| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
As I travel around the country and give talks trying to raise awareness of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, the question I am most often asked is, "What can we do? What can I, as a private citizen, do to help defeat the global jihad?"
There are as many answers to that question as there are people who ask it. Raising awareness of the problem, amid the prevailing fog of political correctness and multiculturalism, is still the primary task we face. That is, of course, what this site attempts to do, and there is a growing number of other sites that do so as well. Some may give articles or books to friends and relatives. Others may write letters to the editor -- certainly there is enough CAIR propaganda in any American newspaper on any given day to warrant a reply. Still others may attend mosque open houses, and try to find out what their local mosque teaches about jihad and Islamic supremacism, and who funds it -- and to call public attention to the findings and their implications, whatever they may be. Some may begin to ask their elected officials for clarity in their stance on these questions, signaling (as the numbers of such people grow) that we are no longer willing to accept myopic misguided policies based on politically correct misdiagnoses of the challenge we face. Ultimately what one person can do depends on his or her time, resources, intelligence, imagination, interests, dedication, and a thousand other things.
But amid the myriad of possibilities that a determined anti-jihadist might take up, a few recent news stories indicate several paths not to take.
One is the brouhaha in Florida: see "Bush blasts couple's comments: Mary Ann Hogan responds that she’s been left cold by some of the governor’s statements, too," by Asjylyn Loder in the St. Petersburg Times. Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother, has condemned Hernando County commissioner Tom Hogan and his wife Mary Ann for remarks about Islam. "There is no room for bigotry and hatred in the state of Florida," huffs Bush's communications director, Alia Faraj. "The governor is extremely disappointed in their inappropriate comments."
A letter by Mary Ann Hogan to the St. Petersburg Times touched off the furor. She objected to the county’s assistance to a local mosque’s celebration of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr, marking the end of Ramadan on Oct. 23.“Don’t the administrators of this county know that in honor of Ramadan the Muslims in Iraq have killed an even greater number of our soldiers and Marines than in the preceding months?” she wrote. “The stated goal of the Muslim faith is to kill us, the 'infidels.’ By providing county employees for their use Hernando County is sanctioning this hateful, frightening religion.”
Now, it is certainly true that, at least in this one St. Petersburg Times story, neither Jeb Bush nor CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper or Ahmed Bedier say that what Mary Ann Hogan said is false. CAIR is masterful at mau-mauing people for true statements about Islam, but in this case something Mary Ann Hogan says is indeed false, and that fatally weakens the point she is trying to make. She says, "The stated goal of the Muslim faith is to kill us, the 'infidels.’" In fact, as I have pointed out here hundreds of times, the stated goal of Muhammad the prophet of Islam, and the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, is not to "kill us, the 'infidels,'" but to extend the hegemony of Islamic law over the world. Muhammad told his followers to offer "polytheists" conversion, subjugation as dhimmis, or war, and Qur'an 9:29 makes it clear that that offer is to be extended to Jews and Christians. Cherry-picking violent texts? Alas, no: the imperative that the Islamic umma must wage war against non-Muslims until they either convert or submit is taught by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and reinforced by the near-unanimous example of Islamic history. Contemporary jihadists invoke these texts to justify their actions and make recruits among Muslims, as I show in my book The Truth About Muhammad.
This is a global problem, few are facing up to it, and CAIR et al are skillfully using charges of "bigotry" against those who point out the Islamic teachings that are justifying violence and need to be addressed by Islamic reformers if they are sincere about reform. But to characterize the situation as Muslims wanting to "kill us, the 'infidels'" is an inaccurate and inflammatory reductionism that only makes the speaker sound like a crank, instead of sounding the alarm in any effective way. Likewise the "hateful, frightening religion" remark. There are aspects of Islam that are hateful and frightening indeed, and aspects that aren't. There are Muslims who are hateful and frightening, and Muslims who aren't. It is much better, I believe, to focus on the aspects that are hateful and frightening and oppose them on the grounds of human rights, human decency, Judeo-Christian values. Characterizing the religion as a whole as hateful and frightening just made it easier for CAIR to pounce, and for Bush to throw the Hogans to the wolves.
I sympathize with Tom and Mary Ann Hogan. But I believe that Bush really could do nothing else, given the situation. If their statement had been completely accurate and less inflammatory, it might have been more difficult to dismiss, although of course CAIR has never been stopped by accurate, scrupulously careful statements in the past. I do believe, nevertheless, that careful accuracy in anti-jihadist statements is imperative, and gives the opposition less to work with.
The other thing "not to do" is more spectacular, and less likely to be imitated in any case: "Priest burns himself to death over Islam," from the TimesOnline, with thanks to all who sent this in:
A retired priest committed suicide by setting himself on fire in a German monastery in protest at the spread of Islam and the Protestant Church’s inability to contain it.Roland Weisselberg, 73, poured a can of petrol over his head and set light to himself in the grounds of the Augustine monastery in the eastern city of Erfurt, where Martin Luther spent six years as a monk at the beginning of the 16th century.....
The Provost of Erfurt, Elfriede Begrich, told reporters that Weisselberg’s widow had said that he killed himself because he was alarmed at the spread of Islam and the Church’s stance on the issue.
She described Weisselberg as an erudite man who had addressed repeatedly the Church’s position on Islam in meetings over the past three to four years. He had written to her, urging her to take the matter more seriously, she said.
The Protestant Bishop of Saxony, Axel Noack, said the suicide had shocked the community and that he hoped it would not hurt relations between Christians and Muslims.
Oh heavens to betsy, Noack, I hope not. But in any case, I find this story ineffably sad. Not only is a man dead, and needlessly, but in an certain sense his action recapitulates what has so far been the stance of Western authorities toward the jihad threat: instead of a strong defense of our people, our values, and our civilization, we are getting self-immolation: endless self-recriminations about what we have done to set off the poor dears, and what we can do to pacify them; endless concessions to jihadist intimidation and Sharia insinuations in the West, endless assumptions that somehow the whole problem can be bought off.
Well, it can't. As Tawfik Hamid said, "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." This is self-immolation no less than Weisselberg's, and it must stop. It is time to fight, with all our military and cultural and spiritual and intellectual resources, not to destroy ourselves in one grand gesture of despair.
Let us fight now, so as to win.
Posted by Robert at November 5, 2006 6:25 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Robert Spencer at one crucial juncture is fatally imprecise:
"In fact, as I have pointed out here hundreds of times, the stated goal of Muhammad the prophet of Islam, and the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, is not to "kill us, the 'infidels,'" but to extend the hegemony of Islamic law over the world. Muhammad told his followers to offer "polytheists" conversion, subjugation as dhimmis, or war..."
What Spencer should have written is [my addition in bold]:
"...the stated goal of Muhammad the prophet of Islam, and the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, is not primarily or exclusively to "kill us, the 'infidels,'" but to extend the hegemony of Islamic law over the world -- and for the most part it is only if we, the 'infidels', resist and/or sabotage this hegemony, that we are to be killed.
The devil is in the details.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 5, 2006 6:35 PM
There is no room for bigotry and hatred in the state of Florida...
Every bit as an intellectually lazy rich kid as his big brother, could Governor Jeb please put definitons around bigotry and hatred? I saw neither in the woman's statement.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 5, 2006 6:35 PM
I sympathize with Tom and Mary Ann Hogan
Their hearts (and truth) are in the right place. They doesn't understand the nuances that Robert talks about. They know that Islam is a big damn threat so they are ahead of the curve. They just aren't well versed in doing ye old multicultural tap dance.
Islam is out to rule the earth, the way they will do it is via killing, terror, and subjugation. (Hello you people of the book!!!) They will also undermine nations via demographic jihad, cultural jihad and preaching
at November 5, 2006 6:52 PM
“Well, it can't. As Tawfik Hamid said, "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." This is self-immolation no less than Weisselberg's, and it must stop. It is time to fight, with all our military and cultural and spiritual and intellectual resources, not to destroy ourselves in one grand gesture of despair.
Let us fight now, so as to win”.
This is exactly what I want to hear! Wake up Americans/Freeman/Westerners, stand up and do your share!
at November 5, 2006 6:59 PM
Robert it is no wonder that you are able to logically debate these muslim appologists. You have the nuance and steady reasoning of thought and of course you have the knowledge to bring up the charge. l am just trying to educate some of my libeal family, l just sent the article from the "Natioanl Post", and even then they chose to ignore this. l will just keep hammering away, and when they are ready, maybe some of this information they will be able to see the light, if not for them for their children.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 5, 2006 7:07 PM
A lost opportunity due to bad semantics. Thanks, Robert, for revealing your methods of getting the message out most effectively...wisdom to be employed by all.
Posted by: Xero G at November 5, 2006 7:31 PM
At least he didn't say islam is a religion of peace!
An alligator in Florida will eat a child or dog or jogger...it's what it does. Same goes for islamics....killing is what they do.
Posted by: freewoman at November 5, 2006 7:47 PM
A version of unpleasant immigration arithmetic and Dhimmi status.
Suppose that the population level has an upper bound and that it reaches a steady state less than or equal to the bound.
In the steady state, either the two groups have the same net fertility rate, which must equal a steady state replacement or the Dhimmi group is below replacement and the non-Dhimmi group above. This would persist until the Dhimmi group's genetic survival ratio hits zero.
There is no long term steady state equilibrium of non-Dhimmis and Dhimmis in which the Dhimmis survive if the Dhimmi survival rate is any amount below the non-Dhimmi rate. This is because if there is a separation, the Dhimmi rate has to be below replacement.
If both group had fertility above replacement, then total population would be unbounded from above, i.e. grow forever.
This is basically a modification of
"Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic."
This is an important theorem in its own right.
Its a basic result in population biology. If Neanderthals and Cro Magnon occupy the same area, and CM have a higher net fertility/survival rate, then eventually the Neanderthals go extinct, even without any contact between the two groups.
There is a theory that the Dark Ages corresponds to a volcano and that Islam arose out of the shock to living standards from that event. Thus Islam was a response to demographic decline in the total earth population.
This would explain why a doctrine that has the above implications would arise. Since there is a population bubble, in some theories, now on the earth, this could explain the re-emergence of views in Islam pushing these demographic effects.
Their policies towards women also make sense in a time of demographic stress since freeing women would result in lower fertility. The demographic stress is, of course, caused by the excess fertility. This leads to the immigration, and that leads to emphasizing doctrine that will result in a take over.
This also gives Islam an appeal to any group with high birth rate, it justifies taking Western lands with low fertility. Immigration itself depresses fertility of the other groups through substitution effect. The result is a cycle that feeds on itself. As the cycle goes on it pushes emphasizing elements in Islam that give demographic advantage to the immigrants and high birth rate areas.
This helps explain the spread of Islam to high birth rate countries. It gives an advantage when the population bubble bursts, or even if population stablizes at these high levels.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at November 5, 2006 8:02 PM
God Bless Roland Weisselberg.
Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 5, 2006 8:31 PM
May God have mercy on his soul.
Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at November 5, 2006 8:43 PM
Well, I'm not going to convert. And I'm not going to pay the jizya(sp). So what is left for me? Sounds like they're going to "try" to kill me. Yep, sounds about right to me.
Posted by: NC_patriot at November 5, 2006 8:52 PM
And I'm not going to pay the jizya...
You already are, every time your pay check gets deducted for NC state tax and Federal tax.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 5, 2006 8:55 PM
I have a question. If the religion of Islam is not a scary religion and there are only a few practitioners of the outward jihad, how does one tell who is moderate and who is rabid. In this age of taqiyya how can you tell that the man coming up behind you is one of us? This is not to start an argument but to gain knowledge. There has to be a way to identify the enemy, and if the enemy is unidentifiable then what? Death is kinda permanent if you make a mistake, Dan and Nick know that, much to their chagrin.
Posted by: Mike H. at November 5, 2006 9:11 PM
The Muslim threat of world Sharia government is an empty threat. It will never happen. Once men and women had tasted freedom, they will never roll back, and either fight for it or at worse leave the country. (See what is happening in places like Bethlehem, where Christians are migrating out, now down to only 15%.) We are not living in the pre-Gates of Vienna 16th century, when freedom was not yet defined as freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of belief, and a constitutional government elected by free people. These are all new post Reformation ideals, which never penetrated into the dark cavities of Islam, and so today they are fighting us. Freedom works. They cannot win.
Their war-cult jihad is a more serious threat. They are violent, and will seek to do us harm, believing in their twisted logic it is true word of their god. They want to convert us by force if necessary. But they are wrong, as any well versed, honest Islam scholar will know, they are on thin ice when it comes to forcing us all to become Muslims. That is a matter of debate within Islam, and it is a debate that should not only be encouraged, but brought out into the open for all to witness. How will they rule on this? To force so-called infidels to accept Islam, by violence if necessary, or to pretty up Islam as much as possible with lovely evenings at the local mosque, to conquer our minds and souls? By violent force, the only attraction to Islam is if you are a psychologically dysfunctional, pathological. But with the pretty stories about how Islam is peace, then they can win more, at least sway the simple. However, this then once again defaults to the fact that we are not living in pre 16th century, but have had the benefits of having lived in freedom. Witness the material and intellectual wealth of the West, contrasted with the material poverty of dar-al-Islam. Further, their intellectual poverty is so intense we cannot even have reasonable dialogue with them, without them flying off into a rage, i.e., Pope rage, cartoon rage, raw meat rage, etc.
As Robert points out, what we should not do is to give them a hard edge against which they can pry with their tools of dual victimhood qua jihad violence. Better to show only smooth surfaces off which they must glance off, even when they lie, without any intellectual damage to us. The best weapon we have is reason. Keep applying reasonable arguments, showing their faults and contradictions, and basically pry them out of their darkness into the light of humanity in the 21st century. It is doable, you'll know it is working as more and more so-called moderates within Islam begin speaking out against the heavy handed tactics of their muftis and jihadists. Understand they cannot win, in any matter of reasonable argument, so approach them calmly with reason. I'll go one better. Stop their violence, stop their trouble making, and everything else they have to say about Islam is empty. They have a 7th century philosophy against the 21st century's success. We are better armed both intellectually and materially. They cannot win. But they will cause trouble, so we must stop them. We can win, and we must.
at November 5, 2006 9:23 PM
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not
Mary Ann Hogan IS RIGHT IN HERE STANCE AND THE COUNTY COUWERING BEFOR CAIR ECT IS WRONG THE ABOVE SHOWS JUST WHAT THE LIKES OF CAIR WOULD PULL INFACT THEY WANT SHARIA LAW HER BUT UNFORTUNETLY FROM WHEN I WAS LIVING FL I FOUND St. Petersburg , TAMPA. MIAMI, ORLADO,AND GAY WEST ECUSE ME KEY WEST TO BE VERY LIBERAL AND LEFT WING
at November 5, 2006 9:32 PM
Speaking of winning, why are we always on defense?
From what I’ve been able to figure out about the world, 9 times out of 10 things happen because they make sense. It made sense for communists to take over in Russia after the Czar’s power became hollow. And because capitalism is a more efficient than communism, it eventually won. Democrats and Republicans trade power periodically because power corrupts and an intelligent voting public is smart enough to see it. When GM sets a standard that assembly line workers receive six-figure compensation packages, the work eventually goes overseas or to non-union factories. Nothing seems to stay out of balance for too long.
One thing that seems to be way out of balance is the fact that Muslims, who have exhibited no ability to organize in the face of a credible threat, and are known to surrender to unmanned drones, maintain control over the oil reserves that they do. Nation-states are weakening as private military organizations grow stronger. If a charismatic ex-Colonel (I love the smell of napalm in the morning…) was to be given $10 or 20 Billion in financing to secure Trillions of dollars of oil reserves at the north end of the Persian Gulf, it sure sounds like a solid business plan to me. Who would intervene on behalf of Ahmedinejad or the Iraqi Minister of the moment? Especially if Iraq was in the middle of a civil war. The charismatic Colonel would know the numbers better than me, but my guess is that a relatively small force, properly armed and with air support, could pull it off.
The West would have plausible deniability, the investors a stunning risk-reward ratio, the West a more reliable source of oil and a new Ally in the Middle East, the mercenaries would get huge paychecks, and the Camp of Islam would pay for it all. Perhaps a Christian political refugee could be the front-man to claim moral legitimacy.
at November 5, 2006 9:54 PM
The final paragraph of Robert's Head Post - the quote from Tawfik Hamid - that is the one which we all have to shout, bellow and scream from the rooftops at our fellow countrymen; not just when they want to give islam some equation with the mores and culture and philosophy of the western world but also when they deliberately make light of our culture, our past, our heritage, our morals, our religions, our political systems, our very way of life. Shout at them. Yell at them. Scream blue murder at them. Never let any single one of them away with the brazen lie that our civilisation is in some sense, no matter how small, not as good as islam.
Make good noise, not good manners, for good manners will be the death of us all.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 5, 2006 9:58 PM
I differ on this one with Robert: Mohammedans have stated time and again that they want us dead or forcibly converted...I saw 'obsession' yesterday and one of these hate-preachers clearly called for annihilation of infidels and Jooozzz...
"...But to characterize the situation as Muslims wanting to "kill us, the 'infidels'" is an inaccurate and inflammatory reductionism that only makes the speaker sound like a crank, instead of sounding the alarm in any effective way. Likewise the "hateful, frightening religion" remark. There are aspects of Islam that are hateful and frightening indeed, and aspects that aren't. There are Muslims who are hateful and frightening, and Muslims who aren't..."
Sure, if we just make the claim without pointing to the source we may sound like cranks, so we should be sure to quote from MEMRI or from a recorded hate-speech where a 'cleric' spews exactly this kind of poison and quote the guy by name.
What else?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 5, 2006 10:00 PM
"I have a question. If the religion of Islam is not a scary religion and there are only a few practitioners of the outward jihad, how does one tell who is moderate..."
-- from a posting above
Who says it is not a "scary religion"? It's a Total System, a Complete Regulation of Life, and a Compleat Explanation of the Universe. Once in, you can't leave on pain of death (not always carried out, but the punishment hangs over you, and everything short of death, including social ostracism and economic damage, ordinarily result).
As for telling the "moderate" from the "immoderate" Muslim, and even the assumption that a "moderate" means what he says, or even if he means now what he says, will remain "moderate" for all time, or that if he is a "moderate" his children necessarily will be, are all matters that need to be considered.
See "Ten Things to Think When Thinking About Moderate Muslims" at this website -=- google or clcik on articles above.
at November 5, 2006 10:05 PM
Sheikh Yermami,
Spot on.
I am facing a situation here where they (the Muslims) are doing something harmful to us, but at the same time they want to look good.
They called my wife last night and gave lengthy explanations about whay it is necessary to take that nasty step against us.
The problem is that after spewing the hate and having that hateful agenda, they STILL have the cheek of wanting to have a good image.
at November 5, 2006 10:13 PM
Limes, if they are putting us on the defensive, it is only because we let them. Your suggestion is doable at any time, a kind of "ace in the hole", but why bother if their threat is for now merely superficial. I think it better to psychologically make them face themselves with non-violent tools, such as we are doing here, using reason. If elections Tuesday show a bent towards less tolerance of illegal aliens, that will show the winds of change are already starting. From there, its a small step towards really reigning in those hateful imams, both here and abroad. I don't think they're calling the shots on this, but I do think we need smarter people in office to better call the shots from here.
One more thing, about my earlier post above: "They are violent, and will seek to do us harm, believing in their twisted logic it is true word of their god. They want to convert us by force if necessary."
Muslims have a strange twisted logic about this aggressive intent to convert us to their Sharia. In their simple minds, like children, they think it is perfectly fine to criticize us, or threaten, but think it is totally wrong for us to respond in kind. Notice how they cannot tolerate any criticism at all, but quickly fall back upon their "victimhood" mode. This simple fact must be caught and brought to light over and over again, without mercy. This is their defense, that they can threaten but cannot be criticized. It is childish. So we must make every effort to criticize them all the time, in all the wrong things they do, even if they are crying like babies about our doing this. It should not sway us one bit. When Australian mufti make the "raw meat" comment about women inviting rape, Australians responded exactly how they should, without let up. We all should do this at every opportunity we have, criticize them with reason, and do not succumb to their childish notion that they are somehow above criticism. Do it with class, so none will accuse of you of "racism" etc. The bigotry is really from their side, but they refuse to be criticized over it. So criticize it, at every opportunity, without let up. Hold them to their bigotry, their contradictions, their lies, with their feet to the fire, until they are screaming. Good show! Watch them squirm.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 5, 2006 10:16 PM
I believe Robert is mostly correct in asserting that Mary Hogan has skipped a couple of steps enroute to her assertion, but she is quite correct in that there are surahs which do not add that overall objective to their injunctions. I understand that in the first couple of centuries of jihad conquest, for the most part the Bedhouin tribal armies and raiding bands that fanned out of Arabia were hot after booty, and their Muslim faith provided enough justification for murder, rapine, and theft on an enormous scale, not to mention the lucrative slave-trading that it all entailed. Moreover, for awhile during those early centuries of jihad conquest, and during other later periods of Islamic history, many emirs actually discouraged infidel conversions to Islam because it would reduce the jizya. Thus, conversion is not always offered or accepted.
Robert is quite correct that we have to be careful to couch our criticisms in truthful statements that are airtight - even those being susceptible to distortion by the taqiyya practicioners, both Muslim and non-Muslim allies. A defensible position is always a good jump-off point for an effective offense.
What "Battle_of_Tours" had to say contained some pretty intelligent perspectives. I doubt it will be so easy to subjugate us the way they were able to pull it off from the 7th through 12th centuries. I certainly will not submit and I will not pay the jizya. I suspect most manly Americans would make life utterly miserable and deadly for Islamic warriors over here. However, despite their deficiency of knowledge and the bankruptcy of their "religion" they are cunning. They know how to steal, plagiarize, and coerce tools of our own destruction away from us. So far they have been far better than we have been at the "divide and conquer" strategy. Because they are not at all averse to lying they are successful at duping the ignorant (willful or otherwise). Underestimating how they can turn the tables on us is a mistake we must not make.
They must be fought in every conceivable way. And we must, at times, cast off our squeamishness and match their ruthlessness. Our failure to bracket our self-absorbed rectitude can be our undoing.
at November 5, 2006 10:23 PM
Well what heck did he accomplish by setting himself on fire. This is really stupid. You don't win wars by dying you win them making the other idiot die. George patton must be rolling in his grave. We in the West will not find answers to defeat Islam in going back to the 10th century ourselves.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at November 5, 2006 10:27 PM
Rocky,
WTF, where do you live?
at November 5, 2006 10:39 PM
Battle of Tours; I've of the opinion that there are three universal currencies; force, cash, and votes. The first one always prevails. The third is reserved for a small percentage of the world’s biomass.
I would prefer to live in the third, but know something about the first two. In any case, don’t bet against the good guys.
Posted by: limes at November 5, 2006 10:44 PM
I can understand this man killing himself. As a man of peace, he is not at liberty to express his distaste for muslims by taking it out on them. The only thing he can do is to kill himself as an act of protest against the system that is killing us all.
Remember, that since we, and I think I speak for everyone here, will not convert to islam, and will not pay the protection money they want, that there may come a time when we are all required to kill ourselves. I know I will if it comes to that. Well, it is kill yourself, or kill them. Since killing them is not allowed by law, and will not likely work unless you have the allegiance of the Army, you will end up dead anyway, shot by a police officer or a solider in an attempt to keep law and order. So, the muslim threat in the West, will force all decent men and women to kill themselves in the end. Even if you go out fighting, you will still have to save the last bullet for yourself. Either way, you will end up dead. What this man of the cloth did was kill himself as we are all going to be forced to do. I would not use immolation, but I give him points for making a parallel to the Buddhist monks. That's class.
So it is not correct for Robert to say that muslims do not wish to kill us. They wish to kill us, ASSUMING, we will not bow down to them. Which most of us won't. That means, according to islamic doctrine, that we must indeed be killed. So what this woman said, was politically incorrect, but essentially right on the money.
Is there still political room to play this game by politically correct standards and tactics, as Robert advises? I am not so sure. It may not work. The population is catching on to the threat of islam, while our leaders are ever more dedicated to playing for muslim votes, and the Left continues to exert its unholy agenda upon us. But with each violent outburst, a claim that islam wishes to kill us, will ring ever truer in the ears of the public. Perhaps just saying it the way it is the best policy at this point.
I don't think that islam can be politely defeated with claims that some elements of it are incompatible with human rights. Islam has its apologists will will deny that with spin. That intellectual argument will go nowhere. Indeed, that gets into nuances where you try to parse the evil from the evil. That either goes over the heads of people, or they smell it for the bullshit it is. Either way, it does not work. That would be like trying to parse the good aspects of Nazism from the bad aspects - in 1939.
I think we are at the point now where we have to use stronger language and let the public take a stand for or against muslims and their sharia proposition. It may be polarizing language, but polarization may be exactly what is needed to separate us finally from the moral relativism that has plagued us for over 50 years.
If this is a war of civilizations, and it is, then we need to take a stand, and we need to call on the good people to take a stand. We need to polarize people, and we do that by polarizing the muslims with strong language. Or cartoons. Or anything to provoke them, when they are not provoked already by the mere presense of us in our own countries.
Posted by: August22 at November 5, 2006 10:54 PM
You already are, every time your pay check gets deducted for NC state tax and Federal tax.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 5, 2006 08:55 PM
... which dubya and congress pass on sheepishly to Zawahiri's Egypt, madrassas in Pakistan, to name a few....
Posted by: Alert at November 5, 2006 11:00 PM
Fight them like you never fought anyone before. It is good to see that you are finally getting it Aug22, there is hope after all!
I like your posts.
at November 5, 2006 11:03 PM
Yes Rocky where do you live?
If you, your wife, and family can come to America please come for we could use good people like you.
Just avoid Detroitistan! :)
Posted by: Levi at November 5, 2006 11:05 PM
Well Mr. Spencer -- over the weekend I gave an impromptu lecture to about a half-dozen individuals regarding Islam.
To the best that my memory served me under the unexpected circumstances, I articulated some of the major points that I learned from your books about islam, jihad, and a few other related items.
It was an informal gathering actually where we recalled 911. My "mini-lesson" started when two or three individuals whom I know, asked what jihad was.
I was uncharacteristically matter of fact about the whole thing and did nothing to sensationalize matters.
As bland as I was -- I opened a few eyes, even among the "politically correct" who afterwards thanked me for helping them to make sense of things.
My thanks to you Mr. Spencer. The word is getting out and I am recommending your books as reference material to many interested people with whom I engage!
The way to fight this war is by one mind at a time; person by person; soul by soul!
Posted by: witness at November 5, 2006 11:09 PM
Finally getting it? My views on islam have not changed. I have been getting it all along.
Posted by: August22 at November 5, 2006 11:15 PM
I am giving the Truth about Muhammad and that’s it. Don’t like it, tough! That’s what they are getting. I have started the ball rolling.
Posted by: tgusa at November 5, 2006 11:20 PM
I thought you believed we would all be eliminated on Aug 22?
Posted by: tgusa at November 5, 2006 11:38 PM
"I was uncharacteristically matter of fact about the whole thing and did nothing to sensationalize matters."
-- from a posting above
The best way. Low key, sober, here and there things imparted as if a mite unwillingly and more in sorrow, with a furrowed brow expressing embarrassment at having to impart such things, and not knowing quite, as yet, what can be done, and impliedly, this is something we will have to think carefully about, this is not a subject for outbursts or easy dismissals. And this is a subject about which we all need to know more, so let's do it together.
That's the way.
Posted by: Hugh at November 6, 2006 12:19 AM
I have always admired Robert's efforts to state matters accurately and with respect. It is true that Hogan would have been more precise by stating something like, “Allah and his false prophet require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam."
She was not wrong in characterizing the Religion of Death as "hateful" and "frightening.” In this Robert is sacrificing truthfulness by trying to separate one of Islam's defining traits from the rest of the religion.
As noted above, to describe Nazism as "containing hateful elements," but not hateful would be so inaccurate as to be dishonest. So it is here.
By the way, for a visual expression of the danger and stupidity of Multiculturalism in the face of Islam, I invite you to visit http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2006/10/christian-liberty-versus-tyranny-of.html
Regards,
Amillennialist
Posted by: Amillennialist at November 6, 2006 12:20 AM
Hahahaha! Is that right: Ahmed, defender of the cult(-ure) of hatred and genocide calling Jihad watchers 'bigots'- classic!
I shall quote Oriana Fallaci for you, Ahmed:
'As I have a right to love I have a right to hate those who want to take that away from me...'
Your cult is being exposed Ahmed, overexposed!
Every day more and more people realize that 'we just can't get along...'
There is nothing in Islam that would make our world a better place Ahmed, so take your mysogynistic genocidal cult(-ure) back with you to the (mental) desert, where it originated....
5 years after 9/11 understanding of this monstrous ideology, this totalitarian war-machine called Islam is still in its infancy, but not much longer. More coming Ahmed, much more! Stay tuned, don't switch that dial!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 6, 2006 1:16 AM
Once again, we're labeled bigots. (Yawn!)
Posted by: SpongeMom at November 6, 2006 1:27 AM
No one? That certainly explains the hit rate here.
Anyway, how precisely is anything desperate about the postings here? I suppose, from a particularly prejudiced view, anything might be interpretable - anything at all. And yet the tide is starting to turn. The elephant, stung, begins to realize the insult.
However, in due respect to dear Ahmed, I indeed promise to spread the word about JihadWatch more widely than before. I also promise to convert more muslimas away from islam and
Then again: is your closet clean, Mr. Bedier?
TV Host Kathy Fountain to Ahmed Bedier: On the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Sami Al Arian’s involvement: Fountain asked, "If he was associating with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, doesn't that seem immoral, in your opinion?"
Answer: "To a certain degree. Now, before 1995 there was nothing immoral about it." ~Ahmed Bedier, the Communications Director of CAIR-Florida.
http://www.americansagainsthate.com/releases/PR-BedierPIJ.htm
"just an excuse to hide bias against the Muslims"
~ Ahmed Bedier, in the Tampa Bay Online
Hannity: "Did you not have a spokesman for your group at one time, a guy by the name of Royer that was on your staff that was convicted?"
Bedier: "I think several years ago we had that individual in our group. And if you're inciting that somehow we're responsible for the actions or behavior of the individuals after they left our organization, that would be similar to somebody that worked for FOX five years ago and then commits a crime and FOX would be responsible for it."
The "guy by the name of Royer" that Hannity asked Bedier about is Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, former CAIR Communications Specialist. He is now serving a 20-year prison term for terrorist plotting.
But did Royer really, as Bedier claimed, commit his terror-related crimes after he left CAIR? Timelines listed in Royer’s indictment, specifically for September 2001, and a news article that demonstrates Royer speaking as a representative of CAIR on September 18, 2001 are on record. His crimes took place at around the same time. (See pages 15-20 of the pdf.)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005206.php
By the way, what is your opinion on the execution of apostates, Herr Bedier?
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at November 6, 2006 1:28 AM
I posted a comment at Bedier's 'blog several days ago. The last time I checked, he still had not allowed it.
Rather than work to deceive gullible Infidels or troll Jihad Watch, Ahmed ought to admit, repudiate, and confront those who advocate Allah and his false prophet's commands to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam.
Of course he won't, since that would mean (rightly) rejecting his god and apostle's revealed will.
Posted by: Amillennialist at November 6, 2006 1:39 AM
To remote_control:
Is the content of your formulation really very different from Robert Spencer's formulation? Robert says infidels are given three alternatives: conversion, subjugation, or war. I suppose war in the Islamic context means attempting to kill enough infidels so as to force the rest to accept conversion or subjugation. The difference between your formulation and Robert's seems to be more a matter of emphasis than of content. Your formulation places the killing part much more in the foreground. Both formulations appear to me to be accurate, so the decision between them is perhaps a matter of rhetorical considerations: the kind of audience being addressed, and which formulation will be most persuasive in a given circumstance or within a particular time frame. Suppose hypothetically that your formulation is also truer than Robert's. That of course still leaves open the question of how much truth people can take before they reject entirely the message. The message has to be calibrated to the audience's capacities. Whatever is correct in my comment here will, I'm sure, be trivially obvious to you. Robert is trying to address the largest possible audience, and at the same time the most influential and educated possible audience, so the proper rhetorical calibration for maximal effectiveness is a very difficult judgement call that must take into account incredibly numerous variables and interactions of variables.
Posted by: traeh at November 6, 2006 3:31 AM
Robert
I must respectfully disagree profoundly with your assessment.
In my opinion you are guilty on intellectualising the problem too much.
The other side - the Islamists are not.
They understand more or less the Goebels theory of propoganda and it is PROPOGANDA that we are talking about.
In a ntshell it is this
KEEP IT SIMPLE - REPEAT IT INCESSENTLY -
your idea to point out the complexities of the argument will just confuse the mass of non intelectuall people.
So I agree entirely with what this lady said in the article i.e -
"they are trying to kill infidels" THEY ARE AND IT IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND REMEMBER.
Posted by: johnmac at November 6, 2006 3:36 AM
I agree with remote's qualifier of Roberts' statement about subjugating vs killing Infidels. But there's more to it than that. Implicit in Robert's statement above is the assumption that everybody here is either Christian or Jew: this choice of a 2nd class status does not apply to other people (The example of Hindus in India wouldn't apply here, since there aren't close to the number of Hindus outside India that there were in India in the second millenium). The fact that there is a high percentage of not just Atheists, but Agnostics, would seemingly prove Ms Hogan right, and what about other cult followers, from Scientologists to Rastafarians or Wicans? How do we know that if (God forbid) Muslims ever ran things there, that the 'protection status' of dhimma would apply to those who either don't believe in Moses or Jesus, or don't care at all? Will Muslims assume that they are Christians just because of their race or ancestry? Which is why Robert's qualifier above, which might have been true in a pure Judeo-Christian society, is dangerously misleading. And what about Islam's mission statements, so eloquently articulated in Quran 8:39 and 2:193 - Fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is all for Allah? Are we now expected to pretend that it doesn't exist? Or does 9:5 abrogate them and make them more tolerant?
I won't re-hash past arguments about Islam being hateful and frightening: I'll just re-iterate that I agree with the Hogans, and disagree with Robert. The fact that Islam has as its end goal a complete monopoly of religion, as mentioned above - with either no freedom to (or not to, as the case may be) practice ones religion, is frightening enough for infidels; and the fact that they would kill those who refuse to be subjugated accordingly makes them hateful enough in my book to be called... hateful.
I'm guessing that the Hogans will receive no support from the American Criminal Liberties Union - whatever happened to the separation of Mr Church and St. State? Or does it simply not apply to Mr Mosque and Imam State? Those in FL should not only speak out in favor of the Hogans, but withhold their votes for all candidates who are on record as criticizing the Hogans (and vote for whichever candidate agreed with them, if any). In the meantime, they should start a grassroots campaign to promote them for higher statewide office - it's not just FL who needs them.
On Roland Weisselberg's self-immolation, I grieve his death. Having said that, I agree with August 22 - short of inciting riots in Saxony, I am at a loss to see what he could have done otherwise that would have drawn attention. After all, who should he have argued with - those wanting to turn Deutschland into the Islamic Reich, or the PC gestapo that's ubiquitous in Europa? I however, am less pessimistic - I don't believe that we'll get to the point where we'd have to commit suicide. Rather, I just think that a day will come when riots/civil war will break out in the West, and the police and paramilitary will have the cheerful options of either wiping out the Infidels (ahl-al-Qitab members included) on the orders of the government, wiping out the Mohammedans in response to the violence, or just standing by and watching.
August22
I am the newest Right wing member of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, as my favorite radio hostess Melanie Morgan puts it. I just feel sad that the GOP has to be hurt in order to send what Whoopi Goldberg once described as ____ hair a message.
Right now, I'm doing my part by working on the handbook. But I'll do a bit more at the moment by responding to Achmet above by describing his organization as todays version of the Communist Party of the United States. Or, more accurately, an Arab equivalent to 'Aryan Nation' or the KKK.
Bedier:the handful of visitors that read the hate speech that you spew are the lowest segment of our societyAllah's Rasool would be proud of you, Ghazi, although you'd be hard pressed to match him in terms of murders.
Quran 98:6 Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
at November 6, 2006 3:41 AM
To johnmac:
I must respectfully disagree with you. There are already people who do what you demand: present a simple message and beat the drum incessantly. So far, they are hugely less effective than Robert Spencer has been. Spencer has swayed the worldwide debate on Islam. His website recently was getting 30,000 unique visitors per day. His books are New York Times bestsellers. He speaks at the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the pinnacles of conservative influence. He is invited to consult with the United States Southern Command (if I recall that correctly). He has found made many other paths into the corridors of power. His message is still not Western conventional wisdom, but he is not exactly marginal either. He is a powerful insurgent intellectual force influential among many top journalists and intellectuals.
No, I think Spencer is one of the West's best fighting aces. How many people have crashed and burned in debate with him? We need more people doing what he does, people operating as moderate Western reporters openly standing against jihad and against everything in Islam that needs to be abandoned.
Posted by: traeh at November 6, 2006 3:57 AM
No wonder mohammedan interest groups talk about "building bridges" so much.
Provides housing for more of their trolls.
Go talk to your fellow cultists about "hate fests" Bedier before you lecture us. Maybe if you shout loud enough, you might be heard over the "Death to Israel, Death to America" chants.
Idiots like this make me think of a football player who can't figure out how everyone knows his player number, and tries to tell everyone that they have it wrong despite the fact that it covers half his back. This, of course, only enrages him to the point where he starts name-calling, making assertions he can't back up, and issuing threats.
Funny thing about the mo-trolls, if they were half as smart as they think they are, they would be a thousand times smarter than they are in reality.
Their spittle-spewing mini-rants here are good for a laugh, at least. Seldom cogent, less often mention real facts or exhibit any kind of rational thought process, and bring to mind someone sitting in their little beanie and beard on the edge of their seat, red-faced, furiously alternately typing and wiping the flecks of saliva from thier monitors, muttering "...damned infidels, I'll show them! allahu ackbar! roast them with my unassailable logic, I will. inshallah...", *wiping screen*.
Posted by: Eisenhund at November 6, 2006 4:06 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
While I sympathise a piece with the infedel ...of "convert or die"..rhetoric from some Islamic junkies...."you absolutely have to remember that most muslims in the world are more concerned with living their own life from day to day.
They don't have the time, or inclination to sharpen out knives, stalking out kafur to convert. Most muslim nations are poor so, peoples need to keep their job , for their next meal.
However, things change slightly when for example cartoons of Muhd SAW come along. Think from the point of view of the muslim for a moment.
It is mostly true that they have not seen/read any insult of our prophet in 1400 years. They have been living their life believing that Muhd SAW was a religious and pious man. Now seeing a bomb on his head distorts things quiet a bit.
For many moderates this is too much to bear "What the f**k does the Kufr think he is doing, who does he think he is?"
His world is disorientated ...and he needs to arrest the decision for drawing cartoons quickly and now!!
Influential peoples and Islamic historians tell them ..."do you see, this is why we don't allow churches in the Saud", this is why most christains countries in the ME have not survived.."this is why Israel must be moved somewhere else".
Did you see that?.....that card trick, that slight of hand ...about Israel I mean.
Innocent moderate muslims are being "won" over to horrible thinking..as a direct result of Kafur mean thinking, you the ones at fault here, let the moderates be, it's like you the Kafur have an itch and you must scratch it...why?
Don't scratch, put some nappy rash cream on it.
Posted by: Naseem at November 6, 2006 4:54 AM
August22
" We need to polarize people."
Absolutely...it's got to get worse before it can get better.
Posted by: pismopal at November 6, 2006 5:10 AM
Hugh said:
The best way. Low key, sober, here and there things imparted as if a mite unwillingly and more in sorrow, with a furrowed brow expressing embarrassment at having to impart such things, and not knowing quite, as yet, what can be done, and impliedly, this is something we will have to think carefully about, this is not a subject for outbursts or easy dismissals. And this is a subject about which we all need to know more, so let's do it together.
That's the way.
I agree. Especially if the attitude described is not a pose. Such an attitude communicates the most sane and responsible kind of posture: that one does not quite enjoy being against something, that one would prefer to be able to like it or accept it, but cannot responsibly do so.
There is something not quite right about actually enjoying disliking something, and an audience will sense something is not quite right, and many will put up resistance to a message if it contains subtle enjoyment of feelings of dislike. One's desire in life, arguably, should be to like things, and when one finds things that are inherently unlikable, destructive, bad, evil, one must dislike them and reject them, but not particularly enjoy doing so. (This is nothing like the perversely puritannical idea that one can have conjugal relations, so long as one doesn't enjoy them very much. In general sex is not definable as an unfortunate necessity. But an unfortunate necessity is precisely what dislike sometimes is.) There should be some kind of perception of the tragedy involved in the existence of the evil or bad thing. One's love and enjoyment should be reserved for good things and for love and enjoyment. Otherwise one begins to a bit resemble a more than playful sado-masochist, one becomes someone who, perhaps in a subtle intellectual fashion, enjoys hating. The perversity of that love-hate state of mind will put people on guard, even if they can't pinpoint why.
Hate should be at most an unfortunate necessity in some circumstances (when something hateful appears), not a luxury, as it becomes when people, however subtly, luxuriate in hate and enjoy it.
Posted by: traeh at November 6, 2006 5:13 AM
tgusa,
I've read The Truth about Muhammad and seen the DVD What the West Needs to Know about Islam. Both are extremely powerful. If you have the bucks, consider giving both to everyone you know.
at November 6, 2006 5:31 AM
To traeh
I did not really intend to say that Robert should change his way of spreading the word - he and intellectuals like him are doing a great job - they are slowly starting to convince those in power that you mentioned.
The point I was trying to make ( but obviously made badly) was that in order to bring the mass of the people on board it would be better to present a simpler more understandable message or messages.
I mean the real nature of Islam is hidden in multi-layered envelope of lies, half-truths and distortins.
Better in my view to simplify it in a way that most people can understand.
i.e.
"Islam exists to either subjugate or kill non-islamic people"
Straight to the heart of the matter - cold truth
Posted by: johnmac at November 6, 2006 7:06 AM
I thought you believed we would all be eliminated on Aug 22?
I believed Iran might start a global war on August 22. It turns out I got the date wrong. It could be next year. My cynicism, as apparent in my last post, is unchanged.
Posted by: August22 at November 6, 2006 7:07 AM
I'd like to buy all you guys who post article links a drink. That's one of the best weapons: no commentary, just forwarding the link to people you know with a note of "wow, did you see this?" There the insanity is in black and white text, and sometimes with a helpful photograph too.
And you know what? It's working. When I get a reply it's not some nonsense about slanted media, it's usually a terse "holy ____!"
Posted by: GoldieLox at November 6, 2006 8:04 AM
traeh,
I don't see how simply adding the word "kill" (with the gingerly padding I provided) to Robert's locution compromises the otherwise duly noted good qualities of his medium & message; and it would have the added bonus of bringing more to the forefront the horrible truth that millions gave their lives to throughout the ghoulish history of Islamic conquest.
at November 6, 2006 8:11 AM
Notice:
I have removed the comment posted above under the name Ahmed Bedier.
Mr. Bedier's email address is public, and thus I think it is possible that other people could post using his email address.
Meanwhile, I have asked Mr. Bedier if he actually wrote the comment, and if he replies that he did, I will restore it to the site.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at November 6, 2006 8:27 AM
" let the moderates be, it's like you the Kafur have an itch and you must scratch it...why?
Don't scratch, put some nappy rash cream on it."
Hey Naseem
Just why would we want to do that - we here who understand Islam know that there are no "moderate" followers of Islam - the point is that the ideology is inherently non-moderate - our objective is to demonstrate this to the rest of the non-islamic world (which you muslims insultingly refer to Kafurs) better to expose the true nature of "moderate" muslims with their "indignation" and "rage" and the quicker to bring the whole rotten edifice down - you will se it in your lifetime my friend - I am sure!
at November 6, 2006 8:35 AM
Naseem
It is beneath yourself to try and get under our skin by the use of the insulting (for christians) term kafur.
I am very familiar with many insulting terms for our muslim friends but with politeness in mind I refrain from using them - please do likewise
A. Christian
follower of the true god!
Posted by: johnmac at November 6, 2006 9:07 AM
Nassem:
For many moderates this is too much to bear "What the f**k does the Kufr think he is doing, who does he think he is?"
His world is disorientated ...and he needs to arrest the decision for drawing cartoons quickly and now!!
Then what about the contest recently held by Iran that was won by a Morrocan I believe? You know the contest that was to specifically held to draw insulting cartoons about Jews and Christians?
Do you feel the same about that contest?
Regarding moderates, what Mr. Spencer says is true, not all muslims are shahida.
Most muslims would prefer not to die -- thus the quaranic imperative that shahida engaged in the "greater jihad," earn a higher status in the hereafter, than those who sit at home, unless they are ill.
Why such a quaranic invectictive, if muslims are naturally eager to die? Because human beings have a natural affection for life and must be convinced somehow, to give it up.
However, islam can not be reformed as such, since the sunna and the ahidtha are the immutable pronouncements on all matters -- in other words -- there is nothing to discuss regarding modifications to islamic tenets.
So, "reformers" really have no quranic leg to stand on to appeal against shahida; isn't that right Naseem?
Posted by: witness at November 6, 2006 9:56 AM
Assalamau Laikum Witness,
I think you cannot say that cartoons related to religion shouldn't be allowed...that maybe going too far.
But it seems all too easy to press the right buttons ..get a cartoon drawn and whaola...you have a riot on your hands.
In a sense drawing cartoons of Jews/Christianity by muslims is a a waste of time.
Jews/Christians don't have the same zest for their prophets...they don't believe as devoutly...and if it was the agenda of muslims to whip us hysteria in the Jewwish/Christian worldvia cartoons...they will fail.
Parts of Islamic traditional belief HAS to reformed ...if it is to be moved forward...this may come in time...but only after much heartache and bloodshed.
Posted by: Naseem at November 6, 2006 11:34 AM
"Parts of Islamic traditional belief HAS to reformed ...if it is to be moved forward"
The only "forward" position of Islam is toward world conquest. And the only way to get there, in the Muslim mind, is to go backward to conform to the 7th century to recapture the flame of Mohammed -- who inaugurated, sanctified and perfected this supremacist entelechy.
Islam is therefore incapable of reform, without self-destructing.
Posted by: remote_control at November 6, 2006 12:02 PM
August22 said, "As a man of peace, he is not at liberty to express his distaste for muslims by taking it out on them."
The man had pens, I assume? Two bucks, and I could have gotten him a ten-pack of Bics. Another few bucks, loose leaf, envelopes, and stamps. Ta da! The capacity to write letters to the editor.
A few hundred.
So, why are you limiting him to either physically attacking Muslims, or to suicide?
There are other options. And even if there weren't, at this point enlisting in the military, for example (enabling one to physically fight Islamo-fascism), is far more helpful to one's fellow man than self-immolation. C.S. Lewis served, for example. Does that make him un-Christian? Or not a man of peace, in any true sense?
"I think I speak for everyone here, will not convert to islam, and will not pay the protection money they want, that there may come a time when we are all required to kill ourselves"
Not true. You've half lost if you've gotten to that point. You fight and you fight and you fight, and if you die fighting, so be it. Very, very different from all of us going and killing ourselves.
Most likely, given our greatly better technology and relative sanity and self-control, the will to fight will win the war. Don't give it up just as things are getting started.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at November 6, 2006 1:30 PM
Naseem said: "They don't have the time, or inclination to sharpen out knives, stalking out kafur to convert. Most muslim nations are poor so, peoples need to keep their job , for their next meal."
Despite having massive oil wealth? Despite having previously been agricultural powerhouses, some of them?
The truth is *all* you do with the wealth we created for you, by creating uses for oil, is prop up dictatorships and fund attacks and weapons programmes and conversion efforts.
That's why your people are near starving. A good comparison: North and South Korea. Ideology makes a difference. Have sanity, spend your money wisely, create sane political and economic systems, and you wouldn't have this victim card to pull out while you fund nuclear programmes and jihad with your oil wealth.
We'd help, we know how to help build functional nations in which people, by and large, live by producing, provided they aren't insane. We could give you a list of success stories. But, we know very well that, given the nature of what is in the minds of your countrymen, the only thing our help would do would pave the way for dictatorships which are even more monstrously threatening to their own people and the world.
You are on the wrong side. You can't possibly expect to win, can you?
"For many moderates this is too much to bear "What the f**k does the Kufr think he is doing, who does he think he is?""
The Kufr thinks he is a nation whose economic and military centers have been attacked on his homeland. He thinks he is therefore at war, and therefore *perfectly* justified in taking military action to prevent future attacks.
If the so-called "moderates" will not accept this, they are NOT moderates, they are people who wish us to fall to Islamo-fascist military attack. They are people who deny us the vital right of self-defence and self-preservation. And they are on the losing side of a war their ideological bretheren declared.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at November 6, 2006 1:59 PM
remote_control said:
I don't see how simply adding the word "kill" (with the gingerly padding I provided) to Robert's locution compromises the otherwise duly noted good qualities of his medium & message;
I don't disagree. Perhaps Robert, on seeing your formulation, even found it an improvement on his own. I'm saying that the informational content is not that different as between the two formulations. The difference is a matter of emphasis.
And I'm saying that a difficult judgement call is involved in determining the most effective emphasis in dealing under time constraints with the extremely complex and huge target of the message of Jihad Watch. There is at least as much art as science involved in the judgement. You find Robert's message overly gingerly padded, I gather, and perhaps you are right. But to me, Robert has all the virtues, conscience and scruples of a New York Times reporter/columnist but none of the vices of that species. Thus Robert is one of the people best positioned to communicate a very difficult message to the PC left and simultaneously to the conservatives. I suppose you feel Robert is too PC, or compromises with PC too much. Maybe, but can you really be so confident that a shift in emphasis of the kind you have often supported would enhance his effectiveness? Do you really want to fix something that ain't broken and works so well?
Anyway, no one person can be all things to all audiences, so there is room for different people to use different amounts of "gingerly padding" in order to reach different audiences. I find Robert's message finely calibrated to teach somewhere near the political center of public opinion. Not that I think he is being cynically calculating in giving his tone moderation and gingerly padding. Unless I'm mistaken, Robert is to some extent a humanist Christian with scruples of the kind that require him to proceed carefully and responsibly when influencing masses of people toward thought and action. Those scruples are an essential part of what distinguish him from the thugs he struggles against. I gather you would say he is overcautious and you would point to the dangers of overcaution. I won't dispute that, as I think the answer, either way, is too difficult to demonstrate. Robert is pretty near the bull's eye, and the slight adjustments in aim you propose could only really be valued at their correct worth and limitations if Robert were actually to test what you propose.
Posted by: traeh at November 6, 2006 3:46 PM
"The Muslim threat of world Sharia government is an empty threat. It will never happen. Once men and women had tasted freedom, they will never roll back, and either fight for it or at worse leave the country.'
I'm not so sure, especially with liberal policies still making more and more people dependant upon government for their livelyhood. If you get enough folks who'll vote to give themselves what the government promises to dole out to them, then what the hell? You won't care if it's "Sharia government" (or Socialist, or Communist, or Fascist), as long as they're promising you something. Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at November 6, 2006 4:12 PM
The best way to end the so-called victimhood card that many Islamic apoligists use is simply to cite a number of passages from the Koran and Hadiths that promote violence and oppression. They can be a good starting point to begin the much needed debate.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 6, 2006 4:42 PM
Naseem is either unable or unwilling to frame matters accurately.
It is immoral to blame those who criticize violence in the name of Allah for...violence in the name of Allah.
And the reason Christians and Jews do not riot over blasphemy is not because they lack zeal (though many in the West have become irreligious); it is because their faith is in a God of love, not a god sanctifying the base and brutal instincts of a seventh-century monster.
(By the way, the post from "Ahmed Bedier" sounds just like his comments on his own 'blog. No Infidel is deranged enough to imitate him that well.)
Posted by: Amillennialist at November 6, 2006 6:51 PM
Assalamau Laikum Witness,
Greetings Nasseem:
I think you cannot say that cartoons related to religion shouldn't be allowed...that maybe going too far.
Shouldn’t be allowed? Then, do I understand you to say that cartoons related to religion are acceptable in your view?
But it seems all too easy to press the right buttons ..get a cartoon drawn and whaola...you have a riot on your hands.
So it seems to be the case as you say.
In a sense drawing cartoons of Jews/Christianity by muslims is a a waste of time.
Drawing cartoons of any kind is not the most productive use of time, as such, however they can be thought provoking.
Jews/Christians don't have the same zest for their prophets...they don't believe as devoutly...and if it was the agenda of muslims to whip us hysteria in the Jewwish/Christian worldvia cartoons...they will fail.
How do you mean, they don’t believe as devoutly?
Are you saying that Jews and Christians ultimately don’t believe, or do you mean they see their prophets differently?
Or would you concede that their understanding of the prophets is such that a non-believer’s insults do not require the believer to counter-attack?
For example, you say Jesus is your prophet, Jesus told his followers to turn the other cheek and to do to others as they would have done unto them. Do you believe what Jesus taught is true, if he is your prophet?
If so, would you follow this prophets teachings?
Parts of Islamic traditional belief HAS to reformed ...if it is to be moved forward...this may come in time...but only after much heartache and bloodshed.
Naseem, this is quite the admission to say that Islamic traditional belief HAS to be reformed. I am stunned. You do realize what you have said, no? I believe you do.
Do you also realize that Islamic jurisprudence is considered fixed and not a matter for discussion or reinterpretation of the sunna or ahaditha?
Under that set of circumstances, how can Islamic traditional belief reform in your view? Advocating such reform could result in charges of blasphamey no? Can such a situation be circumvented?
Why must there be heartache and bloodshed to reform Islam?
Might there be other ways to change the understanding of your basic tenets of belief to avoid all those needless extravagances?
I would like to know.
at November 6, 2006 7:03 PM
Not true. You've half lost if you've gotten to that point. You fight and you fight and you fight, and if you die fighting, so be it. Very, very different from all of us going and killing ourselves.
You miss my point. You can not fight islam in the west. It is illegal. In Canada, just insulting a muslim with a racial epitaph can put you in jail. Leaving an anti-islamic sign on a mosque, will put you in jail. In Canada, publishing in a newspaper the views found within this forum will put you in jail.
Letters? You must be joking. The people who control the media do not print those letters. Those that read those letters, toss them in the garbage, either out of ignorance, fear, or political bias.
The cards are stacked against us. Even Robert Spencer is personna non grata, nobody in the MSM will touch him. Why? Because they do not like his message. His very message is what makes him personna non grata. So telling others to go out and deliver the same message is telling others to go out and be pariahs, too. Maybe not a pariah to the general masses, but a pariah to anyone that has power. Those in power will never entertain the message of jihadwatch. They simply refuse to.
Robert could be the No 1 best selling author in America, and the MSM will still not touch him, the president will not entertain him, the universities will not stock his book. The politicians will never campaign with such a platform, nor will they ever enact such policies. Ever. The elites are already owned by islam, by the oil money, and by the Left. They control the policies of government. They control the laws. They control the police. They control the military and the national guard.
You can not fight that.
There is nothing that any of us can do that can win this war. The people with the power, the media, the educational institutions, and the government, are all onboard the islam boat. You can not swim against the tide. You can, but you will not get to where you are going.
What you can do, what you will be forced to do, when Sharia becomes law, is to kill yourself - the same way that Japanese civilians killed themselves when the invasion of Japan seemed evident. The only difference will be that they were under the false impression that the American invaders would rape and enslave them. So they jumped off cliffs with their children in tow. We are under no such misconceptions. The islamic government will rape and enslave us. Guaranteed.
So we must kill ourselves sooner or later. If not as an act of protest, then at the very least, as an act of preservation of dignity. That is what this Lutheran pastor did. I salute his resolute action. He already did everything he could do. He was facing the reality that the church would have none of what he was saying.
The other alternative, to fight the muslims, will be unsuccessful. They have the power of President behind them. In turn, they have the power of law enforcement behind them. In turn, again, they have the power of the national guard and the military. To get rid of the muslims, you would first have to get rid of the constitutional government and the military brass. Not going to happen. So fighting them is pointless as you will be fighting your own people, and they have bigger guns than you. That is itself suicide.
Law and order will be kept even if it means the law and order of Sharia. The government will see to that.
That is why it will come to a point where you will have to decide to become muslim, pay the protection money, or kill yourself.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Posted by: August22 at November 6, 2006 7:32 PM
That is why it will come to a point where you will have to decide to become muslim, pay the protection money, or kill yourself
I was already given those options. I didn't convert. I didn't and will never pay the jizya. And I'm still here.
Some people aren't very happy about that, but too bad.
You can have all the liberty that you are willing to take.
I for one, can't get enough liberty -- niether should you!
Hang in there.
Posted by: witness at November 6, 2006 8:24 PM
Naseem,
To say that we Christians and Jews lack proper esteem and respect for our prophets (and for us Christians Jesus of Nazareth is more than a prophet)is nonsense. What you take among your coreligionists as zeal we consider to be unseemly.
Our God is entirely different. Our God does not demand that we go on killing rampages if an icon, statue, or even sacred person is maligned. In fact, that kind of behavior would dishonor the memory of Jesus and the saints and prophets. Your god is an ill-tempered, violent, egotistical potentate. Our Lord and Savior is humble, forgiving, and full of mercy and generosity. In fact, our God does not even require being worshipped, as in bowing and scraping. The kind of worship ours demands is that we love one another. That is the proper worship.
And so when you kill Christians in Muslim lands, rape their women, and tear down their churches they know that the only temple that is being desecrated is the temple of their bodies and The Holy Spirit.
You really do not understand us at all. Not even a shard of understanding enters your minds about us.
at November 6, 2006 9:22 PM
Joanne Schoch of Spring Hill reminds me of a distant Theodore.
Posted by: getrealnow4 at November 6, 2006 10:12 PM
No To Islamic Law
No to a dhimmi state
If you are in America to betray America, get out now!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775
at November 6, 2006 11:50 PM
Innocent moderate muslims are being "won" over to horrible thinking..as a direct result of Kafur mean thinking, you the ones at fault here,
You mean, there are innocent moderate Muslims that can't help but be "won" over to "horrible thinking"?
You mean, there are Muslim leaders that dare deceive other Muslims with "horrible thinking"?
You mean, both of these Muslims somehow let the ugly, temporal words of unbelieving kafur stir them up more than the "timeless, perfect" words of their precious Koran?
Why do you blame the kafur at all? Isn't un-Islamic behavior to be expected from kafurs to begin with? Why not say that Muslims are better than kafurs by showing them they can rise admirably above their shaytanic, fiery darts (a la the "greater jihad", if you will)? But instead, you portray Muslims as gullible and corruptible, manipulative and conniving. Not very flattering towards your brethren, to say the least. Where is the strength and dignity from which Muslims are supposed to draw from Islam? Really now, to blame the kafur for Islam's woes is to admit that kafur influences are more powerful than Islam. That's a tough place to put yourself as a Muslim, don't you think?
at November 7, 2006 2:34 AM
witness,
As for me, "none of the above". Because the truth of the matter is that people now are starting to wake up to the truth about Islam and that sucide is simply a perminent answer to a tempory problem. The true God is the real giver of freedom, that is the part of the natural law. Have faith in the God of the Holy Bible and the enemies of freedom will not suceed.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 7, 2006 9:09 AM
Ms. Hogan's statement was quite correct, given her and my presumption that we will not submit to islam. If we will not convert or submit, then islam gives us no choice but to fight or die. They absolutely intend to and are actively trying to kill us. BTW, how dare any gov't actor participate in an enemy cult activity, when the events and holidays of this country's and indeed western civilization's foundational Judao-Christian culture are off limits.
Posted by: AyUaxe at November 7, 2006 11:38 AM
bigcatgirl13106
I was responding to an earlier post. Someone else was proposing the suicide option -- I am not however.
Actually, I agree with you. We don't give up that easy.
Posted by: witness at November 7, 2006 1:20 PM
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.)