| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"Creed of the sword: Islam has to accept that its militants find support for violence in their faith's teachings and should pursue reform, writes Mark Durie." Durie in The Australian (thanks to all who sent this in) makes some pointed observations and shows the hollowness of the moral and theological equivalence arguments that are so common, and not just from Rosie O'Donnell:
THE world has witnessed a flood of reaction this week to Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture, a reaction that has gone well beyond words, with attacks on churches in Gaza, the West Bank and Basra, and apparently the killing of an elderly Italian nun in Mogadishu, together with her guard. Some have called for the Pope to be executed....On the other hand, no less a figure than the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, issued a statement on the official Saudi news service, defending Muslims' divine right to resort to violence: "The spread of Islam has gone through several phases, secret and then public, in Mecca and Medina. God then authorised the faithful to defend themselves and to fight against those fighting them, which amounts to a right legitimised by God. This ... is quite reasonable, and God will not hate it."
Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam's ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed's, first choice: "He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims." Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option of violence against non-Muslims was only a last resort, if they refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam.
Funny thing: when I point out Muhammad's three options, which are amply attested in Islamic tradition (see, for example, Sahih Muslim 4294), Islamic apologists call me an ignorant Islamophobe. Will they call Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh an ignorant Islamophobe also? Ah, but you see, Spencer (I can hear them saying now), that's just it: Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh is a Wahhabi leader, and you're just playing into the hands of the extremist Wahhabis by validating their twisted interpretations of Islam.
However, I did not write Sahih Muslim 4294. If a Wahhabi works from a sahih hadith, an Islamic tradition generally considered reliable by Muslims, and I note that it is indeed considered a sahih hadith, I am not helping the Wahhabi -- I'm just reporting. If Muslim reformers sincerely desire to mitigate the aspects of Islam that give rise to violence, they need to try to convince people like Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh and his followers that such ahadith should not be considered sahih (reliable), or that they should be set aside in the modern age. But they will not and cannot accomplish simply by denying that such traditions exist, or that any significant body of Muslims pays attention to them.
Abdel went on to urge people to read the Koran and Sunnah (the record of Mohammed's teaching and example) for themselves, pointing out that the Koran, Islam's equivalent of scripture, has been translated into many of the world's languages: "Those who read the Koran and the Sunnah can understand the facts."On this at least the Archbishop of Sydney and the Saudi Grand Mufti do agree, for in an address earlier this year, Pell also urged people to read the Koran.
Accessing the facts: So what are these facts contained in the Koran and Sunnah that the Grand Mufti would have us read? As it happens, reading the Koran is not without its difficulties. There is, for a start, the thorny problem of context. The Koran gives little help with this: it does not mark off specific passages one from another and its 114 chapters (suras) are not laid out in chronological order.
The keys to unlocking the context for individual passages of the Koran can be found in the life of Mohammed, the Sunnah. The sources for the Sunnah are the traditions (hadiths), of which Sunnis recognise six canonical collections, and biographies of Mohammed (sira literature). Although the volume of this material is considerable, it is now largely available in English translation, much of it on the internet.
In addition to the inherent difficulty of the sources, many secular Westerners rely on certain crippling preconceptions. One is the often-heard mantra that "all religions are the same". Another is the claim that "anyone can justify violence from any religious text". This idea stretches back at least to Rousseau, who considered any and all forms of religion to be pernicious.
Either of these views, if firmly held, would tend to sabotage anyone's ability to investigate the Koran's distinctive take on violence.
There is another obstacle, and that is Western culture's own sense of guilt and suspicion of what it regards as Christian hypocrisy.
Any attempt to critique some of Islam's teachings is likely to be met with loud and vociferous denunciations of the church's moral failings, such as its appalling track record of anti-Semitism. And did I mention the crusades? Finally, the reality is that Muslims adhere to widely varying beliefs and practices. Most people are understandably afraid to come to their own conclusions about violent passages in the Koran, lest they find themselves demonising Muslims.
But does the Koran incite violence, and how does its message compare with the Bible?
The Koran: It is self-evident that some Koranic verses encourage violence. Consider for example a verse which implies that fighting is "good for you": "Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not." (2:216)
On the other hand, it is equally clear that there are peaceful verses as well, including the famous "no compulsion in religion" (2:256).
Yes, but jihadists and proponents of Sharia in general have never had any trouble reconciling this verse with aggressive warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims. After all, those subjugated were not (in most cases) forced to become Muslims, were they?
Resolving apparently contradictory messages presents one of the central interpretative challenges of the Koran. Muslims do not agree today on how best to address this. For this reason alone it could be regarded as unreasonable to claim that any one interpretation of the Koran is the correct one.Nevertheless, a consensus developed very early in the history of Islam about this problem. This method relies on a theory of stages in the development of Mohammed's prophetic career. It also appeals to a doctrine known as abrogation, which states that verses revealed later can cancel out or qualify verses revealed earlier.
The classical approach to violence in the Koran was neatly summed up in an essay on jihad in the Koran by Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid [actually, Humaid], former chief justice of Saudi Arabia: "So at first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory: (1) against those who start 'the fighting' against you (Muslims) ... (2) And against all those who worship others along with Allah."
At the beginning, in Mohammed's Meccan period, when he was weaker and his followers few, passages of the Koran encouraged peaceful relations and avoidance of conflict: "Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." (16:125)
Later, after persecution and emigration to Medina in the first year of the Islamic calendar, authority was given to engage in warfare for defensive purposes only: "Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for God does not love transgressors." (2:190)
As the Muslim community grew stronger and conflict with its neighbours did not abate, further revelations expanded the licence for waging war, until in Sura 9, regarded as one of the last chapters to be revealed, it is concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged more or less at any time and in any place to extend the dominance of Islam. Sura 9 distinguished idolators, who were to be fought until they converted - "When the sacred months are past, kill the idolators wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush" (Sura 9:5) - from "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews), who were to be given a further option of surrendering and living under Islamic rule while keeping their religion: "Fight ... the People of the Book until they pay the poll tax out of hand, having been humbled." (Sura 9:29)
The resulting doctrine of war was described by the great medieval philosopher Ibn Khaldun: "In the Muslim community, the holy war (jihad) is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and the (obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." (The Muqaddimah)
The popular Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, and al-Jazeera television personality, in July 2003 invoked the classical dogma of the Dar al-Harb or "domain of war" that encompasses all the regions of the world in which Islam is not yet dominant. In the Dar al-Harb the lives and possessions of non-Muslims are muba'a, or "licit", making them a legitimate target for military action: "It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar al-Harb is not protected ... in modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilised to participate in the war, to aid its continuation and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies."
All this explains Sheikh Abdel Aziz's response to the Pope's speech.
Alluding to the distinction between the Meccan and Medinan periods of revelation, the Grand Mufti invoked the doctrine of Sura 9:29 (cited above), that fighting against People of the Book continues until non-Muslims convert or surrender.
Today most Muslims acknowledge the religious legitimacy of "defensive jihad" - including the Palestinian struggle - but many appear to reject the idea of offensive, expansionist jihad. Most would emphasise the defensive aspects of Mohammed's numerous military campaigns, claiming that his attacks on others were only to pre-empt future aggression against Muslims. It is also often asserted that Mohammed's military exploits were context-specific responses to the unique situations he encountered in his lifetime, and not binding on later generations of Muslims.
However the idea of a purely defensive jihad is hard to reconcile with the phenomenal military expansion of Islam in its first 100 years. For centuries the validity of the doctrine of expansionist jihad just seemed self-evident to Muslim scholars, as it was validated by the military victories it had delivered across the greater part of the Christian world, as well as Zoroastrian Persia and Hindu India.
The New Testament: It is not difficult to find examples of religious violence in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. When Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, he was instructed by God to destroy all who dwelled within its walls.
The New Testament takes a completely different approach.
Throughout the New Testament there is a systematic rejection of religious violence. The key to this is Jesus' message that his kingdom was spiritual and not political. Jesus explicitly and repeatedly condemns the use of force to achieve his goals: "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)...
Durie then goes on to explain how the New Testament's message is quite different from that of the Qur'an. Read it all.
And one final word from Durie for the moral-equivalencers:
The New Testament's teachings on the state continue to sustain the more than 300 million believers who live in more than 60 countries where Christians are persecuted. In none of these countries has persecution resulted in Christian terrorism or violent Christian insurgencies aimed at overthrowing civil authorities.
Posted by Robert at September 23, 2006 9:15 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I mean cmon now no one is going to go to war with austrailia. lol if islam ruled the world, they would probably forget austrailia even exists.
Posted by: Purple Haze![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 23, 2006 9:57 AM
"Durie in The Australian (thanks to all who sent this in) makes some pointed observations and shows the hollowness of the moral and theological equivalence arguments that are so common, and not just from Rosie O'Donnell:"
Mike Savage calls her Rosie O'Dumbell and that's not Irishphobia.
at September 23, 2006 10:30 AM
Re: defending Muslims' divine right to resort to violence
What divine right to violence?
The real God of the universe despises religious violence done in his name.
It is highly immoral to spread religion by the sword.
Pope Benedict XVI made this argument in his speech last week in Germany.
Now he is hated in the Muslim world and is a target of Muslim violence.
How ironic.
Posted by: Johnathan at September 23, 2006 10:46 AM
Re: "In the Muslim community, the holy war (jihad) is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and the (obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." (The Muqaddimah)
The religious duty of jihad must be eliminated from the face of the earth.
Period.
Posted by: Johnathan at September 23, 2006 10:52 AM
This is a comprehensive report on Islam that must be sent to every leader in the West.
Posted by: ofcourse at September 23, 2006 10:56 AM
Rosie O’dumbell,
She is a Lesbian who was allowed to adopt three children. This was possible in a Christian majority country. Yet she compares Christians to muslims. This is the definition of insanity. After the next attack, we should arrange for her to get the chance to ”Meet the jihadis” Hey that’s a good idea for a show for her. She can interview Christians overseas and then give us some contrast by interviewing muslims. Whats that? You don’t think that would work out very well. Well I guess it all depends on your perspective. As I have said these people (O’dumbell) are dangerous. She would turn over our children to the jihadis in an instant to save herself. Reprehensible. Before we can confront the enemy we must clean our country of the enemy. I’m an easy going guy to a point, she crossed it.
at September 23, 2006 11:07 AM
Creed of the sword: Islam has to accept that its militants find support for violence in their faith's teachings and should pursue reform
Saudi Arabia, which was founded by Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud and Muhammad Abd Al-Wahhab (founder of Wahhabism, supposedly the only sect of Islam that allows violent jihad, if you believe such learned Islamic scholars such as GWB and Tony Blair), has a flag that consists of the religous edict "Allah is the only god, and Mohammad is his Messenger") in Arabic with a SWORD underneath it. The one symbol they thought that best represents Saudi Arabia was the SWORD. How many other national flags contain images of weaponry?
Posted by: special_guest at September 23, 2006 11:20 AM
Tgusa, Rosie lives in California. Liberal, leftist, lesbian and gay lovin California, land of fruits and nuts.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 23, 2006 12:49 PM
The only thing Rosie O'Donnell is an expert on is pizza.
Posted by: pythagoras at September 23, 2006 2:57 PM
Robert, thank you for this timely gem of an article.
Behemond,
I, perhaps like Rosie, am a Classical Liberal; a moderate to social leftist who is also a gay person who is happily and proudly residing in the beautiful state of California. Admittedly, there are some unusual people here, but I am sure you have them where you reside as well. Is it homogeneity that you seek? If so, reside in such a place. I chose not to. Let me also state that I live in a largely conservative part of the state, but it an area that has a tolerant and socially liberal Western tradition. It might surprise you that my district is comprised of vast numbers of Republican voters. You should know that I take offense at your characterization of my state as being the "land of fruits and nuts". Your words are shameful during these trying times. Moreover, the truth is that California is the best state in the union, bar none.
Rosie was perhaps wrong to say that Christianity is just as dangerous as Islam if one considers modern times. However, there was a time when that was most certainly true. And considering what Christianity did to civilization of Rome, she has a point. Lest you all forget, Christianity thrust us into the dark ages. Oh I know, I will hear on this blog the ridiculous assertion that somehow Christianity itself led to the enlightenment (not that it was pushed in that direction against its will); that the dark ages were not that dark, but rather, a time of great knowledge. In fact, the contrary is true on both counts. The enlightenment happened not because of, but in spite of, the very institution that the faith the Pope now claims is based on both logos (reason) and faith. As if anyone can buy that argument with a straight face, what with all of the miracles in the bible and so on, we have also to consider the hypocrisy of his church. If Christianity is based on "logic" as the Pope stated, then surely it was acting against its teachings for nearly all of its existence on the planet. (Monteczuma comes to mind) Were the Pope to have his way, secular Europe (with its laws not largely based on Christianity) itself would fall just as quickly as Europe would to Sharia. So in that sense, Christianity is indeed a threat, perhaps not as great a threat as Islam, but a threat nonetheless.
I also note that Mr. Spencer repeatedly defends the crusades as being nothing more than a knee-jerk response to Islamic subjugation. I wonder how Mr. Spencer can defend the attacks and sacking of Byzantium itself that paved the way for Mohammedan vultures by weakening the state beyond belief. Shame on the Catholic crusaders. Shame on the barbarian mentally of those "Franks" of the day. What the pope said about Islam was most assuredly true, but then, coming from the Catholic Church, it's hard to control the laughter coming from scholarly circles.
I highly recommend a reading of “Papal bull: Joseph Ratzinger's latest offense”
here: http://www.slate.com/id/2149863/
at September 23, 2006 3:26 PM
Kafir Nonbeliever,
Why do you need to prove the point? Of course California is the land of loud mouth fruits and nuts. I have watched them flock here for decades. It doesn’t bother me and can be quite entertaining at times. They are however the minority. Rosie was perhaps wrong to say that Christianity is just as dangerous as Islam if one considers modern times. That is the greatest understatement in history. I could care less what anyone does with their personal life, but keep it personal. Most people don’t give a damn what you are or what you do on a personal level.
But the Homosexuals better figure out who is and isn’t their enemy. She sounds insane, and people are asking themselves, is this the opinion of most Homosexuals? If it is they are on the other side no matter how anyone tries to spin it. Suicidal.BTW, I thought Rosie lived in Florida? Maybe the Hurricanes frightened her away.
at September 23, 2006 4:28 PM
'And considering what Christianity did to civilization of Rome, she has a point. Lest you all forget, Christianity thrust us into the dark ages.'
I'm sorry, kafir, could you go into more detail? 'cause that makes NO sense to me.
The Church of those days called on Christians to not become involved in the military or the beaurocracy. And indeed there were almost NO Christians in either place.
For many decades if not right up to the Fall of Rome, virtually ALL of those involved in the government were still pagan. They even competed with each other to see who could put on the better colluseum shows. That included lots of people dying, btw.
Christians were not involved. I can't even see where you get 'Christianity thrust us into the dark ages,' when it was Christians who took away to Ireland every book they could get their hands on.
I've read a score of books on the subject, not to mention scores of articles on the internet. Please, do explain.
Posted by: Gary at September 23, 2006 4:40 PM
kafir, you have taken a Major step down in my estimate. Nariz must love you.
Posted by: Gary at September 23, 2006 4:41 PM
Kafir Nonbeliever needs to get in the now, today, the 21st century. Try to figure out what is the truth without consulting Roman history books. We used to burn witches here too, but I don’t think we will start doing that again. AD 476, AD 570, Do you know what those years signify?
Posted by: tgusa at September 23, 2006 4:58 PM
Christianity spread for 300 years after The Christ's resurrection, despite being persecuted by the Roman Empire. It spread by peaceful means. Constantine converted voluntarily not by force.
In contrast, Islam was spread exclusively by the sword. Conversions were forced either by threat of death or as a way to escape the Jizya.
Matthew Chapter 24
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
2 Corinthians Chapter 11
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
at September 23, 2006 5:07 PM
Re: comment that there is no Muslim threat to Australia. That is utter BS.
Australia has a large Muslim community and the ragheads are everywhere. The women love to parade their sense of superiority by wearing the veil. There is no humility involved with most of them. Some of my friends have been teaching some of the refugee immigrants how to communicate in English. Some of the poor girls are forced to wear that ridiculous get up. Some of them are forced into marriages that they do not want.
The Australian special task force has managed to break up gangs of Muslims who were plotting something very big. One lot even had all of the chemicals to make a bomb(s) in order to cause chaos in Sydney. They are also prominent in Melbourne and a group are awaiting trial for plotting terrorism.
We have our share of dumb mullahs who are preaching hatred. We have a problem with the dumb asses who attend the Lakemba Mosque.
One thing I have learned though, as a result of the dumb asses at Lakemba is that if they are wearing white garments, they are involved in jihad.
In the past I have had Muslim colleagues, and I treat them as I find them on a personal level. One Iranian was married to a Christian. He used to make barbed comments to the Jewess who was also working with us. Another Indian is only Muslim because his family was forced to convert. Another woman is Muslim in name only. She is totally secular, though she believes in God. I am hoping that in the future her son will lead her to enquire further about Christianity.
Our duty is to spread Christianity amongst them. If we cannot preach then we can lead by example.
Posted by: Maggie4Life at September 23, 2006 6:24 PM
Kafir, while the Christians, above any other people, sacrificed and worked for advancing humanity, the Muslim world was preoccupied figuring out systems to convert Middle Eastern Christians and Jews into Muslims. You can thank the Christians on both sides of the globe for the things you have today, but especially the Christians in the ME who, while still concentrating on advancing the human race, have been enslaved and treated in a manner similar to the Jewish slaves whom Moses freed from Egypt. Unfortunately, most of the Christians in the ME have either left, or joined the zombie race; although, Christians still contribute tremendously to Arab economies, like the over 100,000 Lebanese Christians in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: ofcourse at September 23, 2006 6:39 PM
kafirnonbeliever:
You need a history lesson. The fall of Rome and the descent into the Dark Ages was a result of Teutonic barbarian hordes invading Rome. They were PAGAN. Got that?
Montezuma? Those were greedy Spanish conquistadors, not Christian missionaries. BTW, did you know that a 16th century CATHOLIC Spanish priest wrote the first grand treatise on the rights of the indigenous peoples of Central and South America, in protest of the conquistadors' reprehensible actions there? Dominican Fr. Francisco de Vitoria laid the groundwork for what is now international law in his Readings on the Indians and on the Law of War. Basing his tenets on Scripture and St. Thomas Aquinas, he defended the doctrine that "all men are equally free; on the basis of natural liberty, they proclaimed their right to life, to culture, and to property."
"Rosie was perhaps wrong..." PERHAPS??? Not only are you ignorant of history and culture but you are also a fool. It is precisely liberal fools like you who encourage and embolden Islamofascism because you haven't the courage or moral conviction to discriminate between right and wrong. You liberal fools back the wrong horse all the time. You liberal fools did it during the appeasement period in the 1930's (That's the period before WWII, btw, as I see you know nothing about history) and you liberal fools are doing it now.
Finally, California is NOT the best state in the union. California is becoming Mexifornia. And it is full of fruits and nuts. I know. I used to live there. It's past glory is gone because liberal fools like you have polluted it with your cesspool of politically correct indoctrination. I don't know what it will take for you people to wake up and smell the stench that reeks from Iran to Venezuela.
Perhaps you can't smell it for the stink of your own rotten ideology; and there's no masking it.
Posted by: atheling at September 23, 2006 6:43 PM
Mr Spencer, you are so busy fighting Jihad, and are such a decent person that you have no idea, nor the time and inkling, to find out what is going on around us and in our society. You don't understand, perhaps because, unlike Rosie, you aren't threatened by the politics, doings and "druthers" of the Christian Right.. the proto fascists who call themselves Christian, many of which post on this site, many of whom dominate Free Republic, all of whom are Republicans and voted for Bush (not that all Republicans are proto fascists, but enough are to scare the pants off Rosie and all other seculars and "liberals".
Twas a time when Liberal was a good word, until pukes like Limpballs and Oreilly demonized it, for political purposes.
A picture is worth a thousand words
Christianity comes in many forms. Islam comes in one form (as we all know).
What Rosie ODonnell refers to is the Islamofascist like protofascists who have kidnapped Christianity, the Republican party and have mouthpieces like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Oreilly and Pat Robertson..
they all espouse an ideology, many without knowing it, that is known as Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism.. and whose staunchest proponents (would if they could) stone heretics, gays, adulterers and juvenile delinquents.
Rosie doesn't know anything about Islam, but she stands not alone it seems, since either the good folk at Fox, Oreilly and this administration don't know anything about Islam.. either that or they (as Ann Coulter does) admire Islam for it's "family values"... and Posters at Jihad Watch echo agreement with Ahmadinejad who is persecuting liberals and seculars.. (heh Gary).
Rosie, and other liberals, if they see the threat of Islam at all (and why should they since the darlings of the right apparently don't), see the fascist in the Christian Right as an immediate threat, to the liberal and secular values of the U.S. of A, and the constitution which was bequeathed us by our beloved forefathers.
Islam is a threat, but in the view of Rosie and other liberals.. the threat of the Christofascists is immediate, while that of the Islamofascists is distant, and in that she has some legitimacy, to wit the likes of those pukes Bill Oreilly (and his new book Culture Warriors, Mike Savage, Rush Limpballs, Pat Robertson, Family Research Council, etc, et al..all those self righteous muslim like "Christians" who get a personal orgasm waging a cultural war against the Rosie Odonnels, "liberals", "leftists", gays, feminists, the prochoice crowd, seculars, atheists and all who seek to keep God (the Muslim god, the Jew God, The Christian God) out of government or use their god as a ventriloquist dummy to espouse what in reality are policies and actions that are fascist (Hitler and Stalin criminalized homosexuality and abortion, Hitler would have captured the Morality vote in America..as his values were "family, traditional and misogynistic".
Some reference The Politics of Stoning Heretics (YS of A, not Iran).
Lewis Loflin is a pro Israel deist (he also has scathing criticism of atheists) but that aside his website is full of enlightening information, including lots of information on the Christian Nazi's that have usurped and taken over Christianity in the United States.
The new fundamentalism, The Royal Race of the Redeemed this is evil, Christian NAZI's.
Tis these folk, whom Rosie Odonnell and all true freedom loving Americans fear.. they are the biggest and most immediate threat to our beloved way of life.. the threat of Islam is different, but in final analysis if the Christian Right, the megachurchers prevail and "install their own form of order" life here will be no different than in Iran... fact
I'm liberal, I'm "leftist" (compared to the proto fascists who call themselves Conservative and Christian) and I am also vehemently "Islamophobic", however I have extreme difficulty staying in the "anti Jihad" camp, because of the theocratic, self righteous, angry and antagonistic attitudes, words, policies and politics of those on the so called Right.. in Reality I'm a Goldwater Conservative, and that means that in todays political world.. I'm a leftist, though I have nothing at all but disdain and disgust for the Marxists.. the real leftists.
Posted by: Nariz at September 23, 2006 8:26 PM
Time To Ban nariz.
Posted by: Gary at September 23, 2006 9:05 PM
Whatever rational arguments one makes against these goofballs they always turn things around. One minute they deny the Holocaust then the next minute they say it wasn't nearly as bad as the "Zionists" claim. Like that old saying goes "Never waste your time arguing with an idiot".
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 23, 2006 9:05 PM
Nariz, I am sorry that you have succumbed to those taunting voices that whisper in your ear, voices nobody else can hear. Your morbid, paranoid obsession with Christianity and its demons has turned you into a bonafide, certifiable lunatic. Go ahead, wring your hands, grind your teeth, and lie awake at night in wait for the Dominionists. They are probably skulking at your door right now, ready to break it down and drag you away to the Dominionist Indoctrination Center for reprogramming.
If you truly believe that Christianity is as threatening as islam, you are indeed a very disturbed and confused individual. People like you and Rosie O'Donnell make the fight against islam and jihad that much more difficult with your equivalency nonsense. I'm ok with your atheism; your religious convictions, or lack thereof, are of no interest to me. You're as bad as the intolerant muslims; you hate and denigrate everyone who isn't like you.
Posted by: Susanp at September 23, 2006 11:46 PM
Whoa, that rant by nariz was scary. I know that liberals are paranoid and most have the I-hate-Christians tic (as well as the I-hate-George-Bush tic) but when you see a couple of them ranting on one thread it really is bizarre.
To paraphrase Camille Paglia, probably the only liberal lesbian I can stomach, liberalism is a vegetable (or in the gaylib's case, fruit) bin where clingy sob sisters store their moldy neuroses.
Posted by: atheling at September 24, 2006 2:47 AM
Purple Haze
i have been reading this blog for a while now.. and being in australia, i know 1st hand the war has already started. i'm just glad we're saying something, anything at all... we, like europe, canada and the states are too soft. but the comments coming from here get more encouraging..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060903/wl_afp/australiareligionislammigration
Posted by: frank_incensed at September 24, 2006 10:15 AM
It seems to me that Nariz and the LLLs are the ones who resort to name calling when anyone dares not to think like them. Nariz does not like it when we use rational arguments so just like a muslim/LLL they start the name calling. Its pathetic, LLLism is a failure everywhere it has been tried. LLLs don’t have the spine to fight the enemy and we do so it is feeling mighty low. Hence the Christians are facists screed. Nariz, if you are so scared of those mean and nasty Christians, move! How bout Europe, the ME or Africa? Let us know how it works out for you if you live.
Posted by: tgusa at September 24, 2006 10:39 AM
Always remembering, of course, that KF above is not in the same class as nariz. I'll give him a fair bit more credit.
Posted by: Gary at September 24, 2006 11:14 AM
atheling,
Millions of us are still manning the watch towers here at Fort Apache Ca.
What was it that the honorable W. Churchill said? Something like, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender.
Gary, I agree, thankfully they are not all insane.
at September 24, 2006 11:22 AM
memo to our friend (KKK)Nariz:
Who do you think you're fooling?????
There is no fascism in Christian beliefs contrary to your propaganda to the contrary. The threat does not originate from them. Because the threat's in your head.
Hitler abandoned Christianity for you information. In fact, he staffed his concentration camps with MUSLIMS FROM THE BALKAN REGION. Hitler's leaning were ISLAMIC and his best friend was a guy named Haj al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hitler was practicing a form of satanism combined with black magic, if you must know. No one who commits murder is a Christian as it is in direct violation of the 10 Commandments issued by Yahweh and later Jesus. Any and all blogs to the contrary are worth nothing.
So you do acknowledge that the holocaust happened?? Then you must be a pretty witless Muslim to do that, as Muslims lie about the holocaust' having happened for strategic reasons.
We know you are smearing Christianity because you have a typically Islamic jihadist agenda. Even if you did understand Christianity you would NOT tell the truth about it. Doing so would conflict with your political agenda,no? Hence your verbal smears. It is tiresome and transparent--we see through you.
All Christians are bound by the 10 Commandments which eliminate any prospect of violence, dishonesty. There are no Christian "fundamentalists." There is no threat coming from Christianity itself. People run TO Christianized nations instead of FROM them befause they know full well they will receive humane treatment from Christianized people who practice the faith with any understanding.
Either one follows the teachings of Christ and the Bible or one follows something else and is not a Christian. There's no middle ground there. Hence no room for Christian fascists. Sorry.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were Christians. And the nation they fathered is the most diverse, humane and tolerant in history.
KKKNariz: there is NO SUCH THING AS CHRISTIAN FASCISM. You have fooled no one.
You idiot.
at September 25, 2006 1:29 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)