| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Everybody into the pool! This is getting to be more and more fun! Dinesh's latest, "The Silence of the Traditional Muslims," says this:
There is also a second reason. Prominent Americans--many of them on the right--have devoted acres of commentary to attacking the Muslim religion, complete with exposes of the Prophet Muhammad and attacks on the Koran as a gospel of terrorism. Then these same characters plaintively wonder why Muslims are reluctant to join their anti-Muslim crusade. All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism." Wow, Hanson, and can you also recommend a new holy book?Robert Spencer can: It's called the Torah.
Now this one really stopped me short! And not only because I had to blink twice or three times at D'Souza's scolding Hanson for opposing polygamy, ending tribalism, and emancipating women. I guess the last sentence means that D'Souza assumes that I am Jewish. This, of course, shows that he doesn't have the first foggiest idea of who I am and what I am really saying, as I have noted before. It may also mean that he believes that I want to convert Muslims to Judaism. Perhaps I would do this in imitation of Moses -- for D'Souza informs us elsewhere that "if Moses could he would have imposed the laws of Yahweh on the whole world..."
This bizarre claim shows that he knows at least as little about Moses as he does about me, but never mind. This thing about my positing the Torah as an alternative holy book for Muslims also suggests that he, like many jihadists and Islamic apologists, cannot fathom the idea that anyone but a Jew would have any grievance against Muslims -- a peculiar pathology I have written about before. And others, for darker reasons, can't fathom the possibility that anyone but a Jew would support Israel.
Anyway, although I am not Jewish, I am proud to stand with Jews and call for the defense of Israel as the front line of the global jihad -- a jihad which threatens us all, as the EU and UN will soon enough discover if they succeed in trying to appease the jihadist wolves by throwing Israel to them.
But I digress. Back to Dinesh, way down in the deep end of the pool:
Spencer wants the Muslims to just stop following the Koran and repudiate the teachings of Muhammad and the main schools of Islamic thought. In short, here are a bunch of Americans advising Muslims to stop being Muslims. (Spencer's euphemistic term for this is "cultural Muslims.") Great advice, right? Should anyone be surprised that the traditional Muslims are not signing up in droves? If you were a traditional Muslim, would you join a bunch of Islamophobes who are always denouncing your religion, its founder, its sacred text and its basic values?
Of course, I have never, ever said, anywhere in any way, that Muslims need to "just stop following the Koran and repudiate the teachings of Muhammad and the main schools of Islamic thought." If D'Souza ever bothered to read anything I have written, including the reams of material I have now written about him and to him, he would know why this is a false statement. Flatly false.
What I have actually called for, and will keep calling for, is for Muslims to confront the fact that bin Laden and Zawahri and the late Zarqawi and Mukhlas Imron and so many other jihadists are justifying their violence by reference to passages of the Qur'an and the words and deeds of Muhammad. If they don't confront this and formulate new and non-literalist ways of understanding this material, it will continue to be used to incite violence. In other words, the use that jihadists make of elements of the Qur'an and Muhammad's teaching makes it incumbent upon peaceful Muslims to perform a searching reevaluation of how they understand those elements, so as to neutralize their capacity to set Muslims against non-Muslims.
And I will not, now or ever, apologize for calling for that.
Posted by Robert at March 15, 2007 8:39 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
great post.
d'souza is insane.
his argument - blaming the left for the jihadists actions - is like the wife-beater who blames his wife.
Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 15, 2007 9:05 PM
Robert
In a link to the 4th installment of his article in NR, he writes
What progress do Berkowitz, Spencer, and Hanson have to show for all their rhetorical efforts? Nothing. Despite their attempts, they have not won any supporters among liberals and leftists in this country (and of course they have completely failed to persuade the Europeans).I guess you need to hire Leftist hit-men on the Jihad.
at March 15, 2007 9:07 PM
Quick! Somebody throw D'Souza a life ring!! It's been at least four minutes since his head came up above water, and I'm really worried. I don't even see any bubbles anymore. Just a little dark lump at the bottom of 14 feet of water under the diving board.
Meanwhile, can ANYBODY tell me what is wrong with this request?????
QUOTING VDH:
All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism."
END QUOTE:
Sounds like good advice to me. And besides, since 3/4 of that has to do with ceasing to treat women like dirt, why all the self-pity from a supposedly "fair" person like D'Souza? Huh?
Speak up. Cat got your tongue?
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 15, 2007 9:15 PM
Why apologize? If Muslims did embrace the Torah (or the Christian Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita), the world would be better, more prosperous, less prone to violence and strife.
at March 15, 2007 9:19 PM
Well, actually Islam does embrace the Torah, but the problem is that the later than thing said, the more valid they make it. So therefore, all these spurious little hadith created for control of money, sex, and power come last and those nice transcendental verses get relegated to the dust-bins of history.
at March 15, 2007 9:28 PM
Is it only I, or have any of you reading these Robert versus Dhinesh topics envisioned the two in a boxing ring with Robert pummeling Dhinesh into tomorrow?
Seriously, Robert, I think you should consider a no-holds-barred grudge match with Dhinesh. Perhaps fists will succeed where facts have failed in beating the dhimmi out of him.
Posted by: senatortombstone at March 15, 2007 9:30 PM
D'Souza is an idiot, and I don't know how you put up with his bullshit, Robert. You must have nerves of steel.
D'Souza needs a diaper change.
Posted by: champ at March 15, 2007 9:38 PM
Notice how Dinesh continues the great tradition of victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim, victim.
Always done wrong.
Always the poor misunderstood person.
Dinesh, what part of JIHAD do you not understand?
When somebody cuts the head off someone and calls it God's will, why can't you get that?
And Muslim morality is a TOTAL PIPE DREAM when you look at FGM, honor killing, stonings for zina (the man goes free), amputations, cross-amputations, forced veiling, marriage and divorce. Temporary marriages.
And you want to lecture Americans on their morality.
SHUT UP, YOU MORON!
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 15, 2007 9:43 PM
I've been a reader (and intermittent subscriber) to National Review since I was a small child. It was an anchor in the political storm. However, ever since 9/11, I have become increasingly concerned about NR. There have been a number of troubling signs, but I will highlight some of the most well-known.
First, the firing of a prominent conservative for stating that jihadists should be converted from Islam. On Sept. 13, 2001, Ann Coulter wrote that "[w]e should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." For this she was essentially fired as an NR columnist. Of course, National Review did not oppose invading Iraq and Afghanistan and killing their leaders - the part they found fatally offensive was the suggestion that the jihadists be asked to change their views.
Second, in early 2005, NR pulled advertisements of conservative books to which hardline muslims objected. The ads included books such as "Sword of the Prophet" and "The Life and Religion of Muhammed," the latter the work of a Catholic priest. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a press release condemning the books. NR responded to CAIR by banning the ads. This would be disturbing of itself, but it's worse knowing that CAIR allegedly has ties to terrorist organizations. (See http://www.anti-cair-net.org/ )
Third, and most recently, the book "The Enemy at Home" was released by Dinesh D'Souza. It makes a number of untenable claims. The book attempts to convince America that Islam poses no danger to the United States, and that American conservatives should join the traditional muslims out of a shared dislike of Democrats/liberalism. Despite the clear and present danger posed by this book, and the outraged reaction by conservatives, NR provided a fluff review of D'Souza's book and continues to provide him with a seemingly endless amount of space to push his views.
Given its track record, it's difficult to see how National Review can still be taken seriously as a conservative publication. Reasonable people can disagree whether the magazine is pro-jihadist. The most charitable description would be to say NR is anti-anti-jihadist. Whatever the case, National Review, like D'Souza, is fellow traveling with the jihadists.
I did not leave National Review. It left me. Conservatives and Republicans need to find another publication to represent their views.
at March 15, 2007 9:46 PM
I'm sorry, but even as I try to write a comment, I keep having to go back and reread Dinesh's statement then pick my chin up off the floor yet again.
Posted by: Alan at March 15, 2007 9:49 PM
Mr. D'Souza in an email attack against my pointing out he is adding the hate, is ignorant in the roots of Islam and asking him to get some Christian counselling to spare his family of the kind of discourse he has fallen into.......replied by trying to degrade and impune all Conservates. In a bazare leap, he spoke of "emails" to him when I have not emailed him in weeks.
In short, in his current attack a statement he made actually hinted he is not a Conservative at all. That is very eye opening as he dated Conservatives, is on Conservative sites, writes Conservative, is out of Conservative Hoover Institution and up until his Islam Affair appeared as a Conservative.
In his current meltdown of expanding his attacks beyond Conservatives he is now challenging Moses and is further proof he is suffering from a Stockholm Syndrome in now taking up the Islamic cause.
D'Souza's comments above are as close to anti Semite and anti Christian hate speech as any of the talking points coming out of the Middle East.
Finally, for the record, the Torah (the Law)or Tanakh (the Prophets of the Old Testament) are perfect books for Muslims as Muhammed and all Islamic teaching reveres the Hebrew Prophets. Daniel is buried in Iran with one of the most beautiful burial sites in the world.
Islam is built on predicated Hebrew and New Testament texts also known as the Bible. If you ever have sat down around the fires with the nomad Muslims Arabs and listen to the stories they tell, they are all Biblical. There is not a seperation in the children of Abraham for them as Muslims.
D'Souza has gone literally mad in the olde English sense of the word and I personally have pity and sorrow for a soul so out of touch. God help the situation.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 15, 2007 9:54 PM
Muslims would be wise to chuck their illogical Koran and take up the Torah. The Torah has no perfect men and no false prophets.
Posted by: dennisw at March 15, 2007 10:02 PM
This guy heaps shame upon himself every time he puts fingers to keyboard. It's sad, really.
Posted by: Ibn_Iblis at March 15, 2007 10:22 PM
I'm still stunned by the lack of morality it is to lecture a people who've been attacked by jihadists from your own religion -- which you will NOT DEAL WITH.
It is shocking to the point of being completely incomprehensible. Can anybody be THAT BLIND???
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 15, 2007 10:32 PM
menetheos --
There are several websites that might be of interest now that you are jettisoning NR. One is obviously this one, which hews to its self-imposed pedagogic task of discussion of the topics of Jihad, Dhimmitude, and Islam in all of that "non-monolithic" menace it presents to Infidels from southern Thailand to Northern Europe. Another is www.newenglishreview.org, which offers material on Islam (of exactly the right kind) but also on other matters, and it is just possible that it will turn out to be to your liking. NR has outstayed its welcome. And so has My Weekly Standard. Either another magazine will be created, or there will be full-scale flight into the ether of the Internet, and that may be a good thing. It will flatten out the presentation, so that intrinsic merit, and not a title on the door (or that Bigelow on the floor) will be more obviously on display -- or not.
Posted by: Hugh at March 15, 2007 10:45 PM
"All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism." Wow, Hanson, and can you also recommend a new holy book?"
Lets see the average American:
(1) Loves Emancipated women
(2) Dislikes Polygamy
(3) Likes Secular Education
(4) not a fan of Tribalism
So how is this grand alliance going to happen!
You notice how two of them relate to women which once again adds to my view D'Souza is sexist based on his past early views of women and are now coming back to the front. It appears he found the religion that speaks to him.
"In the end there are two broad options for the right. Fight one billion Muslims and lose, since our side is already sorely divided and a purely military approach is not enough. (It does little good to kill 1,000 radical Muslims if 10,000 traditional Muslims sign up the next week.) Or ally with the traditional Muslims who, despite our differences with them, are our best long-term hope for defeating radical Islam. Indeed, as the limits of our martial strategy in Iraq has shown, they are the only ones who can."
Nonsense! First not all muslims are gun-ho to die for their religion just like not all Christians are gun-ho to die for Christianity. So lets just pretend for the sake of argument that 1/2 take the Quran word for word and they are also divided by Shia and Sunni and then include the split based on tribes, culture, male/female ratio....The number gets small does it not! The point is even though many in the Islamic world hold values that go counter to ours in the west we are NOT taking on a united army of billion people! His argument does not take into account the weapons we have which if push comes to shove can solve this really quickly.
The point of works by Mr. Spencer and others is to point out these differences now so we can try to prevent the all out nuclear war in the future. By discussing this now we can save many lives down the road on BOTH sides. The D'Souza plan does neither. It hides the truth of the differences and worse it will lead to even a greater backlash when the rational westerners concluded they have been lied to OR the west is overrun by a people who do not share our values and we LOSE!
Take your pick D'Souza!
I choose the Spencer plan!
at March 15, 2007 10:45 PM
I contacted a well-known National Review writer. I confronted him with my polemic against what is being preached in the NR pages by Dinesh. This writer, who wishes to remain unnamed, told me he does not wish to 'get involved' in the 'whole Dinesh thing.' But I sense conservatives will completely disown him. He's turning into an Islamist apologist.
The blame 911 is disgusting and lazy. If you agree with abortion or support pro-life is not the point: Jihad is not related, it is not a payback in a karmic sense or any otherwise, it is what it is: Jihad. What Dinesh is doing is disgusting.
Posted by: biorabbi at March 15, 2007 10:45 PM
Shortly after I read Dinesh D'Souza's comments about Robert Spencer and the Torah, I posted a comment on D'Souza's blog:
I've read Robert Spencer's books, and he has never mentioned the Torah as a substitute for the oran. Spencer is a Catholic. If you can't beat him with logic, just call him a Jew.
Here is the response I got from D'Souza:
Actually I wasn't calling him a Jew, just referring to an earlier statement of his that the Old Testament was much less violent than the Koran.
DD
Well, I sure am glad he cleared that up. This is precisely the type of sloppiness conservatives have found so disappointing in D'Souza's latest work.
Of course, I am sure D'Souza knows the Torah is really only the first five books of the Old Testament and that a lot of that historical narrative is shared in the Koran. I also think he knows that Robert has had to fight this, "Oh, I thought you were a Jew. Well, you kinda look like one..." perception for a long time. By writing Torah, instead of Old Testament, he could characterize Spencer as a Jew without calling him one. Of course, we all know the Jews are trying to pit us against the Muslims...nudge, nudge, wink, wink...
I thought about writing him back along those lines, but quite frankly, I've gotten tired of his lies, his mistakes and his lack of seriousness (he writes about American Idol and Dancing With The Stars as much as anything now days... clearly got the left coast bug).
at March 15, 2007 10:46 PM
Dinesh D'Souza is a convert to the religion of submission. And ACU-CPAC, "National Review", ... those petro-bucks turned saudi-wahabbi riyals are going a long way.
Posted by: TINBH at March 15, 2007 10:48 PM
D'Souza
quote
All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism." Wow, Hanson, and can you also recommend a new holy book?
Robert Spencer can: It's called the Torah.
end quote
"can you also recommend a new holy book?"
This is an admission by D'Souza that in fact the Quran does command all those bad things. D'Souza is saying we can never ask Muslims to stop any of those things, because they are in the Koran.
This presumably applies to anything and everything in the Quran. D'Souza is accepting the Quran as holy writ and that every word of it is a command to present day Muslims to follow it to the letter.
So D'Souza goes far beyond what he says Spencer does, incites moderates, and says the Quran commands moderate Muslims to do as the radicals and jihadis do.
This is the complete reductio ad Quran that Robert, Hugh, etc. have been pointing out and that D'Souza had been trying to deny. D'Souza admits that what the Koran says is a present day command to moderate Muslims to do it today.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at March 15, 2007 10:49 PM
Also I find it rather strange that he chooses the Torah as the example. As Mr. Spencer is not Jewish (as he states above and 10,000 other times) I smell a jihadist sympathizer in the back round (or perhaps D'Souza himself is one??).
Why not use the many other religious books (like perhaps the one Mr. Spencer follows) or hell even claim Mr. Spencer is a atheist and has Britney Spears on his wall and is a provider of porn.....Instead he breaks out the Torah!
Strange is it not?
Who is giving him his money and who is telling him to say what he is pushing? Maybe he is just a fool but me thinks not!
Posted by: greatcometof1577
at March 15, 2007 10:57 PM
Robert--
I haven't always agreed that you should use precious time to swat this or that mosquito. But in this case I think the effort is clarifying, and worth it, because D.D'S. is not only uncomprehending himself, but the cause of continuing uncomprehension in others.
He is also a type, a dreary type: the Operator. The Self-Promoter, flogging his wares -- the Book Tour, the Well=Paid Lectures -- and those wares must, to sell well, be touted as Something New! and Improved! and Different From What Anyone Else Is Saying!
He's a careerist. He always has been. He is deeply impressed with his "four -- count them four -- best sellers" and what this, he thinks, must mean. It means, of course, absolutely nothing.
If he continues to try to get up off the mat, slug him again, and again. He deserves no sympathy. He's like Max Schmeling.
Posted by: Hugh at March 15, 2007 10:58 PM
a while back i had the idea of putting something Robert said on the head of a hammer so as to go around hitting people in the head with it.In other words beat what your saying into thier heads.
Well here we go again,although i have decided on a short verse (if you will) by just writing "JW THE TRUTH".One could be sent to this lunatic with instructions on how to use it on himself.Also with the prescribed dosage of a good wacking FIVE times a day.
(Don't fear my dear bleeding hearts my idea is only meant to be put on a plastic hammer,only 'true heroes and lions' would dare use the real thing.)
Robert you must be in some fine shape,been eating lightening and crapping thunder eh rocky....er Robert.
Them paws getting sore from beating on that punching bag whats his face.....D'souza
"D'souza Dives Off The deep End".I don't suppose theres a chance of him not comming back to the surface is there?
They say Bush made the loser muhammad lie.Who is making d'souza lie? Muhammad?
As i state over and over keep talking morons you make the infedels case every time you speak.It's just a matter of time before people get tired of hearing your malarky.
How about Tee shirts that say "jihadwatch.org The truth starts here!" sponsored by the monsters of course? HE HE
JW needs little cells in every city that sends out snail mail to everyone listing the names of every recent victim of the peaceful religion.And why they were victims.
Perhaps all the Patriots and monsters need to send JW to washington.
Come on lets rattle some nerves people.This guy d'souza probably doesn't get a wink of sleep at night.Roberts probably in his dreams and still punching the lunatic at that. (not literaly of course)
And all that jazz
Hey d'souza maybe you should try a little Metallica in your Ipod and take a break from the brainwashing for a short time.Rock on brother
Posted by: Dar al-harb at March 15, 2007 11:04 PM
thebarbarian
"By writing Torah, instead of Old Testament, he could characterize Spencer as a Jew without calling him one. Of course, we all know the Jews are trying to pit us against the Muslims...nudge, nudge, wink, wink..."
The first thing that went through my mind when I read it. But why? A slip of the tongue or word. He is either really stupid or is a complete dhimmi being paid by somebody. If he is a fool then Mr. Spencer has already exposed him BUT if he is a dhimmi getting cash to influence the GOP and conservatives then it needs to get exposed. He then is not as important as those pulling the strings!
at March 15, 2007 11:07 PM
Greatcometof1577
I don't believe it was a mistake. I think it was deliberate. I think D'Souza is on the bad end of an arse-whupping, and just can't take it. Reminds me of a time wh.... nah, no old football stories from thebarbarian.
Posted by: thebarbarian at March 15, 2007 11:12 PM
Reading that truly makes my blood boil. It was like watching that new video about the Concordia University in Canada. How the police let the Muslim riot cancel Bibi Netanyahu's speech. Truly, my stomach is still churning.
D'Souza, the Muslims truly need to take a book from the page of the Christians: try some Dispensationalism, it works wonders!
Now, how about some humor here to prevent the ulcer? Hmm... someone must be able to come up with the conspiracy theory of the Bad Black Irish Spencer strain of the secret Jewish society, descendants of the Merovingians or something... freemasons all, out to enforce the Protocols of Zion on the unsuspecting sheep...
D'Souza, this sounds more likely than your cockamamie theories!
Posted by: Kay at March 15, 2007 11:28 PM
Robert, Robert, Robert...
don't you see...it's the beard...yeah, that's it. The beard is what makes DD think you're a rabbi...(and didn't someone posting here mention that (?))..in DDs world, it's all about appearances...nothing else matters.
Posted by: J.S. at March 15, 2007 11:34 PM
Yeah Robert looks Jewish enough. Maybe D'Souza thought he was related to the Spencer of the Marks & Spencer department store in London. Which is Jewish owned and bothered all the time by the UK Muslims
Posted by: dennisw at March 15, 2007 11:39 PM
Oh yeah, there as already some humor to see.. imagine Moses, with Pharaoh totally broken by the plagues, frogs, flies, death of all the firstborn, the Nile full of blood... I think if he wanted to force 'the world' to follow the Torah, that would have been an excellent opportunity. D'Souza knows nothing of the Torah either, obviously.
Posted by: Kay at March 15, 2007 11:42 PM
Kay
You should know this already Mr. Spencer is a Secular (sometimes Maoist) Jewish member of Opus Dei, Masons, and the Lions Club.
Roar Lions Roar!
(For all those looking at this website for the first time please see...http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/ for more on our leader and his vision for a new world wide order).
at March 15, 2007 11:49 PM
Robert has the right to do this:
[IMG]http://i18.tinypic.com/29dd6zc.gif[/IMG]
That is what I feel like doing whent I read this stuff!
Thanks for your patience, Robert. You are an excellent example to us all!
Posted by: Kay at March 15, 2007 11:50 PM
Dinesh D'shonest is going down with the ship.
He had a choice to make last week when he was challenged: humility or false hubris. He chose the latter and has now destroyed an otherwise promising career. Remember when Ann Coulter was relevant and humorous, before she went after the 9/11 widows? There is nothing left for her to say that anyone will take seriously.
Maybe for his next career move Dinesh can be Coulter's fact checker.
Posted by: bobnoxious at March 15, 2007 11:56 PM
I find these calls for a reformed Mohammedanism accompanied by protestations that the people calling for such reforms do not wish Muslims to abandon their religion altogether, a little disingenuous. Shorn of, say, its belief in male domination of women or a pervasive and obsessive distinction between believer and unbeliever, it's personality cult of Mohammed - it would cease to be al-Islam and become something else altogether.
In fact the Muslims have shown what they regard as a reformation: the Wahhabis (from the late 18thC) the Deobandi movement (dating from the mid-19thC but with an intellectual family tree closely connecting its origins with those of Wahhabism), the Salafist movement and possibly the Muslim Brotherhood, ARE the Muslim Reformation movements, in response to the challenge of western expansion.
If anything Spencer et al are calling for a counter-reformation: a kind of Muslim Council of Trent. What would such tridentine Mohammedanism look like? I suppose it would have to consist of bits of the Mutazilitism fashionable at the Abbasid court or the cynical latitudinarianism, which Lady Wortley Montagu claimed characterised the beliefs of Turkish scholars a the beginning of the 18th C, beginning an English fashion for referring to Muslims as Unitarians (although she may have been an early victim of taqqiya). Some Bangladeshis are embarassed by the fact that their national poet, Nazrul Islam, not only wrote Hindu as well as Islamic hymns but also appeared playing the part of Krishna in an early Indian film: perhaps we should call for a return to those happy-go-lucky days.
at March 16, 2007 12:00 AM
Dear Robert,
Mr. D’Souza. is not a scholar. He demonstrates ignorance with every statement he makes about Islam, Christianity and now Judaism.
"if Moses could he would have imposed the laws of Yahweh on the whole world..."
Where in The Torah he could find a quotation to support such statement? Judaism was (and still is) established as a national religion and was for the sons of Jacob only. It was never intended to become a world religion.
It is frustrating we have to spend time on someone with such a low level of knowledge.
So enough of him.
“It is frequently a bit of knee-jerk paranoia on the part of the defenders of Islamic jihad: that anyone who opposes them must be Jewish. This paranoia about the Jews is nourished by the Qur’an’s portrayal of them as crafty, untrustworthy — and accursed. And of course today jihadists would have us believe that the trouble between Muslims and non-Muslims is all because of Israel.”
This “paranoia” is also nourished by The New Testament and European history. The idea of Jewish conspiracy in Europe has not died after the WW2. It has been suppressed.
Many non-muslim look at Muslims as a natural ally against the Jews and still consider them as a lesser evil.
After The Holocaust it is not quite proper to be an open anti-semite, but to be an apologist for Islam makes it look better and as for the jews - Muslems will do the durty work for us. It is stupid, short sited, but not “a peculiar pathology”.
As primitive as it seems, implying you being a Jewish sympathizer or especially a Jew is a strong move and that is why it has been and will be brought up again and again. Labels do stick.
Polls have been conducted in Europe with a question who represents the greatest threat to the world peace. High percentage named Israel. If there is a poll asking who was responsible for 9/11. Jews would have ranked high on the list as well.
Guess what a poll with a question of religious affiliation of Robert Spencer would come up with.
at March 16, 2007 12:32 AM
In the immortal words of the esteemed, Hugh Fitzgerald,
"D'Souza has been weighed, and found wanting."
'Nuff said.
Posted by: awake at March 16, 2007 12:32 AM
D'Souza is getting way too much attention here.
at March 16, 2007 12:33 AM
Un-flipping-believable. How are you not loosing your cool, Robert?
Posted by: wrathofasma at March 16, 2007 12:35 AM
Hugh, I watched a movie about Joe L and Max S. Wasn't Schmeling a dupe for Hitler? I think he had a Jewish boxing manager in NYC that ticked off Hitler. This movie made a very sympathetic portrait of him. Sadly, while he became successful after WW II as a businessman. Joe L became quite poor, and I think, like so many boxers, was used and discarded.
Posted by: biorabbi at March 16, 2007 12:46 AM
"I guess the last sentence means that D'Souza assumes that I am Jewish."
I told you that you look like a rabbi. I also told you that this is theater. You are playing to the groundlings "which are incapable of anything but incomrehensible dumb shows and noise". Cold hard facts and cool clear logic will light no fires.
We have to get the message out to the masses (and them asses) before we get the attention of the vote addicts who make policy.
As of now, in the PR war, we are behind and getting our behinds kicked.
We need to think outside the blogosphere and turn cold hard facts and cool clear logic into flint and tinder.
How? I don't know. I'm still thinking.
Posted by: USBeast at March 16, 2007 12:47 AM
Robert,
In your above post, your multi-sentence, second to last paragraph ["What I have actually called for ... as to neutralize their capacity to set Muslims against non-Muslims.] is one of your best made, most eloquent, and one of the most important statements that you have ever made.
You should post it frequently. Hopefully, the adherents of Islam, the Religion Of Peace, will utilize it, and utilize it soon. Sadly, I am not at all hopeful that such will occur, at least, not until millions of their fellows meet untimely ends.
Richard
Posted by: PiggDogg at March 16, 2007 12:48 AM
I don't know, Mr. Great Comet, I always thought that the dark mysterious Mr. Spencer was really a pirate in disguise.
Just like Captain Hook says, "Join us, (Mr. D'Souza) or walk the plank!"
Aarrrgh!!!
Posted by: Kay at March 16, 2007 1:00 AM
My take on D'Souza is that he was short on cash, wanted to write something controversial, and get back into the public eye. He miscalculated on the endeavor and now looks like a fool. He makes traditional conservatives look bad and gives plenty of ammunition to the feminazis (a little Rush lingo there). I'll be glad when he is no longer a topic of discussion.
at March 16, 2007 1:08 AM
D'Souza's vitriol is certainly an indication that Robert's criticism has rattled him.
Keep it up oh feerless leader. The sooner this nonsense about a Western conservative-traditional Muslim alliance is effectively discredited, the sooner we can move on towards building the alliance that will actually make sense, one that encompasses all of humanity...save for those Muslims who choose the past over the future.
Posted by: Cornelius at March 16, 2007 1:18 AM
Seems like DD concedes half or more of the argument when he says
All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism." Wow, Hanson, and can you also recommend a new holy book?Thus DD seems to be admitting not only that many kinds of backwardness are rooted in the Qur'an; he also seems to admit that the only way to overcome that backwardness would be to get a new holy book. But that is to admit that the Qur'an is somehow more deeply and dangerously fundamentalist than the holy books of other major religions, since those other religions have not had to adopt new holy books in order to outgrow the predominance of fundamentalist interpretations. In any event, to this statement of DD, Robert Spencer says:
I had to blink twice or three times at D'Souza's scolding Hanson for opposing polygamy, ending tribalism, and emancipating women.
at March 16, 2007 1:20 AM
option nine
He will stop being a topic when his "handlers" in the GOP have been purged from the party. I am sick of the excuses given to the GOP (Party of my Great Grandmother, Grandfather, Father, and me)! They need to stop using fake arguments to defend this worlders crap. That the glories of capitalism and thus democracy (great as they are) will solve all problems. Stories like this...
Which I am sure all have seen the last few days are enough to make my dead relatives turn in their grave. D'Souza is just running cover for folks like this. Trying to make people like Mr. Spencer hush up to so deals don't get screwed or any "bad" questions get asked.
Enough GOP "homerisms" and a little more substance....lets be Americans first if that is possible and win the argument by facts. Trust me D'Souza is just the tip of iceburg in ROP in the GOP.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 16, 2007 1:26 AM
A few days ago, on his blog thread about New comment on Letting Bin Laden Define Islam, I posted the following message:
67. DineshI got this e-mail response back from him:
For an Indian, your omniscience about Indian history is amazing. In your book, the only Muslims who ever ran India were the Moghuls. In any case, all of them - to varying degrees - forcibly converted Hindus to Muslims, and Aurangzeb - the last of them - was the worst. In other words, as time went on, things got worse, not better for Hindus, and it was only the military success of the Hindus and Sikhs at the end of the Moghul empire that ended the persecution.
Also, Islamic rule didn't last a mere 200 years. It started around 1000AD - ever heard of Mahmoud of Ghazni? - and went uninterrupted through 1525, when the Moghuls started. And not one Islamic ruler was tolerant of Hindus, much in line with the bigotry that was prevalent elsewhere.
I suggest reading up the following Muslim dynasties in India:
Mamluqs
Khiljis
Tughluqs
Bahamanis
Syeds
Lodis
Ahmadabad
Malwa
Berar
Ahmadnagar
Bidar
Bijapur
Golconda
Moghuls
And find out how each of them treated Hindus in their kingdoms throughout their reigns. And then stop doing to Hindus what Ahmadinejad does to Jews - denying that their respective holocausts ever happened.
Infidel Pride at 10:06PM on Mar 8th 2007
But what about Akbar? Jehangir? Shah Jehan? You seem only to be citing the bad guys.To which, I responded:
DD
DineshI have yet to receive a response. This from the brilliant mind who thought he revealed to Serge Trifkovic an eye opener about when exactly Iran became Shia. I guess that while he praises the Abbasids and Ottoman empires, he ignores the Fatimids, presumably because they were Shia.
Thanks for responding. It isn't difficult to refute your contention, which as far as Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs go, amount to downright holocaust denial.
Akbar's supposed tolerance was much hyped, and has
been clearly refuted in this article below
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html
While you might consider the above site a Hindutva site, the article gets followed by citations, from reputed British historians like Vincent Smith and Col James Todd, to accounts by St Francis Xavier to translations of Ain-e-Akbari - Akbar's biography by his friend Abul Fazal, and show him as not very different from either Babur and Aurangzeb. As for Jehangir and Shah Jehan, both of them reversed some of Akbar's policies vis a vis Hindus, and Shah Jehan in fact resumed the destruction of Hindu temples - under their rule, the Moghuls were less tolerant than they supposedly were under Akbar, not more (and that
despite both of them having Hindu mothers). And don't ignore Jehangir and Shah Jehan's persecution of the Sikhs - which is what first prompted them to take up arms.
At any rate, you seem to be under the impression that the Moghuls were the only ones who ran India. That ignores centuries of rule by the Mamluqs, Khiljis, Tughluqs, Sayyids, Lodis, as well as sultanates elsewhere in India like Gujarat, Malwa, Bahamani Empire, Berar, Ahmadnagar, Bidar, Bijapur and Golconda. Here is a partial list of the Muslim invaders/rulers that India had:
Mohammed bin Qasim
Mahmoud of Ghazni
Mohammed Ghouri
Qutb ud din Aibak
Iltutmish
Raziya
Behram Khan
Balban
Jalaluddin Khilji
Alauddin Khilji
Ghiasuddin Tughluq
Mohammed bin Tughluq
Firuz Shah Tughluq (under whom Hindus first got dhimmi
staus)
Timur
Khizr Khan
Mubarrak Shah
Muhammad Shah
Aladdin Alam Shah
Bahlul Khan Lodi
Sikandar Lodi
Ibrahim Lodi
Babur
Humayun
Sher Shah
Islam Shah
Adil Shah
Akbar
Jehangir
Shah Jehan
Aurangzeb
Bahadur Shah
FaroukhShahr
Mohammed Shah
Nadir Shah
Ahmad Shah Abdali
The above list is just the sultans of Delhi, and doesn't go into the other Muslim sultanates I listed above. Let me know which other of these rulers you think were tolerant towards non-Muslims.
Regds
==
Infidel Pride
Anyway, I never thought DD was anti Zionist. Live and learn.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 16, 2007 1:42 AM
JihadWatch has turned into, The D'Souza Show!
Posted by: champ at March 16, 2007 1:57 AM
PLEASE start ignoring D2. Why waste precious brain cells and energy arguing with that nut?
Posted by: Bingo at March 16, 2007 2:06 AM
option nine said
He miscalculated on the endeavor and now looks like a fool. He makes traditional conservatives look bad
D'Souza was criticised as much as Jimmy Carter was when his book came out. Jihadist sympathizers and apologists seem to be unpopular with both the left and the right. Nice.
Posted by: special_guest at March 16, 2007 2:47 AM
Stick a fork in D'Souza and turn him over.
He's done.
Posted by: joeblough at March 16, 2007 3:26 AM
Why waste precious brain cells and energy arguing with that nut?
Posted by: Bingo at March 16, 2007 02:06 AM
He may be a nut, but influential nut, i.e. a dangerous nut which needs to be cracked open.
-----------
Robert Spencer can: It's called the Torah. (*
Robert, he is trying to portray you as a Jew or a sympathizer to win support from the anti-Jewish conservatives.
--------------------
All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism." Wow, Hanson, and can you also recommend a new holy book? (*
All of these are related to women.
for instance secular education - includes mix sex schooling;
tribalism - usually leads to killing and raping other tribes, the commodities that one fights over are normally lands and ‘women’.
DD is a real DOODOO. He is dangerous because he is influencing people who have very little knowledge about ISlam by not informing them about the truth that lies in making and practicing it. It appears to me that he is getting paid mega-bucks from some lunatic Islamic lobby for him to be keep on raving and ranting about or against RS. I guess CAIR may have something to do with him!
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 16, 2007 4:31 AM
Certain verses in the Koran are unambiguous in their violent and intolerant message and not open to interpretation. I fail to see how a 'non-literalist' understanding is possible and in that sense, reform is out of the question.
Posted by: johndoe at March 16, 2007 6:16 AM
Spencer wants the Muslims to just stop following the Koran and repudiate the teachings of Muhammad and the main schools of Islamic thought. In short, here are a bunch of Americans advising Muslims to stop being Muslims. (Spencer's euphemistic term for this is "cultural Muslims.") Great advice, right? Should anyone be surprised that the traditional Muslims are not signing up in droves? If you were a traditional Muslim, would you join a bunch of Islamophobes who are always denouncing your religion, its founder, its sacred text and its basic values?
Its amazing how D'ishonest D'souza keeps creating these strawman arguments which completely twist what Spencer has actually said and written. First, none of Spencer's books or talks were aimed towards the muslims or trying to convert them. If anything his books are aimed at non-muslims who may be lulled into complacency by the often uttered mantra of "Islam is a religion of peace". He has simply explained the logical reasonings behind the fact that the muslim terrorists are able to quote verses from the Koran to explain their jehadist actions. For all the talk about peaceful mainstream muslims it is quite obvious that these muslims (even if they exist... and there is no sure way of knowing that) are quite powerless to change their jehadist brothers. None from either the Islamic clergy (who obviously should be knowing more about Islam than the common muslim) or those in position of power have even tried to argue with the terrorist viewpoint as being Islamically wrong. And there is a simple reason for that... they really can't because thye Islamic teachings do agree with what the terrorists say and do.
Even though Spencer's writings are aimed towards non-muslims, it is important to note that there are a few people within the Islamic community who are genuinely trying hard to actually fight the Islamists. These would include the people who took part in the recent Secular Islamic Conference. All these people emphasize how important it is for all of us non-muslims to keep challenging Islam in order to bring about change.
It is important to point out to Mr. D'ishonest D'souza that his own formula is simply that of appeasement. How the heck does he expect the Islamic world to change if all we do is to keep agreeing with them that all is well with Islam?
Posted by: Razdan at March 16, 2007 6:22 AM
If he continues to try to get up off the mat, slug him again, and again. He deserves no sympathy. He's like Max Schmeling.
Posted by: Hugh at March 15, 2007 10:58 PM
-------------------
I have yet to receive a response. This from the brilliant mind who thought he revealed to Serge Trifkovic an eye opener about when exactly Iran became Shia. I guess that while he praises the Abbasids and Ottoman empires, he ignores the Fatimids, presumably because they were Shia.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 16, 2007 01:42 AM
--------------------
Infidel Pride : you appears to be familiar with Indian history, perhaps your origin is Indian. Correct me if I am wrong, don't the Sikhs have an axe to grind with the Moslims? I am pretty sure if they get to know that DooDoo is denying the genocide of Sikhs by the Moslims, they will sue him till he has only pair of socks left to wear, the holy ones!
It may be worth you visit a local Sikh temple and start spreading the words.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 16, 2007 6:57 AM
If he continues to try to get up off the mat, slug him again, and again. He deserves no sympathy. He's like Max Schmeling.
Posted by: Hugh at March 15, 2007 10:58 PM
-------------------
I have yet to receive a response. This from the brilliant mind who thought he revealed to Serge Trifkovic an eye opener about when exactly Iran became Shia. I guess that while he praises the Abbasids and Ottoman empires, he ignores the Fatimids, presumably because they were Shia.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 16, 2007 01:42 AM
--------------------
Infidel Pride : you appears to be familiar with Indian history, perhaps your origin is Indian. Correct me if I am wrong, don't the Sikhs have an axe to grind with the Moslims? I am pretty sure if they get to know that DooDoo is denying the genocide of Sikhs by the Moslims, they will sue him till he has only pair of socks left to wear, the holy ones!
It may be worth you visit a local Sikh temple and start spreading the words.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 16, 2007 6:57 AM
D'Souza is getting very repellent with the way he puts worlds into Spencer's mouth. He's a dishonest debater, a sleaze
Posted by: dennisw at March 16, 2007 7:41 AM
--words---
Posted by: dennisw at March 16, 2007 7:42 AM
Where did D'Souza buy a shovel that big? Wow! Anti-Semitic and ignorant. Who' uv thunk?
On a lighter note, I've always thought he was an idiot who was seriously overplaying his hand. I'm glad to know that my suspicions are vindicated.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at March 16, 2007 9:30 AM
Old Chassidic name, Spencer, eh?
But seriously, everybody (yep, E§VERYBODY!) who takes for granted and implies that only a Jew would champion the cause of the Jews (over that of Islam, mind you!) is an antisemite, pure and simple.
"D'Souza has gone literally mad in the olde English sense of the word and I personally have pity and sorrow for a soul so out of touch."
I doubt that he is out of touch. In fact, I think the opposite is true. He is just cleverly trying to stylise an own profile as a "conservative" pundit. There are so many brilliant American conservative minds around that he, as a fifth-rate thinker and writer, would have been quickly lost in the whirlpool of punditry never to be seen again had he relied on talent only
I have said so before in a recent comment, so I hope I am not repetitive, but I guess if you're not at the top of the profession you'll have to find your niche. That may be the skinny, long-legged and sexually ambigious blonde, the "Comanche warrior" or the young Indian exotic bird. And if that takes you only that far, adopt a different course and be as obnoxious as possible to grab attention.
Just my two Eurocents and I may be wrong.
"He's like Max Schmeling."
I, as a German, take offense at that.
Posted by: The Editrix at March 16, 2007 9:44 AM
You "as a German" take offense at describing the delight anyone of sense -- German or non-German -- should have taken in Joe Louis's knocking Max Schmeling down, a sight that we can replay in our minds with pleasure? Why should you, "as a German" (one who, presumably, hates everything to do with the Nazis, and all those who, like Schmeling, were engaged in activities that at the time were rightly endowed with symbolic value, so that Louis's defeat of Schmeling fight was seen as a blow, however trivial (compare, for example, during the Cold War the toting up of Olympic medals by the United States on one side, and the Soviet Union on the other -- which may have been mainly a matter of individual talent, but was on both sides a subject of much interest)
Posted by: Hugh at March 16, 2007 9:59 AM
Could D'Souza be trying to appeal to the chauvinists and anti-Semities of the American Right? I honestly thought that species was practically extinct in these parts, (except maybe for a handful in a zoo or museum)
The only place critters like that exist in any great numbers and have any political power anymore is...Saudi Arabia. (they of the deep pockets)
Re: Max Schmeling, Aside from the symbolic value of that fight, I've always felt sorry for him. Imagine waking up one day to find half the world considers you the embodiment of the worst policies of the politicians currently in power in your country. He always struck me as being an old school gentleman boxer just in it for the sake of the sport.
I must admit though, it would be fun to see D'Souza do the equivalent of shouting "Genug!" and falling to the mat.
at March 16, 2007 10:21 AM
I was taking (jokingly) offense at the comparison Schmeling : D'Souza. The old man doesn't deserve that. I did NOT take offense at the fact that Schmeling was knocked down by anybody who was better than him. What a ridiculous idea.
I thought that was clear. I was wrong. I apologise.
Next time I post here, I will use [joke on] and [joke off] tags.
Do you have anything to say about the considerable rest of my comment?
at March 16, 2007 10:28 AM
D'Souza has obviously painted himself into a corner, he knows it and so do most of those who are following this comedy of errors. He can't get out of this easilly because he has written a book which documents his errors. I am enjoying the mental picture of his anguish. D'Souza came to a gunfight armed with a knife and a dull knife at that.
Posted by: pismopal at March 16, 2007 12:45 PM
"I thought that was clear. I was wrong. I apologise.
Next time I post here, I will use [joke on] and [joke off] tags.
Do you have anything to say about the considerable rest of my comment?"
-- from a posting above
The rest of your comment was just fine.
Usually I have a sense of these things, but when names that one associates with Hitlerism or Stalinism come up, such a name -- if it is not brought up, as I originally did, only in the context of his being knocked down and out by Joe Louis -- tends to cloud my sunny disposition, and when the mental weather goes from fair to foul ("so foul and fair a day I have not seen") I have been known to miss a trick.
Posted by: Hugh at March 16, 2007 3:59 PM
Poor Max Schmeling, hated by so many for something he wasn't. He had a Jewish trainer and refused to fire him even though intense pressure was brought to bear from Hitler.
Posted by: Cornelius at March 16, 2007 6:09 PM
"In short, here are a bunch of Americans advising Muslims to stop being Muslims. (Spencer's euphemistic term for this is "cultural Muslims.") Great advice, right? Should anyone be surprised that the traditional Muslims are not signing up in droves? If you were a traditional Muslim, would you join a bunch of *Islamophobes* who are always denouncing your religion, its founder, its sacred text and its basic values?" quoted above by D.D...
Perhaps , risking a revision of his statement, I take the fuzzy word "Islamohpobes", and replace it with a "Muslim" term, Unbeliver, or even Infidel. You get...
"In short, here are a bunch of Americans advising Muslims to stop being Muslims. (Spencer's euphemistic term for this is "cultural Muslims.") Great advice, right? Should anyone be surprised that the traditional Muslims are not signing up in droves? If you were a traditional Muslim, would you join a bunch of INFIDELS who are always denouncing your religion, its founder, its sacred text and its basic values? "
That works more for me to drive his point home.
Its all so clear now.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1
at March 16, 2007 8:20 PM
Moderate Muslims are engaged with the fundamentalists in a life and death struggle for the heart and soul of Islam. We need to form an alliance with moderate Muslims in order to aid them in their historical struggle. The Equality of Women is an essential cornerstone in the Reformation of Islam.
A GOD OF REASON AND ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM
Ialamic Fundamentalists have taken Islam and turned its teachings into a murderous medieval ideology – that the killing of infidels in the name of Allah will be rewarded in heaven - allowing the Islamists to sexually molest for all eternality 72 virgins, in 72 mansions, and 72 beds – that the murder of millions of non - believers is a religious duty, women are inferior to men - their virtual slaves to be denied education, beaten, killed for adultery or other sexual transgressions (real or imaged), covered from head to toe, people can be mutilated and tortured, barbers giving hair cuts can be killed, music and movies banned, women practicing folk dancing murdered, schools teaching young girls blown up, anyone who believes in a different interpretation of Islam to be killed and on and on. Muslims have paid a terrible price at the hands of these Fundamentalists. Children mutilated. Grand parents brains blown all over the street. Women, children, old and young. Over one hundred and fifty thousand Muslims have been slaughtered in the most horrid, unimaginable ways since 9/11.
The Pope in his recent speech on God and Reason has shown the way forward. A very important event occurred recently when 36 Islamic Scholars sent the Pope a communication in which they agreed – that in Islam, Allah is – "A GOD OF REASON." This important declaration - perhaps one of the most important by a group of such eminent Islamic scholars must be seized upon. The Pope should call for a world religious conference on the scale of Vatican 2 bringing together all the top religious leaders and scholars from EVERY world religion to draft a Universal Declaration of Religious Principles. This Declaration will form the basis of an historic alliance between Christianity and Islam to turn the murderous fundamentalist tide before it is too late. Before a nuclear weapon is exploded in the Name of Allah in a Western City killing millions.
Following would be the format of this Universal Religious Declaration.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
There is only one God
God is God
God is a God of Reason.
God is not an irrational being. If God is irrational then God is not God.
Ordinary people on the street understand the words – "reason" and 'irrational". Any such declaration must be kept simple - not an intellectual rambling on of the Philosophy of Reason. (For a very important article on the Philosophy of Reason and Pope Benedicts controversial speech I draw your attention to article – "Socrates or Muhammad? Joseph Ratzinger on the destiny of reason" by Lee Harris.)
God Being a God of Reason Therefore:
All violence in the Name of God/Allah is the GREATEST evil anyone can commit. Suicide is an evil act in every religion. Suicide bombers killing themselves and others in the Name of God/Allah – this is the Supreme evil act. The second most evil act is killing, maiming, and torturing others to the Greater Glory of God/Allah. The concept of Jihad as religious holy war must be condemned. All references to violence in any holy book/text is not the word of God but the word of man. No God who is God would ever instruct anyone to commit acts of violence against any other human being. Violence in religion must be totally and completely renounced – WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION . There is no heaven for these murderers. No mansions. No virgins. Just the black hole of eternal damnation. You cannot climb to heaven on the corpses of the murdered. If God /Allah believes in violence then God/Allah is irrational and therefore God/Allah is not God/Allah.
God Being A God of Reason Therefore:
Women and men are equal in the eyes of God. Women are the equal of men. God did not create women to be the chattel or slaves of men. Females have full rights in society before the law, under the rule of law, can dress any way they freely desire without fear of death, walk the streets without a male relative escort, do any occupation, receive all educational rights, drive planes, trains, automobiles, fly to the stars, choose their husbands etc. These equal rights of women in society are very important. Their exercise without fear of violence - without the fear of being victims of Honor Killings must be declared WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION in any such declaration. If God/Allah is a sexist then God/Allah is irrational and therefore God/Allah is not God/Allah.
God Being A God of Reason Therefore:
There are many ways to God/Allah. Each individual has the total and complete right to find his/her own way to God/Allah or not. Religious freedom is the right of all mankind. The right to build churches, mosques etc. To practice ones religious beliefs non – violently is a corner stone of all civilized societies. The right to change ones religion without fear of death. Only an irrational God/Allah would order people put to death for not believing in religion or deciding to change ones beliefs from one religion to another religion. It is an unimpeachable right.
God Being A God Of Reason Therefore:
All human beings are created equal. All races are created equal. God/Allah does not wish that any human being be a slave. No one person is the lesser of the other. To use religion to spread hate against other races, religions in places of worship, employing television or any other medium, teaching hatred to the young in schools – this is evil incarnate. If God/Allah is a racist then God/Allah is irrational and therefore God/Allah is not God/Allah.
God Being A God Of Reason Therefore
God/Allah blessed man with an intelligence to reason, to explore, to seek the truth of any question – total freedom of thought. To think and reason without fear of jail/death. It is against the will of God/Allah to threaten anyone with death, torture or prison for freely exercising his God/Allah given brain. The human brain is the greatest gift God/Allah has ever bestowed on man. It was given to mankind to purse - the arts, literature, sciences, intellectual pursuits. Its free exercise is the will of God/Allah. Declared WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION. If God/Allah is anti intellectual then God/Allah is irrational and therefore God/Allah is not God/Allah.
God Being A God Of Reason Therefore
All mankind has the right to freedom and democracy, equality before the law, freedom of action, freedom of thought, right to elect their leaders. God /Allah does not want dictators and tyrants to rule over other men. NO EQUIVOCATION. If God/Allah does not believe in the right of mankind to Freedom and Democracy then God/Allah is irrational and therefore God/Allah is not God/Allah.
Pope Benedict has opened the way to a great reconciliation of the world religions. A Grand Conference issuing this Universal Declaration of Religious Rights and Freedoms to be read in every Church, Synagogue, Mosque would be the start of an alliance between faiths against ALL religious extremists. A turning point in the struggle for the minds of young people especially young Muslims who are being constantly bombarded by a religious evil ideology.
Sincerely,
Larry Houle
24602 Timberland Path Dr.
Spring, Texas
239 – 935 – 5495
intermedusa@yahoo.com
at March 17, 2007 9:48 AM
You know, Larry, what you are suggesting is impossible without the complete deconstruction of Christianity.
God is not God/Allah. To Christians, He is God/Jesus. This is blasphemy to Muslims.
I think you need to dig a bit deeper into what the Muslim conversion experience contains. In it, there is a direct repudiation of the person, the work, and the accomplishments of Jesus Christ.
The foundations of Christianity are these:
"...God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son..." and "... And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless... all who have died believing in Christ are lost." and this: "...When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing..." one more: "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.."
These concepts are denied by Muslims every time they pray, it in their salat - which they recite five times per day. Five times! In some places, you will be put to death if you do not recite this!
My friend, it is impossible to share the same God. They deny Jesus died on the cross, His substitutionary death, His forgiveness, His resurrection. They deny everything that defines Christianity.
Are you truly ready to throw away this great salvation for some new fangled PC concept of "all is one"? Instead, why don't we recognize our differences, show kindness while we give one another permission to choose our own beliefs?
We can respect one another's free will choice of belief system as long as we also insist all men uphold basic human rights. Can we not?
Posted by: Kay at March 17, 2007 10:36 PM
Oh, one other comment, Larry...
When you say this:
Pope Benedict has opened the way to a great reconciliation of the world religions. A Grand Conference issuing this Universal Declaration of Religious Rights and Freedoms to be read in every Church, Synagogue, Mosque would be the start of an alliance between faiths against ALL religious extremists...
******
Pray tell, who are the Christian "extremists"? I suspect it will be those who DEMAND Christian doctrine stay as it has for 2,000 years, keeping the traditional concepts of vicarious atonement, resurrection, the diety of Jesus Christ, original sin, the credit of righteousness based upon faith in Jesus' work on the cross.
Please tell me, I would like to know how one can accomplish a "great reconciliation of the world's religions" without sacrificing your soul.
What is the price Jesus Christ's flock must pay to have an alliance with Islam against Christian extremists?
If you come to a blog and push your agenda, you must be ready to defend it.
Please do so.
Posted by: Kay
at March 17, 2007 10:46 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
![http://i18.tinypic.com/29dd6zc.gif[/IMG]](http://i18.tinypic.com/29dd6zc.gif[/IMG]){kind=link}
(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.)