| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
In "Hot for martyrdom" in the National Post (thanks to Barbara), Michael Coren speaks to the courageous Tawfik Hamid. Hamid makes many important points that we have made here on numerous occasions, accompanied by some insights you should not miss.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid doesn't tell people where he lives. Not the street, not the city, not even the country. It's safer that way. It's only the letters of testimony from some of the highest intelligence officers in the Western world that enable him to move freely. This medical doctor, author and activist once was a member of Egypt's Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Arabic for "the Islamic Group"), a banned terrorist organization. He was trained under Ayman al-Zawahiri, the bearded jihadi who appears in Bin Laden's videos, telling the world that Islamic violence will stop only once we all become Muslims.He's a disarmingly gentle and courteous man. But he's determined to tell a complacent North America what he knows about fundamentalist Muslim imperialism.
"Yes, 'imperialism,' " he tells me. "The deliberate and determined expansion of militant Islam and its attempt to triumph not only in the Islamic world but in Europe and North America. Pure ideology. Muslim terrorists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe."
[...]
He is now 45 years old, and has had many years to reflect on why he was willing to die and kill for his religion. "The first thing you have to understand is that it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with poverty or lack of education," he says. "I was from a middle-class family and my parents were not religious. Hardly anyone in the movement at university came from a background that was different from mine.
"I've heard this poverty nonsense time and time again from Western apologists for Islam, most of them not Muslim by the way. There are millions of passive supporters of terror who may be poor and needy but most of those who do the killing are wealthy, privileged, educated and free. If it were about poverty, ask yourself why it is middle-class Muslims -- and never poor Christians -- who become suicide bombers in Palestine."
[...]
"We're not talking about a fringe cult here," he tells me. "Salafist [fundamentalist] Islam is the dominant version of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world. It is puritanical, extreme and does, yes, mean that women can be beaten, apostates killed and Jews called pigs and monkeys."
He leans back, takes a deep breath and moves to another area, one that he says is far too seldom discussed: "North Americans are too squeamish about discussing the obvious sexual dynamic behind suicide bombings. If they understood contemporary Islamic society, they would understand the sheer sexual tension of Sunni Muslim men. Look at the figures for suicide bombings and see how few are from the Shiite world. Terrorism and violence yes, but not suicide. The overwhelming majority are from Sunnis. Now within the Shiite world there are what is known as temporary marriages, lasting anywhere from an hour to 95 years. It enables men to release their sexual frustrations.
"Islam condemns extra-marital sex as well as masturbation, which is also taught in the Christian tradition. But Islam also tells of unlimited sexual ecstasy in paradise with beautiful virgins for the martyr who gives his life for the faith. Don't for a moment underestimate this blinding passion or its influence on those who accept fundamentalism."
A pause. "I know. I was one who accepted it."
[...]
"The sexual aspect is, of course, just one part of this. But I can tell you what it is not about. Not about Israel, not about Iraq, not about Afghanistan. They are mere excuses. Algerian Muslim fundamentalists murdered 150,000 other Algerian Muslims, sometimes slitting the throats of children in front of their parents. Are you seriously telling me that this was because of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians or American foreign policy?"
He's exasperated now, visibly angry at what he sees as a willful Western foolishness. "Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want."
Why indeed.
Posted by Robert at November 4, 2006 4:33 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
One of the hardest things a person can do is truly change his religion.
This man has done it. I commend him. He is extremely brave.
Having said that, it's suicide for us to expect the Islamic Ummah to do the same.
We must start fighting the Ummah wherever it rears its ugly head -- if some Muslims can be salvaged, if some can be saved, all to the good -- but the brutal truth is this:
If we don't save ourselves first -- all of them are doomed anyway. Islam must be vanquished utterly.
Posted by: jsla![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 4, 2006 4:48 PM
and still a deafening silence from the left - who still refuse to acknowledge - head-in-sand style - that there might be any problem at all ..
Posted by: drk at November 4, 2006 4:52 PM
King Tolerance, Esmay, do you have a reply?
The man has spelled it out, but we tell him he is wrong.
at November 4, 2006 4:58 PM
Georgie, Condi, are you listening?
Probably, but they can't or won't heed because they have too much invested in this stupid democracy in Islam idea.
It takes a real man or woman to admit that they are wrong. Neither Bush nor Rice are in that category. Bush looks more and acts like L. B. Johnson every day.
Don't think for one minute that I will support any Dhimmicrat. Bush has his deficiencies, but he's the only game in town.
Posted by: Pelayo at November 4, 2006 5:01 PM
Thank you Tawfik Hamid. This is exactly what all of us here think. I think the way things have heated up, I would not hesitate even for a heart beat to defend myself if a Muslim ever ask me to accept Islam. He wouldn't get a second chance to ask ever again.
at November 4, 2006 5:13 PM
"Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want." from the article above.
Yet another wakeup call but the self flagellation will continue.
Posted by: cathkins at November 4, 2006 5:15 PM
"Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want."
Oriana could hardly have expressed it better!
100% agreement. Shuld be posted on every progressive leftist website in the western world!
Posted by: chevalier de st george at November 4, 2006 5:25 PM
Wow.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 4, 2006 5:33 PM
Wow! What a revealing article from an authoritative source. (And I said 'Wow' before reading the previous commentator!)
Posted by: Benjamin at November 4, 2006 5:43 PM
That's a good story. I'll have to email that one to friends.
Posted by: SpongeMom at November 4, 2006 5:46 PM
Well this admirable man has just cut off his sources of income from interviews with the BBC and he NYT.
Will he be "escorted" from the BBC studios by was the Case with Walid Shoebat when he dared to reply to the "problem of Christian fundamentalists"
“Christian fundamentalists give the world a headache, I confess, but Muslim fundamentalists will whack your head right off your shoulders, sir"
Posted by: chevalier de st george at November 4, 2006 5:56 PM
I posted this article a few minutes ago at the craigslist politics forum. Craigslist is quite large and famous (they were featured in Time magazine a while ago).
Here's an example of the responses (where I put an em dash — that denotes a response to an immediately previous response):
Fundamentalist Christians are Equally insane! § 11/04 14:50:42
—no -- even MORE insane § 11/04 14:51:07
—I agree. 11/04 14:53:26
At least the Muslims wear the head scarfs so we can see them coming. But you can't tell evangelicals from athiests.
Fundie Islam is not much different from the left 11/04 14:51:54
in the US. Both think they are martyrs against the "imperialist, hegmonic US"
—cherp in moron § 11/04 14:55:45
—You clearly have no understanding of either. § 11/04 14:56:31
Posted by: remote_control at November 4, 2006 6:05 PM
When despairing our Leaders' moronic policies & total lack in understanding Totalitarian threat of Islam-a brave guy from the other side comes to tell us 'How it is.'Reckon we should LISTEN to
him,eh.Also POST his words to every outlet we can think of...
at November 4, 2006 6:42 PM
The quotes here from Mr Hamid are as powerful and explicit as anything I've read in some time. They should be emailed to family and friends.
Posted by: Cornelius at November 4, 2006 7:23 PM
"I've heard this poverty nonsense time and time again from Western apologists for Islam, most of them not Muslim by the way."
-- from the article above
And not only from Western apologists for Islam, but also from NATO generals planning how to win hearts and minds by building roads (the better for terrorists to get from Point A to Point B in primitive Afghanistan), and schools, and all kinds of job-creating, and spreading of Infidel wealth, in order to provide the "employment and hope" that "people in Iraq and Afghanistan crave so much" and that if only we could remedy, all manner of things would be well.
No, they wouldn't. Poverty has nothing to do with it, except that poor villagers are both less inclined (too busy eking out an existence) and less capable (can't travel around the world plotting, can't affect much of anything outside their own village, and their ability to inflict harm on Infidels is limited by that very poverty many Infidels -- all those "counterinsurgency experts" for example -- seem to think that they must end in order to diminish the "terrorist threat." It's nonsense, all nonsense, the result of not acquiring indispensable knowledge about Islam, its tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics, and then, having acquired such knowledge, thoroughly assmilating and applying it to the world -- the real as opposed to imagined world -- at hand.
Posted by: Hugh at November 4, 2006 7:25 PM
Bush has his deficiencies, but he's the only game in town.
Posted by: Pelayo at November 4, 2006 05:01 PM
.... what sadens me is that even after knowing that dubya has sold America's highest office for Saudi investment in his failed businesses, dad's bought loyalties, adopting wahabbi as a family-member and selling hard-working, tax-paying, honest Americans to business through cheal illegal-immigrant labor, after throwing iftaar dinners and dancing on Riyadh's tunes, you have opted for this corrupt and a timid man is a reflection of the dark clouds hovering over America's future. The sad truth is that America is doomed no-matter who comes to office. What a sorry state of affiars appropriately, in a dim, corrupt, timid sellout's watch.
Posted by: Alert at November 4, 2006 7:55 PM
Western apologists unfortunely seem to have the ear of mr bush and mr blair and in the case of the french and thr ueo have let it become a slum od the midle east mutely acepying dhimmi status and paying jizha in the form of aid to oil rich middle easten contryis conties that have larger gnp's than thouse paying the jizha ecuse m i ment aid and when the leaders like bush her the non pc truth about islam groups like cair get thier trained pigs opp i ment members to cry islamiphobia and racisim and get the meidia like the new dhimmi times aka the new york times to start a feeding frenzy of multi culturism adicts and Western apologists trying to out do each other in dhimmitude and political correctness
Posted by: islamakapigeaters at November 4, 2006 8:10 PM
Truth to power. The real thing.
Posted by: del at November 4, 2006 8:28 PM
Alert - I bet you could turn the most perfect woman into a total bitch just by marrying her; other than that you're quite powerless.
Posted by: Malinois at November 4, 2006 8:41 PM
I'm watching Obsession as we speak - I'm startled by what I hear out of ED Hill. But some of the speakers sounded more like apologists for moderate Arabs, as though omitting mentions of Muslims being victims of this would be a major crime. Where does Alan Deschowitz, who is normally right about Israel, or even ED Hill, get the idea that most Muslims in the West are loyal to the West? And where does Daniel Pipes get his number that only 10-15% of Muslims are radicals? Although Obsession was more entertaining, I thought 'Islam: What the West needs to know' was more truthful in that no claim was made about a majority of Muslims being decent.
However, given the PC trend of not identifying Islam as the enemy, I thought it somewhat puzzling that 70% of FNC respondents thought it likely that the US would be at war with 'radical' Islam in our lifetime.
Alert, I hear what you say. Noting that the Dems are worse ain't inspiring, but I'm now a member of what Melanie Morgan calls the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). I do however regret that the GOP is more likely to lose the house rather than the senate - I'd rather see Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine go down in flames.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 4, 2006 8:57 PM
Sane, conservative America (i.e. the America of
Rooseveld, Kennedy and Reagan) should simply acknowledge it has two ennemies: the totalitarian postsixties Left and totalitarian Islam. The Left is not stupid towards Islam, it simply hates America and its liberty the same way totalitarian Islam does. It wants to use Islam to crush conservative America and esspecially Christianity, the major core of conservative America.
In Europe the Left has allready succeeded. They have crushed Christianity and now they have to fight it out with Islam. In doing this it has stifled liberty (freedom of speech, organisation etc) every day more. There is no real free press in Europe anymore. Churches have no freedom anymore to decide what they preach.It is all dictated by the Left.
When the Pelosi Left takes over, liberty will die just as much as when Islam takes over.
The Left wants first to destroy Christianity and then deal with Islam. Till it has destroyed its major ennemy it wil pretend it doesn't know about Islam.
The Right should simply try to CONTAIN Islam (and not try to reform it, which it cannot do) and defeat the Left.
The whole universalist utopianism towards Islam of Bush has to go. It is impossible and dangerous. It is esspecially dangerous because the Left is using the utopian mess in Irak to take over the country. Just robust containment of Islam, no more, and vigilance towards the Left.
at November 4, 2006 9:01 PM
Superb comments that get beyond the intellectual veneer that continues to fog any discussion or criticism. As with most movements, the underlying motives of the Jihadists and Salafists are hardly as noble or amorphous as the rhetoric claims. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Palestinians or Americans.
It's all about power and getting back to the centuries old Glory Days.
Posted by: amana39 at November 4, 2006 9:08 PM
I had just finished watching the Fox special on "Obsession" a short while ago. What I had seen is just the tip of the icberg in the matter of the jihad threat. I know that it did get soft when it comes to the treatment of the general Muslim population, which was by kid groves. But at least the true message is starting to get out which should cause us in the Jewish/Christian west to sit up and take notice.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 4, 2006 9:21 PM
"I'm watching Obsession as we speak - I'm startled by what I hear out of ED Hill. But some of the speakers sounded more like apologists for moderate Arabs, as though omitting mentions of Muslims being victims of this would be a major crime. Where does Alan Deschowitz, who is normally right about Israel, or even ED Hill, get the idea that most Muslims in the West are loyal to the West? And where does Daniel Pipes get his number that only 10-15% of Muslims are radicals?"
-- from a posting above
Out of air, thin air. The thin air up into which more than a few have managed to rise high, in those hot-air balloons that they themselves filled here below with their own exsufflications. These hot-air balloons could also be called, using an old-fashonioned term, montgolfiers, but their possessors, high-flying despite being weighted down with the proceeds of lecture tours, consultancies, and other ever-increasing emoluments, could hardly be described using that old-fashioned term luftmenschen.
Posted by: Hugh at November 4, 2006 9:32 PM
In a odd sort of way, it is a kind of hubris or arrogance to believe you are responsible for somebody else's actions. For this "arrogance" our society is paying, paying with rape of our daughters today, and with our lives at some later date. Though, some have already paid the ultimate price fighting islam.
Posted by: Marvin at November 4, 2006 9:58 PM
Yeah, I'm glad they showed Obsession on FOX. My copy of it has been making the rounds amongst my family and friends for the past couple of months. Probably never to be seen again, so, at least I have another copy of it to watch when I start feeling all Dhimmi and stuff...
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at November 4, 2006 10:10 PM
Hugh--
Thanks for responding to the post of Infidelpride--I had heard those stats on Obsession and was wondering about them too. Since it is a news doc program we often make the mistake of thinking they are accurate.
at November 4, 2006 10:19 PM
I wonder what made Tawfik Hamid change his course.
Posted by: Kepha at November 4, 2006 10:56 PM
If Muhammad jumped off a bridge, would you do it?
Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at November 4, 2006 11:07 PM
I am dismayed at the way Christians are slurred these days. Give me some examples of Christian terrorism.....No McVeigh.
The Christianity I have experienced has been a close family, grace at the table , the picture of a hard-working family. We had the Norman Rockwell, Beaver Cleaver life. How in the world do you turn that into something sinister?
P.S. I know that Jesus told us it would be this way...but people seem to have gone nuts!
at November 4, 2006 11:08 PM
"Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within
The WAKE UP CALL has arrived. Are you listening?
Posted by: Xero G at November 4, 2006 11:33 PM
O/T
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.
And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.
In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000.
A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.
News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial. (Watch people prepare as curfew sets across Baghdad in anticipation of the verdicts -- 3:20 )
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/war.games.ap/index.html
Posted by: Patriot8 at November 4, 2006 11:59 PM
"The WAKE UP CALL has arrived. Are you listening?"
Yep. I only wish I weren't in the choir being preached to so vociferously. It's the other 73% of the American public who don't get it -- I have no clue how to get through to them. Perhaps the war needs to be fought on American soil; but by then it will be too late. Thank you, Dr. Hamid, for your frankness.
That figure of 73% comes from subtracting 27% -- those cited in polls who support US action on the ground in Iraq -- from 100%. It's down to that: the Iraqi conflict is not about "(Iraqi) national unity", or about "establishing Utopia", or even about stopping a civil war -- instead, it's about confining all willing jihadists into a kill box, and doing what's done in a kill box.
Fight them here, or fight them there: guess which one *I* prefer.
Posted by: Kafir at November 5, 2006 12:00 AM
Amazing article. I hope we hear much much more of this guy. The M.D. doesn't hurt either, since he's bucking the conventional wisdom, and a lot of people won't trust buckers of convention unless they possess conventional bona fides.
Posted by: traeh at November 5, 2006 12:01 AM
"How in the world do you turn that into something sinister? " It's only sinister if it is a hypocritical veneer for underlying unchristian, evil behaviour. Nobody could follow in Jesus' footsteps and do evil things. I say that as an atheist who respects and admires the teachings of Jesus.
That's the difference: follow in Muhammad's footsteps, and you'll be a child-raping murderer.
Posted by: Lili at November 5, 2006 12:01 AM
A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of being invited by the Master of my former College to dine formally at High Table and to talk with some of the undergraduates who were reckoned to be the brightest and best currently reading for their first degree.
Three of these young students were mohammedans (that I, at my tender age, should see them as young still strikes me as slightly silly but to them, I suppose, I am an older man). I asked all three of them what they thought about islam in Britain today. One of them had no opinion - he more or less didn't go to the mosque as most of our fellow countrymen who profess to be Christian don't go to Church and he had very little understanding of islam - moslem for identification purposes only, I guess.
The other two had very, very strong views. One was distinctly British - he saw his heritage as from Empire and Commonwealth and identified, most strongly, with the society in which he now lived. He was courteous, likable, definitely moslem and saw his islam in much the same way that many of us see our Christianity.
The other could not have been more different. He hated the West. He reviled the British in no uncertain terms, he castigated his two fellow moslems as traitors deserving only of execution, he thought that his professors and lecturers were deliberately holding him back, he maintained that the University system in the UK was essentially Godless and secular and not a fit place for a moslem boy to be. So, naturally, I asked him why, since he held these views, he was still reading at one of Britain's premier universities and this is what he said (and I quote verbatim):
"So that I can help to destroy you all."
This, mark you from an educated moslem. But remember the other two - both of whom looked frightened and sick as he spouted his hatred. Both of them spoke to me later in the evening and emphatically distanced themselves from his point of view and in doing so said some things which were deeply similar to the statements attributed to Dr. Tawfik Hamid in Robert's head post to this thread.
There may be some hope here - but only if 'the other two',so to speak, can find the courage to oppose the views of the one 'salafist'
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 5, 2006 12:13 AM
"Americans are too squeamish about discussing the obvious sexual dynamic behind suicide bombings."
An interesting angle but not much of a factor in my opinion. Radical Shia love dying and killing every bit as much as radical Sunni (or "Sunna" or whatever the plural is). Just because the Sunni blow themselves up in the process of killing others doesn't lead me to think that there's some wild sexual dynamic at work. If anything, radical Shia are even more crazed than radical Sunni. The temporary marriages don't seem to be having the moderating effect that Hamid says.
On the other hand, he's right on target with this: "The first thing you have to understand is that it [i.e. the eagerness to kill for Islam] has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with poverty or lack of education," BINGO.
Posted by: alexon at November 5, 2006 12:38 AM
Very informative article. Apparently Dr. Hamid has also written a book. I googled it up here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725359/posts
I think it would be a good idea to introduce a few of my more liberal-minded family members to this man's work.
Posted by: leper at November 5, 2006 1:07 AM
Re: "North Americans are too squeamish about discussing the obvious sexual dynamic behind suicide bombings. If they understood contemporary Islamic society, they would understand the sheer sexual tension of Sunni Muslim men".
Muhammad knew the visual nature of male sexuality (women instinctively know this-it's nature) and painted a picture of 72 virgins to die for. He exploited the male sexual nature for power just as Hugh Hefner did so for money. Both Muhammad and Hefner's views of women, Burkha clad or Playboy nude, make women only sexual objects. They are the flip-side of the same coin.
The truth is that most men see women sexually to begin with (it's nature) but mature men see a woman as more than only her charms. The Islamic view and the Hefner view are ultimately immature and are part of a general crippling of the mind that occurs as a result of emotional immaturity.
Ultimately, the unnatural nature of the Islamic belief-system will likely cause an attack against Israel in the future that will result in the annihilation of the Muslim Mideast. The belief-system is beyond reform and is irrational in itself. It is prudent to plan on the probability of nuclear proliferation in the Mideast and an attack on Israel based on the belief-system.
Posted by: Frank at November 5, 2006 1:09 AM
bigcatgirl
In the first showing, I missed the disclaimer at the beginning. After seeing it when it reran right now, I was turned off. I'll watch the original links that were posted in the other thread about brangelina, and then make a call. Walid Shoebat was the only one who appeared in both the documentaries. I do hope that at some point, there'd be a sequel to I:WTWNTK that includes a lot more footage, accompanied by voice over commentary at appropriate spots, from Robert, Srjda, Bat, Walid and Hugh (instead of Abdullah al Araby). None of the apologists like Daniel Pipes, Khaled al Toumeh, Alan Derschowitz, ED Hill, or others.
Hugh
I suspected as much. Does anybody know what the actual percentage of radicals are - 90^
Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 5, 2006 1:19 AM
bigcatgirl
In the first showing, I missed the disclaimer at the beginning. After seeing it when it reran right now, I was turned off. I'll watch the original links that were posted in the other thread about brangelina, and then make a call. Walid Shoebat was the only one who appeared in both the documentaries. I do hope that at some point, there'd be a sequel to I:WTWNTK that includes a lot more footage, accompanied by voice over commentary at appropriate spots, from Robert, Srjda, Bat, Walid and Hugh (instead of Abdullah al Araby). None of the apologists like Daniel Pipes, Khaled al Toumeh, Alan Derschowitz, ED Hill, or others.
Hugh
I suspected as much. Does anybody know what the actual percentage of radicals are - 90%? 85%? 50%? I know that nobody can read the minds of a billion people, but why not just assume that one is a radical, and leave the onus on them to prove otherwise? If I belonged to a group that was under a cloud, I'd think it incumbent on myself to distance myself from that group and association, rather than expect others to assume me to be the exception that proves the rule.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 5, 2006 1:22 AM
Please delete the first of my last 2 posts. It posted with me hitting some key - I wasn't even on the mouse.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 5, 2006 1:24 AM
"The sad truth is that America is doomed no-matter who comes to office." -- Alert
I understand it's easy to feel that way sometimes but it isn't helpful. It's exactly how the leftists and Islamists want you to feel. A dispirited America is easier to dismantle. The leftists want to dismantle Capitalism and the Islamists want to make Islam dominant and supreme.
As Johannes says, The Left is not stupid towards Islam, it simply hates America and... wants to use Islam to crush conservative America and esspecially Christianity..."
I think it's more that the left wants to destroy Capitalism and its 'exploitation of the masses', but undoubtedly there is a hatred of Christianity there too. I think you (Johannes) are exactly right though when you say that they (the left) are trying to use Islam to defeat America. It's payback for how the Islamists were used to stem the tide of Socialism around the world in the '60s through '80s, culminating in the use of Mujahedin to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Plus a defeated America means that the leftists can finally make a play for power here where previously they have never made headway (partially in their view due to Christianity I think).
"In Europe the Left has already succeeded. They have crushed Christianity and now they have to fight it out with Islam." -- Johannes
I've thought of it this way too. Everyone assumes that weak and divided Europe will eventually fall to the Islamists. And it might be true. But the Left will fight for Europe as they won't for America. But sadly, and stupidly, they still think that America is the greater threat to them.
"When the Pelosi Left takes over, liberty will die just as much as when Islam takes over." -- J.
Well, Democrats are not quite THAT bad but I agree with the general thrust of your argument which is that:
"The Left wants first to destroy Christianity and then deal with Islam. Till it has destroyed its major ennemy it wil pretend it doesn't know about Islam."
It IS almost like they are pretending that Islam is no threat at all. This is all the more amazing when you consider what Islam says about Non-Believers and how to deal with them. The truth is that leftists know exactly what Islam has in store for them, but they don't believe it can ever happen. They think they can control and channel Islam's rage but it's a dangerous game, much like the one Russia is playing with Iran and nukes.
"The whole universalist utopianism towards Islam of Bush has to go."
Amen!
at November 5, 2006 1:27 AM
Kafir:
You said.....
"Yep. I only wish I weren't in the choir being preached to so vociferously. It's the other 73% of the American public who don't get it -- I have no clue how to get through to them. Perhaps the war needs to be fought on American soil; but by then it will be too late."
_______________________________
I agree with you here. I have no clue either on how to clue others in. So far I have been called a bigot, wanting another Crusade, looking for reasons to demonize Islam (muslims)and saying that I am horrible. When all I have ever told anyone is to look into Islam that it is becoming much more radicalized than they think. And spreading.
One of the more peculiar and oft remarks I get is the complete and total bashing of Christianity! Long tirads of how horrible Christians are! I don't get it....I honestly don't. It is remarkable, in fact scary. But I still do try and warn people as gently as I can. If it falls on receptive ears good if not well I tried.
Posted by: Suz at November 5, 2006 1:30 AM
Hefner once made the comment that "men are basically voyeurs and women basically exhibitionists". That is a very clever insight into a general truth about nature, but it is ultimately a very immature view of human nature. It is the insight of a mind that exploits nature. Muhammad was similar in his insight, but ultimately his was also a mind bent upon exploitation of nature. Both views cripple the mind and heart and are at best adolescent at their level of the development of the human person.
I am not a psychologist, and have generally little interest in that "profession". However, it appears to me that the development of the human person is ultimately in the will and that this is a gift from God. The development is a matter of thought and deliberate behavior that becomes habit. It is in the will. (This requires great persistence, patience and courage.) We cannot control events in our lives (not entirely) but we are free to choose the manner in which we will respond to life. Ultimately, freedom is in the mind, and freedom is the unlimited right to reason and to express thoughts and opinions based on reason. All freedom is in the non-material mind-soul. The freedom is spiritual in nature and ultimately the will of God.
Posted by: Frank at November 5, 2006 1:33 AM
Final thought of three thoughts: A lot of folks (Hefner and Muhammad) use their mind for exploitation of nature and people. It's evil because it is not the highest development of the mind that tends to completeness and perfection of our nature. Goodness is completion and wholeness without imperfection. We cannot be good, but we may have good-will. Hefner and Muhammad are/were crippled in their will.
Posted by: Frank at November 5, 2006 1:47 AM
I too watched Fox's version of "Obsession" tonight for the first time. It's to run FOUR TIMES this weekend, for 4 hours (twice in Primetime) so that can't be bad even though as Infidel Pride and others have pointed out, it isn't a perfect presentation.
We can't be fussy enough to be perfect in this fight. Imperfect but headed in the right direction is good enough, for now.
Slowly but surely the truth about Islam is coming out. Slowly but surely America is waking up to the looming danger Islam presents. We would all like a faster awakening, yes, but let's build on what we can. We're making headway.
Posted by: alexon at November 5, 2006 1:49 AM
Now back to sleep-LOL Why do we dream? Why do we stay awake?-LOL
Posted by: Frank at November 5, 2006 1:50 AM
Frank,
I'm enjoying your philosophical ruminations tonight. Hugh Hefner and the false prophet Muhammad; what a pair!
I hope that's not OUR Hugh!
Goodnight ;-)
Posted by: alexon at November 5, 2006 1:58 AM
alexon
This is a microcosm of blaming al-Qaeda instead of Islam - except that in this case, al Qaeda has been substituted by Radical Islam.
I'm right now viewing the original live, and Daniel Pipes did concede that the number of anti-Americans/anti-Zionists is larger than that.
That said, point well taken.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 5, 2006 2:06 AM
The first thing you have to understand is that it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with poverty or lack of education (*
It has. They blame their shortcoming on us.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at November 5, 2006 3:03 AM
These hot-air balloons could also be called, using an old-fashonioned term, montgolfiers, but their possessors, high-flying despite being weighted down with the proceeds of lecture tours, consultancies, and other ever-increasing emoluments, could hardly be described using that old-fashioned term luftmenschen.
Posted by: Hugh
I hate to disagree, Hugh. The proper German word for these folks is VOLLIDIOTEN.
I am halfway through reading the comments after I read the powerful testimony contained in the main story and I wonder: WHY aren't any of US in government?
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 5, 2006 3:08 AM
What a brilliant article. Man, the National Post has really been doing a great job on Islam the past couple of years. I can't think of another newspaper in all of North America that has been so dedicated to telling the truth about what we're really up against.
And it's great to see someone talking about the sexual angle to Islamism. I've spent time in the ME, a lot of it with young guys around my age smoking the hubbly bubbly and drinking Bebsi, and they really have this incredible Beavis and Butthead view of women and sex. It's almost cute and innocent seen one-on-one (and it often is, al though there's also a frequent ugliness underneath thanks to the view that all Western women are sluts, etc.), but twisted by Islam, it could easily be channeled into kabooming. I mean, imagine being stuck at 16 for what seems like forever, always being told what you can't have...unless you become a shahid, then you've got more babes than you can handle!
Talk about pathetic and sad. The West is wringing its collective hands and killing itself over a medieval death cult and its horny teenage followers.
Posted by: OutOfAqaba at November 5, 2006 3:15 AM
-- instead, it's about confining all willing jihadists into a kill box, and doing what's done in a kill box.
Fight them here, or fight them there: guess which one *I* prefer.
Posted by: Kafir
If only it were that easy and simple. I'd be with you 100% - IF the rules of Engagement our troops are bound by were something more reflective of reality.
Why is this accepted as fact that as long as we are in Iraq we can draw in the jihadists there and kill them? If ONLY it were that simple.
Besides.. why wouldn't Afghanistan be such a "jihadist draw"?
To be honest that washed-out phrase we are being fed by bloat-baugh and naive-vanity makes absolutely no sense.
It's WAY easier for them to get into Iraq or to Afghanistan from where they are in order to attack our troops there.
Besides - THE ODDS OVER THERE ARE VASTLY STACKED IN THEIR FAVOR FOR NOW!!!
do you think the US population would give them aid and comfort the way they do in Iraq?? or in Afghanistan??
God almighty.. WHAT DRIVEL!!! These Bush-bots will make up anything to justify this foolishness!!
We had the perfect counterweight in Iraq to keep Iran busy!! NOW that Saddam is gone they're going noo-cu-lear. I dare suggest that ol' Saddam wouldn't have looked too kindly on that.
And it would have been up to us to make sure we keep them at each others' throats by offering a little help and a wink and a nudge here and there..
But NOOOOO.. Bush has to come in with his foolishness and make-blieve that we will install WONDERFUL DEMOCRACY among these savages! I wonder if dumbass dubya really believes all of this!
WHO exactly is running the ship here I am asking myself with ever more urgency.
So now I am thinking, well.. I am not in the highest income brackets for a few more years yet. The BEST way to get a REAL REPUBLICAN president in 2008 is for the dhims to come in NOW and be even more foolish than W.
They can be trusted to PISS OFF most of the American electorate within the next two years and at least we'd be reasonably assured we won't have to contend with the Greatest of all possible Evils - a Hillary Rotten presidency!
so they'll raise our taxes and let some terrorists out of Guantanamo.. And maybe a few terrorists will get in and be able to do a few things.
Which the people will then blame in the Dhims and we will have the spectre of Tom Tancredo or Rudy Giuliani to bail us out of the mess they've made by 2008!!
With any luck Bush will veto a lot of their initiatives due to the acrimony that will ensue once they come in.
I am just bringing up some "thinking points". I'd be very welcome to hear some logical discussion.. pro and con.. I am tired of being a pawn to party politics anyway.
ALL I WANT IS NO islam ANYWHERE NEAR ME!!! And all I am concerned about is HOW TO GET THAT DONE!!!
Amen.
at November 5, 2006 3:30 AM
Well said germainamerica.
I personally am sick and tired of the splitting down of America between the democrats and republicans. I have often thought that they were suppose to be thinking of America first not the next election or which party could maintain power. Washington needs a shake up ...... instead of special interests and PC drivel they need to be thinking about the people they represent.
It is a damn shame that 9/11 didn't shake this country up. Only for a moment or two and then it went right back to the snipping.
This country has a major problem.....Islam now knows all too well it's weakness's and it's unwillingness to fight a fight because 'oh my' we may actually hurt the enemy!!! Forget about the American blood shed! By unwillingness I do not mean the indiviual soldier....more like the civilian commanders....and the damn PC left!
Posted by: Suz at November 5, 2006 3:44 AM
this srain of islam is one that has been
wageing a very old war the following is how
feel jim n7gpd@telus.net
coments on it are welcome
> a poem
> in the 11th day of the 11th hour of the 11th month of 1919
> the guns fell silent across a war torn world and the politicians
> declared this was the war to end all wars now we will have
> peace in our time.
> but 2o short years later while the poppies bloomed in Flanders fields
> were captain john mccray had written his poem in Flanders fields
> the fires of war burned again sparked by a madman ,countries took the axis side
> Germany , Italy, japan, Romania and Bulgaria as well as others and many Arab nations
> marched under the death heads of the ss or stood guard while millions of jews were
> marched to die in the camps of Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka
> some fought back like some like Oscar Schindler - with his wife Emilie Schindler -
> spent all they had to protect and save the Schindler-Jews, everything he possessed. He died penniless
> but was granted the title of a righteous gentile by the reborn state of Israel well loved by jews every where
> but hated by Muslim Arabs had fought on the side of Hitlers evil , evil that they saw as being commanded to aid
> that they saw as a jihad that there cult leader had commanded until Islam ruled the world
> and like the days gone by they saw a chance to loot and raid and occupie and spread Islam and sharia law
> over the world and gain new converts by fire and swordbut on the beaches of normady and in towns like ortona
> units like the seafoth highlanders and the1st Canadian Scottish drove the axis back until we thought the war had been won
> but less than 4 short years had passed and in the middle east the fires of Islamic jihad burned again the jews had 6 million die
> killed by Hitler for the crime of being jews but out of the holocaust they finally regained the land of their ancestors that they had taken 1400 years back in a war that a bedowin raider a would be profit had occupied with his cult and made the jews dhimmi subdued people in there own land forced to pay a poll tax called jizha or die .
>
> the un voted and over the protests of the nation of dar al Islam the house of Islam the nation of Israel was reborn and the Muslim nations that had held the jews and there land under the boot of Islam "cried we must drive out this knife at the heart of dar al islam"
> and Dar al-Harb the house of war attacked the just reborn nation of Israel with the goal
> of driving the jews from the land the forces of Islam had occupied so long ago
> their goal of driving all jews into the sea and finishing the job that mohamd had told
> his followers to do "kill all the jews" because they had dared mock his plagerism of their holly books for the quran
> 6 times since 1948 the Dar al-Harb has attacked and been thrown back but now they attack the west with suicide bombers
> and those willing to fly the metal birds of death into man made mountains and die in their jihad
> financed by the liquid compressed bodies of long dead lords of thunder
> given by thier bothers in jihad in the land of the pharos
> and now the poppies bloom in Afghanistan while our men fight and die
> the opium from them goes for the silver to fight the jihad
> that the forces of islam belive they must fight untill all submit or pay jizha or die and this is a fight to the death a fight the west must win
> it is a very old war started by muhamud 1400 years ago that is still trying
> to force the entire world under the banner of dar el islam the house of islam in
> 1683 the tide of this very old war reached the gates of veina crested and was driven back
> by the Christian knight of Poland ,
> it has only retreated and rested but the followers of the cult of islam have never given up
> our nightmare of a world that is no longer 2 houses but only one the house of dae al islam
> we must learn from the past if we want to survive the onslaught of the Dar al-Harb or be given the
> 3 choices infidels are given become muslim accept dhimmi status or die
> 1>War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
> 2> Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)
> 3>Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race
>
>
>
>
>
at November 5, 2006 4:00 AM
Muhammad knew the visual nature of male sexuality (women instinctively know this-it's nature) and painted a picture of 72 virgins to die for. He exploited the male sexual nature for power just as Hugh Hefner did so for money. Both Muhammad and Hefner's views of women, Burkha clad or Playboy nude, make women only sexual objects. They are the flip-side of the same coin.
Frank.. I'd MUCH rather follow Hef to the Playboy Manse than follow mahomet to alla-balla-land where I have to kill someone to get them virginz.
Hef never made it mandatory to kill those whose instincts are less than - shall we say - masturbatory.
Hef never laid the ideological groundwork for mass murder and general mayhem. Hef never preached supremacy based on anything.
Forgive me, but I think I'll follow Hef to the Manse...
Another point you made was that if they attack Israel they'd all be annihilated in consequence. I can only say I WISH ithat were so. They KNOW they have to attack little by little as now they are doing... while working on our media and meddling with our elections and still they keep immigrating.
Your scenario sounds so delightfully simple and final.. too bad it won't likely come to pass :-(
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 5, 2006 4:02 AM
"...You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want."
Remember this. It's the crux of the matter.
It's all about what THEY want.
Posted by: rocky at November 5, 2006 6:08 AM
I was surpised by the introduction myself. I guess it comes from fear of that all too familar call from CAIR.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 5, 2006 6:28 AM
From Dominic -
"The other [students] could not have been more different. He hated the West....naturally, I asked him why, since he held these views, he was still reading at one of Britain's premier universities and this is what he said (and I quote verbatim): "So that I can help to destroy you all." "
It's great to see someone spelling it out for the bleeding hearts. This combined with Hamid's words should knock any foolish "guilt" out of anyone's heads. It's nothing we did; it's just the fact that we ARE.
I think Jihad Boy needs to be banished from the school (and England), with lots of kicks on the backside as a parting gift. If the other two students were being truthful we should allow them the privilege of the first booting. With impunity.
Posted by: GoldieLox at November 5, 2006 8:03 AM
As a rule I would say that religious fanatics of all religions suffer sexual tensions that bring them to commit crimes against life. After all the sexual act is the way that life is engendered.
Look for example at catholic priests and their celibacy vows, and the sexual tension that it must raise; Haggard that spoke against homosexuality while being gay; and what about those idiots that believed the comet that passed over in 1998, don’t remember the name of the comet, that all committed suicide, their leader had himself castrated.
No doubt about it fanaticism in general may be sexual tension related.
at November 5, 2006 8:03 AM
"...You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want."
Tell this to one of the Democratic candidates in Washington state (I can't remember which one--I'm in Canada and didn't pay much attention to his name). This guy basically said in his campaign ad that the US is experiencing more terrorism because of Iraq. He said it a few times, "It's all about Iraq."
Posted by: Farah at November 5, 2006 12:10 PM
A friend of mine who I am trying to get see the obvious states:
"From an a historical point of view, every religion has the same purpose.
The social aims of religion are to subdue violent actions or crimes within a
civilization, and to alleviate the fear of death when faced with an enemy.
Both Christianity and Islam do this very well, any religion that didn't do this, didn't last on the planet.
"You're examples are not all wrong, your methods are shot to hell. You're only including koranic quotes and interpretations that support your
opinion. You dismiss moderates as not mattering, or interpretations that are moderate as cultural leftovers. This is a cardinal sin in objective study, and it its incredibly common even when honest people study cultures different from their own. I'm talking about honest learned people, like yourself, who reinforce their own subliminal bias with "objective data" by discounting anything that doesn't fit the plot.
Example of quotes that you will probably dismiss:
“If they leave you alone and offer to make peace with you, God does not allow you to harm them.” (4:90)
“Those who believe (in the Qua’an), and the Christians and the Sabians – any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (Surah 2:62).
“Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become manifest unto them: but forgive and overlook, till Allah accomplish his purpose” (Surah 2:109)
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah” (Surah 8:61)
“But fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there” (Surah 2:191)
“But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful” (Surah 2:192).
“But there is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256)
“Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore, if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you guarantees of ) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them)” (Surah 4:90)
He denies that fact that it's the only religion with a global mandate to take over religious, social, and legalistic actions of life. I argue of course that moderates have no leg to stand on, even though they exist, by sheer ineffective conclusions within the history and traditional exegesis. Because he claims it's a bottom up religion, being created like protestants do in Christianity, he refuses to see anything mainline about teachings. I don't get it. Any thoughts?
at November 5, 2006 1:11 PM
"Islam condemns extra-marital sex as well as masturbation, which is also taught in the Christian tradition. But Islam also tells of unlimited sexual ecstasy in paradise with beautiful virgins for the martyr who gives his life for the faith. Don't for a moment underestimate this blinding passion or its influence on those who accept fundamentalism."
Hard-hitting article, but the above point is off the mark. Islam promotes all forms of sex that is forced and unnatural, but not that which allows men to respect women as partners who can freely share in the enjoyment of the sexual act.
Seventy-two is an arbitrary number restricting virgin women of the heavenly harem, but it is also balanced by the 28 boys (pearls) and 10,000 slaves. The mathematics of it may involve a secret code of jihad :-D If you can crack it, the Believers are no longer enthralled by the idea of becoming suicide bombers.
About the sexual tension part, Islam is one great orgy of violence, killing and unbridled sex with animals, men and inflicting painful intercourse on women, boys and girls. This fact is contrary to what Dr. Hamid posits above. Of course, not all Muslim men are like that, but the MS Salafist theology is! It is about extreme misogyny, seeking to convert women into meat, dead or alive, as the fuel for violence, more violence, loot and rule by terror, over Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Remember Beslan?
Islam is a religion by, of and for men with a most unnatural insistence of keeping the female virus invisible, quarantined in the vault and out of public reckoning. Not doing so is a primary and direct threat to its operating system.
The beast of salafist Islam, the Death Cult, is against deviation from the main theme through decadence, music, dance and alcohol which may dissipate the urge to strike terror in the hearts of men and women!
Turning young and virile men into machines of rape, loot, arson and killing in the name of religion is fine. Killing your brother for power is fine, which is why they have constant coups. Raping your son's wife is fine. Make men insecure about their future. Make them paranoid with fear of great dangers lurking in each and every shadow. Make them mistrustful and contemptuous of women, and keep them on the edge at all times. Then release the old battlecry of 'Islam under siege', and watch the fun begin!
To blame the jihad on Israel, Iraq or the Babri Masjid, is to pretend that jihad is a postcolonial, postmodern phenomenon. But then the basics of Islam is about lobotomising history.
Posted by: pagandkapitat at November 5, 2006 1:34 PM
Carolyn2 said:
"I am dismayed at the way Christians are slurred these days. Give me some examples of Christian terrorism"
The best examples would be those who bombed abortion clinics and murdered abortion doctors and clinic workers.
The difference between them and the suicide bombers (and between the West and Islam) is that they were not treated as heroes. They were prosecuted for their crimes and shunned by their fellow Christians for committing sins not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Society didn't treat them kindly and they were not revered outside of their own circles.
McVeigh doesn't count because his acts were not motivated in any way by his religion. He is a secular terrorist, nothing more.
at November 5, 2006 2:09 PM
I watched Obsession and continue to be puzzled at the idea that Islam has been "hijacked". If it has, then where are the Muslims who object to what is being done in their name? What are they doing to stop it? A silent majority is an acquiescent majority. How many "peaceful" Muslims support "charities" that finance terrorism? To coin a phrase: they're either for the terrorism or they're against it. I've seen no signs that "moderates" oppose these act of terrorism, so I can only assume they're for it.
Even if we accepted the idea that "only" ten to fifteen percent of Muslims support violent jihad against the West, that's at least one hundred million people. If only one percent of this group actually aspire to attacking the West, that's at least one million people.
Since when are one million people bent on our destruction not a threat?
Posted by: PMK at November 5, 2006 2:16 PM
"This is a microcosm of blaming al-Qaeda instead of Islam - except that in this case, al Qaeda has been substituted by Radical Islam." -- I.P.
Well, I admit that saying "radical Islam" is redundant. Radical means going to the root, and at the root of Islam is the immoderate Koran and Muhammad's martial example. Accordingly, millions of Musliims are hateful and extremist. But there undoubtedly are millions of other Muslims who are not hate-filled and bent on taking over the world for Allah. I see no advantage in making all Muslims our enemies by tarring everyone within Islam with the same brush. Some are better and some are worse (notwithstanding the question of whether or not the better ones are 'good' Muslims or not). Imo we need to focus our energies on destroying the Muslims who are bent on destroying us first. If we do that effectively then we won't have to worry about others. So when I speak of "radical Islam" it's a way of taking the fight to the enemy without (in the process of mobilizing our forces) making millions more enemies than are necessary. Plus, there IS hope for many of the lukewarm Muslims, not so much in reforming Islam but better yet in GETTING OUT. Trying to escape Islam is not easy. Let them see what happens to the red hot Muslims. Let them see a better and more hopeful way. Help them out (of Islam), or at least find a path within Islam which is peaceful with others (a tall order i agree).
I'm still feeling my way on a lot of all this. I knew absolutely NOTHING about Islam before 9-11 and I wish to hell that was still the case! I deeply resent having to fight this fight that none of us wanted or asked for. This fight was forced on us and now they are going to get what they wanted, and more. I am a firm believer in the motto "Don't Tread on Me". I mind my own business unless that's no longer possible which is unfortunately the case in this life and death struggle with Islam or Islamism or radical Islam, whichever you prefer.
Getting back to semantics though, I do think that "radical Islam" is a big improvement over describing a simple fight against "Al-Qaeda" where Islam is not even mentioned. I might even eventually agree that we just take on Islam directly and name the enemy as such, but not yet. I'm still holding out some hope that we can limit the field of battle.
Posted by: alexon at November 5, 2006 2:59 PM
Good Afternoon Frank!
Posted by: alexon at November 5, 2006 3:01 PM
From the interesting article about Malaysia quoted by paladin above:
Here's one problem with that article, very subtle, illustrated by two quotes from it:
"The eventual outcome is a civic and political order in Malaysia that is decidedly more Islamist in orientation."
"In Indonesia, it is these scholars and activists from the madrassahs and Islamic universities, trained in Islamic theology, philosophy and law, who spearhead a progressive Islamic movement opposed to the creation of an Islamic state and imposition of Syariah."
Notice how in the first quote, the radical extremists are described with the adjective "Islamist", while in the second quote, the moderate Muslims are described with the adjective "Islamic". These adjectives, in fact, should be reversed: "Islamist" connotes an Islam that is less authentic than "Islamic" -- but it is the radical extremists who are more "Islamic", more authentic to the Qur'an, Ahadith and Prophet Mohammed; while it is the moderates who don't want sharia who are the ones in fact moving away from Islam.
Another problem in the article comes out of the following long quote:
"Concerned over the potential for extremism and violence, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi introduced Islam Hadhari "to enable Muslims in Malaysia to become the vanguard of a new civilisation that can bring about progressive and comprehensive change".
"But without champions within the system to deliver on his vision, and a civil society facing the threat of silence, I fear that Islam Hadhari, like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Islamisation project, will yet again be hijacked and redefined in implementation by the Maududi and Syed Qutb ideologues and the traditionalist ulama that still dominate the Islamic political landscape in Malaysia."
Notice how Mahathir Mohamad is lumped in with moderate Muslim reformists who have been "hijacked" and "redefined". We all know better, from having read the transcript of Mahathir Mohamad's speech to the worldwide Islamic conference in 2003, a speech that was chillingly extremist and given a standing ovation by Muslim clerics and politicos from every Muslim nation. Mahathir Mohamad's "Islamisation" needs no "hijacking" or "redefining" to be extremist: it already is -- unless the writer is implying that Mahathir Mohamad hijacked himself.
at November 5, 2006 4:02 PM
With the amount of degreed "Feminist", (Women's Studies), who work for/in the U.S. Department of State, and other alphabet soup acronyms, it is difficult to understand why there hasn't been a "radicalization" of the women of Submission. Perhaps, and this is just supposition, perhaps the Socialist/Communist movement of the left-of-center automatons is MORE important than protection of the very foundations which ALLOW them to exist in the first place re: Current Holy War against Western Civilization, and the current guilt tripping and spiritual extortion of Joe Six-Pack by "intellectual elitists. How many times has the emesis of the left contained, "...more education...", "...war on poverty....", "...mo money mo money..."? The redistrubution of wealth. Far fetched? Nope. The more we, the West, spread load our wealth we do NOT bring others up. Rather, we, LOWER our expectations of others. In so doing, we also lower our societies and corrode their foundations upon which the West was built- Judeo-Christian imperical values. In the Socialistic world, this only empowers the state (Submission). Hence, the Submissive further raises the "State" ('God' or 'Allah'). Feminist ONLY are concerned with Western countries, for the disproportionate majority of the time because of the tripe forced fed to the immature mind of the western college student (Peer pressure and coersion)with Marx and Engalls. This "peer pressure" is further amplified through the "feminization" of the stereo typical male WASP. Why? The aforementioned has developed and discovered more of everything in a shorter time span than ANY other person in mankind. Geez, does anyone remember the entire fable of "Cain and Abel"??? Think think. Abel was murdered because he offered more with less. Jelosy kills.
The issue others above bring to the table i.e. "Islamists" vice "islamic" et al etc is way down on the list of importance within the current Submissive Holy War against all unbelievers of Mohammed.
Hell, even one of the pillars of Submission is "giving" to the "poor." Granted, not as overt as Western "unions", ration cards, or price controls, or the U.S. Department of Education, but identical nonetheless. So, if a comment (previously deleted) is, well, inappropriate--would it be out-of-line to suggest the "Other Government Agency" (OGA) begin subversive activities i.e. Radical Feminist movements within countries tyrannically enforcing universal Submission to the perfect model for moral relativism..."Quran"..."Allah's Will" {The State}? Marx is eerily similar to Mo, and was Jewish by heritage...
If an improvised explosive device is employed by a human platform, in a Western country, would recommending a certain order of Roosevelt be out-of-line also? Remember, the DOD just recently toyed with the notion that a Suicide-Bomber "might" be motivated by a so called "holy book."
Beat the plowshares into swords. Conquer Peace for the West.
at November 5, 2006 6:11 PM
I think we can all agree on one thing: This business of Islam being "hijacked" each time there's an atrocity committed by Muslims (daily) is a load of crap.
p.s. Interesting post SickBoy.
Posted by: alexon at November 6, 2006 12:27 AM
Submission is the perfect vehicle for ushering in a new (or old, depending on perspective) more perfect communal living standard. We are witness to a convergence of once seemingly infinite arrays, that in the end are proving to be a circle. For centuries we did not see the gradual curve of the "array", on many topics: A defacto constriction. Perhaps a stretch, however, did the Ottomans have a presence in the Rhineland, Trier to be exact... Or did one or more of Marx's anscestors come into contact with the Mujahadin. Pogrums notwithstanding (Prussians),
Pardon the drift a bit, but old is new again. ...and the articles are coming out about the Submissive Republic of Aryans (Iran) and their ties to Marxist governments...mindless automatons; providing the logistical support to the operatives.
at November 7, 2006 9:53 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)