| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
I wrote about the jihad attack in Chapel Hill, North Carolina last Friday in FrontPage today (news links in the original):
Last Friday afternoon, a twenty-two-year-old Iranian student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV onto the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, deliberately trying to kill people and succeeding in injuring nine. After the incident, he seemed singularly pleased with himself, smiling and waving to crowds after a court appearance on Monday, at which he explained that he was “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.”In a 911 call he made to turn himself in, Taheri-azar said that he wanted to kill people on the UNC campus in order to “punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world.” Specifically, he wanted to “avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world.” According to some who know him, Taheri-azar recently gave up his heavy marijuana and alcohol use and became more religiously observant.
Controversy over the incident has so far revolved around the reluctance of officials to label it “terrorism.” On Monday the UNC College Republicans, Americans for an Informed Democracy and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies held a demonstration against this at The Pit, the campus gathering area where Taheri-azar ran down students on Friday. Jillian Bandes of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies declared: “This is innocent people being attacked by an SUV, driven by a man who was doing it for retaliation for treatment of Muslims around the world. To me, that spells terrorism.”
Those who shy away from that classification point to the apparent facts that Taheri-azar acted alone, and that he had no ties to any terrorist groups. He doesn’t even seem to have been a member of the local chapter of the Muslim Students Association, which said that he was not a member and added in a statement: “Regardless of what his intentions prove to be, we wholeheartedly deplore this action, and trust that our fellow classmates will be able to dissociate the actions of this one disturbed individual from the beliefs of the Muslim community as a whole.”Nevertheless, it seems clear from his own words that Islam motivated Taheri-azar. The question of whether or not he was a terrorist hinges on several false assumptions that have led to widespread misconceptions. Many seem to assume that someone who struck alone and has no ties to terror groups is just a lone nut, a John Hinckley, and as such his actions need not be fit into a larger pattern. But in fact, we face today not so much a matter of organized crime, but of ideology. A single individual can act upon that ideology as easily as a group can. Thus it matters less that Taheri-azar was not a member of a terrorist organization than that he at some point came to hold the belief that to kill people would “spread the will of Allah.”
Investigators should be focusing on that ideology as much as they are on other details of the crime. It is not outside the realm of possibility that he heard praise of such actions in a local mosque; after all, on the same day the College Republicans and their allies were demonstrating in The Pit, the New York Times ran one segment of a laudatory multi-part series profiling Brooklyn imam Reda Shata -- which noted that when the murderous Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin was killed, Shata told Muslims at a memorial service that a “lion of Palestine has been martyred.” He also praised suicide bomber Reem Al-Reyashi. The Times dismisses this as Shata’s zeal for what he believes is a just cause, reassuring its readers that Shata doesn’t hate Jews, and even has friends among New York rabbis. Nonetheless, his support for Yassin, who oversaw and glorified the murders of numerous Israeli civilians, raises nagging questions. If one can justify such attacks in one context, one can in another. If Shata can praise one who sponsored attacks against Israeli civilians because of the alleged enormities of the Israelis, cannot Taheri-azar justify attacks against American civilians because of the alleged enormities of the United States government? And if support for such attacks can be preached and believed in New York, can it not be preached and believed in North Carolina?
Of course, in his mosque in North Carolina Taheri-azar may not have heard anything like what Reda Shata preached in New York. He could have picked up the ideology on his own -- the ideology of Islamic jihad and the permissibility of violence against any and all unbelievers who are considered enemies of Islam. The fact that that ideology has not been identified as the fundamental enemy of the United States and the Western world in general is the single gravest omission and failure of the war on terror up to this point. Law enforcement officials should be calling upon American mosque leaders like Reda Shata to declare their loyalties on this basis. They should be calling upon imams to preach against this ideology -- to conduct seminars for adults and children, ongoing classes, and other organized programs to combat it.
Religious freedom? Not an issue. Muslims should be perfectly free to worship and live as Muslims unless and until they begin to preach or act upon the idea that the United States Constitution should ultimately be replaced by Islamic Sharia. Then they have placed themselves outside the bounds of the legal protection offered by those sworn to uphold that Constitution. Self-proclaimed moderate Muslims should be asked to demonstrate their moderation by initiating and leading an active campaign among Muslims against the jihad ideology in all its forms. This will include inculcating the idea that non-Muslims and Muslims should coexist as equal citizens in society, without any aspiration for Islamic supremacism in the future. It should also include active repudiation of the idea that killing or trying to kill innocent people -- or even civilian non-combatants whom one considers to be part of a war machine -- does not spread the will of Allah.
It is unlikely that any such programs will ever be implemented in American mosques. There is no impetus from within those mosques to do so, and no one in government or law enforcement is putting any pressure upon Muslim leaders in America to do so. Whether Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar learned the ideology of violent jihad at a mosque or on his own, there is one clear lesson to be learned from American Muslims’ failure to combat that ideology in any effective or meaningful way: before this particular age of jihad draws to a close, there will be many more Mohammed Reza Taheri-azars.
Posted by Robert at March 8, 2006 8:47 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Re Truthphobia-
"Jillian Bandes of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies declared: “This is innocent people being attacked by an SUV, driven by a man who was doing it for retaliation for treatment of Muslims around the world. To me, that spells terrorism.”
Not to accept this reality is to live in the same "pigs fly and elephants lay eggs" world as Taheri-azar. It was an act of terror.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 8, 2006 9:01 AM
If you look very hard, you can find a small article, down at the bottom of the right side of the page, deep within today's New Duranty Times. They had to both cover the story, and attempt to hide it as best they could. The editors of that shrinking paper have proven, yet again, equal to the task.
Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2006 9:28 AM
The activities by the student in question is not what I would consider an act of terrorism because he appears to have acted alone.
Many young Muslim men, especially those who feel socially alienated from their host Western country will find a jihadi gospel appealing and attractive.
Do we consider a campus rapist a terrorist? We should not be too quick to paint every Muslim crime as an act of terrorism in my opinion.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 9:31 AM
Sorry, Latino, your logic doesn't fly. The man did what he did as part of the Islamic jihad with the same intention as the 9/11 hijcakers or the London and Madrid bombers. And the same inspiration, Islam.
Robert raises a most important point, the inability of Western leaders to recognize the reality of Islam's intolerance of others. The intolerance that is a basic part of the faith's dealings with non-muslims. Until they recognize this, the West will never be able to defend itself.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at March 8, 2006 9:41 AM
Do we consider a campus rapist a terrorist? We should not be too quick to paint every Muslim crime as an act of terrorism in my opinion.
Posted by: Latino
------------
When it waddles like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it has web feet like a duck and a has bill like a duck:::: it is TERRORISM.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
at March 8, 2006 9:41 AM
What he did would have incited terror in my heart if I was walking on that campus on that day, but we must realize that not all Muslims are the same or come in the same mold.
Jihad has many meanings according to theologians, and is even mentioned on the main page of this website.
My experience in the Middle East while on deployment made me realize one thing, Muslims are complex, they come in different strips and persuasions, not all Muslims have an intolerance for non-Muslims.
In Dubai and Bahrain, there are large church congregations, there are South Asian Sikh and Hindu guest workers from India, there are is a sizeable Tamil Christian community.
Many of the Gulf states are quite diverse and cosmopolitan.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 9:48 AM
Latino-If someone who was in "the pit" kills Muslims in retaliation that would be an absurd act of terror directed at innocent people. What Taheri-azar did was an act of terror.It would be injustice.
Taheri-azar has no sense of justice. Justice is giving to every person what they deserve. What did the people in "the pit" do to deserve having Taheri-azar be their judge, jury and would-be executioner?
Now Taheri-azar must be given justice-at least a very long prison term. Taheri-azar will get due process-which is more than he was willing to give the people in "the pit."
Posted by: Frank at March 8, 2006 10:04 AM
I'm not sure about this one but I haven't been run down by an SUV however this pathetic no-mark Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar MAY actually be mentally ill. There seems by some on here an intollerance to that possibility which is as bad as anything you get from the hateful Jihadist enemies of the free world. We are supposed to be better than them and that includes not rushing to judgement.
Posted by: Turbinehead at March 8, 2006 10:11 AM
Turbine, thanks for your comments.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 10:14 AM
Latino, you're welcome.
Posted by: Turbinehead at March 8, 2006 10:16 AM
Latino, have a listen to the phone call.
http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/2006/03/mohammed-reza-taheriazar-phone-call.html
"Many young Muslim men, especially those who feel socially alienated from their host Western country will find a jihadi gospel appealing and attractive." With all due respect Latino , drop the Liberal sound bites and come up with logical thinking Sir. And don't give these idiots an excuse for what they do by calling them "alienated".(And please expound on this term for me if you will)
Would we excuse Hitlers behaviour because he was "alienated"? Or Jeffrey Dalmer, Charles Manson? Evil is evil Latino, and it must be taken out, bottom line. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.
Jeff Davis
at March 8, 2006 10:17 AM
Jeff,
I am a liberal for the most with some conservative leanings.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 10:23 AM
The man said he wanted to spread the "will of allah" and did this act to avenge the death of muslims around the world.............
this is jihad.
Pity he doesn't know that muslims are also killing other muslims, perhaps he could aim his vile ideology at some of them.
Posted by: marilyn at March 8, 2006 10:24 AM
Religious freedom? Not an issue. Muslims should be perfectly free to worship and live as Muslims unless and until they begin to preach or act upon the idea
that the United States Constitution should ultimately be replaced by Islamic Sharia. Then they have placed themselves outside the bounds of the legal protection
offered by those sworn to uphold that Constitution.
This statement is flatly wrong. The Constitution Article V expressly provides for a peaceful mode of amendment.
Citizens have the right to pursue any change in the political system through appeal to the public and petitioning the legislature for redress of grievances.
The scope of legal protection doesn't turn on the desireability of the change nor does it insulate the Bill of Rights itself from being amended in the future.
Were it otherwise, the civil war amendments which abolished the property rights of slave holders would not be the law today.
There is simply no historical support for the sweeping view that the people lacks sovereignty to restructure or completely abolish the republican form of government through peaceful persuation.
Even without modern free speech doctrine (Brandenburg v. Ohio) advocating that sharia law should be made the supreme law of the land wouldn't still qualify as subversion.
at March 8, 2006 10:25 AM
I don't think there's been a rush to judgement here. I don't know of anyone here who automatically claimed it was jihadist/terrorist activity before the actual reports came out with the statements made by Taheri-azar. He obviously believed he was acting in accordance with jihadist principles. I wouldn't call that rushing to judgement.
Latino, all of those people you mention are guest workers. You step out of line with regards to Islam and you'll either be in jail or taking a quick flight out of the country.
Posted by: Terrahawk at March 8, 2006 10:28 AM
Turbine-
It was an act of terror comitted by a mentally ill person. McVeigh was probably mentally ill too, but what he did was an act of terror. It was an act of terror.
Posted by: Frank at March 8, 2006 10:30 AM
This is a no-brainer folks, just ask any one of the nine victims if they felt terror at the prospect of being run-over by a motor vehicle. I believe the concensus will be the determining factor, and should be prosecuted accordingly. Why do we have to wait for someone to be kiled to act appropriatly? This PC hyper-sensitivity cr_p is what's getting our collective butts seen as weak. What do you suppose would happen in their "home countries' if they dared do this there?
Posted by: Allen at March 8, 2006 10:31 AM
I am starting to believe that the only way to begin fixing this Islamic Terrorism/Islam issue is for those of us with the knowledge and the guts to start being more proactive. I would glady join an organization right now that would establisy peaceful protests, handout information on college campuses, etc. if it meant that the United States people would begin getting the message loud and clear. We can not allow the liberals and the Muslims to be the ones making the most noise when it is literally the freedom and safety of our children that is at stake here.
What other real choices are there anymore? We have talked this issue to death and it is barely getting legs. More direct action is needed from this point on.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2006 10:50 AM
LatiNo: "My experience in the Middle East while on deployment made me realize one thing, Muslims are complex"
I have found that when describing folks as either complex or complicated; this usually means they in reality are nuts, bonkers, crazy etc. I think complex describes Muslims perfectly.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at March 8, 2006 10:51 AM
Twins-
McVeigh and Taheri-azar both claimed they were acting against the government of the U.S. Both were-are mentally ill (McVeigh also enjoyed the attention). Each made themselves judge, jury and executioner-or-would-be-executioner of people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Both are terrorists with no sense of justice.
Posted by: Frank at March 8, 2006 10:52 AM
"advocating that sharia law should be made the supreme law of the land wouldn't still qualify as subversion."
Subversion-
1. activity undermining government: an action, plan, or activity intended to undermine or overthrow a government or other institution
2. overthrow of something: the destruction or ruining of something
I think sharia would ruin any country it rules. It sounds like subversion to me.
President Francois Mitterand: “All dogmatism that through violence undermines freedom of thought and the right to free expression is, in my view, absolute evil. The moral and spiritual progress of humanity is linked to the recoil from all fanaticisms.”
at March 8, 2006 10:52 AM
Oh, and one way that I can think of that would really do the job is a Talk Radio show. The information that is brought to Jihad Watch would easily transfer over to a full-time radio show if it was produced well, and it would get this issue the attention it deserves. This would also be an excellent way to point people to other sources of info (i.e. books, translations, websites) with all expediency and simplicity. You have to bring this issue to the common man and make him understand that it really is in his own backyard before any resolution will be truly possible. Talk Radio can do just that.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2006 10:54 AM
I was there on Friday. One of my two offices is located in Lenoir Hall a.k.a. the dining hall (In front of the Bookstore and across The Pit). He slowly drove his Cherokee on the south side of Lenoir Hall and turned left. His vehicle was idling and pointed towards the Pit. He then accelerated so quickly that he spun his back wheels and roared toward well over 500 to 1000 innocent students. He later calmly called 911 and stated his reasons for this "act of violence." Once he uttered his reason it became terrorism. His sole purpose was to "avenge the treatment of Muslims" kill and strike fear. That is terrorism as we know it today. If I drive my SUV through a crowded park because I see my wife embracing another man...that is a spontaneous act of violence. This was planned.
Posted by: Bill at March 8, 2006 10:56 AM
"is not what I would consider an act of terrorism because he appears to have acted alone."
from the American Heritage Dictionary:
terrorism NOUN: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
He has publicly stated his murderous intent and his jihadist motives. Whether he acted alone or as part of a group is utterly irrelevant.
Posted by: pst314 at March 8, 2006 10:59 AM
Re: "he explained that he was “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.”
I find this statement sums up the situation nicely.
Posted by: johnb at March 8, 2006 11:01 AM
Pst314.
Some things on this board can be argued. Anyone who would argue this is arguing for the sake of having nothing else to do.
Posted by: Bill at March 8, 2006 11:02 AM
"Prophesy of Cassandra." US-Israel, EU, et al, breeds lots of Academics & politicians with only an allegiance to an agenda of chaos without consensus, while the enemy preaches terrorism and lives in our house and is eating our lunch. For some reason Liberalism still garners leadership philosophy from Lenin 1923 Moscow and protects leaders with Marxism's control program of Political Correctness, obfuscation and intimidation.* There's more Saracen philosophy in common between Islam and Marxism than there is difference, except one has a prayer rug for War*.
"...How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University..."The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
at March 8, 2006 11:11 AM
Once again Robert impresses me with his writing ability.
It really makes no difference if we are dealing with a cell, a network or one to two self-starters; the ideology is the same. The 9-11 commission claimed that we had a failure of imagination. That is mostly wrong. The problem was, and remains a failure of EDUCATION. As long as these incidents are categorized as just "nutcases" or minimized by terrorism "experts" as detracting from "real" terrorism the issue remains blurred.
Political, social and economic grievances does not explain to me how someone would blow themselves up in a group of children or aid workers. That takes something quite different and beyond.
All the best,
Mac
at March 8, 2006 11:14 AM
Whether or not our society labels this act as terrorism is not relevant to the apparent fact demonstrated by this act, to wit: any lone Muslim, or group of "rogue" Muslims not formally connected to any recognized or official "terrorist cell" (i.e., not registered in the Yellow Pages?), can be seething with psychological rage fueled by their Islamic ideology, and may be plotting to mass-murder innocents, by any creative means possible.
The subcategory of disgruntled 40-something white guys who suddenly shoot up McDonald's's (is that the correct plural?) are motivated by a vague and amorphous constellation of factors -- a bad divorce, lost a job, alcoholism, bad social skills, frustration with employers, inability to channel anger to resolve it maturely, etc. The subcategory of disgruntled Muslims are motivated by similar factors, in addition to one more key factor: the felt humiliation and rage that Islam is being threatened and insulted and that its historically and divinely deserved triumphalism is being (has been) emasculated by Infidels (some Infidels being worse than others: America and Jews) and the consequent need to "defend" Islam, revenge Islam, and become a meaningful part of Islam by so defending it.
Law enforcement would be irrational not to factor in that key, additional element in the lone, or rogue Muslim criminal. Others may spin their wheels theoretically wondering whether to call it "terrorism" or not.
at March 8, 2006 11:18 AM
It's significant that apparently only College Republicans have seen fit to call a spade a spade. Where are the Democrats on campus? Where are the Independents? Where are the amorphously Left-leaning (or Left-swaying-in-the-Spring-breeze) students on this issue? Probably keeping an eagle eye out for any "Islamophobia" among the Republican students.
at March 8, 2006 11:23 AM
Is this (at least) going to be tried as a "hate crime"?
Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at March 8, 2006 11:23 AM
I think sharia would ruin any country it rules. It sounds like subversion to me.
I agree on sharia. But what I mean by subversion is constitutionally proscribable subversion -- speech outside First Amendment protection.
If the government could ban advocacy of doctrines as subversion simply on an appraisal of the likelihood or probability that the ideas, if believed, would effect negative social change, then free speech would become a dead letter. And even if we could agree that Islam is sui generis, there would still be much confusion as to what speech would trigger legal deprivation.
In the 1930s some states tried anti syndicalism laws, and the Supreme Court upheld their constitutionality only to change course in the 1960s.
But even the now discredited antisyndacalism laws were premised on the distinction between speech advocating the violent overthrow of the government and speech defending Marxism as a political system.
at March 8, 2006 11:23 AM
"America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam. You hear about Wahabbi and Salafi Islam as the only extreme form of Islam. All the other Muslims, supposedly, are wonderful moderates. Closer to the truth are the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence in reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed printed by a Danish newspaper. From burning embassies, to calls to butcher those who mock Islam, to warnings that the West be prepared for another holocaust, those pictures have given us a glimpse into the real face of the enemy. News pictures and video of these events represent a canvas of hate decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate, bigotry and intolerance derived from one source: authentic Islam. An Islam that is awakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel and dominate the world. An Islam which has declared "Intifada" on the West.
Under the banner of Islam "la, ilaha illa allah, muhammad rasoulu allah," (None is god except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) these misled Muslims have followed the advisement of their cowardly iman leaders "die in an intifada and receive a special place in heaven with Allah, enjoying the benefits of 70 virgins and luxurious living forever." Who wouldn't follow?
Our mediocre attitude of not confronting Islamic forces of bigotry and hatred wherever they raised their ugly head in the last 30 years, has empowered and strengthened our enemy to launch a full scale attack on the very freedoms we cherish in their effort to impose their values and way of life on our civilization.
If we don't wake up and challenge our Muslim community to take action against the terrorists within it, if we don't believe in ourselves as Americans and in the standards we should hold every patriotic American to, we are going to pay a price for our delusion. For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and take action. In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, America 's learning curve since the Iran hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat. The longer we lay supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect. "
Have you tried to find/view the cartoons to see why Muslims would destroy and kill over the 'offensive' content? The American media are cowards. They are afraid to publish the cartoons. You can decide for yourself how offensive they are:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm
In response to the notion that the West (or Islam) has ever followed the prohibition against depicting Mohammed, he "Mohammed Image Archive," contains dozens of Mohammed images from throughout history. A must-read.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
'All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.' Edmond Burke
Posted by: HeadInTheSandNoMore at March 8, 2006 11:30 AM
Why is the matter of terrorism even in question? The guy even said he did what he did in the name of Islam. Pack him up, ship him off to Camp X-ray and then have him send us an essay on what he did for his summer vacation. Simple.
And yes Latino, a campus rapist is a terrorist by the very nature of what they're doing. Hope that clarifies.
Posted by: gak at March 8, 2006 11:37 AM
I was part of my campus Bruin Democrats and I'm also a Muslim. However, I'm also gay and honorably served my country, my chain of command liked me and all my evaluations in the Navy were good.
I found in Islam I lacked in Christianity. However, I knew that Islam is going through some growing pains.
My stating of the shahada did not mean I would reject my culture, give myself an Arabic name, start using phrases in the Arabic language like Al-Hamdu-Illah, Mash'allah, or Insh'allah.
I came to this site to converse with people who seem to be to be quite hostile to Muslims and Islam in general.
My interest in Islam was renewed on liberty in al-Manamah, the capital of Bahrain.
I know there are issues that many Muslims must confront, they fail to realize that there should "no compulsion in matters of faith." And one cannot expect non-Muslims to observe what some Muslims consider a taboo.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 11:46 AM
The news media and our idiotic government uses the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" to sidestep the fact that we are in a ***religious*** war and the people, like this guy, are practicing jihad, their religion against us...the non-Islamic people of a non-Islamic government.
Fine...don't use terrorism...use the right words: jihad and jihadi.
at March 8, 2006 11:52 AM
And I hope this guy's lawyer takes it to the Supreme Court under the topic of can a Muslim practice jihad under freedom of religion....that would force our government to face the fact that the Constitution needs to be amended to deal with Islam...namely, it is not a religion: but a complete legal system in the sense of government contrary to our Constitution foundations and seeks to overthrow our government and should be dealt with under sedition.
Posted by: Abby at March 8, 2006 11:56 AM
But this is not a religious war, from my experience in the military, we are an instrument of US foreign policy which means ensuring that cheap petro flows into the gas pumps of American consumers.
Americans feel they have a constitutional right to cheap fuel, whereas, our European counterparts pay more for gas.
Not all Muslims despise or hate the West. In Islam, we see fitnah (civil war among Muslims) and this war is spilling over into the West. Remember how Germans were killing each other over religious differences in the 17th century or the Spanish were torturing "heretics" who went against the teachings of Rome. What once characterized Christianity is now being exhibited by Islam, this is a phase.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 11:57 AM
Abby, I think you are being a little paranoid, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 11:59 AM
To my Gay, Muslim, Democratic, Cadet:
If I shopped for religion like I did for my underwear I would be confused too. Christianity lacked what for you? Non-violent conversion? Love? The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?
You traded that in for conversion through any means...including the sword? World domination? Jihad?
Posted by: Bill at March 8, 2006 12:02 PM
No, I approach Islam through a Sufi manner, I'm not a Sunni.
I liked the sense of a universal brotherhood, simplicity in matters of doctrine and absolute monotheism in the belief of one God, prayer as the supreme act of worship, etc.
Like I said, I know there are some problematic aspects of Islam. But for me, I take a liberal approach to this faith.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:08 PM
Muslim and GAY? You are very confused just like the rest of the Jihadists. That goes against everything in the Koran. Snap out of it....Get help quick before you end up in Pergatory like the rest of the murderous Islamist whackos.
Posted by: Siciliano at March 8, 2006 12:14 PM
Latino,
again , you are spouting slogans and the same mantra the Libs have for years. When the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) were sacking American ships at the very inception of the USA, were they doing it because of our foreign policy to Israel, or oil in Iraq? And before the USA was even created explain Islamic terror throught the world?
Facts are facts, islam spreads by the sword. Enough with the "touchy feel good" attitude. We are not at war with Islam, BUT ISLAM IS AT WAR WITH US.
Jeff Davis
Posted by: MississippiMud at March 8, 2006 12:20 PM
Piracy was a common source of revenue in the Barbary states as well as the enslavement of white European slaves. The daughter of Thomas Jefferson became an adamant abolitionist after seeing "white slaves" in North Africa, which was common practice. Historians estimate that 1.5 million Europeans were enslaved by North Africans in the nineteenth century.
These states would fall into the modern category of "rogue" states.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:26 PM
Ah, Latino. How convenient for you that you were in the military yet you are a Democrat, you are Gay and yet you are a Muslim, AND you are using the nickname latino because, should I guess, you are also latino? Are you also a dwarf with a pegleg and a speech-impediment? I mean, let's not leave out any degree of minority we can can come up with for you.
I suppose you believe that these things give you clarity and purpose and weight for your feeble arguments and defense of Islam.
I will give you this much clarity of my own right now -- Islam is the enemy. I hope you could read that cleary with your eyepatch and that one bad eye you have left.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2006 12:29 PM
Muslim armies never entered the countries of China, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia were we find either sizeable Muslim populations or sizeable minorities who became Muslims as a result of trade and commerce, not the sword.
Catholicism was spread to Latin America via the sword, coercion, and force.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:30 PM
Latino said, "I came to this site to converse with people who seem to be to be quite hostile to Muslims and Islam in general."
I thought about that for a bit. When it came down to it, I guess I am at least disturbed by anyone who can convince himself to believe that a child-molesting serial rapist, highway robber, extortionist and mass murderer is a prophet. I am no architect, but I believe that you cannot build a good house on a rotten foundation.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at March 8, 2006 12:32 PM
"Catholicism was spread to Latin America via the sword, coercion, and force."
And apparently we missed a few targets.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2006 12:32 PM
Foehammer, no need for insults.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:32 PM
Oh, I beg to differ. The time for insults is long overdue. This plague upon my nation and the blindness of our leaders is no longer tolerable. You are reading the preamble for war, my friend.
at March 8, 2006 12:35 PM
I wonder if Latino will ever directly and simply address Marwan'sDaughter's lucidly cogent post.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 8, 2006 12:36 PM
And what post would that be?
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:39 PM
How can any Muslim ever honestly address the realities that surround the history of Islam and Muhammad without coming out an Apostate?
Do not forget there is a reason that the Mullahs prefer to live in 7th century darkness and deem Modernity an enemy of Islam -- it makes it much harder to read foreign texts in that candlelight and even easier to burn them when they are in the hands of those that might actually benefit by them. If we are going to wait for Islam to Enlighten itself, we might as well hang ourselves now.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2006 12:39 PM
Since some of the 9/11 Muslims who flew planes into our buildings had been living as neighbors with us and their children in our schools, with their religious war intentions unknown to us, I would prefer that Muslims move or go back to Islamic governed countries...now. And to implement the Saudi solution in the opposite...make the U.S. soil a no Muslim zone with walled off areas for Muslims to come and do business...just like the Saudi's do with non-Muslims...only opposite.
A significant part of the worldwide Muslim population seeks to dominate and overthrow non-Muslim governments...since the other Muslims are doing nothing worthwhile to stop this...they can all leave the U.S. so that we know our Muslim enemies are not within our borders.
Posted by: Abby at March 8, 2006 12:41 PM
No one is perfect, in Islam we are taught that all the Prophets were human and therefore prone to sinning and infallible.
Look at David, he was a womanizer. Moses was a fugitive of the law after murdering an Egyptian.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:41 PM
This is most depressing.
In much the same way the administration of UNC has it's head buried in the sand by failing to recognize jihad, so too in the Netherlands.
Is everyone here acquanited with the blog Brussels Journal? The blog that was most current on developments in the Cartoon Jihad?
In todya's Brussel's journal there is an entry entiltled: Muslim Vote Tips Balance in Netherlands.
The cancer in Europe is out of control.
Read the last paragraph of the entry: In a borough in Netherlands named "De Baarsjes" the majority of borough inhabitants have voted to remove a "large white cross" erected as a memorial to those who died in WWII. It seems the "large white cross" is located not too far from a mosque currently under construction. The "large white cross" was deemed offensive to a certain portion of the inhabitants of De Baarsjes.
Europe is lost. Jihadists such as Naseem will take comfort in this but I do not. It means that in the not too distanst future America will be called upon to liberate Europe once again from a problem Europe created and allowed to fester. American blood will be spilled to liberate Europe from a sickness of it's own making because Europe is too cowardly to defend itself.
Posted by: omvi at March 8, 2006 12:43 PM
Notice how closely Islam's inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 military conflicts involving the Muslims.
570 - Birth of Muhammad in Mecca into the tribe of Quraish.
577 - Muhammad's mother dies
580 - Death of Abdul Muttalib, Muhammad's grandfather.
583 - First journey to Syria with a trading Caravan
595 - Muhammad marries Khadijah a rich widow several years older than him.
595 - Second journey to Syra
598 - His son, Qasim, is born
600 - His daughter, Zainab, is born
603 - His daughter, Um-e-Kalthum, is born
604 - His daughter, Ruqayya, is born
605 - Placement of Black Stone in Ka'aba.
605 - His daughter, Fatima, is born
610 - Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God.
613 - Muhammad's first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.
615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.
619 - Marries Sau'da and Aisha
620 - Institution of five daily prayers
622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called Yathrib, gets more converts.
623 - Battle of Waddan
623 - Battle of Safwan
623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
624 - Battle of Badr
624 - Battle of Bani Salim
624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
624 - Battle of Sawiq
624 - Battle of Ghatfan
624 - Battle of Bahran
625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
627 - Battle of the Trench
627 - Battle of Ahzab
627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
627 - Battle of Ghaiba
627 - Battle of Khaibar
628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
630 - Battle of Hunsin.
630 - Battle of Tabuk
632 - Muhammad dies.
632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move toenforce Islam in Arabia.
633 - Battle at Oman
633 - Battle at Hadramaut.
633 - Battle of Kazima
633 - Battle of Walaja
633 - Battle of Ulleis
633 - Battle of Anbar
634 - Battle of Basra,
634 - Battle of Damascus
634 - Battle of Ajnadin.
634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
634 - Battle of Namaraq
634 - Battle of Saqatia.
635 - Battle of Bridge.
635 - Battle of Buwaib.
635 - Conquest of Damascus.
635 - Battle of Fahl.
636 - Battle of Yermuk.
636 - Battle of Qadsiyia.
636 - Conquest of Madain.
637 - Battle of Jalula.
638 - Battle of Yarmouk.
638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
638 - Conquest of Jazirah.
639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
641 - Battle of Nihawand
642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
644 - Conquest of Fars
644 - Conquest of Kharan.
644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
648 - Campaign against the Byzantines.
651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines.
654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
658 - Battle of Nahrawan.
659 - Conquest of Egypt
661 - Ali is murdered.
662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule.
666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
677 - Siege of Constantinople
687 - Battle of Kufa
691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
711 - Conquest of Spain
713 - Conquest of Multan
716 - Invasion of Constantinople
732 - Battle of Tours in France.
740 - Battle of the Nobles.
741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr.
746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
748 - Battle of Rayy.
749 - Battle of lsfahan
749 - Battle of Nihawand
750 - Battle of Zab
772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain
References:
Miller, William M., A Christian's Response to Islam, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1976.
Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books, 1999.
Glasse, Cyril, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, 1989.
Morey, Robert, The Islamic Invasion, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, 1992.
at March 8, 2006 12:43 PM
But you fail to realize that most American Muslims are native to this country, the bulk of the Muslim population is African American and they are arguably the "most American" of any ethnic group in terms of their contributions to American identity and culture.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:44 PM
I know that Islam has been associated with violence in its early history, but thanks for the refresher.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:47 PM
Foehammer,
you missed the most obvious in the list of all the group identities. When a non-Moslem becomes a Sufi, one becomes simutaneously both a revert and an apostate.
I also liked that term revert Moslems prefer to use for their newly adopted ideology, it implies a retrograde from a higher state of being or consciousness to a lower state.
Posted by: Lisa at March 8, 2006 12:48 PM
In Saudi Arabia the homeland of Islam, the common word for "Black" is "Abd" meaning slave.
Posted by: MississippiMud at March 8, 2006 12:50 PM
Abdullah means "Slave of God."
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:55 PM
Lisa, you're mistaken.
Revert is preferred in Islamic circles over convert because Muslims believe that Islam is the aboriginal faith that was distorted over generations.
Revert is not a derogatory term.
I guess some jihadis would consider me an "apostate" but there are many like me, and we may not be as vocal as the fundies because we lack a coherent ideological outlook on life.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:57 PM
Latino, neither Moses nor David justified their actions by claiming God told them it was acceptable.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at March 8, 2006 12:58 PM
To put it another way, Islam not only legitimizes Mohammed's crimes, it codifies them.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at March 8, 2006 1:04 PM
Marwan, are you of a Muslim background?
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 1:04 PM
Well I mentioned I follow a Sufi-Chan Buddhist path, one predicated on Baraqa (Universal Love of God) . . .
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 1:05 PM
omvi:
I understand your pain. All I can say is that there will be a reckoning in the years ahead. The West can only tolerate so much insanity. Removing a Christian cross because it is "offensive" to someone is far more offensive to me than any cartoons ever could be. This is the crime that continues daily that the media ignores. Where is the justice?
The justice is at the end of a (fill in the blank), I'm afraid. Some things never change. Islam will bring the entire world to world war in our lifetimes. This much is clear.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2006 1:06 PM
omvi-thanks for posting the info about the vote to remove the memorial in the Netherlands. Depressing.
Foehammer--You are too funny today.
Posted by: former liberal WF at March 8, 2006 1:08 PM
While the question is irrelevant, the answer is no.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at March 8, 2006 1:09 PM
We've captured one! A living, breathing, talking Frumious Bandersnatch! Right here at JihadWatch!
Posted by: jsla at March 8, 2006 1:12 PM
Because Marwan is a Pakistani/Muslim name . . . I know one Pakistani Sufi by this name . . .
I'm sorry, but I'm not a Sunni or Shia, but Islam allows me a personal relationship with God, the God of Abraham and Buddhism is a means of self-improvement, to me the Buddha was a Prophet of God, though he neither denied or confirmed the existence of God.
Call this New Age California Liberal mumble jumble . . . but Islam is not entirely rotten in the core, there are certainly issues.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 1:13 PM
Like I said, I know there are some problematic aspects of Islam. But for me, I take a liberal approach to this faith.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:08 PM
Everyone should respect your right to choose the religion of your choice and one that suits your personal needs. However your statement above should be deconstructed and examined for what it actually means.
What you are actually saying is that you will believe the earlier less aggressive and subversive texts and forgo the later more militant versus. This completely ignores the concept of abrogation which instructs the believers of Islam to interpret the later versus as superceding the earlier ones. At what page do you stop reading? If as a Muslim you believe that the Koran and its teachings are the direct written/spoken word of God how do you or others that claim to be Sufi’s ignore the logic and the purpose of the rest of the spiritual teachings.
One of the purposes of JW is to act as a forum where the implications of worship of the Koran, Hadith and Sura can be laid bare using objective & scientific reasoning. If you examine the conclusions of this work then it is difficult not to assume Islam by its very nature is a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion and therefore is no different than Communism or Nazism. Your following statement:
I liked the sense of a universal brotherhood, simplicity in matters of doctrine and absolute monotheism in the belief of one God, prayer as the supreme act of worship, etc.
Would indicate that at your core you are collectivist. And instead of using rationality and reason to guide your judgment you use emotion and allegiance to a larger and you assume superior organization/group and how it makes you feel inside as a yardstick by which you measure its success. Rather than examining the objective consequences.
The problem is if it makes you feel good inside it does not necessarily mean that it is good for the environment or those that have voluntarily chosen a different path. This is exemplified with the modern battles against collectivist/totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century.
Saying you like simplicity in matters of doctrine to me means that you just don’t want to think about your actions and consequences.
Your statements that we should take a step back and consider other reasons for this Islamists actions despite him explicitly saying that his actions were for Allah and to further the Jihad, simply reinforces the fact that you interpret events by how they make you feel inside and not what the objective facts tell you has happened, this only reinforces how dangerous your line of thinking is.
As I said earlier you are free to choose any religion you want but when your religion starts physically from interfering with how I live my life then action needs to be taken to control Islam’s impact on my life. We can ask that Islam change its core teachings through some reformation or as you prefer you can blindly ignore those parts which make you feel uncomfortable. In my opinion neither of these options is viable as Muslims believe the Koran to be the incorruptible word of Allah and to ignore the parts you don’t like does not guarantee that millions of others will not read the more militant components and follow through on their logical conclusions.
I would ask that you think through rationally why you have chosen Islam and what, are the objective consequences of you believing and preaching in an ideology that at its core is totalitarian and the antithesis of freedom.
at March 8, 2006 1:15 PM
Latino wrote:
"But you fail to realize that most American Muslims are native to this country, the bulk of the Muslim population is African American and they are arguably the "most American" of any ethnic group in terms of their contributions to American identity and culture."
As the product of Irish and Italian immigrants who slaved in coal mines, fought in the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World Wars I & II and Korea and yet barely whispered a complaint, I defy you to say that my ancestors have not stamped an imprint on the United States as great as any ethnic group in America.
But, besides that and thankfully, the vast majority of African-Americans in the United States are still proud Christians.
If African-American Muslims cater to a leader like Louis "America must burn!" Farrakhan, then native or not, they are just as misguided as the rest.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2006 1:16 PM
My nickname here is a reference to Asma bint Marwan, the poet Mohammed ordered assassinated because she dared to write poems mocking him and urging people to resist him. Asma was murdered by one of Mohammed's thugs as she slept with her nursing baby. When notified of her killing, Mohammed laughed and said,"Two goats won't butt heads about her."
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at March 8, 2006 1:16 PM
Latino, can you describe for me the first instance when this aboriginal faith was distorted? For you to claim that the aboriginal faith has been distorted then there must be some original record of this aboriginal faith in existence at the aboriginal time to demonstrate that there has been subsequent deviation from this original record.
Posted by: Lisa at March 8, 2006 1:18 PM
To former liberal WF:
I guess I'm just in a rabble-rousing mood this afternoon. Too much Michael Savage talk radio with my dinners lately perhaps. ;)
Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2006 1:21 PM
Of course, in his mosque in North Carolina Taheri-azar may not have heard anything like what Reda Shata preached in New York.
In the unlikely absence of a pro-murder qitab delivered in the local mosque, criminal investigators must search his apartment, Jeep Wrangler, and the mosque for evidence of the Koran, Hadiths, and Sirat.
These books are terrorist (i.e., Jihad) manuals, and should be given great consideration as evidence of terroristic motive. Criminal instructions don't have to stated out loud; criminals often transmit their motives and plans in writing.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 8, 2006 1:26 PM
This is an issue of faith . . .
Such claims cannot be proven, we cannot prove that Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah is even a real living entity . . .
This is what faith means, you cannot prove it using human logic or reason, one must simply believe.
This is one of the many "myths" Islam is built on . . . just like Judaism and Christianity have their "myths" and "truths"
And Foehammer, I'm not only Latino but Native American (registered Mississippi Choctaw with a Bureau of Indian Affairs card) whose ancestors have lived on this continent for at least the past 10,000 years. But one cannot deny that Blacks have lived in this country for four centuries, longer than most white Europeans can claim, they have endured the indignity of race and slavery, but their contributions in defining American culture is immense and cannot be diminished.
The vast majority of Black Muslims are not part of the Nation of Islam.
Like I said, call me an "apostate," call me the "people of Lut" (Muslim term for homosexual), etc. But I guess I'm a romantist, somewhat of an Orientalist whose embracing of Islam is predicated more on emotion. But I don't think it's dangerous.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 1:27 PM
I guess some jihadis would consider me an "apostate" but there are many like me, and we may not be as vocal as the fundies because we lack a coherent ideological outlook on life.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:57 PM
Yup that about sums it up for me
at March 8, 2006 1:28 PM
.....somewhat of an Orientalist whose embracing of Islam is predicated more on emotion. But I don't think it's dangerous.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 01:27 PM
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH.
OMFG
at March 8, 2006 1:31 PM
If I was a "mainstream" Muslim, trust me, I wouldn't be as civil with you guys and probably hurl insults at you and tell you, "Fear Allah (SWT)."
I don't believe in a khalifa since Jesus stated, "My kingdom is not of this world."
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 1:32 PM
Lisa:
"Latino, can you describe for me the first instance when this aboriginal faith was distorted?"
I can answer that -- it was shortly after Muhammad decided to turn animist bedouin goat herders into monotheistic warmongers and suddenly had everyone reinterpreting that shiney meteoric rock in the corner of the Kaaba as some gift from Allah.
The true 'aboriginal' dieties, in fact, were used at times in the earliest stages of Muhammad's teachings to sway and offer solace to the arguing sects and merchants that Muhammad often found himself in contention with. This is also how the Satanic Verses came about -- a crystal clear example, if anyone cares to investigate, of how Muhammad would manipulate and reinterpret the words he put down into the Koran when it most suited his needs.
Muhammad: "Oops! Scratch that. The Devil made me do it!"
Muhammad: "Um...you goat herders can no longer grovel at that feed of that matronly goat goddess I gave permission to worship last week. Allah has overlooked that idol long enough. Didn't you get the memo?."
Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2006 1:32 PM
km, please reframe from using the Lord's name in vain.
:o)
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 1:33 PM
But are you good in bed, Latino? We're all dying to know! It's so important for the explication of Islam!
Posted by: jsla at March 8, 2006 1:33 PM
"km, please reframe from using the Lord's name in vain."
Splendid! I can barely stand it -- this just keeps getting better and better...
De-Liciously PERFECT. PERFECT!
We'll let you teach us all about reframing!
Exquisite!
at March 8, 2006 1:36 PM
Just like Christianity is infused with pagan rituals, for example, Dec. 25th is the birthday of the Iranian god Mithra and was known as the "festival of Lights."
The Hajj is also infused with pagan rituals.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 1:36 PM
More! More! It is a veritable font of wonderfulness!
Posted by: jsla at March 8, 2006 1:37 PM
Is it me?
Or has this dropped from the main stream media?
The church burners they caught today will be all over the news for weeks. The SUV/9-11 imitator?
Not to be found.
GB.
Posted by: GodfreyBouillon at March 8, 2006 1:37 PM
Latino said, "I came to this site to converse with people who seem to be to be quite hostile to Muslims and Islam in general."
I thought about that for a bit. When it came down to it, I guess I am at least disturbed by anyone who can convince himself to believe that a child-molesting serial rapist, highway robber, extortionist and mass murderer is a prophet. I am no architect, but I believe that you cannot build a good house on a rotten foundation.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at March 8, 2006 12:32 PM
No one is perfect, in Islam we are taught that all the Prophets were human and therefore prone to sinning and infallible.
Look at David, he was a womanizer. Moses was a fugitive of the law after murdering an Egyptian.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 12:41 PM
Latino, neither Moses nor David justified their actions by claiming God told them it was acceptable.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at March 8, 2006 12:58 PM
To put it another way, Islam not only legitimizes Mohammed's crimes, it codifies them.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at March 8, 2006 01:04 PM
Marwan, are you of a Muslim background?
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 01:04 PM
While the question is irrelevant, the answer is no.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at March 8, 2006 01:09 PM
Marwan's daughter seems to be taking her lead from Wafa Sultan's performance recent performance (not to be missed, at memri-tv, http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1050) "bearding" an Islamist live before Al Jazeera's cameras. Bravo for both of these women for cutting through the fog.
at March 8, 2006 1:38 PM
News is about business, and well this UNC incident is not that "newsworthy." It's one of the stories that comes and goes, and only the local community will report on the aftermath and trial.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 1:40 PM
Latino: Pleeeze tell us more! I beg you! I have never seen a more wonderful set of posts, nor a more informed Muslim ever poster. This is the BEST! For once and for all someone who can clear up all the murky things we are so bad at understanding here.
THANKS! A truly HEARTFELT THANKS!
Posted by: jsla at March 8, 2006 1:40 PM
I am sorry latino I do try to refain from using profanity on this site but you are so funny, I couldnt help my self.
I dont mean to be rude, people have asked you some serious questions, why dont you answer them?
I am intrigued as to why you are saying the things that you do. Is it really so easy for you to give away your mind/soul, with out thinking the logic of the belief system through. Just because it feels nice.
There is a reason that you have been blessed with a brain, why dont you use it.
Posted by: km at March 8, 2006 1:41 PM
Latino wrote:
"And Foehammer, I'm not only Latino but Native American (registered Mississippi Choctaw with a Bureau of Indian Affairs card) whose ancestors have lived on this continent for at least the past 10,000 years."
I knew it! And are you a pirate or a ninja?
Latino also wrote:
"But one cannot deny that Blacks have lived in this country for four centuries, longer than most white Europeans can claim, they have endured the indignity of race and slavery, but their contributions in defining American culture is immense and cannot be diminished."
If you knew anything about the Irish people who were raped and murdered in their own homes for more than 500 years by the English and finally starved into a forced emmigration to the United States and Australia, then you would not even continue to go down this path with me. I so tire of people trying to supplant the European American with this talk of slaves and African contributions. It's revolting. The United States is what it is because of the vast majority of white European Americans who died exploring from one coast to the other -- not due to a tiny minority of slaves that were unjustly brought here. I will definitely not diminish African-American contributions, because they have been many, but they certainly are NOT paramount when put into a truly historical and edjucated perspective, but I am very aware that our own history is being re-written even as I type this, in some liberal book publishing house somewhere who has a contract to schools, no doubt, but that is a fight for another time.
Now, I must be on to some real life concerns of my own that do not swirl around the topic of jihad. More likely they are mundane considerations like paying my bills.
Good day to you all.
Foehammer, out.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2006 1:42 PM
I wrote: "I wonder if Latino will ever directly and simply address Marwan'sDaughter's lucidly cogent post."
Latino then wrote: "And what post would that be?"
At that point in the thread, Marwan'sDaughter had only posted one post. Latino has shown himself to be an astute reader who notices and responds to various posts. For him to feign ignorance with that oh-so-disingenuous, "Hm?" attitude smells of taqiyya. All Latino had to do was scroll up and find Marwan'sDaughter's post. Instead, he hopes to buy time by putting off my request that he answer her post; perhaps he hopes I will have given up.
Here is the post by Marwan'sDaughter to which I referred; and I wonder again and now ask directly, will you directly and simply address Marwan'sDaughter's lucidly cogent post?
Marwan'sDaughter's post:
"I guess I am at least disturbed by anyone who can convince himself to believe that a child-molesting serial rapist, highway robber, extortionist and mass murderer is a prophet. I am no architect, but I believe that you cannot build a good house on a rotten foundation."
P.S.: Cornering Muslims to answer simple questions can be a good cardio workout!
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 8, 2006 1:44 PM
I know I have work to do but this thread is so entertaining.
Posted by: km at March 8, 2006 1:45 PM
Latino must be some sort of "performance artist". I can't believe this guy is for real.
Foehammer wrote:
"I knew it! And are you a pirate or a ninja?"
I was going to say crime-fighting detective, but you beat me to the punch.
Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at March 8, 2006 1:55 PM
I'm not diminishing the Western character of this nation, which is rooted with our cultural debt to Europe. I need to work too, so this will have to be my last post.
But as for the question of how good in bed I'm in, let's say I'm the catcher.
at March 8, 2006 1:55 PM
Latino: Think of Islam as the Fugu fish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu
You think you'll be okay just ingesting select pieces of it, but you'll always be in danger from the numerous toxic parts.
Posted by: Shinoliite at March 8, 2006 1:56 PM
Performance artist . . . thanks for the compliment I guess . . .
But I like conversing with conservatives, I'm becoming more conservative as we speak.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 1:57 PM
Islam has met it's match....I do believe that sarcasm reins supreme on this thread!
sigh :(
What were we talking about?
Posted by: champ at March 8, 2006 1:58 PM
It was a polite way of saying "fake", but in either case you are very entertaining.
Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at March 8, 2006 1:59 PM
Latino,
I wouldn’t say that we are conservatives if you stick around you will find there is quite a diverse spectrum of political views on this site. What we are is a collection of individuals who have seen through the charade of Islam and recognize the logical inconsistencies that it make so dangerous as an ideology.
You seem like a nice person I am sure if you hang around and follow what is being said you will come to the same conclusions we have. Consider it a test of real faith, all things are linked at some level and there is a reason that you arrived here, maybe we are all wrong and you are right and you will show this to us. But I would guess you have been brought here to examine more deeply your current spiritual outlook and the logical inconstancies that it is currently peppered with.
at March 8, 2006 2:13 PM
Latino, you sound interesting. We get Very few Moderates muslims (even if you are apostate). Please hang around!
Posted by: Gary at March 8, 2006 2:17 PM
It was a polite way of saying "fake", but in either case you are very entertaining.
He is certainly practising dissimulation. He is deluded, but he is far better informed than he originally wished to appear to be in the character he was using when he first appeared.
He's not John Esposito, is he? :-)
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 8, 2006 2:18 PM
From article: According to some who know him, Taheri-azar recently gave up his heavy marijuana and alcohol use and became more religiously observant.
Does that mean that if muslims stay drunk and stoned, Allah will lose his grip on them?
'Dont bogart that joint my brother, pass it over to me.' Reality smoked from a bong. The Hobits and even the guy with the white robes and long white beard, smoked some exotic herb...it kept them happy, but grew excessive hair on their feet. A muslim with hairy feet, is either a drug addict or a Hobit. Allah does not like Hobits anymore than other non beleivers. He will punish the hairy footed dope fiend muslims every bit as hard as he does Hobits. Allah created all this, and he knows best...
at March 8, 2006 2:20 PM
Mississippi Mud, I've seen counts that peg the number military operations led by Mohammed himself at around 82 or so. That would put the total number of military operations for your timeframe into the several hundreds.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 8, 2006 2:21 PM
Did John Eposito serve in the Navy?
Is he a Choctaw Indian?
Is he a "catcher"?(sic)
at March 8, 2006 2:23 PM
It was a joke. But is whoever it is necessarily telling the truth, anyway?
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 8, 2006 2:29 PM
Yojimbo,
I am not sure, if he is who he says he is he has got to be one of the most interesting people I have ever "met" online.
If not...
Bravo
at March 8, 2006 2:36 PM
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, explodes like a duck, it's a Muslim
Posted by: dennisw at March 8, 2006 2:45 PM
Pig Farmer:
Chronology of early Islam
Notice how closely Islam's inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 military conflicts involving the Muslims...and that is just what I have recorded here. Is Islam a religion of peace? Muslims tell me it is. But....
http://www.carm.org/islam/islam_chronology.htm
Posted by: dennisw at March 8, 2006 2:49 PM
OT - to the British contingent
Has anyone ever seen such a degrading and demeaning exhibition as Jon Snow's "Iran Week" on Channel 4 News? Just as the lunatic president of that benighted country seems to be getting all his ducks in a row for nuclear war, Snow, the arch-American-hater of the British media, decamps to Tehran and Qom and delivers a whole week of "news with an Iranian viewpoint" whose every frame and word proves beyond doubt that it is being backed to the hilt by the mullahocracy. I would say that it is beneath contempt, except that some of the uncontrolled revelations that do come through are, against the intention of the mullahs and their puppet Snow, so telling as to strengthen my view that the only path now is war. (For instance, consider the incredible fact that Iranian scientists are engaged, in Qom itself, in advanced cloning and embryonic stem cell research - the kind of moral monstrosities that conscientious Christians have been fighting all over the world. Faced with this brutal invasion of the holies of all things - human nature - who can possibly take the mullahocracy's claim to religion seriously?)
Posted by: Paolo at March 8, 2006 3:01 PM
At first I thought we were treated to a sighting of that rare and amazing species, the Frumious Bandersnatch -- but when it declaimed: "But I like conversing with conservatives, I'm becoming more conservative as we speak."
It's a Snark! And, furthermore, heaping treat upon treat, we're taming it!
Posted by: jsla at March 8, 2006 3:10 PM
The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifcovik
Trifkovic adds: "On the Prophet's own admission, Islam stands or falls with the person of Muhammad, a deeply flawed man by the standards of his own society, as well as those of the Old and New Testaments … and even by the law of which he claimed to be the divinely appointed medium and custodian. The problem of Islam, and the problem of the rest of the world with Islam, … is the religion's claim that the words and acts of its prophet provide the universally valid standard of morality as such, for all time and all men."
Our author sums up his assessment of Muhammad with the words of Sir William Muir (1819-1905), one of the world's greatest orientalists: "the sword of Muhammad and the Qur'an are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and truth which the world has yet known." No academician today would dare such a judgment.
at March 8, 2006 3:17 PM
Paolo,
Unless Britain wakes up from its left wing, socialist, multikulti dreamstate. It is going to go straight down the invention of that great Englishman Thomas Crapper.
Part of me thinks we should just let it happen, but the implications of this are so mind bogglingly dangerous that we should just do everything we can to stop it. Can you imagine Shaira law commanding her Majesty’s Trident submarines.
The simplest solution is the rise of right wing nationalist parties as a means to counter the massive shift to the left Europe has taken over the past 50 years. It is proving effective in Holland.
But one mention of the BNP gets all the British posters tied up in knots. Try and pin them down on an alternative and they just cant come up with anything. Not one of their solutions ever mentions outright the dangers of Islam. Only the BNP has had the fortitude to do this. And in a time of war you need someone that has the guts to name the enemy for who it is.
at March 8, 2006 3:27 PM
JSLA,
You crack me up the bandersnatch & snark posts were sheer poetry.
Posted by: km at March 8, 2006 3:31 PM
No academician today would dare such a judgment.
That's because truth is no longer the object. Not in academics, not in journalism, not in government.
The object now is to conduct successful transactions within the framework of political correctness (i.e., within the fog of Fictive Reality).
The many delterious effects of PC are inconsequential compared to the violent synergy we are witnessing between PC --- and the the Fictive Reality it imposes --- and Islamic Jihad. That synergy is the stuff from which world history is made.
MORE KORANS MORE HADITHS MORE SIRATS MORE APOLOGY MORE UNICORNS MO!!
After the big bomb goes off, will we finally come to our senses, migrate from Fictive Reality back to the real reality? Or, will we just burrow our ostrich heads in deeper, leaving our feathered asses open to the lip-licking predations of the Moslem Man, who never quits and is always hard.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 8, 2006 3:35 PM
Isn't being gay against everything in the Koran?
I realize that being Muslim enables one to have multiple wives and can molest daughters, friends and family's daughters and wives without repercussions...but a gay Muslim? Did MO do his male counterparts?
at March 8, 2006 3:47 PM
Faced with this brutal invasion of the holies of all things - human nature - who can possibly take the mullahocracy's claim to religion seriously?
I'm in the UK - but I have missed Snow this time round. Lucky me - he is arrogant but extremely shallow.
As to this, I've no particular comment on what the limits of such research should be. But what is Islam about but "to dominate and not be dominated"? That's the point.
There is no notion of "general beneficence" as Robert points out in the PIG.
The "morality" is a collectivist one - what advances the interest of the umma is "good". The "morality" is also about relations of dominance and submission. The whole notion of good and evil is different:
... in Muslim culture, values exist, but the line between good and evil is drawn somewhere else, far away from our understanding. Protecting women against themselves is considered a good action, even if this includes death penalty, as long as family's honor - which is paramount - is saved.
Islam is no more to do with morality, as we would understand the term, than it is to do with religion as we would understand that term. We are in a different universe here. And this isn't merely a matter of a belief-system here: it is also a question of how the young are shaped by their experiences. (A word to the wise: Eth. Nic. 1104 B.)
It's a question of what enters through their senses in, for example, family-life - within a family whose members understanding is shaped by the Islamic belief-system. You see the self-reinforcing cycle here, the vicious circle?
I quote from this article, which I find very revealing. I don't agree with everything that every expert in the symposium says - I'm sceptical, for example, of Freudianism. But, in my view, this is a very rich article, full of interesting (and remarkable and little-known) facts, and giving telling interpretations and insights.
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 8, 2006 3:48 PM
Siciliano
Isn't being gay against everything in the Koran?
Yes - but.
There seems to be an unresolved - and irresolvable - tension here. See comments on this in Robert's Book: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.
See also the article I referenced above. There is a fairly high incidence of what we might call "homosexual" behaviour among Muslims. It is suggested by some of the experts on this panel that this - and various other phenomena - are linked to a fear, a hatred, of women. (Note what is a frequent form of sexual congress between men and women in Muslim societies, and what that mighht tell us.)
Note: I do not think the anyone on that panel is talking about what we understand as a gay lifestyle. Western gays certainly don't seem to hate women.
But maltreatment of women of various kinds, indicating hatred, is a recurrent pattern among Muslims. And no honest person who had looked into the matter would - or could - deny that. This, again, is clearly not unrelated to the collectivist nature of Muslim "morality" nor to the relations of dominance and submission that characterize the Islamic worldview. Muslim "homosexuality" - not gay lifestyles in the Western sense - may well have roots in a feeling that women are inferior.
There is also the practice of genital mutilation - which bespeaks hostility to women, a wish to damage them in their most private parts. In the very part that a man doesn't have.
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 8, 2006 4:07 PM
This student Taheri-azar thus far does not appear to be insane *(Note), he stated clearly that his intentions and objectives were ideological (religious and political) in nature, and his action was violent, most likely intended to kill (not just injure) and was directed against civilians, and instilled fear into them and the larger community. These civilians were targetted simply on the grounds that they were Americans, citizens of the country with which he had his grievance.
How on earth could this not be classified as terrorism?
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Terrorism
"Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.""
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/alqaeda/glossary.html
Does it matter whether or not this incident is called terrorist? If the general public knew about the problems of Islam, it probably wouldn't matter. But most still don't know. Why is this classification of terror being resisted?
----------------------------
*(Note). Insanity is a difficult concept. There is no evidence of a typical biologically-based insanity in Taheri-azar, at least not so far. It appears that he was not criminally insane; i.e., knew exactly what he was doing (was "criminally responsible"). The fact that some of his beliefs are clearly delusional does not necessarily make him criminally insane. Nevertheless, the apparent grip of the Islamist cult mentality in this case raises interesting questions about what constitutes sanity and insanity. (E.g., Are the Mohammad cartoon rioters and killers "criminally responsible," or is the grip of the cult so strong that as to remove this capacity?). If we assume that beliefs are implemented biologically in neural networks in the brain, then obviously something has gone awry in these networks when these cultish beliefs are established. (But he still appears criminally responsible).
I don't want to speculate too much about this individual's psychology before we have more facts, but think about the more general cases, such as fanatics who murder over cartoons. What this all comes down to is that inculcation of the darker side of Islamic ideology results in massive moral impairment. These jihadists, such as Bouyeri (Van Gogh's killer) appear to feel no remorse of their actions. Indeed, they are proud, happy with their actions, and think their actions are righteous. There are natural individual (personality) differences in moral standards and moral thinking ability in the population (due to a variety of factors, some of them biologically-based). People who are lower in moral ability and higher in egotism may be attracted to the more violent, coercive, and supremacist aspects of Islamic ideology. Also, exposure to these darker aspects of Islamic ideology may cause reduced moral ability and higher egotism. What we see overall, in the trouble with Islamists, could be the combined effects morality-impairing ideology and a morality-impaired individual personality. (This is in addition to all of the other causal factors at work).
A good analogy for Islamism is organized crime. The two are almost indistinguishable. You have some individuals in the population more inclined to it, and you have an organization with its own belief system and code of conduct which permits all kinds of moral violations against non-members in the pursuit of the organizations goals.
at March 8, 2006 4:29 PM
km - listen to what the British contingent tells you. The BNP is a bunch of thugs, and resorting to it to oppose Muslim violence is to resort to a cancer to fight another. You have not seen them or heard them; we have. I have absol
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)