"...because it contains "objectionable material" about the founder of Islam..."

Really.

Posted by: PRCS at December 20, 2006 12:12 PM

Congratulations! A book that's banned in cesspoolia MUST be good, so this should be considered an honor. It also shows that those idiots don't want to hear the truth because it's too painful to bear. Too bad for them-it's their loss.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 20, 2006 12:13 PM

"Robert's book banned!"
Sounds like they are friendly with RS.
What a world, where you can't read a book and decide for yourself what you believe.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at December 20, 2006 12:13 PM

Congratulations,

You've come a long way baby.

Posted by: Tomilio at December 20, 2006 12:15 PM

Congratulations,

You've come a long way baby.

Posted by: Tomilio at December 20, 2006 12:15 PM

...it contains "objectionable material" about the founder of Islam...

Well duh-what WASN'T objectionable about Mo? These book banners have just proven how stupid they really are.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 20, 2006 12:18 PM

Kudos, Robert. This is an unforseen advantage in the war against Islam. That you, your writings and ultimately JW/DW are seen as true enemies to Islam just reinforces the truth behind all that you say and have said.

This is a perfect reference thread the next time someone tries to tell you that "no one is listening to you and to stop bothering spreading your inconsequential bigotry".

With each passing day, the words and actions of the followers of the "religion of peace and tolerance" validate your point and assist the West with a much needed gentle nudge to awake to the reality of what Islam is all about.

My goodness Robert, you are directly affecting Islamic policy. I am truly impressed.

Posted by: awake at December 20, 2006 12:19 PM

Calling you 'Robert' is indeed a bit familiar.

Next thing you know, they'll be referring to you all over the Muslim world as 'the Spence-miester.'

Posted by: Cornelius at December 20, 2006 12:30 PM

Spencer, which Spencer? Oh yeah, “The Spencer”. Yep, they certainly know who you are all right.

Posted by: tgusa at December 20, 2006 12:31 PM

Robert

Aap ko mubarak ho (i.e. Congratulations, in urdu). I did wonder which member of dar ul islam would be the first to do it. Only surprise is that it took this long.

Also, are any of your other books banned in dar ul Islam?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 20, 2006 12:45 PM

Yes, Robert you have arrived. Congrats are in order...

Posted by: bugler at December 20, 2006 12:45 PM

Translations of the book were mentioned in the article. Has anyone actually defiled their pen (and risked the wrath of a pious mob) by translating this infidel blasphemy into Urdu or Punjabi?

Posted by: wallyUK at December 20, 2006 12:47 PM

Strange that the number six selling book currently in Palestine is Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Posted by: Madcap at December 20, 2006 12:49 PM

Infidel Pride,

Needless to say, Islamic Republic of India will soon follow the suit.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at December 20, 2006 12:50 PM

Since Robert's points are stongly supported by the Koran and Ahadith apparently the Pakis find this objectionable. Interesting logic on their part.

Thanks for your excellent work Robert and Hugh.

Merry Christmas to you and all Jihad Watch supporters. May you have a blessed, safe and prosperous 2007.

KYpete

Posted by: kypete at December 20, 2006 12:54 PM

Hardly unexpected - on one hand.

On the other, it's unfortunate. If people are to choose to follow teachings, they must also be free to question said teaching and to make up their own minds. Whether reasders ultimately accept or reject the contents of your book, they should at least be free to examine it.

For those who are congratulating Robert, I think you need to rethink that. The book is not getting to the people who need to read it most.

Most normal people who are born into Islam in places like Pakistan are bothered by the violence and the contradictions. They are taught that it is not for them to "question God's word" - regardless of how insane it might seem to them. This type of upbringing results in frustrated, murderous robots. There is no apposing voice. There is no alternative thought - in large part, due to book banning.

Incidentally, the same thing happened in communism.

Posted by: citycat at December 20, 2006 1:01 PM

Just to add on

Stewardess banned from carrying Bible

By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:57am GMT 20/12/2006

A second airline is embroiled in a religious row after a stewardess decided to take bmi to an employment tribunal because it refused to allow her to carry a Bible on flights to Saudi Arabia.

The stewardess, who has not been named, claims that she has been subject to discrimination because of her faith.

She is understood to have deep religious convictions and carries a Bible with her at all times.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/20/nbible20.xml
lots of discrimination going on

Posted by: Arnie at December 20, 2006 1:02 PM

Vikrant

I'm feeling lucky. I'm willing to bet you on this that that won't happen. I have no basis for saying this - it's just my gut feeling.

Somehow, from experience, I doubt that there are many Indian non-Muslims with books about Islam in their homes. It would explain why there'd be a very miniscule market for this book. I wonder how sales of this book in India have gone on so far, if they have.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 20, 2006 1:03 PM

Well folks, this ban will make it harder to bring the truth to this site's most famous commenter from that country.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 20, 2006 1:05 PM

The truth hurts, and Knowledge is POWER. Naturally they would ban the book.

Kudos Robert, you struck a nerve....again.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 20, 2006 1:06 PM

Well it's a fact then I guess: some people fear the truth.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 20, 2006 1:11 PM

For those who are congratulating Robert, I think you need to rethink that. The book is not getting to the people who need to read it most.
Posted by: citycat at December 20, 2006 01:01 PM

Quite frankly, I don't think anyone cares if Pakistani's are able to read the book or not. Media savvy Muslims want us to believe that the majority of Muslims are "moderate" and oppose the explicit mandates in the Qur'an. This is followed by the claim that we westerners just have to wait for the change from within, enduring all the oppression and violence spread in the name of Islam. That is just crap.

Robert's target audience is those in the West who are blind to the truth of the previous statements in this post. The banning of the book strengthens Robert's position about the nature of Islam.

So, in summation citycat, you are either a pro- Islamist or just plain ol' dumb enough to think that we anti-Islamists are as dumb as you think we are.

Posted by: awake at December 20, 2006 1:14 PM

WOW! That was unexpected, yep a real head scratcher (for small boys that cant go into Afgani private quarters) and beard stroker (for jihadi's that have reached the age and enlightenment to be interested to have the former visit their private quarters) .

I just hope that they dont start burning the book.......while the owner is holding it.

Merry Christmas

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at December 20, 2006 1:15 PM

Of course, the real reason it was banned was because Pakistani muslim clerics were snatching it up for use as textbooks in their madarasas, because we all know reading Robert's work is the best way to turn moderate muslims into extremists, as the main stream media informs us.

So, it's simply another one of Musharraf's anti-terror measures, you see....

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 20, 2006 1:17 PM

I wonder if female donkeys get banned, because they are not covering it's meat and they are so seducing.

http://civoc.com/society/?p=44

Posted by: Arnie at December 20, 2006 1:17 PM

The belief-system cannot permit the study of alternative points of view or alternative religions because the clerics and governments cannot afford having any place for people to flee to from the belief-system. People do not leave something to go to nothing (no matter how bad things are) unless they have another something to go to. Saudi Arabia and most Muslim countries cannot afford alternatives because it would be like offering a beaten wife a place of refuge.

The belief-system is deceptive and not secure in itself, cannot allow itself to be questioned, and that is a large part of the reason it will always rely on force and deception in order to survive. It's a very ugly and insecure system. It's the only major belief-system that permits deception at all. (Christ (e.g.) said all deception-hypocrisy came from "the evil one". Christ mandated directness with everyone-including in prayer to God.) It dare not provide alternatives.

In Pakistan there can be no Roberts to go to.

Posted by: Frank at December 20, 2006 1:19 PM

" For those who are congratulating Robert, I think you need to rethink that. The book is not getting to the people who need to read it most."

Posted by: citycat at December 20, 2006 01:01 PM

----------------------------------------------

Actuallu the book is not geared towards Muslims hemselves i suspect, but for Lazy ignorant uninformed Westerners.Like my former self
( Though i'm not lazy,lol )

Most Muslims know full well what Roberts writes is true , they just lie about it as to benefit the real cause of Islam. World Submission and Domination.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 20, 2006 1:22 PM

"Banned in Boston" used to do wonders for plays, not to mention what it did for Sally Rand. "Banned in Pakistan" or, for that matter, "Banned in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Algeria, Iraq, Malaysia, etc.," printed on a wrap-around sheet of paper like that one finds on French books of the Gallimard school: "Prix Femina 2003" or "Une histoire d'amour passionnée" or "Devenez un voyageur à la page" or "une histoire des années de plomb” or “Prix Berberova 2005.”"Banned in Pakistan." "Banned in 57 countries of the non-Heinz variety." "Banned wherever mosques and madrasas are found." But you, dear Reader, Dear Infidel, can still obtain, possess, devour it, without needing to skulk about or having to sneak a peak. You can defy Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, and all those other places where buying such a book can be dangerous. Go ahead. Be a free man. Buy a copy.

Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2006 1:37 PM

Truth is un-Islamic, don't ya know.

Posted by: Stendec at December 20, 2006 1:39 PM

"Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion."

To which yet another example is added.

How dare you say that Islam is intolerant!
Ban that book!

Posted by: alexon at December 20, 2006 1:49 PM

Assalamau alaikum all,

I don't know why you should give congratulations to Robert...he's losing revenue from the peoples who need to read it most.

These are the peoples who can refute it (if required), what's the point of the Kafur reading something they have foolishly already rejected.

I would have brought it if I could...but I'm waiting until I visit the UK, read it there and then leave it behind...(perhaps downloadable off the internet may be an option)?

The Mullahs say "Do not forget that Pak can only have purity in the land of Pak...there is no room for "lies" and incompatibilities.

Muhd (despite his few faults) was a man of enormous vision, enormous charm, (womens simply could not stay away from him), wit and had a touch of genius about him.

He had just 23 years to setup a religion (he started at 40 and died at 63), and look at its gynormous success...and it's spread shows no sign of abating particularily in Eurabia and the Amerike.

In truth no amount of Robert's or anyone else's writings are going to harm Muhd SAW by much...all that will happen is that his supporters will be more virulent in his defernce...such was the charm of the man...but I do hope that there is no violence.

Posted by: Naseem at December 20, 2006 1:56 PM

I had to repost this because of the Horrid Typing mistakes the first time i posted it. ( i know we are judged on Grammar here ) lol

Actually the book is not geared towards Muslims themselves i suspect, but for Lazy ignorant uninformed Westerners ,Like my former self
( Though i'm not lazy,lol )

Most Muslims know full well what Roberts writes is true , they just lie about it as to benefit the real cause of Islam. World Submission and Domination.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 20, 2006 1:58 PM

Where's our very own Islamofascist, Naseem? What've you got to say about this, eh?

"Assaloom oo Alakoom"

"It is good and blesing of Alla(SWT) that this book which is the blasfemus book by the Roabert Spesnar is banned in the Pakistan. May Alla(SWT) curse Roabert Spesnar"

Posted by: chinubhai11 at December 20, 2006 2:06 PM

most of the folks in pakistan are illiterate anyway and probably too poor to buy the book. But what would a person expect with the folks in Pakistan. They are intolerant of any free thought and word.

The pakis are afraid of the Truth.

Posted by: callmeinfidel at December 20, 2006 2:27 PM

I dont know what the big deal is. Everything in the book is derived from the Quran, sunnah, and original sirah. If the person didnt have the brains to just read those and know Islam is silliness, then they certianly wont find their way to anything by Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, or the like.

Posted by: American_soldier at December 20, 2006 2:32 PM

Pakistan is a nation founded upon a philosophy of hatred - Hindu hatred - without which there is no justification for its existence. It was a nation born to Islamic murder and destruction and genocide - it tried to survive using the same tools of evil in 1971 - but no matter how long it may take, its rotten ideology of hatred and false sense of supremacy over Hindus will eventually go to the dust.
On a practical note however the separation of a large number of Muslims from the State of India has been a blessing.

Posted by: chinubhai11 at December 20, 2006 2:33 PM

What a wonderful advertising opportunity Mr. Spencer- perhaps you can have the words "The book that Pakistan fears" printed on new copies book covers? That might boost sales greatly- everyone loves banned stuff lol http://sacredscoop.com

Posted by: CottShop at December 20, 2006 2:46 PM

In truth no amount of Robert's or anyone else's writings are going to harm Muhd SAW by much...all that will happen is that his supporters will be more virulent in his defernce...such was the charm of the man...but I do hope that there is no violence.
Posted by: Naseem

How'd you like to have been a Jewish woman at the time of Mo, have your father and husband and brothers you grew up with killed, and your mother and yourself taken as whores for Mo's army? Your children taken as slaves? How charming would you have found him then?

Posted by: chinubhai11 at December 20, 2006 2:51 PM

Naseem, you said: "..but I'm waiting until I visit the UK, read it there and then leave it behind.."

Here's an alternate thought:

When you get to the UK, buy thousands of copies and
sneak them back into Pakistan and sell them on the "black market."

You will be a hero to your peoples and make
BIG MONEY $$$$$ for yourself.

Posted by: Malinois at December 20, 2006 3:25 PM

This is a great opportunity for much-needed publicity that will force the mainstream media to report on the book at last without fearing for their skins, cowards as they are - they can refer to it as the 'book banned by Pakistan for fear of offending Muslims' - let's make a new Satanic Verses of this - anything to get more and more citizens of the West to READ AND UNDERSTAND the book.

Posted by: chinubhai11 at December 20, 2006 3:29 PM

The Paki-tocracy knows full well that their hold over the average paki citizen is based on keeping them controlled, intimidated, and ignorant. The mullah's and imams would have one helluva problem on their hands if PsyOps just happened to air-drop a few hundred thousand copies all over the place.

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." (Surah 5:101-102).

Posted by: Jihadi_popper at December 20, 2006 3:32 PM

Won't be long from here to the fatwa on your head, Mr. Spencer...
Truth and Islam don't mix, making sense of the madness can get you killed. Take care!

Anyway, some new cartoons and new songs here on the brand-new Sheik yer'mami blog:

http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/19/my-allah-is-better/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 20, 2006 3:46 PM

Muhd (despite his few faults) was a man of enormous vision, enormous charm, (womens simply could not stay away from him), wit and had a touch of genius about him.
Posted by: Naseem at December 20, 2006 01:56 PM

Let me translate Naseem's intentional trolling nonsense for you all.

- was a man of enormous vision
(realized the ascension to power through murder)

- enormous charm, (womens simply could not stay away from him)
(rapist and pedophile)

- wit
(illiterate plagarizer)

- and had a touch of genius about him
(agreed, he was a compelling liar and a genius to have enslaved millions of people still today, over 1400 years after his death)

In truth no amount of Robert's or anyone else's writings are going to harm Muhd SAW by much...

Agreed, nothing can harm the man. he has thankfully been dead a long, long time.

PLEASE keep posting Naseem. Everytime you make an absurd claim about your bastard of a religion, your brethren always do something shortly afterwards to validate Robert's position.

From www.dictionary.com
tolerant
adjective
1. showing respect for the rights or opinions or practices of others [ant: intolerant]

Banning books that do not substantiate a particular point of view and that pose a threat to dispel a falsity is not an example of tolerance.

But hey, Naseem, who needs the haram dictionary anyway. Reading is overrated. One only needs to understand the Qur'an, and if you can't read it, so what. Some Islamic scholar without any agenda will be more than happy to 'tell" you what it says and means.

In all honesty, I've had house pets that I would call smarter than you. Now off the PC before I alert the Mullah to your actions.

PS. You're off my Christmas list for sure!!

Posted by: awake at December 20, 2006 3:49 PM

So, in summation citycat, you are either a pro- Islamist or just plain ol' dumb enough to think that we anti-Islamists are as dumb as you think we are.
Posted by: awake

Well, clearly you're dumb enough to miss my point entirely - even though my point was pretty clear.

If you don't care if the Pakistanis can read the book, you should. Access to information is vital if one is to even begin to think in a different way (which is, incidentally, why they banned the book). It is the basis for questioning. It is the better way to defang Islam (you can call it "destroy Islam" if you want). Why is it better?

There are 1.3 Billion Muslims in the world. Most of them are poor and very ignorant. The birth rates among them are very high - and account for nearly all of the growth in Islam. Unless you are prepared to spend your tax dollars defending yourself against them for eternity or to anahilate 1.3 Billion people, you should care that they have access to information that would help change themselves.

Unless, of course, you think that people who happen to be born in Muslim countries are GENETICALLY hopelessly evil and not human and are, thus, can never be helped by an influx of new information. If that's what you believe then, I think I've heard this before - from Muslims and from Nazis about Jews. And it was this viewpoint that led to the murder of members of my family in Poland during WWII.

I don't share your view that 1.3 billion people are all pure evil to a person. That doesn't make me pro-Islamist. It makes me human.
___________________________________________________
Concerned Canadian,

While the book may not be geared toward Pakistanis or Muslims in general, it would still be beneficial for them to have it. A target audience is not the only audience which benefits from any book (I assure you, I was not the target audience for Harry Potter but I loved it).

Incidentally, most Muslims do NOT know full well that what Robert writes is true. Suspension of reality coupled with simply not having access to information is very common in Islamic countries.

to answer a question you asked me a couple of nights ago but I didn't have time to answer: It appears that I was never in it to begin with - by your or their definition. My own definition is irrelevant - I'm proud to be a heretic. I thought we determind that months ago. It appears none of my family wasn't ever either.

incidentally, did you hear that Egypt (a supposedly secular government) has just refused to grant the Ba'hai standing as a religion because the Ba'hai reject global Jihad (so, yeah, they reject that portion of the Koran and Hadith). So, Egypt has rejected the Ba'hai because they're not violent enough. Nice, eh?
_____________________________________________________
Nasseem,

Tell them to give you better crack to smoke. Yesterday you couldn't even get the Isa story correct - AS TAUGHT BY ISLAM. A religion you claim to be intimate with.

You are guilty of the idiot method that every apologist (and idiot) uses - aggressive assertion. Get this through your head: just because you SAY something is lovely or non-violent or better while you are surrounded by hideous poverty, bodies torn limb from limb by a crowd's eager hands, while trash and misery blow around your feet doesn't mean it's true. This is in not an audience of people in repressed countries. In Islamic (also communist) countries everyone suspends reality to get by. They look at white walls and exclaim that they are black. I didn't grow up in an Islamic country, so I'm always shocked at how people are so divorced from logical protocol when I visit. It's maddening. It works in yo-yo land where you live but it doesn't work here.

Here's another little pearl of wisdom: nobody gives a fuck if Mohamed had a "touch of genius" or who could or couldn't keep his/her hands off him. When a man instructs you to go rape, pillage and murder, dominate, force and subjugate other human beings you have to use your frickin' head and wonder if that's not an insane ungodly thing to ask of you. Don't you wonder if maybe he wasn't crazy or corrupt to command you to do such a thing? Don't you think that God gave you a brain to work that sort of thing out?

No, you probably don't.

Posted by: citycat at December 20, 2006 4:16 PM

On the sbject of Robert's new book, i live in South Africa, and no book store keeps it, even the huge book stores, which coincidentaly do have Karen Armstrong. Even Christian book stores, which are full of books that deal with 'Da Vinci code', have nothing of Spencer or anything similar.
Thank God for mail order which enabled me to get the book as soon as it was available.

Posted by: Branislav at December 20, 2006 4:43 PM

I don't share your view that 1.3 billion people are all pure evil to a person. That doesn't make me pro-Islamist. It makes me human.
Posted by: citycat

While I am sorry about your relatives, my friend,
and can understand how you feel about racism, I have lived in 4 Muslim countries in the last year that are at the liberal end of the spectrum: Malaysia, Turkey, Oman and the UAE, and believe me, a poor Muslim is not more likely to be a violent Jihadist: indeed the more educated and wealthy I have found the Muslim to be, the narrower and more hateful his or her attitude to people like you and me. It is the poor Muslim, who does not read that book of evil daily, perhaps because he cannot afford a copy, who is the kinder, more open and accepting person.

Do you really think a Muslim is going to look at Robert Spencer's book, lift it off the shelf and go home and read it avidly? Such things are unimaginable for the most liberal Muslims I know,
because even if the Muslims ready to kill apostates are at just 10%, they are enough of a threat to prevent any such activity - and I don't see this situation changing anytime soon.

I think 'awake', the same as all of us here, is just sick to death of Islamofascism - I myself lost a distant relative in the recent Mumbai bombings you no doubt heard of. It is wishful thinking and naive to try to market this book to Muslims - let's set our own ranks in order first and spread The Truth About Muhammad.

Posted by: chinubhai11 at December 20, 2006 4:44 PM

What is 10% of 1.3 billion people willing to blow them selves up? Quite a lot really, the problem is the system, if you are not allowed to think outside and question the universe outside Islam you are as ungodly as you can be. You are basically making people live one way when there are many aguments againsts and if one is not allowed to question what is outside the bubble they live in then its a delusion. Its almost a borg mentality Star Trek style, and I feel sorry that there is no escape.

Posted by: jesusisthelamb at December 20, 2006 4:54 PM

In other words..."the truth hurts", and they dont like facts interfering with, and can do away with, their power & control racket.

Posted by: jcom972 at December 20, 2006 4:54 PM

What is 10% of 1.3 billion people willing to blow them selves up? Quite a lot really, the problem is the system, if you are not allowed to think outside and question the universe outside Islam you are as ungodly as you can be. You are basically making people live one way when there are many aguments againsts and if one is not allowed to question what is outside the bubble they live in then its a delusion. Its almost a borg mentality Star Trek style, and I feel sorry that there is no escape.

Posted by: jesusisthelamb

That's just the way I feel about it, after knowing 100s of Muslims on a personal basis.
After my interactions with them I always felt something was lacking - there was no human element to any association I had with them - they were living in a shell that they wouldn't let me into - nor would they come out of it into the real world.

Posted by: chinubhai11 at December 20, 2006 4:57 PM

He had just 23 years to setup a religion (he started at 40 and died at 63), and look at its gynormous success...

... a lot of graves in the desert can attest to his success.

....Pakistani women for the most part cannot read as the Muslim men kill teachers and generally do not allow women to learn. Roberts book is useless to one who cannot read. But then again, there are a lot of useless things in Pakistan.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 20, 2006 4:57 PM

I don't share your view that 1.3 billion people are all pure evil to a person. That doesn't make me pro-Islamist. It makes me human.
Posted by: citycat at December 20, 2006 04:16 PM

Nice utopian rant citycat. You make references to Muslims all through it, whereas I refer to Islam.

Methinks YOU are the one who is COMPLETELY missing the point. Islam is evil, not It's 1.3 billion population.

MY concern is the defense of non-Islamic cultures from the tyranny and oppression of Islam. Anything short of abrogation, reformation or conflagration of the Qur'an, and once again, I-S-L-A-M, is unacceptable.

I do not feel obliged to pity the unfortunate, illiterate, impoverished, unknowing majority of Muslims who are too ill-informed to know that what Robert says is the truth. These are the very same ignorant people who want to kill us all.

You can lay your head on the chopping block, hoping that before the axe falls on it, that Islam will be reformed. I do not care to.

Lack of concern for the unknown percentage of the 1.3 billion followers of Islam that desire my death does not make me inhuman, it makes me a realist.

Posted by: awake at December 20, 2006 5:00 PM

Lack of concern for the unknown percentage of the 1.3 billion followers of Islam that desire my death does not make me inhuman, it makes me a realist.
Posted by: awake

Very true.

Posted by: chinubhai11 at December 20, 2006 5:04 PM

" Lack of concern for the unknown percentage of the 1.3 billion followers of Islam that desire my death does not make me inhuman, it makes me a realist"

-------------------------------------------------

Precisely , and if it is onlt 10% as they say that is Radicalized we are still talking about over a 100 million ready to murder Muslims.

Islam has a Flaw,

IT IS EVIL

Perhaps a large percentage/majority of Muslims actually are peaceful,that does not negate that the Cult itself is Evil and intolerant. Muslims are just as threatened by Islam as we all are, only Muslims are not permitted to think or question, we are, that's a big difference.
Banning Roberts books is proof of that.

Knowledge IS power and the knowledge/power in Islam is being kept from the People.

The truth is out there , just don't count on Muslims to seek or find it.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 20, 2006 5:23 PM

Regarding the use of only your first name, Robert: you now join such other celebrities as "The Donald," "Madonna," "Britney," etc.

You have become a household name--at least in the umma. We must work on it becoming so in our "House," the house that war is being waged on by the people desperately trying to censor any truthful presentation of their idol--that represents the other, the invisible, idol.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at December 20, 2006 6:05 PM

Someone posted that its not the poor Muslims that cause the problems but the richer educated ones.
Tell that to the poor dregs in France that burned, rioted, and killed!!

Posted by: frodnum at December 20, 2006 6:13 PM

It's sometimes occurred to me that British national interets would be best served if all civilian travel between the UK and Pakistan was banned. When I read Naseem mentioning the next time she would be in the UK, above, I've come round to the idea that implementing such a course of action has became a matter of some urgency.

Posted by: wallyUK at December 20, 2006 6:24 PM

Awake,

"You make references to Muslims all through it, whereas I refer to Islam. Methinks YOU are the one who is COMPLETELY missing the point. Islam is evil, not It's 1.3 billion population."

That would fit into this argument nicely if only Islam could read. Since ideologies can't read, only the followers of said ideologies are able to read Robert's book. That's why my post was all about Muslims.

The availability of information is still better than lack thereof because the lack of it only ensures that NOBODY even has a chance to change their mind.

Your concern for the idiot leftists who can't hear clearly that which Al-Zawahri, Bin Laden and company has been telling them for years is a very valid concern. I support you in that goal. But what I said and your primary concern are not mutually exclusive.

___________________________________________________
Chinubhai,

"I have lived in 4 Muslim countries in the last year that are at the liberal end of the spectrum: Malaysia, Turkey, Oman and the UAE, and believe me, a poor Muslim is not more likely to be a violent Jihadist: indeed the more educated and wealthy I have found the Muslim to be, the narrower and more hateful his or her attitude to people like you and me. It is the poor Muslim, who does not read that book of evil daily, perhaps because he cannot afford a copy, who is the kinder, more open and accepting person."

I agree completely. In addition to that, there are educated, well traveled Muslims who simply reject parts of the religion, including subjugation of women and violence. They, however, would be called heretics by other Muslims and are in the minority. Perhaps, you would even call them apostate and so would other Muslims. In general, the closer you adhere to every word, the more hateful and violent your behaviour.

"Do you really think a Muslim is going to look at Robert Spencer's book, lift it off the shelf and go home and read it avidly? Such things are unimaginable for the most liberal Muslims I know,"

Perhaps. But time and information has a way of changing people. Especially information. I know Muslims for whom it is not unimaginable that Mohamed was wrong or that he could have been capable of evil. In addition, it's not important that people read the book avidly. What's important is that the information is accessible if one were to want to access it.

For example, Hirsi, a Somali immigrant and former member of the Dutch parliament didn't even KNOW of the holocaust until he read about it for the first time in Holland when he was already years old. It changed him. Reading the talmud changed Walid Shoebat from a terrorist to a person who speaks out for Israel. Information changes people - not all people but some is better than none. Look at it this way - Shoebat's abandonment of terrorism means one less suicide bomber to contend with.

Information and a free flow of ideas is always better than no information and a restriction of ideas. If that were not the case, why ban the book? That's my only point. I'm not saying that the whole Muslim world will suddenly become warm and cuddly. That's a pipe dream.

Posted by: citycat at December 20, 2006 7:09 PM

Banning books and choking new ideas has always been a bad idea. Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul
in this world...and never will.

Familiarity breeds contempt. How accurate that is. The reason we hold truth in such high respect is that we have so little opportunity to get familiar with it.

Thank you Mark Twain

Posted by: icanplainlysee at December 20, 2006 7:49 PM

What this proves is that the best defense the west has against islam is the koran itself.

If it is read in the light, it is so pathetic. Puke be upon it.

Posted by: BB at December 20, 2006 10:39 PM

citycat said:

Information changes people - not all people but some is better than none.

This question can be seen in another way. Information -- or rather truth -- changes everyone: some it makes good, some it makes insane, some it makes evil. But no one who is faced with it is unaffected. Those who choose to deny a truth can only do so by self-deception, which means a portion of consciousness is rigidified into a peculiar barrier of sorts isolating one part of the self from another. Do that enough, and the result is the extreme form of self-division sometimes called schizophrenia. But in being confronted with a truth, one may decide to reject it more consciously, and then one moves toward evil, rather than mere insanity -- though there is overlap between the two.

Robert's book would have two or three effects in Pakistan for those who read it or heard accurate report of it: some would deaden themselves to some extent in the effort to deny its contents; others, however few, would begin to be liberated; still others would accept the truth, but decide to ally themselves nevertheless with evil.

Those who say it doesn't matter that the book was banned in Pakistan are mistaken. Psy-ops is an essential part of warfare. The West needs to read Robert Spencer's book, but so does Pakistan, if only so that more Wafa Sultans and Whalid Shoebats may appear and join those seeking to educate the West about the totalitarianism and global ambition embodied in Islam's most sacred documents. Since the Muslim population in Europe is growing very rapidly through high birth rates and immigration, while the non-Muslim population of Europe is shrinking, significant parts of Europe will be majority Muslim by mid-century under current trends. All of Europe could easily be majority-Muslim by century's end. Already in France, I gather, 1 in 3 babies born is Muslim. If that's true, then the next generation in France will be 1/3 Muslim! Islam's totalitarianism may well dominate France sooner than many people would guess. Already, free speech has been severely wounded in Europe through the periodic murder of critics of Islam. Out of fear, many people are keeping their mouths shut about Islam. But Europe is also starting to fight back.

Posted by: traeh at December 20, 2006 10:58 PM

citycat,

This thread is recognition and praise for Robert for what we, the majority of the JW/DW community, saw as a victory in the war against Islam, and to acknowledge the hard work of all involved in bringing us the unfortunate truth about it's founder.

If you think for one solitary second that the impact of the official governmental Pakistani response to Robert's book is somehow overshadowed by the fact that less "moderate" Pakistani Muslims will get to read it, or not depending on their literacy status, then you have not been paying attention.

Plenty of books are still available in Pakistan. I'm sure Mein Kampf is still up there on the bestseller list... What were you thinking?

Once again, kudos to you Robert. Don't allow citycat to rain on your parade.

Posted by: awake at December 20, 2006 11:10 PM

Well firstly I think everybody should be free to write what they want to write. Writing analysis is different than making cartoons. Islam does not ban criticism. But I doubt the accuracy of Robert Spencer's arguments....I doubt it if he'll ever have a solid arguement. It will/might appeal to atheists and anti-Islamics and perhaps westerners. But I do not recommend people to read it to get a feel of Islam. This work is out of Spencer's prejudices against Islam than his knowledge and understanding. It is not authentic guide to Islam. I think there should be a Islam for Dummies guide. Its quick, cheap and easy way to learn islam or just go to www.alislam.org
Plus Spencer will not present both sides of the picture....he is just presenting his view and his prejudiced view. I do not know where he learnt so much crap from....he certainly has not met any good Muslims or interacted with ANY Muslim. He has just read books that are anti-Islam, sat and chatted with anti-Islamic people and produced a summary of all his anti-Islamic thoughts and meetings.

Posted by: msaleem at December 20, 2006 11:11 PM

Well I think this website is mainly for people who think America's war is on Islam and not on terror. I don't know when and how the westerner's will educate themselves enough to know the difference between terrorism and Islam.

Posted by: msaleem at December 20, 2006 11:15 PM

to msaleem:
Instead of talking in generalities, which is easy, why don't you criticize some specific in the book? If you have read it, that is. I think you will find it much harder to criticize the specifics of the book, because it is all based on your own most sacred sources, the Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and so on. Robert Spencer does not indict you. Your own books indict you.

But respond to specifics in Robert Spencer's book. Anything else is cowardly slander on your part.

Posted by: traeh at December 20, 2006 11:18 PM

msaleem said:

I don't know when and how the westerner's will educate themselves enough to know the difference between terrorism and Islam.

Qur'an Chapter 9, Verse 123:

Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that Allah is with the righteous.

Want more? Plenty more where that came from. It is you who need to educate yourself about your own religion, my friend.

Posted by: traeh at December 20, 2006 11:23 PM

Quran was revealed one revealtion at a time. It did not come all at once and Revealations were relavent to time and occasion. This revealation is when the Pagan Meccans were attacking the Muslims of Medina and Allah reveal to Muhammad that fight the non-beleivers. He was at first pacifist taking the persecutions and not retaliating untill the revealtion when Allah guided him to fight back(defensive war only).

This quote is from a time when the Pagans were marching towards Medina to kill the Muslims and wipe them off the earth. It's implications is not to kill and fight the non-beleivers when there is peace or when they aren't attacking you. It is a direction from Allah in the time of war.

I hope that makes it clear.
Tell me more stuff that is in the book and I can clear the misconception of Mr. Spencer right here ritght now.

Posted by: msaleem at December 20, 2006 11:32 PM

Nothing like time well wasted, eh...

3 words...
Taqiyyah Taqiyyah Taqiyyah

Nothing more clear than that.
Unless that position is rejected out of hand, no point in "clarifying" anything "right here" "right now" or any other time for that matter.

gig's up

;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at December 20, 2006 11:44 PM

There were times when the Jews were kicked in the streets, there are times when Anti-Semitic material is banned in the West and people who deny the Holocaust are jailed.
What is so bad if Pakistan banned an anti-Islamic book. So you think it is only correct to ban Anti-Semtic things and not Anti-Islamic?

Posted by: msaleem at December 20, 2006 11:49 PM

lol...man that's the lamest diversion/distortionary tactic for evasion I've seen in a long time...and funny, too.

My guess is it's a college freshman at berzerkely.

Posted by: jcom972 at December 21, 2006 12:12 AM

The diversion is in people's brains not in my words. It is as clear as water and as simple as truth. You just don't want to realise that you are proven wrong, in your sub-concious you know.

Posted by: msaleem at December 21, 2006 12:24 AM

Well I think this website is mainly for people who think America's war is on Islam and not on terror. I don't know when and how the westerner's will educate themselves enough to know the difference between terrorism and Islam.

Posted by: msaleem

-------------------------------------------------

Actually , no.
Islam IS Terror. It supresses free will, it encourages violence and it shits on women.

-------------------------------------------------

He was at first pacifist taking the persecutions and not retaliating untill the revealtion when Allah guided him to fight back(defensive war only).

Posted by: msaleem
------------------------------------------------

You mean like it was defensive when he attacked his old gang the Quraish?

Muhammad steadily became more violent the more his insane teachings were rejected. He used to respect Christians and Jews till he finally realised they would not accept him , then he started ordering his opponents Assassinated and he started to make war on them.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 21, 2006 12:32 AM

Posted by: msaleem at December 21, 2006 12:24 AM

You get it all wrong due to your limited open mindness.

There is no difference between islam and terror, its both the same. Those who follow the soft version are the puppets of the radicals like you probably.

We do understand that people in islam grow up in a long traditional way, but that doesn't mean that they are right.

The "good(moderate) muslims" are good despite their religion and not because of it, is that so hard to understand? We're not against the individuals or opeople, but against the spirit of islam(quran) and its ways to accomplishment.

Just get out of this ideology that otherwise would come after you as well sooner or later.

Posted by: Arnie at December 21, 2006 12:34 AM

Quran was revealed one revealtion at a time

Posted by: msaleem

------------------------------------------------

Don't you mean one Seizure at a time?

His Revelations were just the ramblings of a Demented Epileptic mind. i hear crazy people on the street corners babble all kind of nonsense all the time. Silly Arabs , they fell for that?

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 21, 2006 12:35 AM

Tell me more stuff that is in the book and I can clear the misconception of Mr. Spencer right here ritght now.

Posted by: msaleem

----------------------------------------------

Now this i'd love to see.

Robert?

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 21, 2006 12:36 AM

So, in summation citycat, you are either a pro- Islamist or just plain ol' dumb enough to think that we anti-Islamists are as dumb as you think we are.

Posted by: awake at December 20, 2006 01:14 PM

awake, you're wrong about citycat. She is either a muslim or a former muslim, but she is definitely on our side. Don't run her off; she knows how muslims think and she has contributed some very valuable insight.

Posted by: Susanp at December 21, 2006 12:55 AM

Dear msaleem:

Are you sure you haven't been deceived somewhere along the way about your religion? Consider the following:

Qur'an Chapter 9, Verse 29:

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e., Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The above verse gives no sign that it was meant for a particular context. Like many other things in Islam, it promotes violence against non-believers and world-domination by Muslims.

So the following is no surprise. According to Fjordman:

"In Denmark, linguist Tina Magaard concludes that Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far greater degree than the original texts of other religions. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions. [Says Magaard:] 'The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact we need to deal with.' "

However good your intentions might be, msaleem, Islam does have a problem with violence and it has a problem with human rights. It's nice that you know a lot of nice Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists but almost all terror is done by Muslims. I hope you will find a way to help drastically reform Islam, because it needs it. Better yet, you should consider exploring other religions or atheism. Just explore. Be brave. Don't believe in Islam just because everyone around you while you were growing up told you to believe. Stand on your own two feet. Chart your own path. Unless you are afraid to question.

Posted by: traeh at December 21, 2006 3:17 AM

Susanp:
I agree with you about citycat. There was nothing offensive about citycat's posts. The way awake insulted her I almost wonder if awake isn't a secret jihadi having a little fun trying to sow disorder and dissension here.

Posted by: traeh at December 21, 2006 3:30 AM

Gutenberg first printed the Bible and look what happened. Perhaps Mr. Spencer should also “print” the Koran (and his latest book) on the internet and the world will see what happens.
Knowledge is power. The denial of a truth does not mean that it is false, but it does seem that too many people believe lies so readily.

Posted by: Weird at December 21, 2006 4:19 AM

from aseem:Islam does not ban criticism.

YES IT DOES. Just go near a mosque and try critizing anything in the Qur'an. OH, yeah, be sure you have armed bodyguards and a fast escaped vehicle.

In the Qur'an you find things like:

Whosoever opposes our doctrine and our leader should know that we are severe in retribution. And know that one-fifth of what you acquire as booty in war is for our great leader (the rest is for you). The use of such spoils is lawful and good."

... I would say that if you criticize a doctrine, you, in effect, oppose it.(although , the actual word "criticize" does not appear (perhaps the word was unknown at the time ".
However, there can be no doubt that criticism is banned to the point that "severe retribution" is imposed if you criticize the Muslims doctrine as outlined in the Qur'an.
Of course the greedy Mohammad gets 1/5 of the booty stolen from the ones who "dare" to criticize. Much like a gang warlord skimming off the top.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 21, 2006 7:04 AM

This quote is from a time when the Pagans were marching towards Medina to kill the Muslims and wipe them off the earth. It's implications is not to kill and fight the non-beleivers when there is peace or when they aren't attacking you. It is a direction from Allah in the time of war.
Posted above by msaleem

You must think we are ignorant of asbab al-nuzul. Surah 9 was the last or next to last surah. Where is this verse abrogated?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 21, 2006 7:56 AM

"Those who say it doesn't matter that the book was banned in Pakistan are mistaken. Psy-ops is an essential part of warfare...."

Posted by: traeh

My point exactly, traeh. I agree with that whole post from which I excerpted the above sentence.

_____________________________________________________

Msaleem,

I have read the Koran and sahih Bukhari. If you believe that the Koran is the very word of God and that the Hadith are indeed sahih, then you become schizophrenic. On the one hand it is incumbant upon you to wage bloody jihad (and NOT in defence, mind you), subjugate the non-Muslims, kill the non-monotheists and on the other "there is no compulsion in religion" and surahs which essentially say that we must live peacefully with and have respect for the kaffir. Despite the vast contradictions, the koran also says "if it contradicts itself, it is not from God". Thus, the Koran is itself telling you that it is not from God.

In addition, despite the fact that Mohamed was a man and said so and even forbade hadith to be written in his time, Muslims hold him as "the perfect man". Not even the texts make that claim. The claim is "he is the best among you". What is perfect in this world? God. Thus, Muslims deify Mohamed - and God can do no wrong. He becomes unquestionable. If he is a man, then his words are subject to logical scrutiny (something the Koran itself asks you do - scrutinize and test the logical protocol).

What Robert writes is his tafseer (interpretation) from ISLAM'S own texts. What you write is your tafseer. And, as you know, there are many tafseers. There are those Muslims who may interpret the same surah as defensive but then the definition of "defensive" becomes very ellastic. Conspiracy theories abound to give the green light on "defense" against the West via suicide bombers (which Sheik Tantawi of Al-Azhar has ruled totally halal).

The problem, my dear Msaleem, is not how non-Muslims are interpreting the texts. It's how our own are interpreting the texts. Nobody in the West really cares what your private spiritual beliefs are. What people care about is not being blown up. What people care about is not putting one group's rights above the rights and freedoms of others. It is Muslims who are behaving like lunatics, who are threatening the world, who are whining about every slight against them in the West while offering no such freedoms and protections in their homelands. It is Muslims who march like hooded Nazis and hold up signs about Islam dominating the world - like the third reich. In fact, it is Muslims who subjugate other Muslims if they are from a different sect. It is Muslims, msaleem, not Westerners. And what do we do about that?

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 9:36 AM

Susanp:
I agree with you about citycat. There was nothing offensive about citycat's posts. The way awake insulted her I almost wonder if awake isn't a secret jihadi having a little fun trying to sow disorder and dissension here.
Posted by: traeh at December 21, 2006 03:30 AM

Traeh,

That statement about me was truly amusing. All I did was correct citycat's negative take on the banning of Robert's book in Pakistan. There is no doubt that the benefits outweigh any deficit this may cause in Pakistan. I was pointing out that Islam is the problem, not the individual ideological status of it's 1.3 billion slaves.

It was a great moment in our supposed colective cause to see a predictable governmental reaction to the truth in Robert's book. Citycat chose to see the negatives about the poor moderate Muslims who will not be able to read it and free themsleves from their ignorance about their religion. Sorry, but I just don't buy nor care about that.

It's obvious to me that citycat does not have this dilemma completely worked out in her head yet, and that's fine. I am certain that I do not suffer the same affliction.

Also obvious, due to you wondering whether I am a sectretly a Jihadi just mixing it up on the site, is the fact that you sir might just be the worst judge of character I have ever met.

Merry Christmas to you, anyway.

Posted by: awake at December 21, 2006 10:13 AM

awake,
Merry Christmas,
There are many jihadists that post here, I know of several that other JWers converse with as if they are on our side. I’m pretty sure that citycat is one of the tiny minority of extremists that want a more peaceful islam. Never happen sad to say. She will be killed for her failure to follow the koran w/o deviation. Our thoughts are ours, and when posted I believe they should be respected. I have heard some ridiculous ideas here on many occasions but most of the time I ignore them and go about my business. Say what you want, this book wasn’t written for muslims to better understand their prophet or religion. They kill people for doing that.

Posted by: tgusa at December 21, 2006 12:00 PM

Awake,

You ascribed opinions to me that I neither voiced nor hold. You went off on an irrelevant rant about how many Muslims want to blow you up and while muttering something Islam, not Muslims being the problem. In short, you neither understand what I said nor want to. For some reason, attacking me personally (a person whom you do not know) was enough for you.

you wrote: "All I did was correct citycat's negative take on the banning of Robert's book in Pakistan. There is no doubt that the benefits outweigh any deficit this may cause in Pakistan."

If you believe that banning books leads to a "benefit" that "outweighs any deficit", then I'm afraid we are just coming from two different worlds. I believe in freedom of expression and freedom in general. I see no benefit in banning thought. We will probably never see eye-to-eye.

"It's obvious to me that citycat does not have this dilemma completely worked out in her head yet, and that's fine. I am certain that I do not suffer the same affliction."

I'm so glad to hear that you have such a firm grip on a dilemma I have get to figure out. I'm sure you're afflicted mostly with your dogma and not with any doubt.

Good luck with your collective cause. I see no point in communicating directly with you in the future.

Posted by: citycat at December 21, 2006 12:14 PM

awake,
There is value in your posts, but on this thread you have at moments behaved in a less than exemplary way. You sometimes shot from the hip when making judgements, rather than thinking them through, which is nothing terrible, but then you combined those ill-thought out judgements with gratuitous insults to citycat. You have sometimes written like someone determined to stand his ground on any point, no matter how wrong you might be, and even if defending a mistaken position means going on the attack against innocent others. I'm not saying I'm holier than thou. I've been guilty of my own ridiculous sins, of course. For one thing, quite possibly I'm being unfair to you here. But I'm guessing you will concede nothing and claim to be 100% in the right in everything you've done on this thread. I'm guessing that, but hoping to be proved wrong. You have seemed, in my admittedly quite flawed judgement, aggressive in a sort of panicked, self-defensive way. I'm hoping you'll take a breath, chillax, etc., so we can all join forces more effectively.

Posted by: traeh at December 21, 2006 5:15 PM

Oh, and Merry Christmas to you too, awake.

Posted by: traeh at December 21, 2006 5:16 PM

Some poor slob out there named Spencer Robert just got a fatwa slapped on his ass.

Posted by: Saint Kansas at December 22, 2006 8:42 AM

Congrats to RS!

And a merry Christmas.

----------------------------

Looking over the preceding posts, I notice a bunch of familiar themes and it puts me in mind of something that needs addressing, which is the psychology of all the jihad stuff, and the psychology behind the nearly absolute absence of criticism of mohammedanism by mohammedan cultures.

Surely it is the dog that didn't bark. Observe any traditional religious culture in the world today, and you will find a respectable volume of critical analysis, if not hostile criticism, issuing from the intellectuals of that culture and debated among the public.

Right or wrong, and for good or ill this is everywhere.

And I feel fairly secure in asserting that much of this is an outgrowth of the spread of scientific knowledge, the adoption of a more scientific approach to life, and growing interest in the fields of psychology, history and rational analytic study of culture.

Everywhere except where the culture is mohammedan.

What's different?

It is not enough to say that such things are traditionaly forbidden, they are traditionally forbidden everywhere.

I don't feel that it's adequate to say, well it took a long time everywhere else and they're just behind the curve. It's inadequate because that tells us nothing about the psychology in place today among the people we confront today.

Anyone who has had any exposure to mohammedans has had a chance to observe how even the most educated and westenized among them will generally focus their entire attention on the appealing parts of their church, its texts and practices, and "blank out", evade or avoid discussion of the toxic and dangerous parts.

This is unique. They are quite different from other populations in the scarcity of people who will say "Oh yes, of course that part is bad" (even if that were to be followed by a "but..."). The evasion and avoidance are strikingly more common than in other groups.

I won't pretend to having a comprhensive answer, or even necessarily anything other than some inferences and guesses, but I really think that someone needs to figure this out.

If nothing else, this issue alone needs to get a lot more public airtime.

-------------------

All that said, it has to be asked whether the current ban on RS's book is to be regarded in the same light as, say, Chinese internet censorship, or as something more particular to mohammedan culture or perhaps a bit of both.

Posted by: joeblough at December 22, 2006 9:18 PM

On reflection I've decided to take this up a notch.

What I have gleaned from cognitive psychologists, and this is not rocket science, suggests that one's morality and one's self-esteem are deeply connected at every point.

In fact, there is good reason to believe that from a purely psychological angle (all religious stuff aside), the lack of well developed specific instincts among humans is precisely why we need a morality and a sense of self-esteem.

Given sufficient instincts an animal can rely on its natural pain/pleasure responses to keep it mostly on the right track. You don't have to teach a shark to hunt and eat fish - and I expect the shark feels just fine about a fresh catch.

Humans by contrast have wider abilities and less detailed built in controls. We are capable of all sorts of self destructive idiocy because we aren't born to know better. For that we need an internal guide-book so to speak, and some way of keeping that important.

I maintain that the moralities we learn (and those hidden private ones we cook up for ourselves) are the internal guidebook, and our emotional feeling of self esteem is nature's way of letting us know how close to or far off we are with respect to our internal rules.

When I approve of myself I feel good, when I disaprove of myself I feel bad. Just that simple.

So when you question someone's morality (and its basis and sources) you are questioning their psychological integrity in a significant way.

So when you teach a person from childhood that alien moralities are things that must be feared, hated and destroyed, you have built yourself a human that is virtually incapable of criticizing their own moral culture.

Moreover, you have built up a psyche in which the most powerful fight-for-your-life emotions are brought to bear in the struggle (word chosen advisedly) to maintain self-approval.

For such a psyche to learn humility to the point of being able to question their own assumptions requires an extraordinary and painful experience. But mere pain alone won't do the trick. Mohammedans suffer all the time, and to judge by what we've been seeing, they're pretty good at not questioning themselves in response to failure and suffering.

Somehow the pain must be unusual and needs to be experienced in an appropriate context or else the questions won't naturally arise.

And the appropriate context? Well there's the $64,000 question.

Posted by: joeblough at December 22, 2006 9:42 PM