I guess that means that our military efforts in Iraq to quell discord between factions are helping unite Muslims so that they can better wage the Global Jihad against us.
I hope the Iranians and Saudis at the conference appreciate how helpful we are being.

Posted by: jewdog at March 4, 2007 8:56 AM

”conspiracies” against the Islamic world.

actually that is code words for when more people in the West truly understand the koran, hadiths, islam.
That islam is not a religion, but a facist movement cloaked in some jibberish around some religious death cult.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 4, 2007 9:02 AM

Kind of reminds me of the Hitler/Stalin non-agression pact of 1938(?).

Things are getting scarier by the day.

Posted by: walterc at March 4, 2007 9:31 AM

"Ahmadinejad has several times accused the West, chiefly the United States, of seeking to sow discord between Shia and Sunni Muslims"

.....seeking to sow discord between the Shia and the Sunni is exactly what OLE Abu Al-Zaqarwi said he was going to do (before he was taken out)...create a civil war , he said...No need for the US to take credit for the Muslims plan.....And ole ABU had the backing from Iran...IF anyone gets credit for a SHia/Sunny split , it is Iran....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 4, 2007 9:36 AM

And of course that means trying to convince the Islamic world of the fabricated conspiracy that there was a holocaust in Nazi Germany. And of course "the protocols of zion" was a true book written in the former Soviet Union.

Posted by: Mackie at March 4, 2007 9:41 AM

Mr. Spencer.

I have a response to your reply to the emory editorial post.

http://eteraz.org/story/2007/3/4/65215/02266

have a good day.

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 4, 2007 10:00 AM

Mr. Spencer.
I have a response to your reply to the emory editorial post.
http://eteraz.org/story/2007/3/4/65215/02266
have a good day.
Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 4, 2007 10:00 AM
=================

lots of verbage, little meat.............

no actual stance firmly and truely denouncing radical islam..........

The Texican.
Live free and die free.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: The Texican at March 4, 2007 10:10 AM

did Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz ever turn his back to aberjaber???????????

who wants to wager on how long before aberjaber attacks the sunnis???????

Posted by: The Texican at March 4, 2007 10:12 AM

J. B. Kelly noted in his celebrated Encounter essay ("Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies"), written in 1979, that the United States had for decades had a "Twin-Pillar" policy in the Middle East, relying on the assured stability and friendship of those two "staunch allies" Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Three Stooges, Carter and Brzezinski and GarySick, aided by others of that uncomprehending ilk (behind every Robert Hunter was a Shirin Hunter -- all of them still going imperturably strong by the way -- allowed that First Pillar, Iran, sink into the swamp of Khomeini and Islam -- that is, revert to what the short-lived Pahlevi Dynasty, going back to the mid-1920s, had tried to do, in its own way, to limit the power of Islam and certainly managed to mightily improve the treatment of non-Muslims and create, as was never created in any Arab state, a thinking elite that was open to the West, and to taking an interest in, even deliberately cultivating, the pre-Islamic or non-Islamic aspects of Iranian history. Thanks to the Three Stooges, each with his act, Carter the Pious, Carter the Good, Carter the Sainly, Brzezinski the Deep Geopolitical Thinker, the "Strategist" (deeply resenting the fame and money and glory of Henry Kissinger, who was in fact not a great deal in his comprehension of the Middle East, and Islam, than Brzezinski), and of course the inimitable Gary Sick, who cost taxpayers millions in Congressional investigatioins of his wild charges (google "Gary Sick" and "Daniel Pipes" for a bit more on the man who, predictably, has ended up as some kind of pooh-bah director of somethingorother at Columbia, in all thinigs middle-eastern the last refuge for scoundrels and dopes).

Iran did not have to be lost. The Shah could have been encouraged to hold on. Even the left in Iran, that had foolishly made its deal with the Islamic devil, might have been assuaged had, early on, the corruption at court been modified, had a Bakhtiar been propped up. But it didn't happen. Carter wrote to Khomeini, hailing him as a "fellow man of faith." It was all there, written in Farsi, what Khomeini's views were, and what he planned to do. Bernard Lewis had read it; he knew what was to come. But no one in the Carter Administration, least of all Brzezinski and Gary Sick, would have figured out that just perhaps, while Khomeini was still in his French exile, but movie theatres with hundreds inside were already being burned to the ground by Muslim militants in Iran, they should have those texts translated (of course Sick can't read Farsi -- he's only an "Iranian expert" not a "Farsi-reading Iranian expert"), and find out what Khomeini was all about. As for the 1942 statement by Khomeini, the one he adhered to all his life, the one quoted repeatedly at this website, that insists that the essence of Islam is making war and killing the Infidels/ that remark never came up. The contents of those cassettes that Khomeini made in Neauphle-le-chateau, after he was kicked out of Iraq by Saddam Hussein (and the government of France so trustingly took him in), were never translated, and never listened to -- not one, I am sure -- by Carter, by Brzezinski, by Sick. They were flying blind, making things up, the way they, and so many others in successive administrations, do whenever the subject of Islam or Muslim peoples and polities, come up.

So the First Pillar of the "Two-Pillar" Strategy fell. That left the Second Pillar -- Saudi Arabia. It was, and for some remains, our "staunch ally." It is nothing of the sort. It is nothing of the sort because the Al-Saud, and those over whom they lord it, are all suffused with Islam, an Islam un-modified or softened by anything else, such as a non-Arab ethnnic identity that might tug slightly away from Islam -- and see themselves as the purest Arabs (they are that) and the purest Muslims (they are that), and as such, the Infidels, however much they may need to be used or manipulated for Saudi ends, are and can only be the enemy. It is our "staunch ally" that has spent, over the past several decades, nearly a hundred billion dollars on world-wide campaings to spread Islam, to build and maiintain mosques and madrasas, all over the Western world, to finance campaigns of Da'wa, to spread the worst kind of anti-Infidel propaganda, the kind that Freedom House managed to pick up in Saudi-financed mosques in this country and report on, a report that should be required reading for everyone even remotely connected to policy-making, and to the security services, in this country, and indeed all over the Western world. But because Saudi money has also gone to financing certain "academic" centers, and individual professors, and to buying goodwill through the carefully-targetted largesse (when Clinton becomes President, it is the turn of the University of Arkansas to receive Saudi money), to Presidents and ex-Presidents, to Preisdential libraries, to the Baker Center at Rice, to their favorite charities which so often are their private fiefdoms or domains. Yet the Saudi textbooks so recently discovered to contain the most incredible -- and yet entirely predictable -- rantings against Infidels, were not new, but had always been there. Saudi Arabia has not changed; it always was this way, but only recently have some begun to understand it differently. Yet still there are those who cling to the idea that Saudi Arabia is our friend, because the "good" side -- the corrupt and worldly Prince Bandar and his supposed allies -- will win. But Prince Bandar, for all of his blague, is not and cannot be a friend of the West, or insure that Saudi Arabia will stop being the chief funder of the Jihad, the Jihad whose chief instruments are the "money weapon" and Da'wa and demographic conquest (paying for mosques and madrasas makes the conduct of Muslim life easier, makes it easier to settle deep within the Lands of the Infidels, and to retain a belief-system that is inimical to the well-being of those Infidels). Amd finally, the buying-up of influence, especially in Washington, by the Saudis, has been the main obstacle to an energy policy that recognizes the need to dimiinish the use of fossil fuels. When seeking to affix blame for the colossal failure, so far, when it is almost too late, for the changes -- both climatic and climactic -- that, for example, are alredy causing the world's fish stocks to decline so precipitously, and bringing about what may be called extreme weather, and also the now-recognized precipitous melting of icecaps with consequences for built-up coastal areas of which we have already had a foretaste,

Now, as the article above suggests, the Two Pillars are together again -- but not in a way that bodes well for the United States. One of the Pillars is the Iran of Ahmadinejad, with his support for Hezbollah and his clear determination to efface the Infidel state of Israel from the map (if some Arabs -- "Palestinians" –must die, so what? It doesn’t matter to Iran or to other Muslims, for what counts is the impossibility of tolerating control of the land, no matter how tiny that sliver of land may be, by non-Muslims.

And the Second Pillar is Saudi Arabia, which may seem, but only to those who want to be fooled, temporarily a force for good, for “moderation.” But what motivates the daggers-and-dishdashi rulers of Saudi Arabia ? Not any desire to improve the wellbeing of the United States, or to prevent its conquest, or that of Western Europe, by Islam. Certainly not the wellbeing of any Infidels. That would not make sense. That would be contrary to Islam. They are motivated, in the main, by two desires: to promote Islam,its power and glory, and of course, above all other things, to secure and promote their own well-being, the princes and princelings and princelettes of the Al-Saud. If they can come to some understanding with the Shi’a fanatics now running the Islamic Republic of Iran, that will allow the Sunni fanatics now running Saudi Arabia to avoid having to deal with Shi’a unrest in the oil regions of Al-Hasa, or just outside the confines of Saudi Arabia, in Bahrain and other sheikdoms with smaller Shi’a populations (such as Kuwait), or for that matter with Shi’a tribes in Yemen, a place that has always worried the Al-Saud, and with reason, given its larger population, and the many Yemenis who manage to come across the border for work, but who have historically been a source of Saudi disquiet.

One doubts if the Carter Administration, as it flailed about as the Shah fell, and then during the hostage crisis, ever had compiled a file on Khomeini and his beliefs, or the beliefs of the True Believers in Shi’a Islam. Or, for that matter, one doubts that the Bush Administration today – much less those that preceded it – has ever thought to fully inform the members of that Administration, or rather the thousand most powerful people in the Executive and Congressional branches, by compiling a file marked "Islam: Main Aspects of the Belief-System” and distributing that file. And such a file would have to get beyond, far beyond, the simple-minded business of Islam as a “tolerant” faith, or Islam as a matter of Ramadan and Iftar dinners, but get to the heart of the matter: how, in Islam, are Infidels viewed? How, in the history of Islamic conquest, have Infidels – all kinds of Infidels, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others – been treated. No more room for potted apologetics whether from the likes of John Esposito (who during the Clinton Administration was actually consulted by them, apparently – a man who, were things seen correctly, would be disgraced for his deliberate, constant, well-reimbursed dissembling about the nature of Islam)regarded as a deliberate dissembler and, for some, to be ) or the others who make up the Fifth Column of MESA Nostra, and who have captured the minds of the impressionable and innocent young.

No, one doubts that there is such a file that circulates in the government today, for fear that it might get out, for fear that it would fall into the hands of those who would report it, and then the government would feel it would have to distance itself, would have to apologize to the world's Muslims for correctly describing the nature of Islam -- as described by every single Western scholar of Islam, and writer on Islam, for centuries. If, for example, the brilliant analysis of Islam written by one of the greatest American statesmen, John Quincy Adams, were to be circulated today by the American government, or put into the Congressional record by a Congressman, it would promptly be denounced by editorialists everywhere. How dare such views be given expression, or even circulated within the government? But until some home truths about Islam – the same home truths that this weekend, in Washington, the most important domestic experts on Islam – Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and other apostates – are expressing, sensible policies which both recognize, and exploit, the natural fissures within Islam, will not be created.

Look again at the article above. It’s about the Shi’a and the Sunni making peace, heading off hostilities. What is your reaction to that meeting? Is it one of pleasure that “instability” in the Middle East may be avoided? Are you glad to see such signs, not so much of reconciliation, but of “peace-making” between Sunni and Shi’a?

If you are commonsensical, of course you are not glad. You hope that such efforts fail. You hope that Ahmadinejad and Abdullah do not really make peace.

But then ask yourself this: who, in this country, apparently wants them to succeed? Who, in this country, is willing to spend the lives of American officers and men, spend another few hundred billion (at least), ship over still more war materiel – so much that the National Guard has very little left for use here at home, as the “National” Guard – in order to do exactly what Abdullah and Ahmadinejad are attempting to do, that is to prevent “sectarian violence.”

Yes, the United States is apparently back with its old “Twin-Pillar Policy” that J. B. Kelly described in 1979, the policy of pretending that America’ s interests could be furthered by relying on Saudi Arabia and Iran as those Twin Pillars. And now we see an Administration that obstinately cannot admit how mistaken it was in its failure to properly label the campaign that Infidels are, or should be engaged in (calling it, idiotically, a “war on terror” which, among other things, does nothing to rally people in Western Europe against the growing menace of islamization in their own lands, as long as the instruments of that islamization do not include “terror” – and why should they, when things are going so swimmingly without terror as one of those instruments?).

So if you are happy with Ahmadinejad and Abdullah attempting to head off sectarian strife, then you should be mightily pleased with the Bush Administration’s effort to do the same in Iraq.

On the other hand, if you share my view that sectarian and ethnic fissures within the Camp of Islam, offered on a platter in Iraq, offer Infidels the very best hope for dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam, then you will realize, with a pang, that the Bush Administration’s folly in remaining in Tarbaby Iraq is beyond measure, scarcely beyond comprehension, and it is a folly shared not only by loyalists of the Administration, but by all those who brightly speak or write, so self-assuringly, of “catastrophe” that would follow an Americna pullout, without ever asking asking the most obvious next question (“catastrophe for whom?”) or beginning to rethnk assumptions about how best to weaken the Camp of Islam, and to arouse Infidels out of their somnolence (there is nothing like a Demonstration Project of Muslim violence, Muslim aggression, especiallyif it is if the kind where Infidels are nowhere in sight, for their presence so often blocks the view). And it is a folly the folly of which has not been properly pointed out by those opposed to Bush and his Iraq nonsense, because they do not, themselves, see things accurately, and attack him for the wrong reasons, not for the right and unanswerable reasons that have been presented at this website, for three long and infuriating years

So do you support the attempt to make Iraq a place where the “catastrophe” of sectarian violence can be headed off, and support the use of American troops, and the sacrifice of American lives, to do that? Do you? Then go ahead, support President Bush, and President Ahmedinejad, and King Abdullah, for all three of them agree with you. “Catastrophe” must be avoided.

Posted by: Hugh at March 4, 2007 10:16 AM

From the article above:
Ahmadinejad has several times accused the West, chiefly the United States, of seeking to sow discord between Shia and Sunni Muslims in order to strengthen its own status and that of Israel in the Middle East.
_____________

Yep, cause even though The Great Satan (the US) wasn't even AROUND 1,300 years ago when the chasm between Sunni and Shia originated, we were able to use our special, evil, infidel powers and cross the great divide of time and actually plant the seed for their inner bickering and fighting. That's right, all that Sunni/Shia turbulence is REALLY the fault of a US conspiracy.

I swear, what utter horsesh*t. And of course the world is eager to eat it up, not only because they don't know any better, but because everyone across the globe is so eager to blame America for everything gone wrong in the world. Even the centuries old divide between Sunni and Shia.

Bottom line: They were fighting amongst themselves well before the US was here, and they will be fighting amongst themselves until the last 2 are wiped from the face of the earth. Because that's what muslims do: they fight and they hate.

Posted by: JenBee at March 4, 2007 10:20 AM

Eteraz is just like a lot of Muslims. He can't win in a straight up fight.

I believe the statement to handle him is:
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Posted by: credit man at March 4, 2007 10:53 AM

but still your corrupt US politicians, Bush and Co will continue to deal with the Saudis, of course poodle blair will follow mr bush.

you americans have the power to end this global jihad overnight, but choose not to. why?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at March 4, 2007 10:54 AM

"you americans have the power to end this global jihad overnight, but choose not to. why?"

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer

And what would you have us Americns do overnight that would enf the global jihad?

Posted by: Mackie at March 4, 2007 11:02 AM

oh mr.eteraz loves to be the focus of attention, why does not just email Robert privately? mr.eteraz you did not answer Morgaan's questions.. guess its easier to point fingers at people rather than look in the mirror at who to blame for islamist terrorism. l had a very sombre thought as l was watched a litter of pups suckling on their dam this early morning, who just gave birth to them last week. Here is a dog, who is a great mother, and well protect her charges from any harm. And here on this website we see muslim mothers and fathers allowing their children to become suicide bombers to go out have themselves killed and kill other innocents. And according to the hadiths, no angel will come to my home because l have this wonderful litter of pups and their mother. What kind of demented minds have created this monsterous islam that allows mothers, fathers to go kill their children, honour killings of daughters,
and still think they are some how better than non muslims. My dog is a better mother than those muslim parents! For Mr.Eteraz if you want to become human and humane, leave islam while you can, because there is nothing l can see redeeming comiing from islam. it is truly demon inspired!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 4, 2007 11:02 AM

I just cruised the Eteraz site.

He called Robert Spencer an Islamophobe.

Tell me no! Not our Robert. That's not even a word. But we know the meaning of it. Eteraz doesn't.

Just another Islamic apologist.......
How's the wife?

Posted by: credit man at March 4, 2007 11:07 AM

Hugh wrote: "...there is nothing like a Demonstration Project of Muslim violence, Muslim aggression, especiallyif it is if the kind where Infidels are nowhere in sight, for their presence so often blocks the view..."

Hugh, I think a flaw in your argument is that if "Infidels are nowhere in sight" there would be no one to witness, or to report on, the Muslim "Demonstration Project."

The slaughter would go on under the radar, out of sight, as western reporters are denied access to the country (Iraq), the local Iraqi media are put under absolute control by the fanatical clerics, and the western media deliberately bury any story that leaks out, as they apparently did for Stalin's purges in the 1930s and for the Jewish holocaust in Hiterian times.

So, while the inevitable slaughter would be good for us strategically, we would not get to watch. And no lessons would be learned.

I think the Iraq debacle serves at least one very useful purpose--to expose the true nature of Islamic "society" and Islamic ideology to the world. When it was just the Israelis (as reported by our media--I know numerous other countries such as India, Thailand, etc have had the same problem, unrecognized by our press as Islamic imperialism) facing this vileness on a daily basis, it was all too easy for us to be complacent--it was someone else's problem, in an insignificant place far away.

Posted by: Stendec at March 4, 2007 11:12 AM

By "nowhere in sight" I did not really mean there would not be a single Infidel reporting on such events. In Gaza, for example, the internecine warfare goes on without Israelis being there trying, idiotically, to keep the peace, but plenty of attacks, by corrupt Slow Jihadists on less-corrupt Fast Jihadists, and vice-versa, have been reported.

I mean "get out of the way" as in -- get the American troops out of the way of the Sunnis setting off bombs in Shi'a markets, and getting out of the way of Shi'a militias doing the only thing that may force the Sunnis to stop it, which is retaliation so dangerous and deadly in its turn (not the kid-gloves business of the Amreicans obverving every Geneva Convention and then some). I didn't mean that there wouldn't be a single person around to report -- either Muslim or Infidel. There will be all kinds of reporting going on.

Why, even the Saudis couldn't hush up, in their police-state, the attack on the Grand Mosque in Mecca in mid-November 1979, or their vain attempts, over three weeks, to dislodge those who had seized the mosquel, until the French troops, quickly reciting their shehadas for the nonce, marched in and quickly did what the entire Saudi military was incapable of doing.

Posted by: Hugh at March 4, 2007 11:19 AM

Yes, the conspiracy dodge. When you can't describe your paranoia, then you have a conspiracy. I'm sure that it's that way!

When you are living in the 6th century, everyone out there is an enemy. They get together and make your wonderful life miserable. This is the enlightened approach to the rest of the world.

If any of you care to take a look at Eteraz's site the first thing that you will notice is that he's trying to raise money. The money will be used to distribute a version/translation of the Quran/Koran (whatever) that treats women better. To him again I say:

So how's the wife?

Posted by: credit man at March 4, 2007 11:21 AM

Did we ever really doubt that Saudi Arabia would buddy up with Hitler #2?

I swear I cannot even bear to look at another muslim.

Posted by: americaningermany at March 4, 2007 10:38 AM

.. and it is these poisonous wahhabi snakes daddy and dubya Bush have been kissing up to. Talk about House of Traitors!

Posted by: Alert at March 4, 2007 11:38 AM

you americans have the power to end this global jihad overnight, but choose not to. why?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at March 4, 2007 10:54 AM

To answer own question in one word: Bush.

Posted by: Alert at March 4, 2007 11:41 AM

Why does anyone need to "raise money" to bowdlerize the Qur'an? Any of us can do it -- just cut out bits and pieces here, and there, and voila, a New Improved Qur'an. But who will read it, who will allow Ali Eteraz to mutilate the Uncreated and Immutable Word of God, or to deliberately misinterpret its meaning? Actually, one hopes he dares to do it. He's doing it for the money, but he will find that even if he attracts Infidel backing, it is Believers who will show their lack of appreciation for his effort. He's whistling -- for cab fare and much more -- in the dark.

Shakespeare dealt summarily with this kind of thing:

"I can call spirits from the vasty deep."

"And so can I. And so can any man. But will they come?"

Posted by: Hugh at March 4, 2007 11:44 AM

"You hope that Ahmadinejad and Abdullah do not really make peace. "

...I can see them making peace....not unlike Hitler making peace with Stalin....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 4, 2007 12:16 PM

re Eteraz's response to RS. So I'm reading along, & I come across this.

"Not to mention that some parts of Muhammad's life were incredibly beautiful so much so that even yours truly, who was once both an atheist and a denier of the revelation was forced to acknowledge it:

"He was once an infant — who came fatherless into the world. He was once a child — who lost his mother at six. He was once a youth — who lost his dear grandfather at twelve. He was once an adolescent — who lost his guardian uncle to illness. In other words, Muhammad, long before he was a man, was alone. What? Protestation, again? Either you do not wish me to know his heart, or you do not know what loneliness can be. Which is it? Either way, without sorrow, there is no Muhammad. To know how Qurans and Shariah spilled from him, we must know how death ran after him. To know how he painted an altogether Eternal God on an Eternal Kursi, we must recognize that in every postulation of permanence, the backdrop is the feeling of longing. It has been the orphans, the fatherless, the motherless, the clanless, the lonely, who have left to mankind everything that claims to be eternal, whether it be law or word or image or god. Perhaps such children, through the gravity of their loss, have no choice but to create home in ways other than those of the rest of man. Name me a child who did not grow up on the fringes of loneliness and left for us some kind of idol, some kind of art, some kind of god. You show me one such child, and I will call him forgotten."

Here I gagged. Not b/c of this passage's maudlin tone. But b/c I recalled a passage in "The Truth About Muhammad" on the Battle of Badr. On p. 106, one leader of the defeated Quraysh, Uqba, was captured by the muslims. Uqba had thrown assorted foul objects at mohammed during the battle, and mo. had pronounced a curse on them, which, in victory, was now being fulfilled. "Uqba pleaded for his life: 'But who will look after my children, O Muhammed?' ... 'Hell,' Muhammed declared, and ordered Uqba killed."

Eteraz would have us believe that being an orphan and lonely as a child brought mo. enlightenment. No, it clearly brought him hatred and turned his heart into stone.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 4, 2007 12:17 PM

Yeah man, we could end this global jihad over night by dropping the bomb, it's gonna happen anyway. Iran's only cuddling up to the Saudi's for one purpose; money. The sanctions on Iran are starting to hurt and they're digging away trying to find more financial support.

Posted by: Jeff at March 4, 2007 12:23 PM

"When Muslims stay “silent” what they are actually doing is the opposite of violence. This should be elementary. Think of it in other terms: silence, or inaction, is an act itself." (Eteraz)

The world has seen what good silence does (from Germans under Nazis and Japanese under Imperial rule) ... it merely enables the extremists elements ... just as the silence of Muslims is doing today.

Sorry Eteraz, you and your fellow Muslims have more of a responsiblity than you are willing to admit ... so you take the easy course ... silence.

Posted by: LoneRanger at March 4, 2007 1:28 PM

Eteraz is just like a lot of Muslims. He can't win in a straight up fight.

I believe the statement to handle him is:
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Posted by: credit man

Do we know this fellow has a wife? Standard garden variety?

Posted by: auntbea at March 4, 2007 1:28 PM

Here, from something which, in its pseudo-poetic boozy prose, reminds one of Hamid Dabashi's "tribute" to Edward Said, is Eteraz last year -- apparently he's simply recycled much of it for his supposedly just-crafted reply to Spencer, or whatever he calls it.

Here's his careful attempt to avoid mentioning Islam, or Believers and Infidels, as he gingerly discusses the Matter At Hand:

"At this time the fight between our philosophy of the future and yesterday’s death theory, has not even begun. When it begins, those who joined for illegitimate reasons will reveal themselves. But that remains to be seen. In fact, who is to say, given the magnitude of the confrontation and given what is at stake — enlightened living for our children — that there will not be individuals amongst us who turn tail in the face of the gravitas? Who is to say, given that our activism will pit us against our elders, our ancestral homes, our history as it has been so far written, that there will not be individuals amongst us who simply turn traitorous and expose us to the frothing fundamentalism we face off against? When we see those who appropriate our efforts, well, we’ll call a spade a spade, but that is no reason to not start gardening.
Man has always come to the assistance of man. The Helpers of Medina to the migrants of Mecca; Indians to the Pilgrims; Ottomans to the Sephardigm; Albanian Muslims to the Jews of Europe. There are men and women in the West who wish to be of assistance to us. So what if they sometimes say things that you find offensive or incorrect. To correct them by way of friendship is much better than to sneer at them. We must judge them, not by their ancestors’ history, but by their love of the oppressed. We are clear, are we not, that there has been one too many Mukhtaran Mai? We are clear, are we not, that there has been one too many tyranny? We are clear, are we not, that there has been one too many Bin Laden? One too many 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, and Aksari Shrine and Shia massacre and Baha’i jailing and Jew-baiting. One too many Bamiyan Buddhas. One too many novelists accused. One too many suicides. The task ahead will be difficult enough. If, then, there are those who will link their arms with us, we must not hesitate. When the moment of reckoning comes — and there is no reason to believe that time is not now — we will be in need of every able mind, profligate pen, and nervous smile. Do it out of pragmatism, or do it out of love, but do it you must."

Don't fail to note his reduction of the Sunni war on the Shi'a as merely one of what happened in Iraq this past year? Don't fail to note, either, how he reduces the 1350-year history of Muslim mistreatment of Jews, beginning but hardly ending with the seizure of the Jewish homeland, and not ending with the attempt to suffocate the nascent state of Israel, that Jewish homeleand, resurrected by the astonishing efforts of Jewish pioneers after two thousand years, not to mention the wars and endless terrorism inflicted on the Jews of Israel (and outside Israel) ever since, to what he laconically calls "Jew-baiting." Don't forget to note the absurdity not only of his history but of his prose: "turn tail in the face of the gravitas" is not English, but Ali Eteraz cannot write English.

"I'm not interested in Muhammad who is a Prophet; or Muhammad who is a messenger; or Muhammad who is anything other than a man. Not merely am I interested in his humanity, but in his mere humanity. Not his nine-wife-satisfying virility, nor his outerworldly beauty, or his paradise-like-breath. His mere humanity means I am interested in his inadequacies. This means that I am interested in his psychology; in his insecurity; in his weakness; his over-compensations; his sorrow; his loss; his loneliness and, yes, his virulence; and, all in all, like I said — I am interested in Muhammad, the man. Before I can accept the man, I have to know the child. Each and every one of us, is only the adult we began to come as children. Yet, with Muhammad we not permitted ourselves such a knowing. I love a woman not only for the being she is today, but for the being she, as a child, said she one day wanted to be. If you clamor that I should love Muhammad, then I clamor that I shall have to become intimate with him, will have to sketch portraits of him. Otherwise, it cannot be love. If you should be opposed to this, then do not ask me to love. If you simply do not accept my way of loving, then you simply don't know love.

He was once an infant — who came fatherless into the world. He was once a child — who lost his mother at six. He was once a youth — who lost his dear grandfather at twelve. He was once an adolescent — who lost his guardian uncle to illness. In other words, Muhammad, long before he was a man, was alone. What? Protestation, again? Either you do not wish me to know his heart, or you do not know what loneliness can be. Which is it? Either way, without sorrow, there is no Muhammad. To know how Qurans and Shariah spilled from him, we must know how death ran after him. To know how he painted an altogether Eternal God on an Eternal Kursi, we must recognize that in every postulation of permanence, the backdrop is the feeling of longing. It has been the orphans, the fatherless, the motherless, the clanless, the lonely, who have left to mankind everything that claims to be eternal . . ."

O God. Can anyone -- any educated person -- stand this kind of thing?

Posted by: Hugh at March 4, 2007 1:40 PM

president Tom of Iran needs to understand something. He makes the mistake of thinking our current ills in Iraq is what we are all about. If we would quit pussyfooting around and worrying about world and lib opinion, we would soundly trounce the resistance in Iraq. If Iran wants to play ball and bang the symbols, then they may be in for a rude awakening. I would love to see the Iranian air force plummeting to earth at the hands of the world's greatest fighting flyers. If president Tom thinks he would stand a chance, we can make Tehran and any other Iranian dung-hole nothing but a smoking crater in the desert.

Posted by: DavidH at March 4, 2007 1:49 PM

Translation of this meeting:

2 Turban heads with intent on killing each other meet. They lie to each other. The Islamofascist of Saudi Arabia agrees. The Islamocommunist of Iran agrees. They both release glowing words of "Islam is united" and then go about to find ways to murder each other.

This was a meeting of war.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 4, 2007 1:49 PM

Old habits die hard.

We've had this "special friendship" with the Saudis since FDR. Who in a State Department riddled by careerists would even consider producing a paper titled "Islam: Main Aspects of the Belief-System”? They've built careers on those pillars, so they can't undermine the foundation now.

The Saudis snuggled up to us for one reason: Russia. Once Russia was dispatched, there was no reason to even pretend at being an ally of the US. Our energy needs meant they had us over a barrel (no pun intended). We clung to them thinking it would prevent their going the way of Iran. It didn't work.

It would be wonderful to see an American president turn his back on that entire area, but can we do it? Haven't we passed the point of no return? Aren't we stuck in that area for the forseeable future?

Turkey is a member of NATO. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Iran is getting there. We can't cut ties with the Islamic world even if we wanted to.

Is it just a coincidence that the most damage to our foreign policy was wrought by two southern Christians, albeit from different denominations, each of whom thought he was doing the Lord's work? If they had concerned themselves more with the American people and less with their own souls and their own self-righteousness who knows how things could have turned out?

Maybe we should give up on the idea of stoking tensions between the two major sects of Islam and concentrate instead on protecting ourselves from all of them. There's not a dime's worth of difference between them, despite what our many ambassadors have told us ever since "death to America" was heard in the streets of Tehran.

Posted by: PMK at March 4, 2007 1:58 PM

No "conspiracies" against them exist -- alas.

Posted by: Hugh at March 4, 2007 2:00 PM

I sure wish the Communists, Socialists and Progressives would learn to protest like the Muslims do. By being Quiet.

Let me get this straight. There once was a School that said it was OK to kill un-believers all the time. But some Muslims said that was wrong. So they started a new school. One that said it wasn't OK to kill un-believers all the time. Just some of the time.

So now we have 2 Schools having an Intilectual debate over when it is OK to kill the non-beliver.

We can all sleep better now knowing they are debating the issue.

Looks to me like there are some Goverments run by Muslims that do limit old School lessions, Kinda. Unfortunitly, it seems the Old School way of thinking is making a big comeback.

SCHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! let everyone know your displeasure.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 4, 2007 2:10 PM

"Carter wrote to Khomeini, hailing him as a "fellow man of faith." It was all there, written in Farsi, what Khomeini's views were, and what he planned to do. Bernard Lewis had read it; he knew what was to come."

From a posting by Hugh

So where was Bernard Lewis in 1979? Was he consulted by anyone of either party in Congress or by the State Department or by a single Carter administration official? Did he speak out against Carter's overtures to Khomeini?

Posted by: PMK at March 4, 2007 2:12 PM

Zena ... here are the questions again, still hoping Mr. Eteraz will answer them.

FOR ESMAY AND ETERAZ: Please answer these questions. It will help us understand whether we can really consider you moderates with whom we can feel safe in religion and culture.

Thank you.

(1) Do you agree with the assessment made by the imam on the Dispatches UTube videos that "Allah created woman defective. Even if she has a PhD, she is defecitive" ... "it's hormones."

(2) Source: Ibid: If a girl is 10 and refuses to wear cover, she should beaten.

(3) Do you believe it's OK for Muslim websites to call on Muslims to kill Westerners, Christians?

(4) Would you like to see shari'a replace the Constitution of the United States?

(5) Do you believe that Buddhists are evil?

(6) Do you believe that Muslims are justified in commiting violent acts against non-Muslim majority cultures if they deem them to be "decadent" or "immoral".

(7) If yes to #6, on what authority do Muslims act as the world's international "muttawiyyah" (religious police)?

(8) Do you believe that Christians and Jews are "infidels"?

(9) Do you believe that Muslim women should answer first to the imam who tells them how to dress, how to make love, how to wash, how to pray, and how to be in relationship to her husband ... or do you believe she has a right to avail herself of the civil liberties granted her under the U.S. Constitution?>

(10) Are you OK with arranged marriages without the consent of the women?

(11) Do you agree with the Muslim division of property that gives women less property than men?

(12) Do you believe in denying women the right to vote based on gender?

(13) Do you believe in denying women the right to education, equal food and medicine, based on gender?

(14) Do you believe women should have the right to drive and hold jobs?

(15) Do you believe that "honor killing" is justified?

(16) Do you believe that Islam gives a man the right to beat a woman?

(17) Do you believe that islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by sword?

(18) Do you believe that Islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by deception, manipulation and threat?

(19) Do you believe that Sufis are apostates?

(20) Do you believe in the death penalty for apostasy?

(21) Do you believe in the death penalty for adultery?

(22) Do you believe, as Al Sistani said in a fatwa last week, that homosexuals should be killed "in the worst possible way"?

(23) Do you believe that hudud punishments -- amputations, cross-amputations, lashings, stonings, burnings, and beheadings -- should be allowed in Islamic countries?

(24) Do you believe that sanctions should be imposed on any Islamic country that does not follow ALL human rights intenrational agreements?

(25) Do you believe that the US should stipulate that 1/2 of the 10,000 student visas just granted to Saudi Arabia should go to women?

(26) Do you believe that shari'a should be banned until it is solidly human rights based, giving equal rights to minorities, religious "others", and women?

(27) Do you object to "shake-down" manipulations such as the one played against US Airways?

(28) Do you object to the "shake-down" manipulations for special treatment run by the cabbies in Minneapolis?

(29) Do you believe that Muslims should rise up and decry the death threads made against Robert Spencer and his family by Muhammed Soulja of Great Britain?

(30) Do you believe Muslims should openly protest against Al-Zawahiri when he demands that Muslims rise up against Americans and others?

(31) Do you believe that the school system in the Palestinian Territories should be forced to stop preaching jihad to elementary school kids?

(32) Do you believe that HAMAS should be required to remove its terminology of exterminating the Jews or be barred from power?

(33) Do you believe that homicide bombing is an acceptable form of social and political protest?

(34) Do you believe that CAIR should wait to defend Muslims until the verdict is in. Examples: the 22-year sentence given Ismael Royer for material support of terrorism and waging war against the sovreign State of India (Americans aren't allowed to wage their own private wars against other countires). Alamoudi, 23 years for material support of terrorism. Al Arian, deportation on a plea bargain (he should have got life), after turning in all his friends. Please answer this question in some detail.

(35) Do you believe that Saudi Arabia has the right to put to death those who convert to Christianity?

Thank you for answering.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 4, 2007 2:17 PM

Mr. Eteraz just can't stop pestering can he?

Posted by: americaningermany

My question is. Who is he trying to convince?
His writing is so ivory tower the only persons who are going to read his novels are the pseudo-intellectuals in his own small world.
The rest of America has only one thought.
That we are not going to put up with Sharia Law or Islamic jurisprudence on any level.
That acts, more than taco-butter words are the true test of human behavior.
We are waiting to see the acts, not the silence. The only acts we see now are proving all you say wrong.
Mr. Etcetra
I was around during the MLK years and you insult the hard work of the people in that movement when you say that all they did was keep silent. Crap.

As far as re-writing the Koran,I don't beieve you are doing any such thing or you would be under fatwah. It seems like that is pretty clear.

But it's obvious that you are collecting money for something and I can only hope the IRS is looking into what you are going to do with $30 K.

Posted by: auntbea at March 4, 2007 2:21 PM

Aunt Bea wrote:

>As far as re-writing the Koran,I don't beieve you are doing any such thing or you would be under fatwah. It seems like that is pretty clear.>

Not only that, but if you go to eteraz.org you'll see that he's trying to raise $30K for 1,000 of those Qur'ans to place in WESTERN locations. If he wanted ot do something about Islamic treatment of women, etc., he'd give those Qur'ans to Saudi Arabia or Iran. That's why I think it's a whitewash.

And besides, a new interpretation is the restructuring it would take to make a difference. On Eteraz's site he claims that some of the Qur'an corrects the Islamic tenet of husbands beating wives. It doesn't. It also doesn't address the basic problem of men having rights over women. He couldn't sell this stuff if it were water in the desert. It just doesn't hold logic at all.

And, those people who are actually talking about restructing the correct to remove the hadith, the Medinan verses, and jihadist/anti-woman verses even among the Meccan surahs will be threatened for the rest of their lives, because that's a schism and they will killed for even suggesting it.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 4, 2007 2:27 PM

Morgan,

I like your question.

If you put those questions in a reader diary @ Eteraz, I will answer them one by one. I think your questions are legitimate and important and that is why I'm not going to answer them cooped up in some comment section I will never find again. Let me know if you want one word answers or explanations?

By the way, Esmay is not Muslim.

You will find that I have dialogued with people who ask straight up questions before:

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/09/21/dialogue-with-feathered-snake/

The rest of you, save your invective, I have little interest in strolling through these comments section until (and if) Robert puts some limits on what you spew; as such I won't be coming back to read your "comments."

Morgan, I made the offer, now the onus is on you.

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 4, 2007 2:30 PM

The meeting between these two is for Ahmanutjob to learn how to fool the Westerners better. You see the Saudis are so much better at it than he is.
You know getting payment from us instead of sanctions would be so much better.
He has to meet with us soon and he desperately needs some training if he wants to come out of those meetings with some $$$.

Posted by: auntbea at March 4, 2007 2:30 PM

"So where was Bernard Lewis in 1979? Was he consulted by anyone of either party in Congress or by the State Department or by a single Carter administration official? Did he speak out against Carter's overtures to Khomeini?"
-- from a posting above

1. In Princeton, New Jersey, having arrived in 1974 to become Cleveland Dodge Professor. Reasons surmised for leaving England vary, and include being passed over for Laudian Professorsip at Oxford and domestic matters.

2. No.

3. If so, it must have been sotto voce in Princeton, at some seminar.

Posted by: Hugh at March 4, 2007 2:45 PM

Mr. Eteraz ...

I am headed out the door because I have a meeting and can spend no more time here today. Would you be willing to just clip them with my permission (you can use my name) and then answer with explanations as long as you like.

If you could just send me a link to Morgaan23@comcast.net or post the link here I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

The problem here, of course, is that because Muslims will NOT hit the streets to openly protest violent jihad -- and because silence always gives consent -- in my opinion the American Muslim community, the ONE Muslim community on this planet SAFE ENOUGH to really speak out on behalf of the religion and on behalf of those targeted by radicals, is blowing the one opportunity Islam now has of not being destroyed, as the Qur'an points out, by the "people of the Nejd." A lot of what goes down in this country right now as moderate Islam is extremely molly-coddling of terrorism or blames the "other", whoever that may be.

We need real power, real strength and real integrity from the American Muslim community, and we are not getting it.

The sad thing, Mr. Eteraz, is that had 3 million Muslim adults rallied against terrorism on the National Mall the weekend after 9/11, there would be no so-called "Islamophobia" -- which is more appropriately and fairly called ANTI-JIHADISM -- in this country at all. Muslims and non-Muslim Americans would be standing side to side trying to help beleaguered Muslims in Darfur, Zamfara province in Nigeria, women in Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

The problem is that Muslims will not defend their own against the terrorism jihadists inflict first on them and then on the rest of the world. We need the kind of courage in the American Muslim community, protected as they are in America, that stands up against jihadism and makes no apology by silence and conversely makes false claims of egregious levels of discrimination (Jews have 5 times the number of hate crimes committed against them as Muslims do per year). Muslim silence is the deafening indication that Americans MUST be cautious, if not outright suspicious. And attacks on people like Robert Spencer, who throw into sharp relief the very same Qur'anic precepts used to by jihadists to incite violence and war against women, Jews, Christians, native animists, Buddhists in Thailand, and Muslim dissenters world wide with claims of apostasy and blasphemy, are misguided at best and hostile to the truth at a minimum.

Yes, you may use and answer my questions. Esmay should answer them, too, because Muslim or not, Americans now need to know what his attitudes really are.

And one more question:

Are you willing to put your own life on the line to correct the problems in Islam, as Ali Alyami's son is doing right now?

The American Muslim community has failed the Islam it tells us is real and that it demands that we accept as real, the ruins of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, several flights and the lives of almost 2 billion Muslims living in extreme sharia' incarceration will attest.

You guys blew it. Had you protested some 3 million strong in America on America's own mall, instead of opportunitistically using it for smug supremacist baiting and manipulating, this problem would now be over, because Bin Laden et al. would never have been able to stand up to that. You have taken the religion back from Wahhabism without a shot fired, and the sheer numbers of you would have shamed the arrogant, death-dealing imams quoting the same verses that show up on JihadWatch and it would be over now.

You could have this without a bit of help from anyone.

You still can do it.

Five years down the pike of constantly fighting for an acknowledgement that moderate Islam can exist, I finally have succumbed to the clear indication from friends of mine that I have worked harder for the visible emergence of what Dr. Pipes calls a "good neighborly Islam" -- one that will come ONLY BY DEMAND, ALI -- ONLY BY DEMAND -- I have become so incredibly discouraged and tired that I now leave it you.

So far you guys haven't done it. Safe, rich, smart, well-education and worldly-wise you have left it to threatened or killed likes of Konca Kouris and tiny women's groups in Pakistan. You said nothing about the incarceration of al-Hamid and Al-Domaini, even when the Saudi authorities refused them insulin when both are diabetics. You call us Islamophobes when we have to arrest Ismael Royer, Alamoudi, Al-Arian, and the entire Paintball Jihad group, and then don't even apologize to us when they wind up doing 22 years to life for terrorism. You do not speak out when the Saudi Academy prints first-grade textbooks that inflame jihad and call Christians and Jews pigs and monkeys. And you say nothing when women in Falluja had their breasts cut and were then burned alive in the street for not wear cover.

Stand up! You have the power in your hands RIGHT NOW to end this. You are the most powerful Muslim group in the world and the sight of you in massive numbers screaming "Hold! Enough!" to jihadists you say lie about your religion will have an impact that will change the world and move the tiller of history into the winds of all that is good and fair and right and just.

And then when you demand that the hadith and War verses and the surahs exonerating violence and calling for world domination be removed, there is no force on the planet that can deny.

I have been hard on you in these threads, but only because you will not live up to the transformative power that has always lain flacid in your hands, enervated by opportunism and, frankly and regrettably, cowardice.

Stand up! Stand up!

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 4, 2007 2:59 PM

Wow!

Yeah Morgaan. Put the blame right where it belongs.

Maybe you have come up with a path the some of us need to take.

I for one, am tired of Jihadwatching and would like to do a little antijihad-doing.

Before the government takes away to the ability to say anything out loud.

I'm thinking Billboards that challenge the one Muslim group that can in safety to speak out now to stop the madness. Letters to the editors of newspapers calling for an active anti-jihad rally to stop the hijacking of the religion of peace.

Lets repeat this idea every chance we get. We can get Christian groups to organize the rallies.

'Peace, that was just a dream some of us had"
Joni Michell

Aunt Bea

Posted by: auntbea at March 4, 2007 3:34 PM

Somewhere in England, shortly before D-day, the phone rings...

"General Eisenhower speaking."

This is President Roosevelt, please call off the invasion immediately and send everyone home."

"But Mr. President..."

"A moderate National Socialist just wrote Hitler a letter telling him killing Jews and invading all those countries isn't in keeping with the true spirit of National Socialism. You know what that means, right?"

"Why, instant peace, of course. The invasion is off, I'm sending everyone home..."

Think that's silly? That's the Bush war on "terror" strategy in a nutshell...

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at March 4, 2007 4:08 PM

An inconvenient question:

Given that the doctrine of deceiving the infidel has deep roots w/in islam that stretch back to its inception and were practiced by mo. himself, who's to say that the emergence of a so-called moderate muslim movement isn't just a strategem designed to gull the West into believing that islam no longer poses a mortal threat to our civilization and sap our will to resist? As I've indicated in other posts, I doubt that islam can be reformed b/c reforming it would require that the words & works of mo. be chucked. And that ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 4, 2007 4:32 PM

"An inconvenient question" posed by sheik yer booty. But an appropriate and timely question nonetheless.

Hey, how goes that muslim reformation and moderation movement thingy?

....silence....

Ali says the mods will fight the future with silence. All is well !

Posted by: omvi at March 4, 2007 4:44 PM

Morgaan, you are an inspiration.

As we discussed in the other thread, the most disturbing thing about Mr. Eteraz's response to Mr. Spencer is his attempt to define "action" to include "inaction", so that he can argue that Muslim silence in the face of murderous jihad actually constitutes protest against that jihad. This is a prescription for inaction on the part of Muslims that plays right into the jihadist’s hands.

Furthermore, he tries to justify this form of protest by claiming that this same sort of silent inaction is the manner in which Martin Luther King fought discrimination in the United States. Since Mr. Eteraz is clearly educated enough to know that this is nonsense, one is left to wonder who he hopes to fool with that claim. Is his opinion of us so low that he thinks we will not know any better?

Posted by: Michael Smith at March 4, 2007 4:47 PM

"Ahmadinejad has several times accused the West, chiefly the United States, of seeking to sow discord between Shia and Sunni Muslims"

We are “seeking to sow discord” to the tune of nearly ONE TRILLION DOLLARS and thousands of American lives scattered into the Iraqi sands. This selfsame discord that has sounded like a sour note echoing throughout more than a thousand years of Islam’s bloody history. Where would Islam be if not for the Infidel’s incessant conspiracies, all fiendishly plotted against these oh-so innocent believers?

If Muslims simply cannot cease painting themselves as tragic victims of conniving external forces, then this may well be the time to make a reality of their dreams. It all might be for the better if we follow their strategy for once and make them into genuine victims for a change. Give Islam an authentic taste of real persecution, continuous assault and endless siege. Beleaguer dar-al-Islam in the same way that they have sought to peck at the eyes of dar-al-Harb. If Islam insists that the West shall be the House of War, then we must make it so. Give Islam its most fervent wish and bring them Hell warmed over for breakfast.

If the only alternative to submission is war, then war it must be and the sooner it is begun the more quickly it will all be over with. Shall we further postpone the inevitable whilst our foes master the very darkest arts of battle? Must we let them continue to suckle upon the vitriolic teat of their foul creed only to bloat themselves with ever more bile? What reason is there to let them gain any greater strength when it most assuredly will be turned against us at some future point in time? We have been given their repeated promise of all this and manage to somehow ignore the message being sent. No longer can we afford to blinker ourselves to the implications of allowing Islam any better foothold in the West than it already has.

Stendec: ”I think the Iraq debacle serves at least one very useful purpose--to expose the true nature of Islamic "society" and Islamic ideology to the world.”

This is something that I have maintained for nearly the entire Iraqi conflict’s duration. If the world now has a clear image of what awaits it once Islam manages to settle its internal differences, then this will all have been worth it. Hugh’s very eloquent preceding post has finally convinced me that it is time to remove our troops from Iraq. Let them crank at their ghoulish meat grinder alone and feed it with their own flesh and blood. We have done all that is necessary or could be expected of us. Why seek to enforce peace upon those who absolutely will not have it?

”Not only that, but if you go to eteraz.org you'll see that he's trying to raise $30K for 1,000 of those Qur'ans to place in WESTERN locations. If he wanted ot do something about Islamic treatment of women, etc., he'd give those Qur'ans to Saudi Arabia or Iran. That's why I think it's a whitewash.”

An excellent observation, Morgaan and one that demands a cogent answer. The simple fact remains that Islam’s true battle for survival is with itself. Should it fail to overcome those who are steering the ummah towards oblivion’s precipice, what need will Islam have of altering any opinion in the West? Regardless of how Muslims perceive the West as dar-al-Harb, the only winnable war that confronts them is the one to recapture and then reform their faith. If that battle is not worth fighting or there is no interest in fighting it, then nothing can save Islam from itself. It will bring about its own doom by continuing to attack the West with arms wholly insufficient to the actual task.

The Infidel tiger continues to slumber, but it is not-at-all wounded or even mildly taxed by what has gone before. Once awakened, the ferocity with which it will finally lash out is something that Islam’s clergy stubbornly refuses to admit, even to each other. It is this willful ignorance, this abject and absolute refusal to confront reality that endangers Islam most of all. The Muslims' penchant for conspiracy theories continues to distract their attention from the vital task of reformation. Their own leadership happily redirects any focus away from those gnawing internal issues that endanger Islam most of all. Instead, their warmongering clergy seeks to channel all attention towards combating a far less dangerous enemy than the one lurking within their midst. This intentional oversight will prove most fatal of all. As Islam hastens itself towards benighted delusions of victory, their ill shod boots clumsily tread upon the tiger’s tail.

Posted by: Zenster at March 4, 2007 5:15 PM

Zenster,

Return to your roots. At least drop by. The good folk at RB have been wondering where you've been.

Posted by: omvi at March 4, 2007 5:24 PM

sheik yer booty: "Given that the doctrine of deceiving the infidel has deep roots w/in islam that stretch back to its inception and were practiced by mo. himself, who's to say that the emergence of a so-called moderate muslim movement isn't just a strategem designed to gull the West into believing that islam no longer poses a mortal threat to our civilization and sap our will to resist? As I've indicated in other posts, I doubt that islam can be reformed b/c reforming it would require that the words & works of mo. be chucked. And that ain't gonna happen."

Because taqqiya so rightly condemns Islam to a complete lack of credibility, mere reformation will not be enough to salvage it. For the last few years I have maintained that only Radical Reformation can save Islam. If they wish to harbor even the least hope of survival, moderate Muslims must rise up and begin stacking dead jihadis behind their mosques like so much cordwood.

Anything less is highly unlikely to satisfy the West's suspicions. Islam's perfidy has so permeated its reputation that moderation no longer carries sufficient weight to convince an intelligent person of any genuine sincerity whatsoever. A Spanish journalist once said:

After a while, silence is no longer consent. To remain silent is to lie.

The deafening silence of moderate Muslims has forced upon themselves the obligation of pursuing Radical Reformation. That people like Ali Eteraz actually exhort them to remain silent only seals their fate. Silence merely allows the jihadis to play for time as they continue steering Islam towards its final destruction. The silence of moderate Muslims has become the lie of taqqiya and its only destination is the silence of the grave.

Posted by: Zenster at March 4, 2007 5:36 PM

Hugh wrote:

On the other hand, if you share my view that sectarian and ethnic fissures within the Camp of Islam, offered on a platter in Iraq, offer Infidels the very best hope for dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam, then you will realize, with a pang, that the Bush Administration’s folly in remaining in Tarbaby Iraq is beyond measure, scarcely beyond comprehension, and it is a folly shared not only by loyalists of the Administration, but by all those who brightly speak or write, so self-assuringly, of “catastrophe” that would follow an Americna pullout, without ever asking asking the most obvious next question (“catastrophe for whom?”) or beginning to rethnk assumptions about how best to weaken the Camp of Islam, and to arouse Infidels out of their somnolence (there is nothing like a Demonstration Project of Muslim violence, Muslim aggression, especiallyif it is if the kind where Infidels are nowhere in sight, for their presence so often blocks the view). And it is a folly the folly of which has not been properly pointed out by those opposed to Bush and his Iraq nonsense, because they do not, themselves, see things accurately, and attack him for the wrong reasons, not for the right and unanswerable reasons that have been presented at this website, for three long and infuriating years.

You make a powerful argument. But will simply letting them fight it out amongst themselves stop the global jihad? I don't see how.

Could you elaborate?

Posted by: Michael Smith at March 4, 2007 6:18 PM

[Off Topic]

Return to your roots. At least drop by. The good folk at RB have been wondering where you've been.

Will do, omvi. I've posted this article over there with most of my comments. I appreciate your continuing concern.

[/Off Topic]

Posted by: Zenster at March 4, 2007 6:24 PM

/OT/ Good to see you out and about Z-man.

I apologize, in advance, to the entire Board for personal comments to Zenster. Forgive me, please.

For those who may not know, the poster called Zenster is currently employed in an industry dedicated to eradicating our need for the oil ticks of the KSA. I can say no more.

Except for this: Z-man you will not recognize me by name in my present incarnation (omvi) but you know me in a previous life (RB) as a kindered spirit.

Good to see you out and about and keeping up the fight.

/OT/ with apologies to all.

Posted by: omvi at March 4, 2007 6:39 PM

Supprt the #1 enemy of Islam, the little Satan herself. Visit http://www.masada1234.blogspot.com and stand with Israel!

Posted by: Bar Kochba at March 4, 2007 7:05 PM

Michael Smith

"You make a powerful argument. But will simply letting them fight it out amongst themselves stop the global jihad? I don't see how. Could you elaborate?"

I think Hugh will say no but it is better then wasting American lives trying to make them love each other. It also ties up jihadis fighting each other. Anyone who looks at a map can see how vulnerable the various Islamic holy sites are to the shia (like Mecca). It will be fun watching them all try to hold onto power. All of them beging us to help them and save them from their own mess. We will be a position of power and not in the position of weakness we are in now if we stay and try the Bush plan of love. The global jihad needs warriors and if all the warriors are in Irag, Arabia, and Iran saving what muslims hold most dear (their holy sites) that will put the Islamic colonial project on hold for sometime. That is good for non-muslims all over the earth.....now that is what I call helping the planet.

I am listening to J.S. Bach Toccata in D Minor when writing this....hahahahahaha!

What a plan! Hugh you are a master!!!!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 4, 2007 7:08 PM

Morgaan,

What are you looking for? One thread you excuse Muslims all over the world for staying silent in the face of radical jihad but (rightly) blame the American Muslim community for not facing up to what is going on.

I'll say it again. You can't have it both ways.

Muslims in Bosnia, the Middle East, Indonesia, Malaysia have no excuse, either. They are at ground zero in the terror war. If they don't fight back no one will.

They are the accessories to terror. Your eloquent posts directed at eteraz mean nothing. You need to direct it to your Muslim friends. You need to challenge them. You started in here about how

They have made it impossible for non-Muslims to fight on their behalf by all their riots and anti-Western violence. Why should I give a rat's behind what happens to any of them?

Let me close with the final piece of one of your posts and ask you a DIRECT QUESTION.

"And, those people who are actually talking about restructing the correct to remove the hadith, the Medinan verses, and jihadist/anti-woman verses even among the Meccan surahs will be threatened for the rest of their lives, because that's a schism and they will killed for even suggesting it."

So what are the rest of us supposed to do if Muslims themselves refuse to speak up?

If they are being cowed into silence, then what are WE supposed to do? It's their religion, not ours.

If they refuse to reform it because they're afraid of being threatened then they don't feel very strongly about that reform. They're willing to go along to get along. They're willing to be quiet in the face of radicals who would kill people who don't subscribe to their beliefs. All that matters to them is protecting their own fanny. Those are your "moderate" Muslims.

Posted by: PMK at March 4, 2007 9:37 PM

Zenster,
Kudos for your post about how Islam's greatest danger is from itself.

One item:

"If Islam insists that the West shall be the House of War, then we must make it so. Give Islam its most fervent wish and bring them Hell warmed over for breakfast."

I worry that the Chamberlain school of foreign policy will continue to hold sway. "Peace in our time" will win the day, every day, in the West. We won't go to war with dar-al-Islam. The "why do they hate us" crowd will convince too many people that we are to blame for all of dar-al-Islam's ills, even AFTER they have attacked a major city. They will convince everyone that "we drove them to it".

As for reformation of Islam, I don't see it happening for one reason: the reforms that are needed to eliminate violent jihad will strip the religion of its very core. It will no longer be Islam.

I'm reminded of Japan after World War II. The emperor was forced to admit that he wasn't a god. Japan survived that blow to their culture, but I don't see how Islam can survive the more extensive changes that would be required to satisfy the West that it was no longer a threat.

Posted by: PMK at March 4, 2007 10:05 PM

Here is a very important video from www.JTF.org.
The real islam revealed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzQFyhFNUtE

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 4, 2007 11:19 PM

Carolyn2, thank you so very much for posting that link. It is a MUST WATCH. People who think that they don't have the 45 minutes needed to watch "Obsession" can take 10 minutes for "The Real Islam Revealed". As the narrator says, "it could save your life."

Posted by: Zenster at March 4, 2007 11:47 PM

Thanks for the link, Carolyn2. That was an excellent video and definitely a must-see.

Posted by: staff_of_magius at March 5, 2007 12:56 AM

Speaking of real Islam, here are Islam's Goals: http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/thread/67.aspx

Posted by: Alert at March 5, 2007 2:05 AM

The article under this one is titled Iran poised to strike in wealthy Gulf states, so Iran is working with Saudi Arabia to fight against the infidels, and simultaneously preparing to fight the Saudis as part of the Sunni/Shi'ite battle. It has often been mentioned how in Islam it is "my brother against my brother, but both of us against our cousin", and this is just another example of the multiple layers of battle and intrigue that is the Islamic mindset.

Whether talking about Saudi Arabia or Iraq or Pakistan or Indonesia, we would do well to think twice before accepting them as our "ally" in any sense of the word.

Posted by: special_guest at March 5, 2007 3:00 AM

Michael Smith,

"will simply letting them fight it out amongst themselves stop the global jihad? I don't see how."

Hugh has elaborated on this, at least a couple of times, which you can find among his listed essays. Hugh never said this tactic will "stop" the global jihad. Hugh has always insisted on a less ambitious goal -- merely to manage the global jihad, thereby reducing the threat it poses to us. He does not imagine, fantastically, that Islam and millions of Muslims enthused by it, will ever go away. Active and/or passive promotion, by us Infidels, of internecine conflicts within the Dar-al-Islam will serve this less ambitious, more realistic goal.

Posted by: remote_control at March 5, 2007 5:17 PM

It is an uneasy kind of peace.

Abdullah must know that there are quite a few Saudi Shia's who are poor and dont like Sunni clerics issuing diatribes against them.
And I have no doubt Iran is tempted to aid them and Saudi Arabia knows this.

The whole Middle East is dry brushwood.
One wonders when "Bahrain" and "Saudi Arabia" will explode.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 5, 2007 5:30 PM