2 Corinthians 6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 9, 2006 8:11 PM

Hi Robert

I did a blog post the otehr day called '"ow to Talk to a Muslim (If You Must)"
http://the-gathering-storm.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=323688

What do you think of my analysis? Or anyone else, for that matter.

My apologies to Ann Coulter (How to Talk to a Liberal – If You Must) but I’ve thought a lot about all the discussion about radical Muslims, moderate Muslims and every type of Muslim in between.

My question is this. If moderate Muslims exist, are they still Muslims?

Try this experiment. When you meet a person who claims to be a Muslim ask them these two questions.

1. Which nation do you owe allegiance to? The country you live in of the ummah?
2. Do you adhere to the Sharia Law or the secular laws of your country?

If their answers are:

1. The ummah
2. Yes

You are talking to a real Muslim. If other than those answers, ask them why they consider themselves true Muslims? Isn’t there a contradiction here? Aren’t true Muslims members of the body or nation of Islam called the ummah and owe there allegiance to that? And shouldn’t Muslims follow the Sharia Law first, and the laws of the country the live in second?

I know these are leading questions similar to “When did you stop beating your wife?” but they raise an interesting idea. If true Muslims pledge allegiance to their host country and do adhere to secular law above Sharia law, then how do they reconcile the teachings and tenets of Islam today?

The Koran, like most religious texts is froth with contradictions. The Bible teaches, for example, an ‘eye for and eye’. But at the same time it says ‘vengeance is mine said the Lord’. While religious scholars debate these contradictions ad nausea, mankind has evolved a society called democracy ruled by non-contradictory secular laws - something amiss in Islam and nations that call themselves Islamic republics.

So let’s try and simplify the contradictions for the adherents of Islam using the religious approach and the Bible as an example.

Simply put, the Old Testament presents a vengeful God willing and able to destroy non-believers at a stroke of His hand. Sodom and Gomorrah and the Great Flood are good examples. The New Testament, on the other hand, reveals a loving God who sent His only Son to earth to save mankind. Though Christians believe in both the Old and New testaments, they choose to follow the basic tenants of the New Testament.

Islam has the same opportunity if it wishes to take it.

It is said that there are really two basic pieces to the Koran. The first piece was the early years of Mohammed – the years when he taught the gentle, tolerant version of Islam. The other piece records a more hateful Mohammed after his words were not obeyed and had to wage war on the infidels and force them to follow the laws of Islam.

The solution?

Rearrange the Koran not by the size of the verses but by the loving and tolerant period and teaching of Mohammed – which Islam’s apologists always raise in defense of Islam – followed by the intolerant phase of Mohammed’s life – the teachings of that phase that the radical use for the rationale of Jihad.

Am I saying the Koran can be neatly organized that way to remove all contradictions? No. Even the New Testament has its intolerant parts (revelations for example). But it would be a start for moderate Muslim to adhere to their faith without facing the contradictory questions I pose earlier.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at May 9, 2006 8:16 PM

All the above is a clear indication why laicism works best, and the church and state need to keep to separate entities.

Posted by: Canadian Infidel at May 9, 2006 8:17 PM

From the original article

Tell us more, O Wise Sage of The Mysteries of The Mohammedans:

Facts - 1) Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

...except for India, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Albania, Turkey, and a half dozen others besides (see above), this is so very true!

It's interesting how Eskay bunches India with a whole bunch of Islamic shitholes, as though India being a democracy was something that happened at the behest of its residual Mohammedan population, rather than the Hindus & Dhimmis who remained. Not to mention that just because the country has 130m Muslims, who are 13% of the population, it is an Islamic country.

Oh by the way? The largest democracy in the world is India. Who's India's president? Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam--a Muslim! I guess someone better tell him that democracy can't exist in his religion, and he should resign and start obeying his nearest mullah, right?

The other major notable thing about this man is that he is not a typical Muslim. He has been an accomplished scientist in India's nuclear program. But given that he hardly practices Islam, (and is jokingly referred to as "Kalam-Iyer" by Indians) he is the worst specimen that one can use if one wishies to show model Muslim practitioners of Islam. If all Muslims were like him, nobody would be complaining.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 9, 2006 8:46 PM

Why is it that most people are content to believe anything they are told as long as it is nice (Islam is a religion of peace) rather than confront the unpleasent attitudes and actions that are right there before them. If one looks at the world today it seems that Muslims are involved in most of the more terrible things going on in this world. Why is it that the black leaders in this country are not demanding some hard answers from the Arab Muslims about what is going on in Africa?

Posted by: elad at May 9, 2006 9:03 PM

I would hardly call Indonesia and Turkey "democracies". I suspect that as soon as the dictatorial practices of Indonesia's Sukarno and Suharto were pointed out to Esmay, he would quickly blame US and CIA covert support.

The fact is, Indonesia and Turkey have, throughout their post-Independence histories, by and large used an anti-democratic iron fist -- and that is the main reason why their Islam has the superficial trappings of appearing more moderate: only where Islam has been suppressed with an iron fist (Turkey, Indonesia, Tunisia, Morocco, the Shah's Iran, for a while Saddam's Iraq) has the natural grassroots intolerance of Islam been kept relatively at bay.

Posted by: Television at May 9, 2006 9:07 PM

more to the point why do christians allow non christians to tell us about the bible?..and jesus answered him,saying it is written,that man shall not live by bread alone.but by every word of god...at time jesus said that,there was no new testament..cover to cover the bible is the word of god...you part it at your own peril.sorry but if you know the truth and say nothing you are a dhimmi.

Posted by: campingman1 at May 9, 2006 9:32 PM

Anathema has already been pronounced upon all the followers of islam. They are damned and only the jaws of hell itself awaits them. We have the absolute promise that satan cannot prevail and since islam is satan worship they cannot prevail and therefore they are damned. It only remains for us to pray for the souls of the damned, as we do every Sunday, that they should see, and receive, the light of Christ.

We need not tell the truth in the respect of the moslem, for we have already been forgiven for not doing so (Sylvester). We need not hold to our contracts with them (Benedict). We need not support them in law (Shenouda XVI). Pope after Pope after Pope after Pope has pronounced anathema upon them and upon islam. Parish priest after parish priest after parish priest, in all the sects of Christendom, have warned us about the musulman. What more do you want? Let us treat them as they treat us! The moslem believer is worthy of only one thing - our compleat and utter contempt. It astonishes me that anyone could ever think otherwise.

They are people without the law - without morals, without values, without, most importantly, any compassion. They have voluntarily rejected the values of good, and of God, and must now suffer the consequences. They have embraced, and let no man doubt it, the way of the great satan. As Christians (or agnostics or atheists) in our modern secular ways, we will not 'slaughter the innocents', as it were, but we will defend ourselves against this new age of darkness that the the moslem horde seeks to introduce. We should fight against their darkness in every way that we can.

To realy mix up my quotes I will not go gently into that good-night. (pace Dylan Thomas).

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 9, 2006 9:38 PM

"The other major notable thing about this man [Kalam] is that he is not a typical Muslim. He has been an accomplished scientist in India's nuclear program. But given that he hardly practices Islam, (and is jokingly referred to as "Kalam-Iyer" by Indians)..."
-- from a posting above

Kalam is what is called a "cultural" Muslim. He is not about to announce that he does not believe that the Qur'an is an uncreated text, the literal word of God, nor is he going to say that, come to think of it, Muhammad is not "uswa hasana," not "al-insan al-kamil." Why would he?

But he reads the Bhagavad-Gita, apparently every day. Whether that is out of curiosity, out of the need for spiritual refreshment, out of some other desire or need, it still is something that would, in a real Muslim, be scarcely thinkable.

Those Muslims who are "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims should not be used by anyone as examples of "what Muslims are like." As well hold up Oskar Schindler as a typical member of the Nazi Party, or Andrey Sakharov as a typical Soviet man.

For that matter, holding up Turkey as an example of how Islam and democracy go together, misses the point of Kemalism completely. The systematic effort, over many decades, to constrain Islam as a political and social force in Turkey, and to entrust the task of guarding that legacy to the army, did make, in Turkey, a limited kind of democracy -- one far beyond anything achieved of elsewhere in the Muslim lands -- and one which existed only becaues of those constraints on Islam.

Islam is a collectivist faith. It is a faith of the Community, the Ummah. Individual rights, without which Western-style advanced democracy cannot exist, itself cannot exist in any Muslim country precisely to the extent that that country's laws come close to the Shariah. In every truly Muslim state -- Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban -- that is, in every state where the Shariah is closely followed, there are no rights of the individual. Not freedom of speech, not freedom of conscience -- the two basic rights without which the others are meaningless.

Turkey is a "democracy" only because, and only to the extent that, Islam in Turkey has been constrained. And that is true for the other examples adduced by Esmay.

Posted by: Hugh at May 9, 2006 9:44 PM

Robert -- Thanks for taking the trouble to fisk Esmay.

I read his entry this morning and was annoyed by its consistent bending over backwards for Islam. I was tempted to respond, but you have done a far better job.

Posted by: hgwells at May 9, 2006 9:50 PM

As for Mali, it is in West Africa, where syncretism (and the weakness until recently of full-bodied Islam to impose its presence) has long been the rule. For god's sake, there are still marabouts, and all sorts of practices that the good doctors of Al-Azhar, not to mention the ayatollahs of Qom, or muftis and imams all over the orthodox Islamic world, would find objectionable. The same for Senegal.

Here and there local differences which have nothing to do with different doctrines in Islam but merely with the extent of the non-Islam presence, as in Indonesia, where n places with large Hindu or Buddhist or Christian populations, Islam has been tempered in its practice, but in other islands, such as Aceh, where there are no pre-Islamic remnants left, the Islam is of the full-bodied orthodox, intolerant, supremacist, dangerous kind.

Posted by: Hugh at May 9, 2006 9:51 PM

You have patience.

Esmay makes much of these "Muslim soldiers" in the American army.

Let's talk about those soldiers. Let's start with the one who threw the grenades at sleeping officers, killing two of them, because they were fighing Muslims and he was loyal to the Ummah. There is that Marine who deserted, and then was found, and had that press conference pledging his undying loyalty (ending "Semper Fi") and then escaped again, and is now somehwere, a desertor and a traitor, in Lebanon. There is that sailor, perhaps not yet discovred, who was reported to be volunterring to relay information from a ship in the Persian Gulf.

Then there are the handful -- does Esmay know how many -- of Muslims who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan as soldiers, who fought perfectly acceptably. Well, how many, exactly? Leave aside the Iraqis who lived in America, and had their own reasons having nothing to do with the protection of Infidels for removing Saddam Hussein (for that matter, the same is true for Afghanis living in America who wanted to overthrow the Taliban). Tell us how many Muslim-Americans have, in proportion to that population (here it would be best for Muslims if the inflated figures they use for "Muslims in America" were not used -- it would put things in an even starker light).

Now, ordinarily when immigrants fight for the United States, the whole immigrant community celebrates them. Their pictures are put in store windows, or on the glass-fronts of barber shops, and so on. Think of World War I and World War II. The Greek, Hungarian, Jewish, Italian, Irish, German names, and the pictures of the soldiers, and the local pride, and the clear hope that this would demonstrate that they were "real" Americans.

Perhaps the most astonishing example of this is the 442nd Regiment -- of Japanese-Americans. While some of them were put into camps in California, Japanese-American soldiers were determined to prove themselves. Did they? Indeed they did. Everyone knows that that regiment fought all the way up Italy. In fact, the last time I was at Fort Jackson, I visited the museum there, and saw bound copies of Stars and Stripes from the Second World War, and I opened at random, to an article about the medals awarded in that most decorated of all regiments. Think of what that meant.

Now look at the handful of those Muslim soldiers. Celebrated? Do you have CAIR or any Muslim group, celebrating any of these soldiers? Anyone suggesting that Muslims should be in the forefront of those fighting, just the way those in the 442nd Regiment were, and bemedalled, put paid to all kinds of worries and doubts.

No. There is none of that.

Why not? Esmay should spend the summer reading, and not merely reading but digesting, the Qur'an and the Hadith (a few hundred, in al-Bukhari and Muslim, will do), and also taking care to comprehend how Muslims interpret or fail to, the Qur'an. Without studying abrogation, without understandiing the real meaning of a phrase(including something as seemingly innocuous ans "strive in the path of Allah" which is not innocuous at all), and without studying how, over 1350 years ,Muslims took those phrases, what they made of them -- see Bostom's "Legacy of Jihad" for a sampling of what Western scholars of Islam, from a dozen countries, who had spent their entire lives immersed in the study of Islam and Jihad-conquest, made of the doctrine of Jihad and its undeniable sources -- undeniable, that is, except to those who have "really nice Muslim friends" who are "as loyal as they come" (or other missing-the-point credulity for which the rest of us should not be expected to pay, or to risk our lives so that Mr. Esmay can feel good about himself).

One more example of mental laziness, holier-than-thou piousness (moral superiority, you see, to all those who would question Islam -- such as, for example, Ibn Warraq, or Ali Sina, or Azam Kamguian, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who by all accounts (which have just reached me), did not give an inch at Harvard when Muslim questioners offered the usual tu-quoque-and-taqiyya blend at question time.

But what does Ayaan Hirsi Ali know about Islam? What does Ibn Warraq know? What does Ali Sina know? What do tens of thousands of intelligent apostates know about Islam -- the minute they leave Islam, every single Qur'anic verse they learned in madrasas (which both Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali attended), every single Hadith they grew up with, magically disappears from their heads. One minute before they declare their apostasy, and they know all about Islam. The minute they declare that apostasy, they cease to know a thing about Islam.

Magic.

Posted by: Hugh at May 9, 2006 9:54 PM

One of your best pieces in awhile, Robert. You blew holes in every argument and supported it with more fact than I had time to click on.

It is important that you continue to have such energy at the keyboard, because I simply do not see anywhere close to enough people delivering this kind of truthful information to the American public. It is still like shouting into the face of a hurricane.

But, I applaud you, sir. Your tenacity will long be remembered, your honesty admired.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 9, 2006 10:01 PM

Hugh,

You make a damn important point about Muslim-American military contributions and how little the Muslim-American community hails them. I think you have hit upon a topic that you might consider really chewing on more.

It brings up real emotions when we start to remember how we reacted to, supported and fought the World Wars. This nation of ours is still very young. For any immigrants to come here and not jump at the chance to impress the rest of America is a very, very telling faux pas.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 9, 2006 10:08 PM

But everything Esmay says about Islam has no weight or place in Muslim theological thinking.

He is an unbeliever, and thus his flattering considerations are charmingly meaningless.

Only Muslim scholars can pass on the main interpretations of the Koran, and the essence of Islam, not kafirs like Esmay.

His broad, gooey, vapid and shrill arguments, and un-reassuring platitudes, make the victim of his over-kill seem pithy and restrained in comparison.

(Let him ask Muslims he knows to answer these "moronic" questions as honestly as they dare.)

He's out of his spitball league in penning Apologetics for an Alien Creed.

As if Osama needs an Ed McMahon.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 9, 2006 10:15 PM

Hugh/

As far as many of us are concerned

TURKEY IS AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY

Forgive me shouting, please, but most people forget that the white sheep turks have no right to be there. I still mourn for Trebizond, for the great Armenian kingdom, for byzantine Constantinople - the City built opposite the blind - for the Imperium that gave a great light to Christendom. It is Constantinople that is chiefly on my mind and the modern bastardisation of 'Stamboul is nothing more than our acceptance of dhimmitude. This I will not do! Six hundred years of accepting their version of events. NO THANK YOU. Hagia Sophia in their hands. NO THANK YOU.

You can keep your Attaturks and your Turkey. You can keep your sweet reasonableness of the twenty-first century, your modern fight against islam, your current world view, if only we could turn the clock back, politically, and win that very first fight. Turkey, I spit the word out, Byzantium is ours. Neither the white, nor the black, sheep Turks have a right to it.

I would willingly and without the slightest compulsion sacrifice all of them to restore the sacred Empire - and I doubt that I'm alone!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 9, 2006 10:16 PM

But, of course, I am dreamer, for it will never happen.

But see this, we lost The City and we have lost every battle since. We never supported Venice, or America against the Barbaries, or the UK aginst the pirates in the Indian Ocean or in The Straits. We are losing it folks. Constantinople was just the first. Goodness only knows how many since, but I'll bet Hugh could tell us - no sarcasm intended, just respect for learning.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 9, 2006 10:28 PM

I don't think this guy Esmay understands that Islam is a totalitarian political organization and what this means for the western world. The people who run the mosques can and will force violent Islamic doctrine on the masses of Muslim followers(as they almost always have in the past). The implication is that Muslims have little choice but to do what their religious leaders tell them to do.

Now it may appear that Muslims in the western democracies wish to be 'good' citizens and it is definitely possible that many Muslims really do. But Muslims who refuse to do what their mosque authority figures tell them to do --as for instance provide logistical support for Islamic attacks on the infidels--could well end up being brutally murdered for insubordination. 14 centuries after the official founding of Islam the world has seen absolutely NO reduction in Islamic brutality either--so there is little reason to suppose Islam and its directives will become less violent anytime soon.

Esmay does not understand that Islamic doctrines effectively close off all possible bridges between the Muslim and non-Muslim world and the great tragedy for the world this is. He's wearing blinders and thinks they are sunshades.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 9, 2006 10:32 PM

Many appear to think that only the most reactionary Slavophils wanted, in 1914, when non-Muslims constituted 50% of the population in the city, to seize Constantinople. No. It was not only those who wrote, as did Tiutchev fifty years before, of putting the Cross back on Hagia Sophia ("Krest nad Svyatoy Sophii), but also the liberal head of the Constitutional Democrats (Kadets), Prof. Paul Milyukov, who urged the Russians to take "Tsargrad." Those liberals were a different kind than those who use the same title today. They saw Islam as the blackest retrograde force, the reason for Turkish atrocities against the Bulgarians in 1874-76, the Turkish and Kurdish atrocities against the Armenians in 1894-96, and that was without even knowing about what was to come, for the Christian Armenians, from the Jihad declared in Istanbul in 1915.

Had World War I not occurred, had the Russian Revolution not succeeded (a little more effort from the American, British, and Czech expeditionary forces, and more than a mere 19,000 men, might have made a difference), perhaps "Tsargrad" would have been seized, and the civilizing mission -- the de-islamizing mission -- of Russia might have been undertaken in Turkey, by a liberal regime in St. Petersburg, and not in Central Asia, by a Soviet regime in Moscow.

Posted by: Hugh at May 9, 2006 10:33 PM

Ah, Dean Esmay; he of the quick "Islamophobe" trigger. He's so far invested into "the Religion of Peace" template he should be considered an Islamic apologist.

As for his article: it only shows anybody can be a slugger in teeball. But he's still wrong, spectacularly so. Mr. Spencer dealt with the Theological arguments, but after that we have the weight of 14 centuries of Islamic violence to decide whether, indeed, Islam is a moderate wonderful religion.

Posted by: Ruy Diaz at May 9, 2006 10:36 PM

Esmay is wrong about this as well:

-quote-
Furthermore, the word "infidel" is a Christian term. It was invented centuries ago by Christians to describe Muslims, Jews, idol-worshippers, and other non-Christians….
-end quote-

This has been pointed out to him by one of his commenters on this thread from his site:

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1142973382.comments.shtml

Specifically with this by commenter Mckiernan:

-begin quote-
Wrong. An infidel as used by the Apostle Paul was a non-member of the Christian community not one that rejected the faith. An infidel was an in + fidelis (latin- not of the faith). An infidel didn’t have to deny anything (a heretic) nor deny a religion (an apostate). Most of the infidels had no knowledge of the early Christian faith. They were the infidels by virtue of their being outsiders to the early Christian communities not by being morally bad. In fact, some of the baptized Catechumens were also consider infidels. Apostates, heretics etc all came later. BTW, the Apostles did not directly dictate to King James in 1611 because, well, he was a heretic and a scotsman but not an infidel. Course, all, that’s changed as Ruhalloh Khomeini gave new meaning to the word, beheading.
-end quote-

I'm not sure why he continues to insist that it is an invention of Christians, much less that it is a Christian term given that Muslims use it more than Christians... I guess it is a matter of linguistics- how you define who a word belongs to...

Posted by: Harkonnendog at May 9, 2006 10:39 PM

Robert--

Just one question.

When you wrote the piece, was it with, or was it without, love and squalor?

Posted by: Hugh at May 9, 2006 10:49 PM

Thomas Paine:

"The Bible teaches, for example, an ‘eye for and eye’. But at the same time it says ‘vengeance is mine said the Lord’. While religious scholars debate these contradictions ad nausea...."

For the above, normative Judaism (Orthodox),and Talmudic scholars do not debate the above (except in details), nor are they contradictory.

"An eye for an eye" is the value of an eye for an eye in a civil injury case. It is part of a mishpat (Hebrew law) that follows the formula "if you do this act, then you have to do/pay this in damages." It does not mean that you should put someone's eye out.

All the quotes about G-d's vengeance have to do with:
1)the fact that G-d is the ultimate judge of human behavior, and you reap what you sow.
2)Humans are supposed to train themselves not to be vengeful (that is G-d's purview), and if they do slip, there are various punishments provided, for example, Levite cities of refuge were established in part so that if one person killed another accidentally (manslaughter), the killer could escape the possibly vengeful family members to a city of refuge where he/she had to remain (and not leave) until the local high priest died.
3)The extent and type of G-d's vengeance (which is really justice because everything that G-d does is good, although we as limited humans may not be able to see that)is beyond understanding in detail by humans.
4)G-d established a covenant with the Jews at Sinai which basically read that G-d would bless the Jews if they behaved as good people and would curse them if they behaved otherwise.

"Simply put, the Old Testament presents a vengeful God willing and able to destroy non-believers at a stroke of His hand. Sodom and Gomorrah and the Great Flood are good examples."

I assume that you are referring to the Tanach. It on the contrary depicts a just G-d who sets down rules. When the rules are violated, G-d brings justice. (When the rules are obeyed, G-d brings justice too). Revenge (or vengeance) is a human emotion. It is inappropriate to ascribe this emotion (as known to humans) to G-d, as G-d is ultimately unknowable. For your examples, S and G 's inhabitants were known to behave very badly. It was not in fact that they indulged in homosexual gang rape (which they did) which clinched it, but that they were rich but very mean people who went out of their way to exclude others in material ways, so selfish in fact that even though Avraham bargained with G-d, down to if there were ten righteous people in S and G, G-d would not destroy the cities, there turned out not to be even ten, that's how bad it was. The flood came because humans had gotten so bad that robbery was the total norm, to an extent unimaginable. People had sunk to such a low point that G-d decided to wipe out almost everyone and start all over again.

In fact, Jews believe that G-d is merciful as well as just, to the extent that G-d's justice is usually tempered with mercy, and that we do not in fact generally receive the level of punishment we merit by our behavior.

I am only giving the tip of the iceberg here of Jewish religious and philosophical thinking...but the description you have given is both an oversimplification and a distortion.

Normative Judaism has not "rejected" the Tanach description of G-d and reinterpreted it. This description of G-d by Jews has held in substance for thousands of years. It is people who are ignorant of Judaism or people who have some other agenda (sometimes negative, sometimes misguided) who present it otherwise.

Posted by: HaMalach at May 9, 2006 10:54 PM

Hugh, oh Hugh,

If only. Thanks for the references. I will away and look them up, but if only, if only. (And I thought I was alone!)

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 9, 2006 11:00 PM

What are the roots of the Islamic chant – “There is No God but Allah”?
This may not have been a statement against Gods of other religions – but a way to cleanse that religion of its own extra-deities, namely the Three Daughters of Allah – of which al-Lat was known or worshipped widely throughout the Mediterranean as a Moon Goddess - as far as Greece, Rome and possibly Spain.

Where al-Lat meant the Goddess – al-Lah meant the God.
_________
Here is a passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica* on the history of the development of Mecca – that shows something of these early Arab's customs and religious beliefs and of the foundations of the Islamic faith today.
_________
Mecca under the Quraysh clans.

Around the year 400 CE Mecca had come under the control of a group of Arabs who were in the process of becoming sedentary, they were known as the Quraysh. During the generations before Muhammed’s birth in 570, the several clans of the Quraysh fostered a development in Mecca that seems to have been occurring in a few other Arab towns as well.

They designated Mecca as a quarterly haram, a safe heaven from the intertribal warfare and raiding that was endemic among the Bedouin. Thus Mecca became an attractive site for large trade fairs that coincided with the pilgrimage (hajj) to the local shrine, the Ka’bah. The ka’bah housed the deities of visitors as well as the Meccan’s supra-tribal creator and covenant-guaranteeing deity, called Allah. Most Arabs probably viewed this deity as one among many, possessing powers not specific to a particular tribe; others may have identified this figure with the God of the Jews and Christians.

The Meccan link between shrine and market has a broader significance in history of religion. It is reminiscent of changes that had taken place with the emergence of complex societies across the settled world several millennia earlier. Much of the religious life of the tribal Arabs had the characteristics of small-group, or “primitive,” religion, including the sacralization of group-specific natural objects and phenomena and the multifarious presence of spirit beings, known among the Arabs as jinn.

Where more complex settlement patterns had developed, however, widely shared deities had already emerged, such as the “trinity” of Allah’s “daughters” known as al-Lat, Manat, and al-Uzzah. Such qualified simplification and inclusively, whenever they have occurred in human history, seem to have been associated with other fundamental changes – including increased settlement, intensification of trade, and the emergence of ligua francas …, all of which had been occurring in central Arabia for several centuries.

*Encyclopedia Britannica are not permitted in Saudi Arabia

Posted by: Pass It On at May 9, 2006 11:02 PM

Hugh/

Silly thing to ask Robert, really. I have no idea who said this but "Love has nothing to do with what you are expecting to get, it's what you are expected to give -- which is everything."

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 9, 2006 11:05 PM

ye worship ye know not what,we know what we worship for salvation is of the jews.john 4:22

islam belives gods promise should fall to ishmael and not isaac.jesus was showing us that salvation is of the jews....not islam. as far as a muslim jesus i refer to... then if any man shall say unto you.lo,here is CHRIST,or there believe it not.mat:24:23....for there shall arise false CHRISTS and false prophets,and shall show great wonders,insomuch that.if it were possible,they shall DECEIVE the very elect. mat:24:24...the hidden imam on a white horse and a muslim jesus...would be the ultimate twilight zone.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 9, 2006 11:09 PM

Anyway, "Nunc scio quit sit amor", and surely squalor can never enter into it, or have I missed the point, entirely - more than likely, actually, because I am an idiot, sometimes, and a fool for love.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 9, 2006 11:11 PM

"Silly thing to ask Robert..."
-- from a posting above

A man in Cornish, New Hampshire begs to differ.

Posted by: Hugh at May 9, 2006 11:11 PM

Hugh/

All I know of Cornish, New Hampshire is that it is where Augustus Saint-Gaudens, the sculptor, lived. I only know this because one of my heroes, Winston Churchill spent time there, as , I believe, did President Woodrow Wilson.

Forgive a young and obviously under-educated man and explain futher, please.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 9, 2006 11:22 PM

Not quite on topic, but we shouldn't forget about this travesty that was once covered at Dhimmi Watch. In order of appearance:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009117.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009383.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009526.php

And now this most recent update:

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/&articleid=271248

Posted by: Aiken Bryce at May 9, 2006 11:24 PM

Well, you've been to the National Gallery. What do you think of De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period?

Posted by: Hugh at May 9, 2006 11:24 PM

I liked Jamie Glazov's formulation, over at Frontpage Mag, some time back:

Islam is what Islam does.

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at May 9, 2006 11:28 PM

All the above is a clear indication why laicism works best, and the church and state need to keep to separate entities.
Posted by: Canadian Infidel at May 9, 2006 08:17 PM
++++++++++++++++

Canadian Infidel, your comments are blatantly wrong and unwarranted.

It happens repeatedly that those that have a distaste of religion continue to attack those of us that believe. Research in America shows that the majority of Americans believe in God. Why do you that do not believe in God continue to demean those of us that believe in God??

Separation of the ideals of religious order from the state and our governing morals has lead to PCness and the current situation that we are in.

Secularism and the so called separation of church and state is destroying America as surely as islam wishes to destroy our nation.

If we are to be successful in this war against islam, then the finger pointing and unwarranted comments about Christianity and the other peaceful religions have to cease.

We can agree to disagree.

We have a foe in islam that is greater than our debates concerning Christianity and non-believers in America. If we do not defeat islam there will not be any more debates about Christianity and non-believers for there will no longer be any FREEDOMS IN AMERICA OR ACROSS THE WORLD.

If Islam prevails, you will convert to islam or be executed.

This is a greater threat than anything that the world has faced.

We need to bury our differences or we will be buried.

When someone posts on this site and insults either side, that individual needs to be swiftly dealt with as to their unacceptable posting.

Remember, we are in a fight for our very survival as a nation and civilized world.

We can either fight and live free, submit to islam or die.

The choice is yours.

I choose freedom.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost and the cost will be immense.

Posted by: Texican at May 9, 2006 11:34 PM

Hugh/

Danke Schon. Alles ist klar. And it's A Perfect Day for Bananafish. I really must read Salinger. So many books, so little time!

I love this site!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 9, 2006 11:35 PM

Islam Uncovered

Here is an interesting look at Islam from a Hindu perspective – which claims many of the Islamic practices and words as their own.

***********
According to Encyclopedia Britannica and Séance Islamia the Arabs are ignorant of their own history of the pre-Muslim era. By a strange euphemism they call it a period of ignorance and darkness. Probably no other country in the world has deliberately written off a 2,500 year period of their own history by systematically stamping out and snapping all links with the past. They have wiped the memories of preMuslim era off their minds. So while they chose to remain ignorant of their past ironically enough it is they who dub the pre-Muslim era as a period of ignorance.

http://volker-doormann.org/the0.htm

Allah is a Sanskrit word. In Sanskrit Allah, Akka and Amba are synonyms. They signify a goddess or mother. The term Allah appears in Sanskrit chants while invoking goddess Durga i.e. Bhavani. The Islamic word Allah for God is therefore not an innovation but the ancient Sanskrit appellation retained and continued to be used by Islam.

Mecca is also a Sanskrit name. Makha in Sanskrit signifies a sacrificial fire. Since Vedic fire worship was prevalent all over West Asia in pre-Islamic days Makha signifies the place which had an important shrine of fire worship.

Coinciding with the annual pilgrimage of huge bazaar used to spring up in Makha i.e. Mecca since times immemorial. The annual pilgrimage of Muslims to Mecca is not at all an innovation but a continuation of the ancient pilgrimage. This fact is mentioned in encyclopedias.

From this preIslamic time exist also reports about the goddess in Arabia. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, wrote in the 4th century C.E., that the Nebataens worship a virgin 'Chaabou'. He also has heard the name of kabu, ("rectangular stone"), as a symbol of the goddess "Al'Lat". An Arabian scribe had said to him, that a stone with four sides was worship as "Al'Lat", which is named in a Nebataen inscription as "Mother of gods". Epiphanius said, that the male deity 'Dusares' (dhu Saar) (Greeks call him: Dionisos) was an offspring of the virgin 'Chaabou'. The title of the goddess 'Al'lat' is "Mother of the gods". The "Great Mother of the gods" of the Babylonian was 'be Ælet ilaµni' ("Queen of gods"), and this her title was also "Mother Goddess".

The (male) Moongod 'Hub-Al' was also called Wadd = "The Lover".

Al-ilat or Al-Lat ("The goddess") was visualized as the daughter of "Al-lah" ("The god") as the lord of the Ka'bah in Mecca.
Venus (Al'Uzza) and the ascending, increasing, crescent Moon in the East are still maintained as a symbol in Islam.

ENTRY OF NON-MUSLIMS FORBIDDEN

As the pilgrim proceeds towards Mecca he is asked to shave his head and beard and to don special sacred attire. This consists of two seamless sheets of white cloth. One is to be worn round the waist and the other over the shoulders. Both these rites are remnants of the old Vedic practice of entering Hindu shrines, clean shaven and with holy seamless spotless white sheets.

According to encyclopedias Britannica and Islamia the Kaaba had 360 images. Traditional accounts mention that one of the deities among the 360 destroyed, when the shrine was stormed, was that of Saturn, another was of the moon and yet another was one called Allah. In India the practice of Navagraha puja that is worship of the nine planets is still in vogue. Two of these nine are the Saturn and the moon. Besides, the moon is always associated with Lord Shankara. A Crescent is always painted across the forehead of the Shiva emblem. Since the presiding deity at the Kaaba shrine was Lord Shiva i.e. Shankara, the crescent was also painted on it. It is that crescent which is now adopted as a religious symbol of Islam. Another Hindu tradition is that wherever there is a Shiva shrine the sacred stream of Ganga that is the Ganges must also co-exist. True to that tradition a sacred fount exists near the Kasba. Its water is held sacred because it was regarded as but another Ganga since pre-Islamic times. Muslim pilgrims visiting the Kaaba shrine go around it seven times. In no other mosque does this perambulation prevail. Hindus invariably perambulate around their shrines. This is yet another proof that the Kaaba shrine is a pre-Islamic Shiva temple where the Hindu practice of perambulation is still meticulously observed.

****************
Islam is embarrassingly ignorant and it wants to take over the world!

Posted by: Pass It On at May 9, 2006 11:40 PM

outstandingly moronic email, ...stupid letter ,
...The message Esmay got is indeed filth...
.
.
.
I must have missed something. The original emailer asked this~
.
The Simple Question is:
Can Muslims be Good Americans?
Can a devout Muslim be an American Patriot and a Loyal American Citizen at the same time?

From everything I've read in his email statements, except for the geography point and putting 100% of muslims in the same category, since there will always be a few exceptions, he seems to be correct.
Not moronic, stupid or spouting filth. Did I misread?

Maybe I have been reading this site wrong or Mr. Spencer's books incorrectly. I thought a devout muslim could not be a loyal American citizen. Not if they were devout. Only a 'bad' (cultural) muslim could be a good citizen.

If the original emailer is wrong then I should stop spreading Mr. Spencer's books around and go back to my real life. Stop begging people who don't want to hear it to read this site. Stop making people think I'm a rightwing nut for telling them that islam is dangerous and evil and a threat to our nation and all western nations. There is nothing to worry about except for a tiny minority of extremists, most muslims are good citizens and friends to all just like they say.

There's no threat.

Why are we here again?

Posted by: Borg at May 9, 2006 11:54 PM

Allow me to throw some light upon a present day perplexity.

There are over a billion muslims on the planet, or at least over a billion people who nominally profess islam.

So if islam is as intrinsicaly violent as some say, well then why aren't all of those muslims, over a billion strong, out there acting like Atta, Osama, Zarqawi, et al.

Thus how are we to account for apparently "normal" muslims, when we're told that islam is such a violent, bloodsoaked creed, a totalitarian faith?

I think that states the problem rather well.

A traditional Catholic can provide the answer, which is..........................NATURAL LAW.

Natural Law defined is "nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid." God has given this light to all men, and thus it is UNIVERSAL in its precepts and its authority. Allow an authority from antiquity to more fully acquaint you with the notion: "For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense .... To replace it with a contrary law is sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely." Thus CICER, Rep. III, 22, 23. The law is called "Natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, BUT BECAUSE the REASON which decrees it, properly belongs to HUMAN NATURE. It is a thing of ours, by virtue of our making.

ASSUMING ARGUENDO it exists, just bear with me here, we can make perfect sense of the mystery of the normal muslim, contrasted against a totalitarian creed.

Because when a muslim refuses to partake of innocent blood, when he refuses to initiate sex with a 9 year old girl, when he refuses to subject his wife, his spouse, to physical and mental abuse, when he refuses to engage in taqifya, {spelling ?}, when he refuses to see himself at the apex of a caste system, where he receives the fruits of jizya, to which the non-muslim must subject himself, WHEN HE DOES ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE, he is merely CONFORMING TO A PREEXISTING moral law, which 1,300 plus years of islam has no prayer of WHOLLY EFFACING. The Natural Law PREEXISTS islam, preexists the state, preexists the Church, preexists all society. It adheres to man, uniquely and permanently. Sure, islam can warp conscience, sure conscience is not inerrant, and thus there are some issues that are up for debate, but that is PRECISELY what you would expect for man, WHO IS FALLEN, and thus only glimpses the truth through a fogged glass, a tinted screen.

Were you to say that there were different strokes for different folks, you would be repeating a cliche with a surface validity, but of late, a cliche that has not undergone SIGNIFICANT scrutiny for quite some time, in our relativistic era.

For instance, is there a society that praises patricide, or matricide? Is there a society that PRAISES the theft of your brother's wife? Is there a society, a culture, that extols cowardice in battle, that extols treason and treachery to family, and to nation?

Get the picture, there are VAST commonalities that transcend cultures, and apply semper, et pro semper, always, and for always.

Why is courage not simply a virtue, but a cardinal virtue, and a trait that meets with universal approval? I could continue at some length upon this vein, BUT LET US RETURN TO THE ISSUE OF THE MUSLIM, VIS-A-VIS islam.

To conclude, when the muslim declines to participate in modern gang rapes, when the muslim declines to participate in modern razzias, when the muslim declines to answer the call to jihad, when, in the depth of his soul he condemns osama and all his works, he does so in conformity to the design of his maker, AND NOT in accordance with the tenets of his faith.

THUS in the case of the "normal" muslim, WE MUST ASK OURSELVES if he is acting CONSISTENT WITH the Natual Law, or if he is acting in accordance with and pursuant to the Koran, the Haddith, the Sunna. And when he declines jihad, when he declines rape, when he declines pillaging, when he declines falsehood, is he acting in accordance with islam, OR IS HE ACTING in the teeth thereof, are his actions DESPITE islam, in violation of the tenets thereof.

Is he in short VIOLATING the clear injunctions of islam, because he is adhereing to a preexisting Natural Law, which speaks to his conscience.

Posted by: Dan at May 9, 2006 11:56 PM

Ruy Diaz~ I admire your westernresistance blog (found thanks to fjordman).

Posted by: Borg at May 10, 2006 12:05 AM

We must maintain the possibility of redemption of the ordinary muslim, while maintaining the proper right, if it is called for, to thoroughly excoriate islam, AND if necessary, TO THOROUGHLY DENOUCNE IT.

Every facet, every feature, every tenet, every dispute, every aspect, every day of its long 1,300 plus year history, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REVIEW DE NOVO, ABSENT political correctness, in accordance with nothing other than the light of reason granted to us as men.

And to that, we must, to repeat a phrase from our glorious past, "pledge our lives, our fortunes, our SACRED HONOUR."

Posted by: Dan at May 10, 2006 12:06 AM

Hugh/

Funnily enough, I'm going to NatGal this Saturday 'coz I'm showing a friend round the jolly old village and she wants to see the Stubbs and the Wilton Dyptich. I'll think of you when we're there. We're going on to the Tate afterwards to see the Constables and then to the Bramah Tea Museum. I've booked dinner at Jerrolds, too - well, I am a member (simply had to swank a bit, here). You sound as if you know this city as well as I do, so I'll think of you as we wander round. Sunday we'll take Eucharist at Southwark Cathedral because a friend of mine will be officiating there and we'll do Evensong at St. Martin-in-the-Fields (hard by NatGal, as, no doubt, you know).

I promise you that we will wander into the Square and salute the Admiral - remember, it wasn't just the Battle of the Nile, he dealt with the Corsairs as well.

Just thinking of all this makes me realise just how much we could lose if we're not careful. One day, maybe, I'll entertain you to London - hopefully before it's too late.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 10, 2006 12:07 AM

Hugh: Here's an unheralded (by Muslims) Marine
LT Col Asad Khan, USMC of Pakistan origin. I saw him on Discovery Times, an Afghani referred to him as that American officer with an "interesting name", probably unable to deal with a Muslim with a Pakistani name serving as a commanding officer in the corps.

Then there is General Abi Zaid (Abizaid). Zaid sounds like an Anglophone rendition of Sayid meaning a descendant of Muhammad, actually so common that the term Sayyid has come to mean Mister, just like Hijo de la Goda (Hidalgo) become a Spanish term for gentleman.

Lt Col Khan: His battalion landing team consisted of 1,197 Marines. The 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Division. Over 3,000 mountainous, treacherous Afghani miles. April, May, June and July 2004.

They killed 100 enemy. They captured 131 enemy. They confiscated large weapons and ammunition caches. They initiated over a quarter million dollars in civil affairs projects.

One Marine was killed. There were zero incidents of fratricide. There were zero incidents of collateral damage.

His Marines and their over a hundred vehicles took on the enemy daily - hundreds of miles from the closest forward operating base. Asad Khan, or, “the old man,” fought out front with the lance corporals.

Colonel Khan has been inspired by: John Archer LeJeune, possibly for his strategic skills. By Holland (Howlin’ Mad) Smith, possibly for his “I’m coming after you,” attitude. By Black Jack Pershing, possibly for his foresight in influencing the enemy. But no one inspired Khan more than those who fought along with him in Afghanistan.

While being nicknamed “Genghis,” must be borne of his ferocity of mission, he certainly lacks the viciousness of that iconic warrior; he loves his Marines far more than Genghis ever would have.

Posted by: Nariz at May 10, 2006 12:22 AM

A man can be a Christian or a patriot, but he can't legally be a Christian and a patriot--except in the usual way: one of the two with the mouth, the other with the heart. The spirit of Christianity proclaims the brotherhood of the race and the meaning of that strong word has not been left to guesswork, but made tremendously definite- the Christian must forgive his brother man all crimes he can imagine and commit, and all insults he can conceive and utter- forgive these injuries how many times?--seventy times seven--another way of saying there shall be no limit to this forgiveness. That is the spirit and the law of Christianity.

Well--Patriotism has its laws. And it also is a perfectly definite one, there are not vaguenesses about it. It commands that the brother over the border shall be sharply watched and brought to book every time he does us a hurt or offends us with an insult. Word it as softly as you please, the spirit of patriotism is the spirit of the dog and wolf. The moment there is a misunderstanding about a boundary line or a hamper of fish or some other squalid matter, see patriotism rise, and hear him split the universe with is war-whoop. The spirit of patriotism being in its nature jealous and selfish, is just in man's line, it comes natural to him- he can live up to all its requirements to the letter; but the spirit of Christianity is not in its entirety possible to him.
The prayers concealed in what I have been saying is, not that patriotism should cease and not that the talk about universal brotherhood should cease, but that the incongruous firm be dissolved and each limb of it be required to transact business by itself, for the future.
- Mark Twain

Posted by: patriot4 at May 10, 2006 12:26 AM

Dean claims that "parts of the Bible ... say people should be stoned to death for blasphemy or adultery". Robert suggests "...while no Jews or Christians take such verses literally..."

It's easy for non-Christians to assume that something in the Old Testament is a directive for living our lives today. It's called the "Old" Testament because it describes the "old" way of doing things (including stoning adulterers, murdering our enemies, etc). The conclusion most Christians arrive at is that the "New" way (the New Testament) is a better way to live our lives. This is the "Jesus" part of the Bible, i.e. the Christian part.

Muslim apologists and atheists will often say that the Bible advocates a lot of crude methods. The Old Testament is really the story of how people in ancient times searched for God, what worked, and (more importantly) what didn't work. Even though Christians study it (in order to put the New Testament into perspective), it can't be quoted as something that Christians use as a definitive guide for daily living.

Posted by: José at May 10, 2006 12:33 AM

Allah is a Sanskrit word...

Pass it on

With all due respect, this is a load of garbage. I saw claims similar to this in the mid 90's, on the usenet newsgroup soc.culture.indian. The claim that the Ka'aba was a Shiva lingum is not only ludicrous, it also undermines genuine Hindu cases of their shrines being destroyed by Muslims, which in the Indian subcontinent was 10,000.

Making ludicrous claims like the above, that Islam was in large part derived from Hinduism, is just going to make those who reproduce the claims, let alone those who make it, as laughing stocks. Same thing goes for those who claim that the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple called Tejo Mahalya.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 10, 2006 12:33 AM

Hugh

How do you define a "cultural" Muslim? I thought it was somebody who for identification purposes was an infidel, but in terms of seclar practices, imitated Muslims. Like an infidel who enjoys Urdu or Arabic poetry, Halal food like kababs and mughlai chicken, et al. Kalam, with his reading of the Gita, or his following living a Brahmachari lifestyle, could more accurately be described as a nominal Muslim (a Sufi that he is), but a cultural Hindu.

A better example of "cultural" muslim would be most Delhi politicians, including the BJP's Vajpayee & Advani, who never fail to throw Iftar parties during Id. If you were to look in Delhi for a leading figure not attending Iftar parties, don't be too surprised if the only person you find absent from such events is Kalaam.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 10, 2006 12:42 AM

Twain was dead wrong in that post.

Christ nowhere abrogates loyalty to state, ethnicity, country, kingdom.

Nowhere.

Sure, he creates a Kingdom that transcends such claims, but that does not mean that on the earthly plane, such obligations still exist.

What the answer he delivered to a Roman soldier: "Be content with your pay...." There wasn't any admonition to drop your sword, or you will surely perish in Gahenna.

Twain was a bright guy, clearly, but on issues of faith, he was apt to be out of it.

Posted by: Dan at May 10, 2006 12:45 AM

Borg-- for what it's worth, here's why I find the letter "moronic":

At least at the link "Dean" presents as a possible point of origin, it is presented alongside links to "Adult Sites," "Adult Jokes." Such tasteless material alongside a criticism of someone else's religion 1.)contributes to notions floated by the likes of of "moslemguy" that Christianity encourages depravity, and 2.) generally makes the impression that critics of Islam of any stripe are not to be taken seriously.

Moreover, it links to things like like "Uses for the Koran" which list activities that... well, let's just say if anyone did that to a Bible, they'd be chasing him with tar and feathers. Let's not abandon the Golden Rule just because Islam's double standards give its adherents a freer hand to ill-treat whomever they please.

As for the content of the list, many points are partially true, but are tritely stated, overly generalized, and not backed up or explained.

Just to hit a few:

#1: that Muslims allegedly cannot be loyal Americans because "they worship Allah, the moon god of Arabia."

That alone doesn't make any waves. One can be an animist, for instance, and not have any national or regional allegiance: That's the same moon outside my window that shines over any other place.

#2 and #3: "Based on scripture and geography." Very shaky points, similar to suspicions people such as the Know-Nothings used to harbor about Catholics in America. Even JFK was asked as a presidential candidate if his ultimate allegiance was to America or Rome.

# 6:

Based on Political Values or Alliances - NO.
Because all Muslims must submit to the Mullah
(spiritual leader), who teach annihilation of Israel
and the destruction of America, the great SATAN.

There are a number of fundamental misunderstandings of the structure of Islam (as well as noun/verb agreement) in this statement.

#8 "Based on Intellect - NO."
Intellect? Either a poor word choice, or outright bigotry.

"Friends" like the purveyors of this dreck are worse than the enemy.

Posted by: Shinoliite at May 10, 2006 12:55 AM

Patriot 4, you have posted this previously and I will reply to you again.
A man can be a Christian or a patriot, but he can't legally be a Christian and a patriot--except in the usual way.
++++++++++

I will forgive the bastard for being the enemy as I take his life and send him to see God.

So get off you Christian bashing ways and remember why we are here.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost and the cost will be immense.

Posted by: Texican at May 10, 2006 12:55 AM

Bravo! Robert, your response perfectly exemplifies the reason I am a faithful reader of JW/DW. Brilliant...absolutely brilliant.

Posted by: Xero G at May 10, 2006 1:00 AM

Why are we here again?

Posted by: Borg

Ah, well. Do you want the short or the long explanation? The short explanation is very long and the long explanation is even longer than the short explanation but only by a degree of longness and all is relative - but not short, or long - depending on where you stand, or not (sometimes) - but Never on a Sunday.

Funny shaped guitars sounding all plangent, evocative landscapes and beachscapes in slomo, Hugh Fitzgerald doing overly sentimental, but highly literate - probably vaguely Homeric - voiceover as the sun goes down over a wine-dark sea.

Death of Western Civilisation because nobody cares. Fade to titles.

Production - GOD
Special Effects - Moses Inc.
LX - Trickery.com
Best Boy - Well, really, don't tempt me!
Costumes - Channel, of course. Who else, silly, it's my fantasy.
Dhimmi Extras provide by Bush, Blair and Co.
Mad and farcical dictators courtesy of Iran Jihad Productions.
Post production Supervisor - Libya Gaddhaffi always-late Inc.
Post production Executives - Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson (think about it!)
Lighting - "for I am the light to lighten your darkness" - guess it's back to God again. "Let there be light".
Treasury - Pat Robertson - well, at least he's honest.
Apologetics - Bush, Blair and Co.
Script - PC. Dhimmi and Certitude, Writers to the Signet - but not for much longer.

Major catchphrases from the newly released film "Fisking the Islamaphobes" (Copyright Robert Spencer Productions, 2006) - 'Fisk that'; 'I'm all fisked out'; 'Fisk you'; 'I'll fisking have you'.

All rights reserved. Coming to a screen near you, soon.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 10, 2006 1:37 AM

Anyone read Hirsi Ali's new book The Caged Virgin and have comments? It's offered on Amazon...

Posted by: traeh at May 10, 2006 2:20 AM

Hugh,

Regarding your question, "When you wrote the piece, was it with, or was it without, love and squalor?"

I will only answer that I am grateful to have emerged from the exercise with my F-A-C-U-L-T-I-E-S intact.

Yrs
Robert

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 10, 2006 3:23 AM

I've never yet seen an argument that could defeat Robert's nuanced, fact-based and admirably humane reasoning. He succeeds because he never tries to defend a falsehood. He defends only statements that can really be defended and readily yields in the rest. It makes him amazingly effective. And he is always scrupulous in both tone and content in not tarring all Muslims with the same brush. In his epistemological modesty he doesn't even really generalize about Islam. If an opponent says such and such is not true about Islam, Robert simply sidesteps any general metaphysical argument about what Islam "is" and says something like, "fine, but you don't have to convince me. Please convince all those Muslims who believe Islam is that which you deny it to be. Teach them the 'true' interpretation. I sincerely wish you success." Robert thus returns the whole discussion to irrefutable specifics, and gives specific references to the many Muslims and Muslim groups who believe in the 'false' interpretation of Islam as supremacist. Or he shows concretely, for example, how all the main schools of Islamic jurisprudence are inimical to religious freedom, women's equality, human rights. As for Robert's manner, maybe he has no need of vitriole and unfriendliness in his arguments because he only picks arguments where he knows his stuff so well that he always wins on the merits; so insult or hostility is not needed as an added weapon or crutch; but more likely his calm friendliness is simply the result of respect for individuals as individuals, which prevents him from feeling any fanatical need for others to agree with him. In any event, it's instructive and edifying to study his arguments and style.

Posted by: traeh at May 10, 2006 3:55 AM

Robert has already given a sober and methodical rebuttal to Dean Esmay's post.

Dean Esmay's post illustrates the case of someone who wants to believe the best, who is convinced of the rightness of his views. Unfortunately, he shows that he does not have a sufficient grasp of the Koran, and he does not cite sufficient support for his firm convictions, which are now widely-publicized, about the alleged compatibility of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. He goes off on a tangent, professing his own ideas about what Islam is, instead of making a thorough reading of the Koran, and tafsirs.

I will add a few points, focussing on the issue of whether Christians' and Jews' beliefs were acceptable to the author(s) of the Koran.

Notes.

-Allah will mock Christians when they burn in Hell, asking them Where are the partners (e.g., a divine Jesus) now? (40:73, 28:62-64).

Allah only accepts Islam (3:85; 3:19, also 6:153 follow not other ways). 3:113-116 distinguishes between those among the People of the Book who believe in Allah and the Last Day vs those who do not; those who do not will go to hell. 30:12-16 says Christians on the Last Day will be divided among those who believe in Islam versus those who do not. Those who do not will go to hell. This view is also discussed in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105 (this report expands on Koran, 9:30). The claim of some that Allah accepts Christians and Jews is not correct, unless we accept Mohammad’s idiosyncratic version of what a Jew or Christian is supposed to be. In addition, once Mohammad brought his revelations, Christians and Jews were required to accept Islam. Those from among the Jewish and Christian populations who converted to/embraced Islam (exclusively) would be rewarded as full Muslims in society and in the hereafter. Those Christians and Jews who rejected Islam were the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (see above, 98:6). Also, the imposition of the punishing dhimmitude “option” (9:29) rules out any idea that Christianity and Judaism were acceptable (though they were viewed as better than pagan idolatry).

Here is the passage containing 5:82, which Robert cites. You will note that it leads to 5:86, which condemns to hell everyone who denies Allah's revelations (including those alleged to be transmitted through Mohammad).

Hilali-Khan translation (all parenthetical or bracketted insertions are theirs).

5:78. "Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of Dawud (David) and 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). That was because they disobeyed (Allah and the Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds.
5:79. They used not to forbid one another from the Munkar (wrong, evildoing, sins, polytheism, disbelief, etc.) which they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do.
5:80. You see many of them taking the disbelievers as their Auliya' (protectors and helpers). Evil indeed is that which their ownselves have sent forward before them, for that (reason) Allah's Wrath fell upon them and in torment they will abide.
5:81. And had they believed in Allah, and in the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and in what has been revealed to him, never would they have taken them (the disbelievers) as Auliya' (protectors and helpers), but many of them are the Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).
5:82. Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikun (see V.2:105), and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.
5:83. And when they (who call themselves Christians) listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of the truth they have recognised. They say: "Our Lord! We believe; so write us down among the witnesses.
5:84. And why should we not believe in Allah and in that which has come to us of the truth (Islamic Monotheism)? And we wish that our Lord will admit us (in Paradise on the Day of Resurrection) along with the righteous people (Prophet Muhammad SAW and his Companions)."
5:85. So because of what they said, Allah rewarded them Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), they will abide therein forever. Such is the reward of gooddoers.
5:86. But those who disbelieved and belied Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), they shall be the dwellers of the (Hell) Fire."

Here is a respected tafsir (commentary) of the key verses.

Al-Jalalayn tafsir, 5:82.

“You, O Muhammad (s), will truly find the most hostile of people to those who believe to be the Jews and the idolaters, of Mecca, because of the intensity of their disbelief, ignorance and utter preoccupation with following whims; and you will truly find the nearest of them in love to those who believe to be those who say 'Verily, we are Christians'; that, nearness of theirs in love to the believers is, because some of them are priests, scholars, and monks, devout worshippers, and because they are not disdainful, of following the truth, as the Jews and the Meccans are. This [verse] was revealed when the Negus's delegation from Abyssinia came to him (s): when the Prophet (s) recited ..., they cried and submitted [to Islam], saying, 'How similar this is to what used to be revealed to Jesus!'. God, exalted be He, says:”

Al-Jalalayn tafsir, 5:86.
“But those who disbelieve and deny Our signs - they are the inhabitants of Hell-fire.”

Whenever one reads a verse in the Koran that appears to be tolerant, one must read along for a few more verses to find out what happens to those who don't accept the full Islamic package.

Christians and Jews who fail to convert to Islam (Pickthall translation, verse of dhimmitude):

9:29: “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by his messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay tribute readily, being brought low...”

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:
Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi:
We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, Jo Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) " (parentheses in M. Muhsin Khan’s translation).

Posted by: Archimedes at May 10, 2006 4:05 AM

Hugh,
Agree with you. Turkey has limited democracy because islam has been contained.
Texican
Agree with you. The Civilized world has a common enemy. We need to hit hard, but we do not have visionary leaders. They are on the crude gravy train and don't think of what is going to happen just 10 years down the line. Mister President, I don't know who said this.

"My Lord, if there is going to be trouble, let it be in my time, so that my child may live in peace."

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 10, 2006 4:15 AM

Everywhere you look these days you find nothing but teasers, appeasers & obfuscators & apologists for the cult of Islam. Check out the latest edition of Newsweep magazine, where editor Fareed Zakaria tells us again that its all just the "tiny minority of extremists", that OBL has no real following in the Islamic world, that all is well and really, there is nothing to see, just move on...."

Ah: I nearly forgot: NOT EVEN THE SHARE-MARKED MOVED! Triumphantly he points out that the west "yawned" about the latest bombings of the tourist hotels in the Sinai.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 10, 2006 4:21 AM

In addition to your other comments on this thread, Hugh, I found helpful your remarks explaining the relatively liberal character of Indonesia, Senegal and Mali.

Posted by: traeh at May 10, 2006 4:34 AM

"The Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has been one of the world's foremost advocates of democracy, urging all Muslims to vote and be a part of the democratic process both in his homeland of Iraq (which is now a democracy) and around the world. He says voting and being part of democratic processes is a fundamental duty of all muslims. But I guess those Grand Ayatollahs don't know much about the Islamic faith huh?" --Dean Esmay, quoted above.

Robert has already pointed out some of Sistani's intolerance. Here is another statement of that great paragon of tolerance, Sistani who Dean Esmay wittingly or unwittingly, supports:

Al Sistani orders death of homosexuals
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/sistani.htm
Bostom has had this statement verified by three independent Arabic translators
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21719

Iraqi police 'killed 14-year-old boy for being homosexual'
By Jerome Taylor
Published: 05 May 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article362151.ece#Scene_1

...and, back to the Christianity-Judaism-Islam compatibility issue, check out these articles:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,411903,00.html

"In an interview with SPIEGEL, television imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, perhaps currently one of the most influential Islamic scholars around, magnanimously conceded that there is also room in heaven for devout Christians and Jews. But on his Arab-language website a short time later, he made it clear that he believes that Christians and Jews are ultimately nothing more than infidels."

Here's what the Palestinian media promotes:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=82128

Posted by: Archimedes at May 10, 2006 5:07 AM

...I forgot to add the most likely reason why Sistani supported democracy: Sistani is Shia. The majority in Iraq is Shia. Voting will put the Shia in power. (My apologies if someone has already noted this conspicuous point).

Posted by: Archimedes at May 10, 2006 5:20 AM

...sorry Robert! (You have already nailed that point).

Posted by: Archimedes at May 10, 2006 5:21 AM

Serious concerns voiced in Europe about Islam in the military
___________
Dutch Worry About Radical Muslims in the Military

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/trackback/1045
General Bert Dedden, the retiring MIVD chief, said today in the newspaper De Stem that the Ministry of Defense has started procedures to oust a radical Islamist from the army. According to Dedden about ten Dutch soldiers are known to adhere to Salafism, Wahabism or other forms of extremist Islam. These people can be a danger to Dutch national security, the general explained, because they can persuade others to become disloyal to the army or because they have access to protected buildings or grounds. “We try to prevent the disappearance of sensitive information, weapons or other material,” General Dedden said.

Austria: Muslim Soldiers Refuse to Salute Flag

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/928
From the desk of Paul Belien on Tue, 2006-03-21 13:18
Last week three Muslim conscripts of the Austrian army refused to salute the Austrian flag because this was incompatible with their faith. The Austrian paper Die Presse (18 March) reported that three soldiers of the Maria Theresia barracks, where most of the 1,000 Muslim soldiers serve, refused to salute the flag at a parade and instead turned their backs on it. The soldiers were not disciplined. However, an imam was summoned to issue a fatwa stating that Muslims are allowed to salute the Austrian flag.
Austrian Army officers have complained that Muslim conscripts – about 3,5% of the Austrian armed forces – are unable to do most jobs because they have permission to pray 5 times a day, no matter what job they are performing at the time. Some who attend Friday Prayers stay away for the rest of the day.

Posted by: Pass It On at May 10, 2006 8:02 AM

"Sistani is Shia. The majority in Iraq is Shia. Voting will put the Shia in power."
-- from a posting above

If the Shi'a Arabs constituted 19% of the population, as do the Sunni Arabs, they would not have been any more enthusiastic about "democracy" (that is, the voting) in Iraq as the Sunnis have proven to be. And voting, of course, without more, hardly constitutes "democracy." The idea of the individual citizen was and remains absent from Iraq, and from Muslim countries generally (save where, here and there, Islam has been constrained and other ideas have filtered in, as in Turkey) and from Iraq's going-through-the-motions "democracy.. It was a collective act. Save for a very few, those who call thesmelves "secularists" (round-and-about the Allawi list) most of those ini Iraq voted as members of groups, as Kurds, as Sunni Arabs, as Shi'a Arabs, for those whom their leaders had told them to vote for. It's a start, of course, but it's also a finish. In Turkey, what democracy was achieved occurred after, and not before, Islam had been constrained by a ruler determined to limit its power, and who was, as a war hero and strongman, not as a "democrat," in a position to do so. No Muslim country, following ordinary democratic means, conceivably will constrain Islam --- quite the reverse. In mere head-counting, without the experience of several generations, schooled in the need for the rule of man-made law that guarantees the rights of individuals, the more primitive will ordinarily prevail.

Posted by: Hugh at May 10, 2006 8:10 AM

There are stories of a handful, just a handful, of military with Muslim names -- such a small number that each is known by name -- who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Fine. But should one generalize on the basis of that handful of the unrepresentative? Wasn't that what was done by those making policy in Iraq who listened to Iraqi (largely Shi'a) exiles? Those who had their own reasons for persuading the Americans to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, all those plausible, Westernized, secular people wh had spent 20, 30, even 45 years in the West (Chalabi had been out of Iraq since 1958), and who predicted that every westernized, secular, pluasible people is known.

Often one finds that the serviceman in question entered the army a long time (10, 20 or more years ago), and is now engaged in what he regards as helping the people in Iraq and Afghanistan (which he is). But should the military and other security services, in this country, and in Europe (where the security problem is even greater) bet the safety of their own Infidel populations and institutions on the blithe and no doubt soothing notions of those who want to believe, who insist upon believing, that there is no problem of loyalty to the Infidels being feigned, and loyalty to the Ummah being either deeply, or newly, felt. A problem difficult to talk about, embarrassing to consider. But there.

Posted by: Hugh at May 10, 2006 8:29 AM

Dan,

Twain was in no way wrong about what he wrote, and, contrary to your assertion, Christ was rather clear about loyalty to things other than your god:

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon." Mat 6:24, words of Christ

Furthermore, Christ was also clear on matters of resisting, much less defeating, evildoers:

"But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person." Mat 5:39, words of Christ

If I had to put you in the category of either serving god or being a patriot, then I would put you in the latter category where I am. The mujahedeen-appeasing pacifists are closer to Christ's message, and I hold them in contempt for it as I see them as willing assistants in the destruction of all of us.

Posted by: Loundry at May 10, 2006 8:44 AM

The false beginnings of Islam and it's false claims and it's false prophet must be challenged with the truth at every opportunity.

Israel is not doing this and thus is validating the evil claims of islam.

Posted by: moderationist at May 10, 2006 8:56 AM

"Simply put, the Old Testament presents a vengeful God willing and able to destroy non-believers at a stroke of His hand. Sodom and Gomorrah and the Great Flood are good examples."

The above quote from your reader, Thomas Paine, has enough contradictions in it to form the basis of a masters thesis. Paine has it right when he says "Simply put"... but it takes no energy to refute what he says if one looks for a second beneath the surface, or considers how the axiom "The Torah has seventy faces" proves his generalization wrong. Let it suffice to just contradict the first sentence.

Vengeance and destruction? How about the liberaton from Egypt? The feeding of an entire nation for 40 years in the desert? The many statements that one must have love and compassion towards one's fellow creatures? The teachings of compassion for lower animals? The sonorous beauty of the prophet's messages of peace, compassion, and justice? Such examples are so inherent in the text's passages that it's easy to put the lie to "Paine's" crass generalizaton.

"The sword comes into the world because of justice delayed and justice denied." ----- Midrash.
The punishments mentioned in the Hebrew Bible were not directed against "non-believers" but against societies and individuals in which injustice and violence had become rampant to the point that their own crimes had overwhelmed them. This is a reflection of harsh reality: If you build a society upon violence and inustice, there are consequences; if you build a society on the law of compassion, peace, and justice, that society will experience unbounded blessing. This is simply the harsh reality.

The stories in the Bible are metaphors.

"Love and sweetness" are not exactly the exclusive property of the Gospels, wherein one finds statements of Jesus which, simply put, can also be used to justify horrid consequences: He who is not with me is against me, etc. and the statements declaring that non-believers will burn in eternal hell.

Could people with a theological axe to grind, like "Thomas Paine," please stop using this forum as a sounding board for theological grudges and spin?