| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Voting for Keith Ellison was a way for Minnesotans in his district to demonstrate, to themselves and to others, that they were certifiably tolerant, impeccably broad-minded. All the better if it was done without even making a move to find out what might be in the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam to cause disquiet.
Such holier-than-thou voters were not really voting for Ellison. They were voting for themselves. And in voting for themselves, in giving themselves a pat on the back and a vote of moral self-confidence, they did not wish to have their minds violated by facts, by what they might have found out if they had actually looked into Islam. That would only have confused them. That would only have been an obstacle in the project of self-appreciation.
As he enters the voting booth and makes his little marks on the computer-legible piece of paper, this kind of voter hears the distant voice of someone reading from "Leaves of Grass":
"Do I celebrate myself? Very well then, I celebrate myself."
Vote for someone, so that when you cast that vote -- never mind the actual positions or possible dangers of that candidate winning -- you can feel good about yourself. Isn't that what life is supposed to be all about? Feeling Good? And isn't Feeling Good About Yourself part of Feeling Good? Of course it is. Vote for Ellison.
Voting as a branch of Self-Esteem Studies.
But now that he has been elected by these self-satisfied Minnesotans, everything should be done to clarify his positions. Interviewers should use the occasion of his swearing-in on the Qur’an to read aloud 9.29 and 9.5 and the rest of Sura 9, and then all the other Jihad verses, and then from the hadith, and then from the life of Muhammad. Others will scream, "a man's religion should not be an issue" and "that's un-American." Let them. A man's religion should be an issue -- if that "religion" is far more than a religion, if it is a complete politico-religio-socio-economico-whateveroyouwant, then it is legitimate, it is incumbent upon any incumbent or non-incumbent to raise the question. Simply reply that a belief-system as all-encompassing as Islam has become a political issue because Ellison has made it one. Ellison, after all, voluntarily subscribes to it and made an effort to belong to it (rather than simply being one of those people born into it). He has had years to discover what Islam teaches, what it is all about, so he cannot at this point claim, "I was unaware of those passages." His answers, therefore, about how these passages are to be taken will be instructive.
What are we to make of a Congressman who professes to believe in a holy book that includes 9.29 and 9.5 and so much else? What are we to believe of a Congressman who believes that Muhammad is the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil? We want to know details. We have to know details. We have a right to know details. What about the attack on the Khaybar Oasis? What about all the rest, all of which is now no longer hidden, but is becoming every day the common talk of non-Muslims as they begin to find out more about this?
Where does the Congressman stand on the Danish cartoons? On "treaties" signed by Israel with Muslim states or polities and the Muslim model for all such treaties, the agreement of Al-Hudaibiyya? And there is so much more to discuss. Any journalist who refrains from asking about this would be doing the public a disservice. We need to know. And we need to know, finally, what Mr. Ellison makes of Taqiyya and Kitman, what he makes of Muhammad's statement "war is deception," and what he actually knows of the real Islam, and not, possibly, His Own Private Islam.
Once upon a time some of this might, in our innocence, have been overlooked. It might still be overlooked by some, who think it infra dig to ask such questions. Our safety, and our lives, depend on the asking, and re-asking, of such questions.
Make it an issue. Ask Ellison what he thinks of Muhammad's behavior with the Banu Qurayza, or with Asma bint Marwan. Do not forget to mention little Aisha. Ask what he thinks. He will either have to denounce all that, or he will not -- and if he does not, that will be telling.
Use his election as a Teaching Moment.
And resist all attempts to head off such questioning by saying that this is "beyond the scope of legitimate debate" and so on and so bloody forth. It isn't. It must not be.
Posted by Hugh at December 28, 2006 9:59 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"they did not wish to have their minds violated by facts, by what they might have found out if they had actually looked into Islam."
Well...it depends on what branch of Islam they looked into as they could have found many positive qualities...there are various aspects of islam. An example would be the teachings of Sri Lankan Shaiykh Guru Bawa who teaches a very inculsive form of Sufi Islam...even Christians regard him as a saint...he is not a Ben Laden type but truly a very loving guru...
Posted by: jihadlove![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 28, 2006 10:12 AM
Unpleasant verses in the Quran are of no consequence. When you read them in the Proper Context (Mohammed was having a bad day, he was waging war, he was making a metaphor etc.), they're completely innocent, or irrelevant. Real Muslims (tm) don't even believe in them! Doesn't the Bible have stuff like that, too? And so on.
Anything unpleasant related to Islam can be rationalized, one way or another. If all else fails, you can just claim that Christianity is even worse.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at December 28, 2006 10:13 AM
It's called "Color Blindness"
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at December 28, 2006 10:16 AM
You can go through each chapter and click on Intolerance, etc. and get the list of verses that are intolerance. He also restates them, and shortens them, in this format in plain English. You can see the whole chapter and each verse from the original source text he uses with highlighting to show the intolerant or violent verses.
He also has the good verses in the whole Quran and each chapter. These are 67 good verses in the entire Quran as he categorizes it.
Note that he started this site to show that the Bible was violent. You can do the same thing with the Bible. What is the difference?
In the Bible, God will do the judging, and it comes later, usually after death, and God carries out the punishment. God also gathers the information for the judging.
In the Koran, there is that too. But the Koran also commands that the individual Muslim will gather information, make the judgement, and carry it out. Moreover that happens now.
The Bible has the Final Judgement. The Koran does too.
But the Koran adds the Now Judgement. That is done now.
The Now Judgement is a Judgement of One. Each Muslim makes that judgement and carries it out.
The Koran then says this is God's will when an individual Muslim implements the Now Judgement seemingly on their own. The Koran says, that was really God's judgement when you killed, raped, enslaved, etc. an Infidel.
The Now Judgement is new and original to the Koran. The Bible says turn the other cheek. The Now Judgement in the Koran is the opposite.
The Bible says at the present time, return good for evil. The Bible says judge not, lest you be judged. That applies now.
The Koran has the Now Judgement as a commandment. Moreover, when the single Muslim makes the Now Judgement, its God's judgement too.
This results in an Army of One. It makes each Muslim God. Each is a God of One. That results in (violent) jihad with certainty.
Bin Laden has called on individual Muslims to carry out attacks on their own. Bin Laden is telling them be an Army of One. Each individual Muslim selects the target. That is the Judgement of One. That makes them a God of One. Then the Koran says, God approves their choice, in advance.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 28, 2006 10:25 AM
Jesus Christ Supercop - Exactly. Where could have muslims learned this rationalization technique?
Posted by: voirdire at December 28, 2006 10:31 AM
The purpose of the Final Judgement in the Bible is so that people won't fight each other now. Its to create peace.
By having a Now Judgement, Muhammad destroys that. The Quran creates a struggle now. This is the opposite of the idea of the Final Judgement, which is to tell people to forget and forgive and move on.
The Quran results in a separating equilibrium in economic terms. The Quran gives Muslims and non-Muslims an expectation of fighting each other.
If you start with Muslims and non-Muslims at peace, the Quran creates an expectation they will fight. This causes it to happen.
The Bible does the opposite. If you start with Christians and Buddhists at peace, they stay at peace. Moreover, if they are at war, they will trend towards peace. So peace is the target and a stable equilibrium.
For Muslims, peace with non-Muslims is not a target and its not a stable state. The target state with Muslims is conflict with non-Muslims. Why? Because the Koran creates the expectations in each of conflict. It commands the Muslims to conflict, which then creates the expectation of conflict in the non-Muslims. So conflict results.
With nuclear weapons on both sides, the game theoretic solution is each side attacks instantly, if equal. If the West is stronger, then the Muslim player may wait. However, as the Muslim player gets stronger, the equilibrium game theoretic rational expectations solution is a first strike.
This is true at the individual level as well. The Quran creates an equilibrium solution of civil war between Muslims and non-Muslims.
The Bible does the opposite. The Bible says wait to the last judgement. The Bible creates an equilibrium game theoretic solution of peace. As a repeated game, peace is the target state and is stable.
As a repeated game, the Quran makes conflict the target state and conflict is a stable equilibrium, and peace is not a stable state.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 28, 2006 10:36 AM
Hmmm. Here in Moneyapolis, the Eyewitness news teams are all wrapped up Dhimmitude. It goes without saying that the local PBS affiliate would make Mao blush if he were still alive.
As for therages, the St. Paul PressPatch is a clinging to life, and moving ever farther to the left from its already shamelss editorial as it teeters on the abyss of bankruptcy.
But here's a ray of hope: The Red Star (aka the Minneapolis Star & Tribune) just got sold for $530 million, after having been sold for $1.2 billion 8 yrs ago, and gotten its tit caught caught in a wringer on faking up its ciruclation numbers.
Could it be that the new owners, Avista Capital, would dare bold inquiry and the truth as a marketing positioning tool?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 28, 2006 10:54 AM
Many Somalis have settled in the Twin Cities area, and have probably been there long enough to get citizenship and the right to vote. Do Somalis make up a major part of Ellison's constituency?
Also, many Somalis work at the Minneapolis Airport, site of the "Flying Imams" incident. I understand that Ellison's district includes the Minneapolis Airport.
Posted by: northernvirginiastan at December 28, 2006 10:55 AM
It strikes me that Hugh is a regular shepard when warning the sheep about the deception-hypocrisy wolves and in trying to protect the sheep. If this keeps up Hugh, we're both going to become followers of the head Shepard. However, maybe it's OK to be sub-contractor-independent-shepard who is self-employed.
Posted by: Frank at December 28, 2006 11:03 AM
Uh, you cannot make parallels between Christians and Muslims in this instance. There is a huge difference here.
Let's take the Catholic Church for an example. I'm Catholic and it's the Chruch I'm most familiar with. There is a hierarchical structure. There is a "final say" on how the Bible is to be interpreted. Yes, there are crazies who can use the Bible to their own evil ends, but this is not representative of all Bible believers. And when any such instances occur, we can point, quite easily, to a SOLID TEACHING AUTHORITY.
Yes, this all breaks down when you take Protestantism into the picture. As Protestant-to-Catholic converts tell me, whenever disagreements arise, someone splits off and starts yet another church. HOWEVER, while there may be hair-splitting about "Scripture versus Tradition" teaching amongst Christians, all Christians of sound mind are in agreement about the key points. Such as those expressed by "Old Atlantic."
Thus, the basic human rights that are proclaimed by religious and secular alike, arise SPECIFICALLY from the Judeo-Christian Biblical foundations. Go read "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization."
The "Real Muslim" may not believe everything the Wackos believe. But they do not have the final say. There is no Muslim "pope." And it seems to me that anyone that comes close to a version of a "Muslim pope" is generally not the type to say, "This is what we REALLY believe; Mohammed was having a bad day."
So, take your "rationalization technique" nonsense back to liberal la-la land.
Posted by: RerumNovarum at December 28, 2006 11:06 AM
I have finally seen that Yellow Dog that my late father always talked about. The Democrats actually elected that Yellow Dog, and it is a rabid cur.
Posted by: Pelayo at December 28, 2006 11:09 AM
somehow I got to the point that I don't know who I'm voting for. I got afraid that I would be voting for the wrong person - you see, the candidates are sly and sneaky - put on a face or a mask, and THEN when they get into office, they turn and reveal themselves , what they really are and what they mean to do. THey turn against THE PEOPLE.
This happens time and time again. I don't trust them. ANd THAT is why I has stopped voting. BEcause the system of gov - as it is being used this time - is used against us. This happens in all countries.
W/20-20 hindsight, one can see that we need another type of gov - one that is decentralized - and whcih works at a local level - for the insterests of that community. Overall, I would say EXACTLY like the Iroquois Confederacy: 5 Tribes that functioned independently, and yet cooperated and JOINED together in emergencies.
Posted by: allat at December 28, 2006 11:10 AM
"The "Real Muslim" may not believe everything the Wackos believe. But they do not have the final say. There is no Muslim "pope."
very true...no Popery although they have the ulema and just try to interpret the quran for your self...you will bring down the ire of this exclusive male club that interprets the koran for everyone...
Posted by: jihadlove at December 28, 2006 11:11 AM
"The "Real Muslim" may not believe everything the Wackos believe. But they do not have the final say. There is no Muslim "pope."
very true...no Popery although they have the ulema and just try to interpret the quran for your self...you will bring down the ire of this exclusive male club that interprets the koran for everyone...
Posted by: jihadlove at December 28, 2006 11:13 AM
Of course, the premises and contents of this Teaching Moment as adumbrated by Hugh Fitzgerald have to be posed to the Body Politic, and that Body Politic has to demonstrate the capacity to comprehend them intelligently, before it makes any sense to pose them to Keith Ellison. For, who is going to pose them? I see no signs yet that we are ready to pose them to Keith Ellison. At best, lone brave souls might come forth to pose them, easily and quickly -- and generally -- to be dismissed as eccentric "Islamophobes".
Yes, there do seem to be some signs of progress at large: a slow, inchoate, incipiently progressive, bestraggled crawl -- with some of the Body Politic's millipedes further along than others, others willfully dragging behind, others passively failing locomotion at all, and others at odd angles -- along the Learning Curve of the Problem of Islam; but no signs that we are, in fact, ready.
at December 28, 2006 11:36 AM
The first clue for any liberal white Ellison voter should have been the Farakahn connection. Any white simple enought to vote for a member of Calypso Louie's posse deserves what they get. Unfortunately, now the rest of us have to suffer too. White devils who vote for guys like Ellison are like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.
Posted by: MP at December 28, 2006 11:37 AM
I am in perfect agreement with absolutely everything which Shawn McElhinney has commented on above, but I also have a personal bone to pick with the likes of Keith Ellison and those of his ilk in our incoming congressional ranks.
I spent two hours on the phone last night listening to my best friend cry because of the tape that was released yesterday of the five security personnel who have been kept hostage by jihadists these past six weeks--most specifically because of the nervous, stammering voice of Paul Reuben, a close and beloved friend for over twenty years. I spent two hours wondering what will happen if Paul doesn't come home safe--what then? Will Mavis survive if he doesn't?
And then I wonder about the likes of Keith Ellison, lapsed Catholic turned "progressive" Muslim, and I can't help but be angry that he spent all of last year talking about "making a difference," yet instead of getting immediately involved in the process of trying to find a fellow Minnesotan who should have been home, safe and sound, before Thanksgiving, and broker his safe return all Keith can do is lament the "narrowmindedness" and "shallow thinking" of those who reject his "choice" to be sworn in using the Q'ran. Don't you have bigger fish to fry, your arrogant, selfish, shallow little man??? I don't care if you get yourself sworn in on a comic book, I just want you do do your job and actually represent the majority FOR A CHANGE--and, for the record, the overwhelming majority is Judeo-Christian and completely uninterested in your stance on religious ideals.
It's days like these when all I can believe is that if liberal, minority-agenda people like Keith Ellison are our political future, then we're all screwed. It's also days like these that I'd like to take that Q'ran and beat some sense into some of these "progressives" with it--that seems to be all it's good for.
I am running out of patience for tolerance of any kind, this crap just chaps me and I don't it see it changing any time soon....
Posted by: PointlessShrew at December 28, 2006 11:40 AM
Oh I think we're familiar with how the Catholic church "built" western culture. Besides, we're talking about the misuse of scripture here, not the lack of it. And if you don't think it's been misused to rationalize un-Christ-like behavior, you are simply unfamiliar with scripture.
Posted by: voirdire at December 28, 2006 11:40 AM
Billboard:
"Got a deception-hypocrisy wolf problem? Are your sheep in danger? Need a good shepard Out-Source Co? Dial 1-800-Hughshepard."
Posted by: Frank at December 28, 2006 11:47 AM
If a person's Catholicism can be held against them if they are nominated for the Supreme Court, why can't we judge a potential member of Congress based on his religion?
Equally important, can he be trusted with classified documents? I don't know, but I sure wouldn't want to bet my son's life on it. Depending on which seats he happens to get, this could be the most important item of all.
Posted by: RIslander at December 28, 2006 12:43 PM
What is needed is a counter protest.
Use the Leftists practice of protests against them.
The Left has an advantage in protests because any two leftists protesting anything can draw the Cameras, CNN, NPR, the CBC and the BBC.
So, several hundred would need to show up for Ellison's Swearing at America Ceremony.
Not one of those things that gets highly involved in recruiting like the left does.
More underground. Just a bunch of responsible people willing to take the time off.(unlike rounding up the unemployable and unemployed.)
Who are close enough to just show up at the right time and place to get their points across.
For the sake of Identity, maybe everyone could wear the same mask or hat. Like, the one from the SCARRY MOVIE series. That sends a message of death and destruction all by itself.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 28, 2006 12:51 PM
flowerknife us: You're right: several hundred, at the very least, if not thousands (and this is a national issue not just a regional issue in a nation of 300 million!), would need to be mustered before the general populace as well as the "elites" would dismiss them as "bigots". I'd bet all my money that more than 100 will not be mustered -- and that's being generous.
at December 28, 2006 12:59 PM
Correction, of course: before the general populace as well as the "elites" would NOT dismiss them as "bigots".
Posted by: remote_control at December 28, 2006 1:18 PM
* Jesus Christ Supercop
I'm sorry but your "Mohammed was having a bad day" scenario doesn't hold water.
mohammed was only a prophet; he didn't write the koran, alla did (supposedly), thus anything in the koran is infallible - at least to muslims. Nothing in the koran can be changed or altered so as non-muslims we should take the written word VERY seriously since we are ultimately the victims of this war manual.
The only fly in the ointment is "abbrogation"; and why an all knowing GOD would not get his story right in the first place makes the whole religion of islam seem like a bunch of BULL-SHIT!
Posted by: TimTang at December 28, 2006 1:37 PM
The 'Perfect Man' never has a 'bad' day. If he does he is not perfect.
'Everyone knows more than you do about it(religion). Just ask them and they will be happy to tell you all about it'. Reverend Hensley...Universal Life Church...
Hesley was right. 'Eureka' means 'I have found it'(enlightenment). Those who believe they have 'found it', just cant wait to tell everyone all about 'it'. Since knowledge runs down hill, it is necessary for the believer to put himself above or superior to the listener. After all, he has found 'it' and the listener has not. Wanting to be 'right', 'always', is a human trait and is shared by religious adherants especially.
Civilised religions also practice supremacy. They cant admit they are wrong. That would put them out of business. So they way they express thier supremacy is by the passive method. Because civilised religions are not violent, they practice 'calm' means of supremacy. Mormons at your door, will not attack you for disagreeing with them. Niether will Jehovahs Witnesses. I have never been attacked by a Catholic priest for not converting.
Yet all those people feel superior in some respect.
Islam/muslims practice 'applied supremacy' or 'proactive supremacy'. They are willing to use force and/or violence to get converts/dhimmis, if 'reason' does not work. Muslims take a superior position always. Mohammad made it clear...three choices...Convert, dhimmify' or die. And dont forget to pay the tax on your way to hell. He was 'not' having a 'bad' day when he said that.
All this is justified under the 'applied supremacy' of Islam. If you wont accept 'our' god Allah, We will force him on you. Forget Mohammad if you will, but Allah is 'it' for millions of superior beings...they should change thier motto Allahu Akbar, to 'Eureka', but that emplies enlightenment. Allahu Akbar only means you are still stumbling around in the dark, waving a rusty sword because of your fear. "Perfect Love casts out fear"...Paul...Muslims will never have that because Allahu Akbar is nothing to do with love. Islamic supremacy does not exist in reality. Those who believe it does, are repacing fact with self serving opinion/belief. Those who do that are delusional or mentally ill as Frank maintains...
at December 28, 2006 1:57 PM
*** duh_swami
Well said!
But please don't capitalize mohammed, alla, or islam; because they don't deserve it!
Posted by: TimTang at December 28, 2006 2:08 PM
Old Atlantic; That link you posted is powerful. I'd encourage those who haven't seen it to check it out and share. Its a line-by-line critique of the Bible, Qu'ran, and Book of Mormon. Thank you.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/1.html
Posted by: pez at December 28, 2006 2:32 PM
Thanks, Pez.
Remember as you compare them, that in the Bible, God or Jesus does the judging, it happens after people are dead, and we are not supposed to judge now let alone harm people. We are supposed to return good for bad now.
In the Koran, there is a final judgement, but also a now judgement. That is done by Muslims to non-Muslims. They do it now. The sentence is usually death. When they kill Infidels, its because God had already decided that.
The Final Judgement in the Bible is meant for people to forgive and forget and live in peace. When there is violence, it takes the system back towards peace.Peace is a stable equilibrium in the Bible.
The Now Judgement of the Koran is the opposite. If there is peace between non-Muslims and Muslims, the Koran takes any deviation and makes it a matter of life and death. Peace is not a stable state under the Koran between Muslims and non-Muslims. This is intentional. Its designed. The Koran sets up only two possible stable equilibria: One Islamic World under Sharia Law or the complete elimination of Islam from the world with no one adhering to it, except fringe groups.
In that equilibrium, the liberals have to denounce anyone who praises the Koran the way do neo-Nazis today.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 28, 2006 3:06 PM
***PEZ
I took your advise. I started reading the koran from the begining.
The first chapter is obvioustly not written by alla because it's written in first person by mohammed to alla.
Then I got to chapter 2:24(the cow):"And if ye are in doubt concerning that which 'We' reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful."
If this is a mono·the·is·tic religion why does alla say "We". Maybe he's refering to his moon god buddies?
Notice how ye is not capitalized but We and Our and Muhammad IS!
Posted by: TimTang at December 28, 2006 3:19 PM
TimTang writes:
"If this is a mono·the·is·tic religion why does alla say "We"."
Only lying Muslims tell you that Izlam is monotheistic, just like they will tell you that Izlam a "religion of peace."
Izlam is not a "religion" of peace, it is a cult of the devil designed to bring warfare, bloodshed and ruin on God's creation.
Izlam is "henotheistic."
hen·o·the·ism
1. the worship of a particular god, as by a family or tribe, without disbelieving in the existence of others.
2. ascription of supreme divine attributes to whichever one of several gods is addressed at the time.
at December 28, 2006 3:51 PM
I mean, think about it for a minute, how could an "all-powerful" "all-knowing" God be a paragon of virtue and still CONTINUOUSLY CREATE his own ENEMIES! And how could this "all-powerful" God depend on one set of human beings to do his work and rid the world of God's enemies.
No, the idiot Muslims, see a flat earth, underneath a flat heaven where Zeus (Allah) and bunch of other comic-book deities run around and fight each other.
The fiend Mohammad's god allah is a baby in diaper throwing temper tantrums.
It's a joke. A bad one!
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at December 28, 2006 3:57 PM
Do Somalis make up a major part of Ellison's constituency?
The bulk of the Twin Cities' 40K - 50K Somalis are in Ellison's district, in addition to most of the Afro-Americans and aboriginal Meso-Americans (i.e., illegal aliens, as in Mexicans, Honduran, Guatemalans, etc.)
Yes, MSP Int'l Airport is also in the 5th District.
The balance of the Somalis were parked into apartments purpose-built in two wealthy suburbs, subsidized to near free rent with HUD Section 8 deals for the Somali dads (along with AFDC, MedicAID, and other forms of largesse). The suburbs --- Eden Prarie and Eagan --- were blackmailed by the feds to take them in exchange for DOT dollars for highway extensions to easy traffic loads.
Several years ago, when Eagan's Mayor quipped that she should just move the Eagan PD headquarters into the new Somali neighborhood to save on gas, she was run out of office 6th Pillar-style by sustained negative publicity and personal death threats.
Woulda saved a lotta gas and wear and tear on the Eagan squads, though.
A smaller MN city, Owatanna, just west of Rochester, used to be hailed as the ideal place to live with its wealth of high paying light manufafcturing jobs and ag industry support jobs, and for its bucolic location.
Then the Lutheran Church worked its way to the front of the INS line and brough several thousand Somalis there. Since then, Owatanna has been sagging under the weight of welfare transfers, crime, and violence in their school system, even down to the grade school level. The little city has never been the same since.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 28, 2006 5:52 PM
Hugh, you and others are on target about asking Uncle Abid Ellison what his take is on Muslim supremacy, shariah, kitman, and taqiyya.
Old Atlantic, Supercop, Pez, and others:
I, for one, embrace wholeheartedly the Old Testament commands to exterminate the Canaanites; and feel no shame in keeping covenant with the likes of Joshua the Son of Nun. Read the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy and it will be abundantly clear that their are some sins that are so heinous that letting them pervade society renders a society unfit for anything save destruction. And, if you bother to read the rest of Old Testament history and the prophets, you will see that Israel's embrace of Canaanite abominations led to the Babylonian Captivity.
Perhaps it is the case that the modern West's embrace of destroying its own first children (via abortion), Goddess worship in the guise of "progressive Christian theology", and homosexual "marriage" is rendering the West useless for anything other than destruction by the Muslims--who left to themselves create only slums surrounded by deserts.
But, it is also absolutely true that the last wordsJesus left with his disciples is "make disciples of all nations" and "The Spirit and the Bride say 'come'" rather than a cry for Jihad. This makes me feel hopeful that God, by his secret providences and the subtle work of the Holy Spirit, will not allow any society to become so corrupt that it cannot be reformed by divine grace. Thus shall I pray for Westerners and Muslims alike.
Posted by: Kepha at December 28, 2006 5:56 PM
Kepha - "For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be." -Matt 20:37-39
The divine grace is being extended right now through that which corresponds to the ark of Noah's day. Notice that while men and women did ordinary things, not particularly bad things, they failed to take note of the warning evidenced by the ark being built in their midst.
Armegeddon is not a war between kings or countries, it's a war between kings or countries and God.
Posted by: voirdire at December 28, 2006 11:00 PM
Speaking of "teaching" Islam teaches first-degree murder.
Could this be the "holier-than-thou" these people were seeking when they cast their ballots???
Posted by: pythagoras at December 29, 2006 2:06 PM
Alarmed Pig Farmer,
"Several years ago, when Eagan's Mayor quipped that she should just move the Eagan PD headquarters into the new Somali neighborhood to save on gas, she was run out of office 6th Pillar-style by sustained negative publicity and personal death threats."
I was trying to do a little Google research to find out the name of this former mayor. Was it Patricia Anderson Awada?
If so, there are two things of interest about her:
1) She's a Republican (gee, would we expect a Democrat to make such a sensible comment as the one you reported?).
2) Her married name suggests she married a Muslim man whom -- as I found out from Googling -- she divorced in 2004 (Michael Awada); perhaps she learned, as so many other Western women do, the ugly Islamic side of her husband?
Posted by: remote_control at December 29, 2006 3:23 PM
Calvinism??? You've got to be freakin' kidding me???!!! ...the evils of public education rears its ugly head yet again....
Posted by: PointlessShrew at December 31, 2006 2:04 PM
Amen and amen--if only everyone got this....
Posted by: PointlessShrew at December 31, 2006 2:11 PM
[correction]:
"Armegeddon is not a war between kings or countries, it's a war between kings or countries and God."
Amen to this....
Posted by: PointlessShrew at December 31, 2006 2:13 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)