in response to Wahid's pack of tripe. The WSJ declined to publish it in their reader response letters. The gist of my argument was that Wahid was handing us the same old lie; the problem with Islam is the Koran which cannot be redacted or emended to eradicate all the hate-filled passages.

Frankly, I'm tired of being lied to about Islam. I'm fed up of Christians like President Bush (whom I admire) telling me that Islam is peace when I can see for myself that it is a noxiously hellish ideology. I'm fed up of Muslims saying we need to be educated about—meaning proselytized into—Islam. Were I to believe anything that Islam says, then I would be confessing that the Judaeo-Christian God is a liar, and He is not. It is high time that Muslims were educated about Judaism, Hinduism, and Christianity and high time they learn how to co-exist peacefully without killing.

Posted by: CaribPundit at January 2, 2006 1:13 AM

Naseem said...

Not certain maan,

but I think that if you have the Koran....why do you don't need anything else.....

Why not? If I want to read the Bible or the Torah or the Bhagvagita in Saudi Arabia, why wouldn't I have the freedom to do so? Isn't that the hallmark of a true "religion of tolerance"? Besides, I thought Muslims were supposed to honor the Injeel and Torah along with the Koran. Not only that, by saying we don't need anything else but the Koran, you're sounding just like the Jews you accused earlier in this thread of "rejecting all scriptures except Torah revealed to Moses".

Posted by: yadayada at January 2, 2006 1:16 AM

Wahid's problem isn't that he is trying to deceive us. Like many Muslims his problem appears to be that he has deceived himself into believing that Islam can truly be reformed.

Wahid speaks of selective use of various passages from the Qur'an by the Wahabist/Salafist terror networks to support their atrocities. But one problem he faces is that to reform Islam the reformers would have to do the same thing (eliminate passages that are not beneficial to their cause). If the reformers can delete passages from the Qur'an, so too can the Salafist/Wahabis. And this would neutralize the prospect of any reformation of Islam.

My questions for Mr. Wahid (who I think is a basically sincere, decent man) are: "isn't the real reason you are Muslim is that your country was invaded centuries ago and forced at the point of a sword to Islamicize, and is not the punishment of leaving Islam being execution the only real reason you continue to be a Muslim"?

Posted by: pythagoras at January 3, 2006 10:36 PM