| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
On Thursday I posted, with comments, an article by a moderate Muslim named Mike Ghouse (of the Foundation for Pluralism and World Muslim Congress) discussing the Secular Islam Summit. He has written a lengthy reply, which I linked to my original post in an Update but had not intended to comment upon further; however, because of a comment Mr. Ghouse has written here, I have changed my mind. Mr. Ghouse's new article and comment point up many of the difficulties of dialogue with Muslim moderates today, and I think it may be instructive to show just why and how that is so.
First, the article, "Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy - II," which appears here. Longtime Jihad Watch readers will recognize many common tactics. The first is a tone of condescension and an attempt to claim the moral high ground and victim status, pleading to put insults and name-calling aside and have an honest dialogue -- followed by insults and name-calling. Ghouse does this with particular aplomb:
We need an honest dialogue with the intent of working together. I hope they understand Islam-bashing is not the way. We are all one family and we have to work together....
He follows this a few lines down with:
One of the remarkable things about neo-cons is their temerity to claim a lock on the truth. I wrote a column called, “A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy” published at www.ReligionandSpirituality.com. True to its heading, the feeding frenzy has begun.Robert Spencer made several interesting comments in his response, most of them based on the premise that the St. Petersburg declaration was ignored. A lot of questions emanated from that posit, I was not even asked if I had seen the declaration, and the whole commentary was built on the reckless assumption that I ignored the declaration, which was followed by the feeding frenzy of comments. I read the declaration after I had submitted the column for publication.
So he says let's have an honest dialogue without Muslim-bashing. Then he starts talking about "neo-cons" who have the "temerity" to "claim a lock on the truth," claims to have been the victim of a "Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy," and accuses me of making a "reckless assumption." We're all one family and all that, but apparently the prohibition on insults goes only one way. And now he tells us that he hadn't seen the St. Petersburg Declaration before he wrote his article attacking the Summit, although the Declaration was issued on March 5 and Mr. Ghouse's column appeared on March 14. Even if he wrote his piece before the Declaration was issued, he had nine days to revise it in light of what was the central product of the Summit. But instead he scolds me for assuming he saw the Declaration. I apologize for thinking he might have looked into something before attacking it.
Mr. Spencer suggests “So affirmation of human rights and freedom of conscience is "Islam-bashing"? No Sir, it is not. Absolutely not. Islam bashing is loudly telling the American public "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time,” The intent is evil, and is to turn the average American against fellow Americans, terrorizing average Ali’s around the nation. That is not acceptable from a forum that calls its “Secular Islam Summit.”
Of course, "average Ali's around the nation" are not being terrorized, and the Secular Islam Summit did not call for them to be terrorized by any remote stretch of the imagination. This is yet another example of the familiar tactic of trying to claim victim status for Muslims, which has the effect of deflecting attention from violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. CAIR and other unsavory groups have mastered this, and don't hesitate to trump-up anti-Muslim hate crimes.
Mr. Spencer, “Then lead it yourself… along with a few Muslim reformists, because people like you have not been and are not doing it. Instead of carping, you should be showing that you as a Muslim can do the job even better.” We appreciate that, we are all in it together and we need to work together. We have to adopt an approach that works. The bashing-approach of the Secular Islam Summit, the one you are defending, is counter-productive at best...
As I showed in my post about Mr. Ghouse's earlier article, the Summit had no "bashing-approach." The St. Petersburg Declaration "bashes" no one. And he cannot claim not to have read it now.
...which can be easily verified by the impression and reaction of the broader Muslim community in USA that is tolerant, peaceful and moderate....
This assertion is comforting. I invite Mr. Ghouse and anyone else who is interested to download the pdf of the Center for Religious Freedom's report, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques," and explain what efforts he has undertaken to combat that hate ideology within American mosques.
Muslim community in North America has been publicly and categorically condemning extremism, violence and tyranny.
Really? I have seen CAIR and a Shi'ite leader refuse to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. I have seen the Fiqh Council of North America condemn attacks on "innocent lives" and "civilians," without ever explaining who they consider innocent civilians.
Why does this matter? Because while non-Muslim Westerners may assume that they know what is meant by “terrorism,” “innocent lives,” and “civilians,” these are in fact hotly-debated terms in the Islamic world. Anjem Choudhury of Omar Bakri’s jihadist group in Britain told an interviewer that the victims of the July 7, 2005 bombings in London were not innocent, because they were not Muslims: “When we say innocent people, we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far we are concerned, that is a crime against God…As far as Muslims are concerned, you’re innocent if you are a Muslim. Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are non-Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God.”
Civilians? One Palestinian Arab jihadist ruled out that category also, for at least some of the victims of Islamic jihad terrorism: “There are no civilians in Israel. All the Israelis are military, all of them,” he insisted. “They are all military and they all have weapons and guns, and the moment they are called up they are going to be using their weapons against me.” The Tunisian jihadist Rashid al-Ghannushi has issued a fatwa to the same effect, declaring: “There are no civilians in Israel. The population — males, females, and children — are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.”
The internationally influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who was won praise from Islamic scholar John Esposito for engaging in a “reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism and human rights,” agrees, saying of jihadist suicide bombings in Israel: “It’s not suicide, it is martyrdom in the name of God, Islamic theologians and jurisprudents have debated this issue. Referring to it as a form of jihad, under the title of jeopardising the life of the mujahideen. It is allowed to jeopardise your soul and cross the path of the enemy and be killed.” And what if the “enemy” is comprised of noncombatants? “Israeli women are not like women in our society because Israeli women are militarised. Secondly, I consider this type of martyrdom operation as indication of justice of Allah almighty. Allah is just. Through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak what the strong do not possess and that is the ability to turn their bodies into bombs like the Palestinians do.”
In light of all this, it is completely inadequate for the Fiqh Council of North America to condemn attacks on innocent civilians without saying who those innocent civilians are. Jihad terrorists can respond to the Fiqh Council's fatwa that they aren't killing innocents, they're just killing Americans and Israelis. I invite Mr. Ghouse to produce a more effective condemnation of jihad terrorism from any Muslim group in America.
What you do not understand about the psychology of reform is “telling the Christians the day after the documentary Lost Tomb is shown, to accept that Jesus was married”. That is not how reform works.
Absurd. If he is referring to what I think he is referring to, The Lost Tomb documentary has been criticized as forced in its conclusions and riddled with inaccuracies by numerous historians. For anyone to demand that Christians accept its conclusions would be tantamount to asking them to accept that Jesus was actually a space alien who flew in from Mars. But note the context in which Mr. Ghouse makes this comparison: he is equating the Secular Islam Summit and the St. Petersburg Declaration with the idea that Jesus was married. So asking Muslims to accept the equality of dignity of all people and condemnations of things like female circumcision is apparently to Mr. Ghouse like asking them to accept half-baked conclusions based on insufficient evidence.
Condemnatory criticism does not work with you, me or any soul on this earth, no matter how rational you are. I am sure you found my direct response unpalatable, and you should expect that from every human being.
I find your response disingenuous, that much is certain.
The way reform works is to be with the group, to have the willingness to start from step 1, then two and three. You have to learn to climb the stairs one step at a time. If you want results NOW, then please don’t waste your time on it and blame every one for not willing. If you and I have the attitude to accept the change with grace, then we should preach every one to change at once. Many of us moderates are working on it; to be effective, one must practice patience and give room to the masses to accept and eventually own the reform.
Oh, pardon me for being impatient. Five and half years after 9/11, and we're still waiting for a Muslim group to pronounce takfir on Osama bin Laden -- that is, declare that he is not a true Muslim. Five and a half years after 9/11, and we're still waiting for a Muslim group to renounce the ideology of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism that fuels terrorism worldwide today. We're still waiting for a Muslim group even to admit what is plain to anyone who looks into the matter: that bin Laden and Zawahri and the late Zarqawi and Mukhlas Imron and so many other jihadists routinely justify their violence by reference to passages of the Qur'an and the words and deeds of Muhammad. Five and a half years after 9/11 we're still waiting for Muslim groups to acknowledge this and formulate new and non-literalist ways of understanding this material, so that it will not continue to be used to incite violence. And Mr. Ghouse tells us to be patient. Great. I'll be patient. I just hope there will be anything left by the time Mr. Ghouse and his Muslim moderate friends get around to confronting the jihadists in any meaningful way.
The summit was blow and go. Most of the Americans heard it a few weeks in advance. Had you given the time and sincerely made the effort to really make the summit effective, you would have included many, and the reason I chose not to go was the parade of Islam-bashers coming to reform Islam from the first announcement. It is like asking the fox to guard the hen.
I have responded to this in my earlier post. If Mr. Ghouse dislikes the people who were there, let him issue his own statement calling for Islamic reform. Instead, he is just shying bricks at the people who actually did what he and his friends should have done years ago.
All those who care about such reforms should join hands in fostering and facilitating it. Attacking or vilifying Islam and/or stereotyping Muslims with a broad-brush by primarily Islam bashers can’t accomplish this.
As I have noted before, the Summit didn't do this. But evidently Mr. Ghouse would really, really like us to believe it did. And why is that?
If by “moderate”, it is meant uncritical obeisance to our short-sighted policies and interests, then there might not be many moderates. However, if it means decent people who care about themselves, their families and communities and at the same time respect the life, honor and property of other human beings, irrespective of their background, the vast majority of Muslims in America and everywhere else are moderate. They are so because of the principled positions and values of Islam. Engaging that vast majority of Muslims is not possible through such Islam-bashing summit, but through mutually respectful dialog.
The "neocon" label above, along with this, indicate that Mr. Ghouse is unaware that I don't support the Iraqi democracy project, but in any case, this statement of what it means to be a "moderate" is not enough. Muslim overlords in the past respected the lives, honor, and property of the dhimmis, as long as the dhimmis knew their place and stayed in line.
And "mutually respectful," as I noted above, apparently means that Mr. Ghouse is free to insult me as he wishes, but I am not free to examine in detail the meaning of his statements.
Anyway, Ghouse then comments on the St. Petersburg Declaration itself. I don't have anything to say about his quibbles over wording and the like, but here are some comments on some points he makes. In this, the words of the Declaration are followed by Mr. Ghouse's comments in parentheses:
5. We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamophobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights. (The phrase ‘Muslim practices’ would be appropriate as opposed to Islamic practices – please remember, people make mistakes, not the religion)
Does that mean that Mr. Ghouse has no problem with wife-beating (Qur'an 4:34)? Warfare against and subjugation of Jews and Christians (Qur'an 9:29)? The mutilation of those who are perceived as waging war against Allah and Muhammad (Qur'an 5:33)? The devaluation of a woman's testimony in court (Qur'an 2:282)? Since these verses and others are used today to justify actions that are at variance with human rights norms, it is perfectly legitimate to discuss them, and to ask Muslim moderates to formulate some way to blunt their negative impact. But these are not twistings or hijackings of Islam. These and other problems are rooted within Islam.
a. reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights; (I would substitute the phrase review Sharia instead of reject Sharia – it amounts to telling Mr. Spencer “I hate the way you smile, reject your style.” There has to be a process for the change to sustain, we cannot play with the lives of people stripping what has become the part of their lives, as the example of the Lost Tomb above. The word reject make you hold on to it very dearly, that is the case with the followers of every faith, not just Muslims. We have to understand the process of reform, if we want to embark on it, so that we don’t ruin it).
"Review"? Not even reform? Even in light of the Sharia's rejection of the freedom of conscience and institutionalization of discrimination against women and religious minorities? Is "review" really enough? Of course we have to "understand the process of reform," but that is not the same thing as sitting back and having no reform at all.
b) eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; [note: incidentally, not only none of these are Islamic practices, especially in a forced context, but also these are against Islam.]
This flat assertion unfortunately ignores that all those practices are justified by Islamic clerics. Why, just recently a scholar at Al-Azhar, Muhammad Al-Mussayar, said on Al-Arabiya TV: "All the jurisprudents, since the advent of Islam and for 14 centuries or more, are in consensus that female circumcision is permitted by Islam....there are reliable hadiths in Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim which support female circumcision..." Wouldn't a genuine Muslim reformer say, "Some Islamic scholars justify such practices, but Muslims must reject them because..." instead of just claiming that "these are against Islam"? Or is Mr. Ghouse just trying to convince gullible non-Muslim Westerners that the situation is not as bad as it is, instead of trying to convince his fellow Muslims to give up such practices?
Mr. Ghouse's disingenuousness is underscored by his comment here. The National Journal item to which he is responding says, "Islamic writings say that Muslims follow the straight path, Jews have earned Allah's anger, and Christians have been led astray, says Robert Spencer." Mr. Ghouse responds that the words "Jew" and "Christian" do not appear in the Fatiha, the first sura of the Qur'an.
But of course, I didn't say they did. I said, "Islamic writings," not the Qur'an. The traditional Islamic understanding of the Fatiha is that when it speaks of the “straight path,” that path is Islam -- cf. Saudi-funded John Esposito’s book "Islam: The Straight Path." The prayer also speaks about those who have earned Allah’s anger and those who have gone astray. The classic Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that “the two paths He described here are both misguided,” and that those “two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.”
Ibn Kathir’s understanding of this passage is not a lone “extremist” interpretation. In fact, most Muslim commentators believe that the Jews are those who have earned Allah’s wrath and the Christians are those who have gone astray. This is the view of Tabari, Zamakhshari, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, the Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Arabi, as well as Ibn Kathir. One contrasting, but not majority view, is that of Nisaburi, who says that “those who have incurred Allah’s wrath are the people of negligence, and those who have gone astray are the people of immoderation.”
Wahhabis drew criticism a few years back for adding “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians” into parenthetical glosses on this passage in Qur’ans printed in Saudi Arabia. Some Western commentators imagined that the Saudis originated this interpretation, when in fact it is venerable and mainstream in Islamic theology.
A sincere Muslim reformer would have acknowledged all that, and explained why he favored the view of Nisaburi or some other, and showed how he was working against the mainstream interpretation in the Muslim community. Instead, Mike Ghouse just tells us it's not in the Qur'an and relies on the probability that no one reading will have any familiarity with the Qur'anic commentators.
And that brings me back to the purpose of this post: many times I have been accused of not supporting moderate Muslims. I am all for genuine Muslim reformers, but I am not for condescension and disingenuousness about the very need for that reform and the content of the Islamic texts. A real reformer will not deny the very existence of the material that needs reforming. And in this, like so many others, Mike Ghouse has been found wanting.
Posted by Robert at March 17, 2007 8:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Facts about muslims:
muslims murdered 6 Americans in the WTC on 2/26/1993
muslims murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
muslims murdered 52 Brits on 7/7
muslims murdered 201 Spaniards on 3/11
muslims murdered 785 Israelis in the last six years.
muslims murdered 2 million plus Christians in Sudan.
muslims murdered a million plus Africans in Darfur
muslims raped millions of women and children in Darfur and Sudan.
muslims murdered 186 children and 158 adults, a total of 354 in Belsan.
muslims have murdered and harmed tens of millions of innocents in the last two decades.
In America in 2006 and 2007,
muslim, ismail yassin, in Minneapolis, went on a rampage in a car damaging autos and injuring one on 1/31/06.
muslim, mohammed reza taheri-azar, at UNC in Chapel Hill, tried to murder students with his suv on 3/3/2006
muslim, naveed afzal haq, in Seattle, murdered one Jewish soman and injuried five more Jewish women on 7/28/2006
muslim, aziz popal, in Freemont & San Francisco, murdered one and injured 14 with an auto on 8/30/2006.
muslim, sulejmen talovic, in Salt Lake City, murdered five and injured four on 2/12/2007.
muslim, iIbrahim ahmed, in Nashville, tried to kill two with his stolen cab on 2/18/2007.
cartoons of moham caused muslmis to roit and murder..................across the world......
+++++++++++++++++++++
just where are the muslims protesting these murdesr and atrocities?????????????
++++++++++++++++++++
war is inevitable with the cult of islam for the cult of islam wants world domination..........not peace.........for the actions of muslims across the world proves this...........
prepare be armed be ready......
God bless America Israel England Canada Australia Darfur Pureto Rico and our Fighting Forces across the world,keep us free and destory our enemies.
The Texican.
Live Free and Die Free.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at any cost.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 17, 2007 11:08 AM
"There has to be a process for the change to sustain, we cannot play with the lives of people stripping what has become the part of their lives"
So, Mr Ghouse, if wife beating and honor killing are part of your people's lives, and so dear to them, you wouldn't criminalize and interdict them, you would just counsel them until they give those practices up? How about the lives of women severely abused by those practices? I guess they don't matter in the larger scheme. Only the males and their blood lust do.
I hear echoes of Tariq Ramadan in this absurd proposition: he would not forbid stoning of adulterers; he would only subject it to a moratorium and public debate.
Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 17, 2007 11:27 AM
Re: A moderate Muslim responds to the St. Petersburg Declaration
Anyone who points to facts that contradict the Islamic delusions re that Islam is a religion of peace and non-violence and their delusions that they are victims is called a "hater". Ordinary folks are seeing this clearly and people are talking. As more everyday people point out the facts, as more people understand "true Islam", reality will become a nightmare for people such as this so-called "moderate Muslim". Ordinary people are becoming offended by these delusions which are rooted in Islamic assumptions of supremacism re the truth. Treating a belief-system (Islam, e.g.) as absolute fact is sick. Many Muslims are sick.
Islam is just another rationalization for supremacism, for conquest and exploitation of "the other". History is a long record of such rationalizations for killing or subduing some lately "indigenous people". Islam is the Arab rationalization for that. Usually, after the successful mass murder and subduing is complete (India, e.g.) history is rewritten to create a myth of the "goodness" of the conquest. All people do this (Aztec, Spaniard, Chinese, Arabs, England, etc.).
But this pattern is going to end and Muslims had better face that reality soon or the entire Muslim Mideast will become a graveyard. This is where all of this is going if they do not face reality. My words will prove to be prophetic on this matter.
Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2007 11:34 AM
An excellent demonstration of how there aren't a lot of moderates out there, and to the extent that they exist, are more likely "secular" Muslims.
Posted by: JSobieski at March 17, 2007 11:35 AM
Excellent post, Robert!
People like Ghouse rely on Westerners' ignorance of islam when they make ridiculous claims like "there's no violence in the koran."
Then when non-muslims can actually quote the same violent verses that the jihadists use, they accuse them of taking said verses "out of context" or try to make a case for moral equivilancy by referencing some OT Bible verse.
Then when people like you, who know more about islam than its most popular verses (e.g. 9:5) and the history of authoritative islamic thought and opinion accompanying them, they know they have lost the battle on intellectual grounds. After that, it's all about name-calling.
The out of context thing really does work a good deal of the time.
I remember when I was watching an episode of O'Reilly or Alan Keyes (can't remember), there was this lady named "Sarah" from CAiR who reposnded to some quoting 5:51 "Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends," by stating that she took the verse out of context.
That was back in 2002 and I must admit it fooled me or at least caused me to back off from my suspicions.
I really didn't get too much into this whole subject until I read your "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)."
That book and all of your topics on Jihad/Dhimmiwatch reveal a most superb ability of yours to pick apart every single nuance of the muslims', islamophiles', and otherwise ignorant's flawed islamic apologetics.
You the man, Mr. S!
Posted by: senatortombstone at March 17, 2007 11:36 AM
Could it be that Mike Ghouse did not know the background of the Fatiha? In addition to being disingenuous (by subsituting "Koran" for "writings"), perhaps he was ignorant.
Muslims often use the word "ignorant" to refer to what Spencer and others do. It's kind of fun to consider that Mike Ghouse does not see the need to leave his "religion"; and that his lack of insight is because he does not know the details.
Posted by: StillBreathing at March 17, 2007 11:54 AM
Muslims claim that Israel is the result of Zionist supremacism. But the truth is that Zionism is really a defensive ideology, while Islam is an offensive ideology. Roughly 50% of the Jewish people in Israel are descendants of Jews who fled Muslim Mideast countries. Muslims know in their hearts that Jews had to flee their dangerous and Dhimmi status in Dar-al-Islam and that references to the "Holocaust" are diversions from the truth in this matter. The truth is that if all the Jews in Israel consisted of only those who fled Muslim Mideast "tolerance", the issue would still be the annihilation of Israel because of Muslim doctrines and beliefs that are based in the Koran.
Time is running out for Islam. Many Muslims believe that current Jihad in the Mideast (and elsewhere)is avant-garde re Dar-al-Islam, but it will prove to be rear guard in future history. The Jews (and Kuffirs generally)are not going to return to their Dhimmi status, and "never again" will apply re Jews who fled Muslim oppression in the Mideast as it does to those who fled the Holocaust. Both Muslim oppression and Nazi oppression are the reasons for the existance of Israel. Israel is there to stay.
Muslims have to deal with the mandates to violence and supremacism in their religion before it is too late. It's time for Muslims to face reality.
Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2007 12:01 PM
One of the remarkable things about neo-cons is their temerity to claim a lock on the truth. I wrote a column called, “A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy” published at www.ReligionandSpirituality.com. True to its heading, the feeding frenzy has begun.
When l read this first paragrah l knew this guy Mike Ghouse is the typical muslim appologist. red flags go up with those words, and everything Robert pointed out further statements, aka attacks by mike Ghouse is typical muslim cry baby talking points.
Islam will never be reformed when these appologists cannot even be honest about the koran,hadiths,etc.
islam is so ingrrained with fear of retrribution by the islamist terrorists, these flunkies are really cowards at heart. it makes you admire and give much credit to those who actually leave islam.
Robert l understand your approach to educate the rest of the non-muslims, and even the so called moderate muslims about true reform. The need to just inform non muslims, and you have made it possible for those of us who are regular readers to undertand and know islam appoligists when we notice those red flags. you Robert have the patience of Job!
at March 17, 2007 12:20 PM
The youts have become radicalized beyond the point of turning back. If you are dealing with 1 islamist he may appear harmless but as soon as he gets around his islamist friends he morphs into the usual islamist behavior. Long ago, long before 9-11, long before I found out about the islamist menace I dated a girl who had previously dated a middle easterner, he was either Saudi or Iranian. I was curious(and a little disgusted) and in talks we had the issue was broached, she said he was nice when they were alone together but that she did not like the way he treated her around his friends. I didn’t go any further with her on the topic but she no longer wanted anything to do with him, so you as I have can draw your own conclusions. Understanding this, you can understand that one spokesmouth speaking to us may seen harmless even friendly but get a group of them together and it all changes. Here is a link to an excellent article pertaining to Europe. Something to think about, after all it seems we have an islamist enclave up in Michigan and just like a cancer it is spreading to neighboring states.
“The wave of robberies the increasingly Muslim-dominated city of Malmö is witnessing is part of a "war against Swedes," this according to statements from the immigrant youths themselves.”When we are in the city and robbing, we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes." This argument was repeated several times. "Power for me means that Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet."
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1980
It always leads to this, it is a commandment with the islamists.
at March 17, 2007 12:21 PM
We can count on "moderate" Muslims here in Dar al-Harb to assist in the war against Muslims who use the Qur'an to justify killing civilians, in the same way that the Coalition troops in Iraq can count on the Iraqi army to assist in stopping the violence there. That is to say, we can wait for hours for them to show up to conduct the operation, we can wait for them to come along on the operation as they drag their feet the whole way, we can count on them to notify the targets of the impending operation before it takes place, we can rest assured that they will closely scrutinize our actions during the operation and complain loudly of the "human rights abuses" at the slightest manufactured pretext.
Posted by: special_guest at March 17, 2007 12:26 PM
You truly have the patience of Job, Mr. Spencer. As students of history know, theological and philosophical debates can take dozens or hundreds of years to work out.
To the extent that we can be pretty certain that in this context (Islamic moderates vs. Islam vs. the West, etc.), the philosophical debate is a sham and a method of buying time for the non-jihad weapons of dawa and demographics to work, do we have to draw a line in the sand and say that if we don't see results soon, we'll have to assume that we won't see them ever and need to take a more aggressive stance?
My main fear, to lay it out on the table, is that we'll end up in a global "hot war" and the West will be so aged by that time we won't be able to field enough troops to win. Of course, with our technical and organizational superiority and all it entails, an army of 40-year old Westerners trained properly would probably be much more deadly than an army of 20-year old Muslims, even if the Muslim army were two to three times our numbers, but at some point the scales would tip toward Muslims, I would think.
I still don't think enough Muslims realize their actions in this world are based on a false premise that Allah wants them to dominate infidels, for there to be a recognition of the need of reform.
Combining a primitive mindset, which always prefers domination over equality, with a theological imperative makes Allah's command to dominate far too attractive for Muslims to ever give it up. Hence, all the schools of Islam agree on that, whatever else they may squabble over.
at March 17, 2007 12:29 PM
"A real reformer will not deny the very existence of the material that needs reforming."
Bingo.
Posted by: Stendec at March 17, 2007 12:30 PM
ZenaWarriorPrincess-
I think you speak for a lot of people in your comment. This site has certainly opened the eyes of folks re the issues and those issues are rooted in Muslim doctrines which must be reformed. Reform is a possibility because of the work of Robert and others, but I'm not optimistic re that because of the ingrained Muslim tendency to deception.
I'm sure Robert (at one time) had the belief that it was only necessary to point out the problem and everyone (Muslim and non-Muslim) would apply reason in the matter and all would appreciate his work. However, when truth and vested-interest-power collides, truth is usually the first casualty and those who tell the truth are in danger from those with a vested interest in suppressing the truth. We should not be surprised by lies in defence of Islam, nor Muslim dishonesty re the need for reform.
Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2007 12:43 PM
Most courses in problem solving (business, etc.) recommend four steps. 1) What is the problem? 2) what are the sources of the problem? 3) what are the possible solutions? 4) What are the best possible solutions. In this matter, as demonstrated by the article, there is a denial of the problem and those who recognize the problem are blamed for seeing the facts that there is a problem re Muslim doctrines. But ultimately deception and self-deception are the problem for Muslims in the matter.
Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2007 12:58 PM
It is telling that Mr. Ghose uses the term "neocon" which is anti semitic. The term was brought into being to define Jews who were communists in America, but took on Conservative values when they found communism and socialism a threat.
Neocon is a degrading slur. So for Mr. Ghose to use a term such as this shows either his ignorance or he is an anti semite.
In any case, Mr. Spencer is neither a reformed communist or a person of Jewish heritage, so Mr. Ghose starting on that point is a house of cards which exposes all he says as not genuine.
It is strange that Mr. Ghose says condemnatory criticism does not work on anyone...yet how many postings has he made stating he does not support the rantings of Hamas, diatribes of Ahmadinejad and what spews on al Jazeera.
I would like to know how many letters of protest he sent over the airing of beheadings and how much "reform" he has called for on Islamic sites.
The conclusion would be none as Islam empowers him as he feels flushed out of American culture as a failure and that is the appeal of Islam in it nurtures failure and blames all others.
It does not matter if it is KKK blaming blacks for their failures in life to the Talmudic sects who quote horrid verses of "Miriam was a hairdresser" which means the Virgin Mary was a prostitute in order to degrade Christians, all these groups are havens of failures who need to group together to enforce their will on successful people.
Islam wants to prove to the world it is a working structure? The solution then is for Muslims to all get jobs, INCLUDING WOMEN, condemn as comdemnation is indeed a process which works which Muslim imams do in Mosque daily to keep people in line, but condemn bombing little girl's schools, chopping off heads of ice cream sellers and making tramp lists in Gaza of college women who dare not dress like the drapes on a wall.
Mr. Ghose like all the shadow "moderates" who spew hatred in docile tones must prove they are more than closet enablers keeping silent and keeping their own family members hostage in the chains of a medieval religion.
Lead a protest Mr. Ghose in the streets of Gaza for women's rights...then bother to challenge and lecture others on what needs to be done.
at March 17, 2007 1:12 PM
This is your best post yet, Mr. Spencer. It connects all the instances that I'm always looking through my bookmarks for.
Non-Muslims, as Fjordman has just now articulated so well, have to demand freedom from the subservience, terror, and humiliation which Islamists have been stridently forcing us into. Non-Muslims must be allowed the freedom to exist in a state without the ritual humiliation that many Muslims have been salivating over the past number of years.
Posted by: Beauty is manifest at March 17, 2007 1:19 PM
Sometimes a single statement or act by someone affords you a glimpse into the person's very essence. Here, I think is one such statement by Ghouse:
"However, if [moderate muslim] means decent people who care about themselves, their families and communities and at the same time respect the life, honor and property of other human beings, irrespective of their background, the vast majority of Muslims in America and everywhere else are moderate. They are so because of the principled positions and values of Islam."
This statement is so transparently false as to constitute a deliberate attempt to mislead -- something muslims seem to excel at. If islam were the source of decency, one would obviously expect that in islamic countries, muslims would respect the life and property of infidels. Yet it is precisely in those coutries where infidels' life and property are most at risk. What would Ghouse claim next? That the koran was the source of our natural rights? That the koran inspired Jefferson to write "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence? Really. Their nerve knows no bounds. BTW, Ghouse's use of ad hominem attacks & charged language to respond to his critics is no different from D'Souza's.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 17, 2007 1:48 PM
Scratch a "moderate"--and what do you find?
A Moslem's a Moslem for all a' that.
at March 17, 2007 2:16 PM
The "moderate" to which the foregoing post refers is Ghouse.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 17, 2007 3:06 PM
There are no civilians in Israel. The population — males, females, and children — are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.
That statement spoke volumes to me.
at March 17, 2007 3:14 PM
The more I read about Islam, the more convinced I am that "moderate" Muslims just run cover for the more violent of their co-religonists.
The only use the term "moderate" has to play in this whole situation is to prevent the American Public from developing a deeper Blood Lust than it already may possess.
One cannot deny the desire the American People had to destroy somebody after 9/11. Despite all the the efforts of the Demoncrats,Communists, Socialists,Progressives along with all their associated Minions have not been able to defuse that simmering pot.
As noble as it may be to try and reform Islam,it is destined to end up being no more than spitting into the wind. The effort will really do no more than point out the glaring differences between their consept of life and ours.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 17, 2007 3:34 PM
“There are no civilians in Israel.”
That is why it is best to go about life using the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do to you. At the same time always assume without question that everyone else is going by the rule as well. This way your response will never be unwarranted or as the islamopologist’s like to say you will exhibit proportionality. They call every Jewish child a combatant because they are indoctrinating their infants into the ideology, so in their minds why wouldn’t the Israeli’s do the same? Yes it is insane, but you have to realize that the things they say they really believe.
at March 17, 2007 3:35 PM
How can any belief system that calls itself a "religion" justify the murder of other people in the name of "God"? What other formal religions on earth do that?
No, any such belief system is a cult and should be treated as such. Additionaly, any belief system, cult or religion, should be able to withstand any scrutiny or criticism if the truth is what is being sought. Let the belief system be subject to any scientific examination or other method of inquiry. If it is truly from God, then it will be able to stand and no man will be able to disprove it.
If we are all seeking truth then what is there to fear? I have seen Christianity and Judaism withstand constant attacks from a multitude of sources. Some are fair-minded and are seeking evidence (which everyone should do) for that in which they are to believe. Others have political agendas and simply wish to deny and expel all traces of God from the hearts and minds of people. Whatever the source of examination may be or whatever the motivation is, let Islam be subject to the same examination. If it is from God, it will stand.
If Muslims wish to live amongst Westerners then they need to realize that scientific inquiry is part of the Western tradition.
at March 17, 2007 3:50 PM
"the vast majority of Muslims in America and everywhere else are moderate. They are so because of the principled positions and values of Islam. Engaging that vast majority of Muslims is not possible"
It's precicely because of the position and values of Islam that the world suffers with Jihadists and terrorism today.
If Muslims aren't prepared to reevaluate and reinterpreate these positions and values, then reform can never happen. and the world can look forward to even more carnage committed in the name of Islam.
If it's not possible to engage the vast majority of Muslims on the positions and values of Islam, then there's no hope.
Posted by: rational
at March 17, 2007 4:43 PM
Perhaps in a way, Muslims are victims ... born into a religion that prohibits rational thought ... when confronted with logic (all of Robert's excellent points), they fail miserably to understand that logic, let alone deal with it (as evident from Mike Ghouse's writings).
Having accepted dogma all their lives, never engaging in the Socratic process of learning, they are victims of a mental condition that limits their ability to function in the modern world.
Is it any wonder that Muslim countries are so backward and their accomplishments so meager?
Posted by: LoneRanger at March 17, 2007 4:56 PM
The phrase ‘Muslim practices’ would be appropriate as opposed to Islamic practices – please remember, people make mistakes, not the religion
People get their ideas from somewhere, not from nowhere. Saying that Islam does not cause this or that is like saying that culture, ideology and religion have no effect on people. That, of course, is impossible.
note: incidentally, not only none of these are Islamic practices, especially in a forced context, but also these are against Islam.
This is a neat way of sidestepping the issue entirely, and I've seen it done many times before. Who cares if FGM or veiling were taught by Mohammed or invented later by someone else? They're still practised by Muslims.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at March 17, 2007 5:22 PM
Robert, it might be helpful if you explained just what kind of "con" you are. Are you a "neo-con", a "paleo-con" or an "ex-con"?
Which ever kind of "con" you are, you are always con-vincing; at least to those of us who are sick of being conned.
"Con"-gratulations on an excellent post.
Posted by: USBeast at March 17, 2007 6:42 PM
"A moderate Muslim responds....."
Robert's post proves that the word "moderate" is too broad a term, and that anyone calling themselves a moderate needs to be carefully scrutinized.
It also supports my "Moderate Muslim is a Myth" theory as well.
Posted by: champ at March 17, 2007 6:55 PM
Aside from the most obvious Islamic teachings that the Western mind recoils from such as FGM, the veil, and various other teachings, I have a few concerns re Islam for any Islamic scholars who care to answer:
The very basis of the Islamic view of God is radical voluntarism as opposed to essentialism. Essentialism is the view that ethical principles are rooted ultimately in the unchangeable divine essence of God and not simply in God's changeable will; God wills something because it is good. Devine voluntarism, on the other hand, asserts that something is good because God wills it.
According to Islam, God does not have an essence, at least not a knowable one. Rather, he is Will. God is said to be just and loving, but he is not essentially just or loving. And he is merciful only because "He has imposed the law of mercy upon Himself" (sura 6:12). But since God is Absolute Will, had he chosen to be otherwise he would not be merciful. There is no nature or essence in God according to which he must act.
Two problems:
1) Since God is an absolutely necessary being, he is self-existent, and he cannot not exist. But if God is by nature a necessary being, then it is of his nature to exist. He must have a nature. Islam teaches that there are other essential attributes of God, such as, self-existence, uncreatedness, and eternality. But if these are all essential characteristics of God, then God must have an essence. Otherwise the attributes could not be essential. This is precisely how essence is defined, namely, as the essential attributes or characteristics of a being.
2) Islamic voluntarism poses a serious moral problem. Namely, if God is only will, without an essence, then he does not do things because they are right, rather, they are right because he does them. Accordingly, God is arbitrary about what is right and wrong. He does not have to do good. He does not have to be loving to all -- he could hate if he so chose. Indeed, sura 3:32 states "God will love you... God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful," yet verse 33 states "God loveth not those Who reject Faith." So mercy and love are not the essence of God. God could choose not to be loving. This then gives rise to Islam's radical view of predestination.
Since God has no essence, the Islamic view of God involves a form of agnosticism. Indeed, the heart of Islam is not to know God but to obey him. It is not to meditate on his essence but to submit to his will. This leaves the Muslim unable to ever know God. The relationship between God and people is extrinsic, not intrinsic. God is called good because he causes good, but not because goodness is part of his essence.
As troubling as all this is for me, the problems arising from Islam's views on predestination are even more problematic.
Mr. Ghouse?
at March 17, 2007 7:56 PM
According to the teachings of Islam, the relationship between God and people is one of Master and slave. Orthodox Islam teaches the absolute predestination of both good and evil, that all our thoughts, words, and deeds, whether good or evil, were foreseen, foreordained, determined and decreed from all eternity. Everything that happens takes place according to what has been written for it.
Sura 6:18 states "He is the Irresistible." God is the qadar (determination) of all things and his taqdir (subjection) covers all people and all history. All of nature is subject to his command and all that comes into existence is from him and of him.
I have some basic problems with Islam's teachings on predestination. It is contradictory, eliminates human responsibility, and makes God the author of evil.
The contradiction is that God is "the One Who leads astray," as well as "the One Who guides." Sura 9:51 states "Say, Nothing will ever befall us save what Allah has written for us." Sura 7:177-79 states, "He whom Allah guides is he who is rightly guided, but whom he leads astray, those are the losers. Indeed, We have assuredly created for Ghenna many of both jinn and men."
Sura 36:6-10 reads: "Verily the sentence comes true on most of them, so they will not believe. We, indeed, have set shackles on their necks which reach to the chins so that they perforce hold up [their heads]. And we have set a barrier in front of them, and a barrier behind them, and We have covered them over so that they do not see. Thus it is alike to them whether thou warn them or dost not warn them; they will not believe."
How then, are human beings responsible for their own actions? This type of determinism also makes God the author of evil since "He created you as well as what you do" (Qu'ran 37:94).
at March 17, 2007 10:14 PM
DebV:
Honesty, please. And yes, there is censorship at Jihad Watch, although not as much as I'd like. Your posts were not deleted for saying that there is no moderate Islam, which is a point I myself have made here many, many times. Your posts were deleted for saying something much more, and more sinister, than that. And you know what it is. Please desist. You are playing into the hands of our enemies.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 17, 2007 10:57 PM
In an above post, someone mentioned the "flunkies" or those who are so willing to concede to Islamists. I, too, find this one of the most disturbing aspects of the Islamist intimidation ("da youts" attack Swedes, and everyone caves); it's the threats, followed by the cave-ins. And (as has been noted) these cave-ins aren't just by Dhimmis (the non-Muslim apologists for Islam), its from Muslims as well.
Slightly off-topic, there was a report from CNN about an alleged (obviously quack) "cure" for AIDs. Done by some Muslim tribal elder who carries around a Koran -- hawking worthless herbals to dying AIDs patients. Next thing you know, the government Minister of Health (with a western recognized medical degree) -- what does this fellow with the medical degree do? Does he stand-up for a principle -- the principle of truth? No, he, of course, caves. He grants that the herbals are a "curative". This is utterly sickening.
Truth goes by the wayside, lies are endorsed; threats of violence are sufficient to silence so-called "universities" (just threaten mob violence in support of "Islam means Peace!!", and Free Speech ceases); just blame your condition on the fact that you're a "victim" of the West, and the media runs with it, wallows in the alleged "victimhood" -- never mind "independent" journalists (the melodrama is so much more riveting); it goes on and on...
Posted by: J.S. at March 17, 2007 11:39 PM
Nearly forgot...the terms, I think, which describe what we're seeing here is "moral collapse." We are witnessing a moral collapse -- from virtually everyone...and, they're collapsing due to a slight breath of wind..the equivalent of a gentle breeze is sufficient to fell (those who were at one time) the mighty.
Posted by: J.S. at March 17, 2007 11:45 PM
I am still amazed that we routinely must deal with semantic distractions during arguments where we should be having a frank dialogue. Specifically I am referring to Mr Ghouse's plain statement that there is 'no violence in the Koran'. Well, there is no violence in the NRA charter or the USMC credo, either, nor is there hatred, malice, distortion or any other living atribute of humanness in these lifeless sheets of paper.
Isn't this the sort of nonsense that Mr Spencer constantly warns us is an Islamist tactic of deception? It is similar to Mr Ghouse's claim that Mr Spencer had attributed certain ideas to the "Koran" when in fact he had said "Islamic writings." Addressing this sort of thing gets tiring and wastes time. Perhaps another petal on the flower of taqiyya?
As Mr Ghouse has alluded to himself, guns do not kill people, people kill people. I expect the vitriol and hyperbole between sides in strong opposition, but there is a sort of recurring dishonesty in this type of "reasoning" and it includes similar disinformation about "Islam forbids" this and that- those familiar misdeeds that are the exclusive province of jihadis.
A cultural distinction that bears mentioning in this context is the fact that the Arabs (as well as other groups) are expert hagglers and quibblers and thoroughly enjoy arguing among themselves about any subject at length. In the West, especially for Americans, we tend to want to get to the point and resolve the matter quickly, especially where the disagreement is truly unfriendly. Our joy is the victory; theirs is the battle.
Posted by: lycaste at March 18, 2007 2:55 AM
Robert - both excellent and extremely cogent.
However, I don't think you gave his (poor) "Lost Tomb" example its due.
An extreme (and hopefully more clear) rendition of what I believe his point intended to be is:
If you tell a group of people that everything
they've believed, from their earliest memories
to the present, is all wrong, precious few of
them will consider what you have to say.
I understand this is an extreme, but I think that's the gist. One's natural reaction is defensive, and the more brutal the accusation, the less it will be listened to.
Posted by: Occupant at March 18, 2007 3:37 AM
Sorry, DebV - I disagree.
That sounds too much like Hitler, but just pointing to a different group for extermination.
at March 18, 2007 7:19 AM
I wouldn't hold your breath, DebV.
Posted by: remote_control at March 18, 2007 3:58 PM
Wow! There is the answer right before our eyes and it is all so simple. Lets exterminate islam as an ideology and then we won't have all this trouble. We can do it just the way the Romans exterminated Christianity....can't we?
Posted by: pismopal at March 18, 2007 4:13 PM
Thanks to a few members on this forum who reminded me to responsd, and appreciate their desire to see different points of view.
I will respond as soon as I can make a little time, I have several projects that I'm comitted to do, this is my peak week.
Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net
www.FoundationforPluralism.com
www.worldMuslimCongress.com
at March 18, 2007 5:31 PM
“Mr. Ghouse responds that the words "Jew" and "Christian" do not appear in the Fatiha, the first sura of the Qur'an.”–Robert.
“But of course, I didn't say they did. I said, "Islamic writings," not the Qur'an.”–Robert.
It is literally true that the words “Jews” and “Christians” do not appear within that particular passage. However, throughout the Koran, the Christians and Jews, and many other kinds of people who are considered to be disbelievers in Islam, are referred to as “astray” and having earned the “wrath” of Allah. They are considered "astray" because they disbelieve; disbelief is the worst crime mentioned in the Koran, and, as such, is in itself more than sufficient to earn the wrath of Allah.
The Fatiha must be understood in the context of the remaining 113 suras of the Koran; otherwise, the categories “those who are astray” and “those who have earned your wrath” are empty; having no referents.
The phrases meaning ‘those who are astray’ and ‘those who have earned your [Allah’s] wrath’ do appear, in multiple places, in the Koran. It is also clear from a full reading of the Koran that all non-Muslims are astray and, because they do not believe in Islam, and thus have earned the wrath of Allah. In terms of the usage of phrases in question, Christians are referred to as ‘those who are astray,’ and Jews are referred to as ‘those who have earned [Allah’s] wrath’
Tafseer Soorah al-Faatihah`Allaamah Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shanqeetee`Adwaa al-Bayan Translated by Abu Rumaysah
"So with this the saying of Allaah, ‘so they have drawn on themselves anger upon anger’ (2:90) clarifies that the Jews are those that ‘have earned your Anger’. And likewise His sayings, ‘Say: shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allaah: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allaah and His Anger’ (5:60) "Indeed those who took the calf (for worship), anger from their Lord and humiliation will come upon them’ (7:152). And the saying of Allaah, ‘And do not follow the vain desires of people (i.e. the Christians) who went astray in times gone by, and misled many, and have themselves strayed from the Straight Path’ (5:77) Clarifies that it is the Christians who are astray."http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=21
If you read the passages of any of those verses cited in the above tafsir, e.g., by searching on http://www.quranbrowser.com/ you will see that those passages are about the Jews and/or Christians.
Also, searching each of the words “wrath” or “anger”; and “astray,” “stray,” or “error,” turns up hundreds of verses, in reference to numerous different kinds of disbelievers. Essentially, any deviation from Islam constitutes being “astray,” and that earns the “wrath” of Allah. Here is merely one example, in reference to apostates (who have certainly gone "astray" in the Islamic sense) from Islam:
16:106. (Pickthall). “Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.”
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 18, 2007 9:32 PM
In his previous posting on JW, Mr. Ghouse wrote, in regards to the indirect reference to Christians and Jews (and others) in the Fatiha, discussed above:
"The whole premise for this argument is non-existent."and
"Qur'aan is it! It is a holy book like any other holy book and it does not have any hatred in it. Period."
Surely Mr Ghouse cannot be unaware of the contents of the Koran.
40:10. "Surely those who disbelieve shall be cried out to: Certainly Allah's hatred (of you) when you were called upon to the faith and you rejected, is much greater than your hatred of yourselves."
60:4. "There is a goodly pattern for you in Abraham and those with him, when they told their folk: Lo! we are guiltless of you and all that ye worship beside Allah. We have done with you. And there hath arisen between us and you hostility and hate for ever until ye believe in Allah only - save that which Abraham promised his father (when he said): I will ask forgiveness for thee, though I own nothing for thee from Allah - Our Lord! In Thee we put our trust, and unto Thee we turn repentant, and unto Thee is the journeying."
35:39. "It is He who appointed you viceroys in the earth. So whosoever disbelieves, his unbelief shall be charged against him; their unbelief increases the disbelievers only in hate in God's sight; their unbelief increases the disbelievers only in loss."
5:14. "And with those who say: "Lo! we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefor We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork."
5:64. "The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty. He bestoweth as He will. That which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them, and We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguisheth it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah loveth not corrupters."
98:6. “Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.”
Sounds like hate. As for the usual apologist objection such verses are cherry-picked and taken out of context, please see this.
at March 19, 2007 12:05 AM
debv
1. No
2. No, we are still here aren't we?
at March 19, 2007 12:14 AM
18:104. "Those whose effort goeth astray in the life of the world, and yet they reckon that they do good work.
18:105. Those are they who disbelieve in the revelations of their Lord and in the meeting with Him. Therefor their works are vain, and on the Day of Resurrection We assign no weight to them.
18:106. That is their reward: hell, because they disbelieved, and made a jest of Our revelations and Our messengers."
at March 19, 2007 12:29 AM
Mr. Ghouse's comments are typical of what I've come to expect from so called moderate Muslims. They are far more interested in protecting Islam's reputation than in any reform. Indeed, I view so called moderate Muslims as the silent allies of the ihadis. Any infidel who puts any hope in them is a complete fool.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at March 19, 2007 1:00 PM
"I will respond as soon as I can make a little time, I have several projects that I'm comitted to do, this is my peak week." --Mike Ghouse
Mr. Ghouse,
This thread will be buried shortly as new posts are added. If you were to respond today (Mar. 20) or later, hardly anyone will see it. As a JW reader who would be interested in reading your response, I suggest that you notify JW staff when you are able to post it.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 20, 2007 2:00 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)