| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses some problems posed by mosques in Western countries, and what to do about them:
When building new mosques in the West, one-for-one should be the rule. For every mosque that is permitted in the Infidel world, one church, synagogue, Hindu temple, depending on where the mosque is built, must be permitted -- one of similar size, and prominence -- within Dar al-Islam. Simple reciprocity. And no punishment for apostasy, so that there is freedom of conscience. Otherwise, no further permission for the building of mosques need be granted.Reciprocity. That's a reasonable demand.
The mosques that are already here pose a more vexed question. A "dual-use" mosque, where one use is incitement of religious or other kinds of hatred, and where there is some evidence of something unconnected to individual worship going on, is not at all like a church or synagogue where there may be social gatherings and so on. When a belief-system is not only a religion but a geopolitical program, and when there is evidence that that geopolitical program threatens all others, religious or non-religious, if they are not Muslims, one has a right to investigate the place where such believers congregate. For such a place, hiding behind religion, is in fact a meeting-ground -- it has been discovered in mosques all over Europe and the Middle East – where weapons, false documents, and similar material has been stored.
Bluntly put, any mosque where such activities go on, or where the contents of the khutaba incite hatred, should be carefully examined and, if necessary, shut down. If a mosque contains doubtful items -- false passports, explosives, audiocassettes and videocassettes about violence and warfare -- or because what goes on in the course of services tends to threaten the wellbeing of Infidels (for example, if the contents of khutaba preach hatred of Infidels and the duty of Jihad to spread Islam until it conquers the globe and Muslims rule), then not only should its imam be sent packing, but the mosque itself should be closed. Let it be done once. Let a case be brought and the First Amendment be invoked by people who would not for one minute, if they were in charge, permit the full application of the Free Exercise Clause (which would give Muslim apostates their freedom not to be Muslims), and let it be argued out in the courts. But we need a test case. Enough of this, and the idea of what constitutes reasonable -- non-life-threatening -- conduct will be established. And what does not will be also.Khutba-monitoring already goes on, in Turkey and Tunisia and elsewhere (even in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to make sure that those who preach takfiri denunciations of other Muslims are monitored and often silenced). It should go on here too. Since Islam is far more than what we mean when we use the word "religion," it is the political and geopolitical aspects of that belief-system that clearly need to be monitored by the security services. Allowing people to simply wave, as all-purpose protection, the word "religion," as if that were enough to prevent any such monitoring -- well, by now informed people will be able to dismiss that kind of thing.
What is the alternative? Arrest and convict and expel the errant imam, and let the mosque remain open. Yet in that event it will likely continue to offer the same mental merchandise -- like one of those stores that sells Oriental rugs and is forever having "going-out-of-business" sales, but you eventually realize it is under the same management. And the "same management" in this case are those same pesky passages in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, from which khutaba are, after all, composed. You didn't think khutaba would suddenly be full of Christian theme-words, did you, like "mercy" and "compassion" and "peace" and how "all men are brothers"? (Whether or not all Christians take all that in, or mean it, is quite another matter -- we are talking about the raw material, the materia prima, from which the ethical tossed salad is made.) The ingredients for the khutaba, if you leave out all the naughty bits (from the Infidel point of view) in the Muslim canonical texts, are rather thin. And no one wants to lose mental or emotional weight in attending the mosque of his choice. Give him that old-time religion. But of course, in Muslim terms, that old-time religion does not mean the kind of thing that the Ministry of Religious Affairs that Ataturk set up to write every carefully-composed khutba, had in mind.
It's a problem. How do we deal with it? One way, the way favored by everyone nowadays, is to pretend the problem doesn't exist. It is simply non-existent, so forget about it.
Good strategy. Now about that Avian Flu that is winging its way closer to our shores...or that comet that is due to hit the earth in 2017....
No, you are right. Forget about it. Go back to bed. Wait for the barbarians, in our common Desert of Tartary.
Posted by Robert at January 15, 2006 7:32 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Hugh, your reciprocity demand as in churches for mosques is a good one, and on the surface seems simple, but I fear that the US government wouldn't be able to figure out how to implement it in a million years. There's the problem of promotion of religion and then which Christian churches and which Jewish sects are we talking about? How to you apportion who gets what church/synogogue built where? Too messy - never work.
I say shut mosques down and don't build new ones on the strength of your second, third, fourth arguments...the list lengthens, but this first one won't make it in and last through the long haul. That said, it certainly wouldn't hurt to make noises in that direction, and to publicly (preferably from and in the halls of Congress) put forth the argument of reciprocity simply to draw attention to the reality that Christians and other non-Muslims face living in Muslim countries.
Posted by: Rebecca JW![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 15, 2006 7:58 PM
Unfortunately this will not happen in an Islamic country. In the west Islam will take advantage of our freedoms, and then once they attain power, take them away from us.
The Muslims need a better idea of God, a better view of God. They are religious and many fervently follow their faith. Bombs will only go so far to remove the Jihadis. Democracy has no appeal whatsoever to them. In Christianity the Muslim can find a faith worth following and a God that does not coerce people into following him. They will find a place where they can actually live in the modern world and still have a deep and rich faith. I support all our military efforts to reduce the Jihadis but I also pray for a sea change in the Islamic world where the Christ of Christianity not Islam can invade the hearts and minds of the Muslim people. That will be what ultimately brings change to that dark area of the world.
In the mean time Jesus did say to buy a sword if you don't already have one because there will be a time when you need to defend yourself. I am a Navy veteran and my cousin is involved in Iraq with the Marines and I fully support his role. I fear though that we may have allowed a Sharia following regime to be lawfully elected.
God help us!
at January 15, 2006 8:09 PM
Heh, heh, a good way to find all those moderate muslims.
Posted by: kevin at January 15, 2006 8:23 PM
as a left wing atheist, i never thought in a million years, that it would come to this - me agreeing with "disciple".
in fact, i'm finding that more and more , i'm agreeing with the evangelical right wing Christians of America. I don't agree with their stance on creationism or abortion - but we have common ground - we both love liberty, democracy and freedom of belief. I'm free to believe my way, and they are free to believe their way. Of course there is always the Roe vs Wade struggles, but we both acknowledge that such is the way of democracy and free people.
In the coming struggle, right wing libertarians , will need non-dhimmi left wingers like myself - and we'll also need the Christian right.
It's time for us in the West to stop being divided and confront Islamism head on, for it is a threat to ALL of us.
Of course, its up to me on the left to drill some common sense into deluded left wingers, who think that being anti-American is "cool" and being pro-Iran is somehow ok (why - its beyond me.. ) .. i'll do my bit. All i ask, is for the right to ease up on the Creationism stuff , the Roe Versus Wade Pro-Life stuff - and focus on the enemy we all have. Once we defeat it, we can get back to our usual democratic discourse.
Posted by: archduke at January 15, 2006 8:24 PM
"Unfortunately this will not happen in an Islamic country. In the west Islam will take advantage of our freedoms, and then once they attain power, take them away from us."
prime example - the religious hatred bill , introduced in the UK after much lobbying by
by the Muslim Council Of Great Britain
read MCB Watch to find out more:
thankfully, the House of Lords have torn it to pieces, so i dont think its been passed to its fullest extent.
Who would have thought - aristocratic, upper class English "Lords" as the last bulwark against Sharia laW. We live in interesting times, with allies we would never thought of being allies with.
Thats my point.
Posted by: archduke at January 15, 2006 8:38 PM
Archduke...wellsaid!!
You are not alone as a left handed card in a right handed pack. I am a liberal agnostic who is here for the same reasons that you are. I also find it both strange and at times uncomfortable to have the religious right on my side after many years of duelling with them.
ButI see Islam as conscienceless, amoral, barbaric, and decidedly against everything that I both stand for and support.
But there is more: I see a world islamic state as being the end of mankind. Once they have won the jihad and conquered the whole world and the muslim sectarian violence finally dies down, we will see an attempt to return to the "good old days" of the caliphate and I fully expect a Ludditesque attempt to drop all signs of the west including our literature , our science and our technology. They are quite happy to use these against us but once victorious will see most of it, if not all of it, as unnecessary.
Naturally within weeks of this the world will be starving and you can be certain that all nonconverted jews and Christians will be the first to starve whether they pay jizya or not and only muslims of Arab descent will get food access.
So you see we are fighting for not just our way of life but our whole existence and that of our children.
at January 15, 2006 9:04 PM
The left has a losing position. Since the Democratic Party has adopted the left's position on Islam - that is, to defend Islam against the hated Bush and Republicans - the Democratic Party is heading to crisis. The sheer hatred of Bush has put the Democratic Party in the minority on a lot of issues - Patriot Act, Alito being two examples. The majority of the public are for both of these but it doesn't matter to the hate Bush obsessed Democrats. Whatever Bush is for, regardless of public opinion, they are against.
Surely there is an advisor in the Democratic swamp who has lifted the blinders and looked around. Wherever there is terror and society conflict, there's Islam, ever the aggressor. The denial is unbelievable.
Posted by: John Sobieski at January 15, 2006 9:43 PM
The Left is far more than just the American Democratic Party.
The Left has become the dominant cultural worldview of the modern West, and not only of "elite" institutions like the Media and Academe, but also of millions of ordinary people, Left, Right and Center (and apathetically apolitical). One of the impervious Givens of this worldview is that Islam is a noble religion and that any substantive criticism of Islam itself is "Islamophobia" to be repressed. (Another impervious Given of this worldview, closely related to the aforementioned one, is that the West is insidiously evil and decadent and responsible for most of the ills of the world.)
Beyond that gloomy fact, the modern West is overwhelmingly superior to Islam on every level and global in its superior power in the cultural, economic, technological, scientific and political domains. Islam will eventually lose, spectacularly.
The only question is: how many thousands, or even millions of innocent lives will be mass-murdered before Islam loses. If PC Leftism continues to exert its cultural stranglehold on the modern West, more lives will be tragically, senselessly lost on our road to eventual victory, rather than fewer, if we regain our rational traditional senses in time.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 15, 2006 10:00 PM
To the leftists and agnostics:
Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Fear of Allah is the beginning of barbarism. There is nothing wrong with an atheist saying he prefers living in a Judeo-Christian culture and society, rather than under Islamic Sharia
Posted by: dennisw at January 15, 2006 10:47 PM
"Surely there is an advisor in the Democratic swamp who has lifted the blinders and looked around."
-- from a posting above
Any Democrat who would oppose the Iraq venture for the right reasons, carefully articulated, would immediately become a formidable political figure. Such a candidate, could take apart phrase by silly phrase, the kind of thing Bush offered up yet again, the other day, in "Remarks by President Bush to the U.S. University Presidents Summit on International Education." It was a speech, in every respect, appallingly worthy of some seventh-grade civics class, full of real, or phony, folksiness. Here is a sample:
"I'm here to let the good folks now here how strongly I support the national security language initiative."
"She's a heck of a Secretary of State."
"Don Rumsfeld is a heck of a Secreatry of the Defense."
[Rice and Rumsfeld are both] "sponsoring a language initiative" and "it says something about the world we live in."
But let's leave the 1/4 of the speech that was warmup meet-and-greet aside, and get to the heart of the matter. Here is how Bush proceeds:
"We're living in extraordinary times. I wish I could report to you the war on terror was over. It's not. There is still an enemy that lurks, that wants to hurt us. I hate to report that to the American people... the fundamental question is, how do we win? What do we do?"
Not a word here about Islam, or a hint that this enemy does not pluck its ideas from the air, but rather from Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and that the notion of Jihad to spread Islam is not limited to "Wahhabists" or "Salafists" or "extremists" but is part of Islam, is in fact central to Islam, and has been for 1350 years. Is there no one in the entire State Department, no one among those who put the words in Bush's mouth, and possibly the thoughts as well, who has bothered to look at Spencer, Bat Ye'or, or "The Legacy of Jihad" -- and once the latter has been read, then going on to read more widely in the works of the Western scholars of Islam who are represented by articles in that book.
Then Bush goes in, Pollyanna waiting for the "victory" or "total victory" that is to come, that is in sight. And why will that victory come? Well, because. Because:
"You see, freedom is the ideology that wins. WEe got to have confidence in that as we go out [sic]. But you can't win in the long run for democracy unless you've got the capacity to help spread democracy. You see, we got to convince people of the benfits of a free society. I believe everybody desires to be free."
Let's stop right there. The naive belief in something called "democracy," without more, without an understanding of what that means besides head-counting, the failure to believe that other people may not all yearn for "freedom" or at least not for any "freedom" except that to be free to spread their own views until "Islam dominates and is not to be dominated." The timidity, the unimaginativeness, by which not even synecdochically can Islalm be alluded to, the absence of any sense that "democracy" itself is an empty vessel, and that it may, if it comes, lead to less danger for us, the Infidels, or greater danger. In Egypt it would lead to the Muslim Brotherhood replacing, because it is regarded as less corrupt, the stratokleptocrats of the Mubarak Regime. In Saudi Arabia, real democracy would throw out the Al-Saud princes, princelings, princelettes, and bring to power people less corrupt but just as vicious and mendacious, perhaps even a tad more so, than the current rulers. And the same is true for Hamas, which in a fair election, a true "democracy," would get more votes than Fatah.
He doesn't have any understanding, this president, of how to begin to educate the public about Islam. Perhaps, because he is so widely treated with disdain, that is a good thing. Perhaps then some of those who dislike him will at least be wiling, for now, to consider his failure to talk about Islam as reprehensible not because they have any sense of how menacing Islam and the islamization of large parts of Europe are, but because they are willing to use any stick to beat Bush, and if that stick happens to be the charge that he has failed to identify, even allusively, the threat, and failed to see that the absence or presence of "democracy" is irrelevant for Infidels, and even if, here and there, Western-style democracy were somehow to be compatible with Islam (which does not locate the legitimacy of a government in the people, but rather in the level of the rulers' fidelity to Islam. That is why, when there are corrupt rulers, opposition must be stated not as that of Good-Government anti-corruption indignation, but rather -- as indignation at the insufficiently Islamic nature of those rulers.
It is amazing that not a single Democrat has had the wit to point out that Bush's failure to come up with an energy program, or even to point out what might have been done to diminish the power of the Muslim money weapon, had the hundreds of billions of dollars already spent on Iraq (with hundreds of billions more in the planning), if applied only to increasing other sources of energy, subsidizing mass transit, and miniaturization of components to monitor heating and air conditioning and other means to diminish overall energy use, would have done far more to limit the Jihad than the intervention in Iraq.
And if, further, any Democrat began to suggest that the Sunni-Shi'a split in Iraq is not our affair, and that we cannot patch it up, and to suggest, disingenuously (carefully not rubbing hands in glee at the prospect of sectarian and ethnic strife in Iraq), that it would be "best if we leave and let the Iraqis make the necessary compromises that will have to be made." Of course, those compromises will not and cannot be made. The Sunnis will never having been raised in the Muslim atmosphere of credulity and conspiracy theories, will continue to believe, and to insist, that they constitute 42% at least of the population; they know, further, that the Shi'a are inferior, second-level Muslims, even perhaps -- as Wahhabits suggest -- Infidels, Rafidite dogs. The Americans did not create this attitude, and the Americans, however long they stay, will not be able to undo them.
And the Shi'a, similarly, will never forgive the Sunnis for the mass murders of 1991, or the persecution of Shi'a over many decades. And since it is the Shi'a who now possess the main oil-producing lands, why should they care if the Sunnis are left with nothing, and can only take their marbles and go home -- home where? Where can the Sunnis go, and who will support them?
Yet none of this is said by Bush, who obstinately persists in the misallocation and waste of soldiers' lives, of materiel, desert-degraded at a dreadful rate, of money, nearing, in some calculations (see Joseph Stiglitz) already beyond the half-trillion dollar mark. And for what? For the Shi'a-ruled regime? Suppose that there somehow could be created, out of Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurdish soldiers, a few units that fought as "Iraqis." So what? What if Iraq held together, for a while? What would that mean for America or other Infidels? How does that improve things in Europe?
Would it not be far better to let the Muslim internecine warfare proceed, to hope that it has consequences in Bahrain, in eastern Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, even in Lebanon (as a way of luring the Hezbhollah to leave, in order to fight beside co-religionits in Iraq), and to possibly rouse the non-Fars peoples of Iran, including the Sunni Arabs of Khuzistan, the Baluchis, the Azeris of the north (who make up at least 1/3 of the population of Iran), and of course the Kurds in Iran, animated and inspired both by the warfare within Iraq between Sunni and Shi'a, and a possible Kurdish move not merely for autonomy, but for independence?
Surely this is all a much more useful and welcome outcome, from the viewpoint of Infidels, than this harping by Bush on "democracy" and on those "killers" we are "rounding up" and on that "total victory" he keeps promising, in such misleading fashion?
What's wrong with the Democrats? Not a single quasi-Henry Jackson in the whole bunch? Not one?
Posted by: Hugh at January 15, 2006 11:31 PM
Speaking of mosques and what goes on inside
Imam having links with LeT arrested in Mumbai
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1598563,000900040001.htm
at January 16, 2006 2:07 AM
Where is Joshua? Our philosophy needs a tune-up!
It appears the last thing the Merchants of Israel wanted was be responsible for defending itself with its own Army.
History shows a track record of Exodus via procrastination, terrorism, rape, murder, compromise/conversion and capitulation to barbarians at the gates, Germans, Russians, and Arabs/ Muslims/Islam with oil mixed with camel dung and a knife, etc. etc. and an agenda, a taste for kafir, Jewish blood.
Jews and Christendom have a bad habit of having their ass kicked, raped, robbed, murdered for thousands of years, for sure, signs of their own merchant mentality and a dogma of compromise with a death wish, martyrdom, to fill a prophesy.
For sure, The Sheep of Christendom have a philosophy of martyrdom that has great need for 21st century tune-up, for at least the last 2000 years. Our inpired academic social-Marxist would just advocate kissing the Muslim Koran and importing terrorist to live in our house followed by a conversion to sanctified Arab traditions of Islam.
Again Where is Joshua?
at January 16, 2006 3:28 AM
Where is Joshua? Our philosophy needs a tune-up!
It appears the last thing the Merchants of Israel wanted was be responsible for defending itself with its own Army.
History shows a track record of Exodus via procrastination, terrorism, rape, murder, compromise/conversion and capitulation to barbarians at the gates, Germans, Russians, and Arabs/ Muslims/Islam with oil mixed with camel dung and a knife, etc. etc. and an agenda, a taste for kafir, Jewish blood.
Jews and Christendom have a bad habit of having their ass kicked, raped, robbed, murdered for thousands of years, for sure, signs of their own merchant mentality and a dogma of compromise with a death wish, martyrdom, to fill a prophesy.
For sure, The Sheep of Christendom have a philosophy of martyrdom that has great need for 21st century tune-up, for at least the last 2000 years. Our inspired academic social-Marxist would just advocate kissing the Muslim Koran and importing terrorist to live in our house followed by a conversion to sanctified Arab traditions of Islam.
Again Where is Joshua?
at January 16, 2006 3:42 AM
Mosques that refuse to condemn Muhammad and the Quran should be shut down.
We should also shut down anti-choice and homophobic churches.
Preachers should be prosecuted for itolerant comments during khutbas/sermons.
America must not tolerate any intolerance, anywhere, ever.
Posted by: cyrus57 at January 16, 2006 5:17 AM
Also, cyrus57's intolerance of intolerance should not be tolerated.
Posted by: Mike_W at January 16, 2006 6:07 AM
Hello all,
Let's give Dubya a bit of a break, I think he means well. He certainly wants a theoretical democracy to prevail all over the world, for the commendable reason that with all its faults it is the most honest system of governance yet devised. He is a man of little understanding, which makes him a victim of the last thing he has understood. Sometimes this is in harmony with previous logic, sometimes in direct contravention, but once he is convinced about something it becomes a conviction, until the next thing he chooses to understand comes along.
His views are a slide presentation of shifting certainties, he is sincere about each slide. He does not abandon a past position; he simply forgets about it and seizes ownership of each defeat by reformulating it as victory. He defers easily to those who prey upon his weaknesses , those around him led him to the centre of that inflammatory maze called Iraq, they are now charting non-existent escape routes booby-trapped with troublesome consequences and death.
When a proper history of his years as the most powerful man in the world is written, it will be a long story of some success, substantial failure — but most of all a narrative of unintended consequences. On paper, he wanted to change the Middle East by changing Iraq into a democracy. Building of churches and other institutions will follow natrually.
In practice, Iraq is heading towards a radical-democracy, where popular support has shifted decisively towards those who oppose American policy as well as American values. George Bush and Tony Blair have now come to the end of their list of reasons for staying in Iraq/ME.
So what about the near future, consequences and failures, so let's list them.
1) Coalition forces say that they will stay to train the Iraq Army so that it is able to fight the insurgency.....with e the classic conundrum. American and British troops will not leave until the insurgency is controlled; and the insurgency will not end unless the Anglo-Amrikan armies go. Welcome to the near future.
2) Will George Bush, help create an Iraqi army which could become the strongest Arab force in the region?
3) Could such an army become a formidable counterweight to Israel, particularly if it works in alliance with Iran? ( The days of the Iraq-Iran conflict, which brought joy to Washington and London, are over). Bush has done Iraq’s Shias a favour they will never forget; He has given Iran’s government a lifeline it will never acknowledge; ....and might have weakened Israel to an extent it will never admit.
4) Bush and his advisors have failed to exploit the Sunni, Shia divide in Iraq throughout their tenure ...but particularly now when the Sunni is feeling the heat.
And the overall consequence: Bush keeps talking about wanting to give the ME freedom.....but the ME have had their own type of freedom for 1400 years......There is now a bond of peace and war between Iraq/ME and USA. If they leave ....the "Mujahadeen" will follow them to Amrika.
In effect far from imparting democratic freedom to the ME.... the "Mujahadeen" et al will want to impart "their" freedoms on Amerikans in Amrika...welcome to the not so distant future. And about building churches in the ME....forget it , you will have more immediate problems at home...and you maybe disussing them with the call to prayer loudspeaker in the blaring in the background.
Posted by: Naseem at January 16, 2006 6:28 AM
Mike says "Also, cyrus57's intolerance of intolerance should not be tolerated".
Ameen to that brother Mike. You sister will always be at your side guding you in this quest.
at January 16, 2006 7:42 AM
That's so sweet Naseem...
Well, if that's the case then I'm delighted you will become a Christian, as we al know Islam will soon completely disappear.
Like in Star Trek, no Muslims in the future.
Posted by: Mike_W at January 16, 2006 8:36 AM
The postings of Naseem, woman or man (one poster suggests that use of the Urdu word "lund" by Naseem, and possibly other turns of phrase, likely make the "she" a "he"), but probably that self-described Ahmadiyya, have been retained for their pedagogical value.
But here's a how-de-do. I posted something, prompted by a speech given by Bush last week, on my dismay, both at Bush's continuing to use the misleading word "victory," and to talk about carefully-unidentified "killers," and to give no hint that Iraq might be the place to better the position of Infidels not by staying, but by going, so that the Sunni-Shi'a split, and the Arab-Kurd split, the sectarian and ethnic fissures, each important and each to be encouraged and each having its effects outside Iran, could continue to develop.
There are a few phrases in "Naseem's" comment that appear to overlap and echo mine. In describing Bush's weaknesses, and miscalculations in Iraq, not everything written by "Naseem" is untrue.
The effect of this may be, for some, to reject -- on the theory that if "a Muslim" agrees it must be wrong -- the view I again set out on Iraq as a waste. Kindly resist that temptation. It is of a piece with those who insist that the American forces must "stay the course" because -- well, because some very disturbing people (Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean) want the Americans to leave.
I'd reverse it. I'd argue as follows: if American opponents of the war, noisily opposing it out of appeasement, are reduced to silence as the Americans leave, leave for the reasons I offer -- because Islam is a world-wide menace, because the islamization of Europe and the Iranian nuclear project and Saudi oil revenues are what matter, and that the Shi'a ascendancy in Iraq can be exploited, but only by the removal of the Americans.
Having insisted for so long on "Americans out of Iraq," those of the "realist" appeasement school (Scowcroft, Brzezinski) or the "radical" appeasement school (MoveOn.org), will unwittingly be supporting those who are certain that, in letting Iraqis be Iraqis, while no one knows who will win militarily (and the Americans can always fine-tune things or prolong by weapons shipments interdicted, or permitted, from outside, or from the American armory). The effect on Sunni-Shi'a relations in Bahrain, easten Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan (where "Naseem" lives and where the Shi'a, in Pakistan an insecure minority like the Ahmadiyya, naturally attract her/his sympathies).
"Naseem" writes above that "The days of the Iraq-Iran conflict, which brought joy to Washington and London, are over." This is false in two ways. First, while the Americans did allow shipment of American weaponry by the Saudis to Iraq, there was no "joy" over the Iraq-Iran War. There should have been, and everything should have been done to make it last even longer, but the Americans (and the British) in recent times (the old days were different) have never been calculating enough. And the venture into Iraq, where once Saddam Hussein was deposed was going to lead ineluctably to a Shi'a-ruled state or to the dissolution of Iraq, should be seen as a second chance to permit sectarian resentments and hostilities within Islam to grow -- right where, as it happens, the Shi'a, who are only 20% of the world's Muslims, have a distinct advantage in numbers, and where the memory of their mistreatment by Sunnis is fresh, and renewed with each suicide bombing by Sunnis, of either the domestic or the imported variety.
And if things are done right, the "days of the Iraq-Iran War" will not be "over" but renewed, first within Iraq, and then, one believes, outside Iraq, as Shi'a and Sunnis each support their co-religionists, in the internecine Muslim struggle over who is to rule over whom, who is get the power, the oil money, the right to ride roughshod. The dreamy idea, still repeated and possibly, even believed, that "democracy" in Iraq could end up looking anything like "democracy" in the advanced West, or that an "Iraqi" army or "Iraqi" police force could be created with units made up of men from three distinct groups who fear, and hate, one another, is an idea whose time has not come, and never will. And that is not a bad thing. For Infidels, it is a very good thing.
Posted by: Hugh at January 16, 2006 9:33 AM
Naseem,
In Iraq since 2001, the barbarity of Islam has been on stage for all the world to see. The likely failure of freedom to take root in Iraq will be a failure of Islam, not of George Bush or the coalition, who did their best to give these people a chance to escape tyranny.
And this Islamic rejection of the norms of civilization will also be on stage for all the world to see.
The true colors of Islam are on display and already recorded in 21st century history--violence, death, lies, deception, intolerance, bigotry, and corruption--Yes, the same Islam for 1400 years.
at January 16, 2006 9:35 AM
Hugh,
Thanks for hitting this theme.
Fortunately we are getting closer to the time when your views are taken more seriously by the political centre in the West.
Huzzah for freedom.
God bless America and her marines.
at January 16, 2006 10:10 AM
Bush and his advisors have failed to exploit the Sunni, Shia divide in Iraq throughout their tenure ...but particularly now when the Sunni is feeling the heat.
PROOF that Naseem is Hugh FitzPatrick in drag. Quick, somebody make a reference to Comintern and I bet this Naseem goes for the bait.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 16, 2006 10:14 AM
Pig says "PROOF that Naseem is Hugh FitzPatrick in drag".
Hahahahahaha..... do you want to tell them Hugh or shall I.
Posted by: Naseem at January 16, 2006 10:19 AM
I really like the concept reciprocity. We can start by an atonement for the destruction of thousands of mosques in Spain, the Balkans, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, India. Once an equal number of mosques have been restored in the West we can talk about reciprocity.
Christians and Jews have lived peacefully in the Muslim lands for centuries. It is the barbaric Westerners who even now can't stand to have other religions in their midst. Churches and other places of worship are quite common in the Muslim world, and are usually located on prime real estate.
As far as all these bloodthirsty threats of persecution that you make; My response is (to quote a very medicore intellect) "bring it on." Islam has always prospered during persecution.
Islam will continue to prosper in the West, as people like you have nothing to offer except hate. You are fresh from lynching your Christian American brothers who happened to be black, and now you want to turn your murderous thuggery on the Muslims. Your greatest sorrow would be that despite all your violence and rage against Muslims and Islam, Islam will spring from your own homes. Your children and grand children will become Muslims, marry Muslims and bring up Muslims. Muslims will be among you like Moses in the house of Pharoah. So wallow in your hatred, like a pig wallows in excrement. Islam will enter your homes through those you love the most.
Posted by: Batilshikan at January 17, 2006 12:26 AM
In response to Batilshikan, I started to laugh when I read your entry because I first thought it to be a joke.
Is it barbaric to cut off someone's head on video while saying God is great? Is it barbaric to drive a car full of explosives into children receiving candy from troops? Is it barbaric to blow up people exiting from Mosques? Is it barbaric to fly a 757 into the side of a building where people are simply going about their work for the day? Is it barbaric to blow ones self up in the middle of a restaurant or a wedding? I guess that is enough of those questions.
The United States is not a country full of Christians and does not represent Christianity around the world. The U.S. military men do not call out Jesus is great while blowing people up! And the y don't worship the cross. As far as lynching "black brothers" that was done out of hate and not from any religious crede, unlike the deaths of non-Muslims at the hands of Muslims. Where in any modern western nation are Mosques being destroyed? Jews and Christians lived in peace in Muslim countries only as second class citizens where they could not build churches or evangelize without threat of death. The churches are plentiful in Saudi Arabia I am sure.
Please go to this site and see what persecution is.
http://www.persecution.com/
There is hope for you Batilshikan, in Christ. He loves you and wants you to have a real relationship with God.
Salam Alikum
at January 17, 2006 1:54 AM
Batilshikan
Reciprocity means that all mosques that were build by razing churches, temples, synagogues, etc should be levelled. After that, it should be left to the civic authorities in those places as to whether they want to re-build the church/temple/synagogue/etc, or build something else, like a mall, parking lot, school, cineplex, mansion, or even a brothel (even the last one would be an improvement)
Sultana Naseemah bin Taqqiya
If you are going to have someone else post your articles on Amrika, at least get them their own account. We already have Isfanan, Batilshikan, Rumi and others, so one more of Allah's comics we can definitely handle.
Also, loudspeakers are haram. They didn't exist with Mohammed, and they weren't even there when Aurangzeb was running your place. Therefore, the Muezzins should issue their calls without any sound system - with their naked voices. If people get woken up before he wants to be, they'd have the right to cut off the Muezzin's head, and level the mosque (like one particular mosque called Babri Masjid).
APF
Why on earth would Hugh want to wear a Burqha?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 17, 2006 2:42 AM
I hope most of you Muslim hating Islamophobes have the intellectual caliber of cyrus57 and Infidelpride. It makes me feel very safe.
Disciple's whining comments don't make any sense. You guys insisted on going to war against Muslims, and now whine about its consequences. You torture people for days before killing them, and then whine about beheadings. I would rather be beheaded and suffer for 10 seconds, rather than be tortured for days by sadistic Judeo-Christians, before being killed in the most horrendous of ways.
Keep hating guys. You cannot harm us without Allah's permission. cyrus57 is your real representative.
Posted by: Batilshikan at January 17, 2006 8:47 AM
"cyrus57" has been deleted. Why? Because the unacceptable remarks were noticed. Not all such remarks -- in an unmoderated site -- can be noticed. Have no idea if he was a deliberate agent provocateur, posting things that then can be used to blacken the website's reputaton. This goes on a lot, of course. Sensible people will understand, and those devoid of sense will never understand.
Posted by: Hugh at January 17, 2006 9:23 AM
Amen, Hugh! I agree with this program 100%.
I still repeat my question as to whether it is possible with currently US laws to sue Islam for hate speech, and whether there is a way to strip it of its religious status?
While we may still be forced to allow Islam to exist under freedom of speech grounds, it should be possible to force it into a KKK-like existence here in the USA. Certainly, it should have no tax-exempt status, etc.
at January 17, 2006 5:13 PM
Batilshikan, I am afraid you didn't understand me or are just deflecting the questions I posed. Are the things I mentioned above barbaric or not? Yes or no? You said the west was barbaric.
It is the barbaric Westerners who even now can't stand to have other religions in their midst.
Again I ask, where in any modern western nation are Mosques being destroyed? The U.S. constitution gaurantees freedom of religion or freedom from religion if you don't practice any. Again, where are those churches in Saudi Arabia?
We are not in a war against Islam,it seems that Muslims are the ones calling this a holy war. Do you not see that your fellow Muslims are more violent against each other than we,the west, are against them. If someone is torturing or killing in the name of Christ, it is completely unsupportable in the Bible or in anything that Jesus ever did or said to do. Again I say, no soldier in any western nation cries out Jesus is great, while cutting someones head off or blowing himself up in the middle of a wedding, which by the way killed Palestinians. However, by my studies of the Quran and Mohammed I can clearly see that violence waged against people that are unbelievers is acceptable and condoned. The problem Batilshikan is that there is no love in the God of Islam. God never reveals His love for anybody in your holy book. The Bible states that man is created in God's image. That is why the Christians,the west has been influenced by that thought,value human life. There is no such statement in the Quran and we can see every day that the Muslims carrying out these brutal attacks don't care at all about human life not even the life of little Muslim children. Christians started the first orphanages and the first hospitals because of this value placed on human life, even the unwanted lives.
As a Christian I am always being sure to turn the mirror on myself and see where in my life I can do better. I think Islam needs to stop blaming the west or Jews or Christians and do some introspection and realize that the founder of this "great" religion was a murderer and a thief amongst other SINS. When people are murderers and thieves their neighbors don't want to make friends with them. Think about it. Can you do that?
Genesis 16:11-12 (NIV)
The angel of the Lord also said to her:
"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the Lord has heard of your misery.
[12] He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."
You see Batilshikan it was prophesied thousands of years ago that Ishmael and his descendants would be doing what they are doing even to this day.
Genesis 17:21 (NIV)
But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."
And you see God's covenant is with Isaac not Ishmael. So hating the Jews or Christians won't do you anygood at all. You will steam and stew and maybe even blow yourself up on a bus or some other place. Now that is barbaric toward ones self and really messy.
All this we seing going on was prophesied long ago. Try to read a bible, please, that is assuming you are ALLOWED to read or own one.
Salam Alikum
Posted by: disciple at January 18, 2006 12:48 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)