Maybe you ARE getting to them at that, Robert. All the more reason to stay in business and keep pounding away at them! Even the Iron Curtain fell eventually. The extreme cognitive dissonance necesary to maintaining the repressed politically correct mindset pervading the West today against the growing body of evidence of the Islamist threat is so disorientating and mentally crippling that it will eventually either drive its propenents and defenders to surrender or drive them mad. Keep fighting, Robert! History will thank you for it! Little by little, the truth will win out!

Posted by: templar at May 13, 2007 2:09 AM

"Maybe you ARE getting to them at that, Robert"

Greg, rather (and Robert, Hugh, Marisol and everyone else).

Sorry - forgot to check the attribution before posting.

Posted by: templar at May 13, 2007 2:11 AM

I haven't the energy to read more facistic politically correct blather. BTW, we need a new, less 90's term to describe the intellectual crap- think known as p.c.

Posted by: Bingo at May 13, 2007 2:13 AM

Mustafa Akyol is a young man who at Front Page was left unable to answer -- though he appears to be under the impression that he emerged victorious -- the evidence and arguments presented by, inter alios, Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, and Andrew Bostom.

He presents himself as a "reformer" and the "reform he thinks we should accept as plausible is that of what he calls "sola scriptura," which means somehow Muslims will drop the Hadith, drop the Sira (which means drop Muhammad as uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil) and stick to the Qur'an itself. The use of the phrase "sola scriptura" is itself an attempt to liken this version of Islam, which he plumps for, to the Protestant Reformation, with Akyol for all the world a new Calvin, a new Zwingli.

Not only would this require taking the Sunnah out of Sunni Islam -- an impossibility which Akyol blithely wishes us to ignore or overlook -- but it also ignores the full anti-Infidel venom of the Qur'an itself. Nothing else is needed to construct that Muslim view which uncompromisingly divides the world between Believer and Infidel, and mandates a permanent state of war (sometimes but not always ending in active warfare) between the two. Akyol simply won't permit himself to see what any intelligent Infidel, and apostates from Islam see is clearly in the Qur'an.

He has his supporters. Among those who apparently are or have been impressed with Mustafa Akyol is the comical convert Stephen Schwartz, the sammy-glick opportunist who is now tarnishing so badly the reputation of the Hoover Institution Dinesh D'Souza, and possibly Daniel Pipes, in his Diogenes-like search for those "moderate Muslims" who "are the solution" to the problem of Islam.

Those of us who did not stop the Spiritual Search bus at the arret of Islam, those of us who are not quite in the self-promotion game of quick (nanosecond) study D'Souza, or the determination not to abandon a view once it has been adopted and repeated so endlessly -- "moderate Muslims are the solution" -- that one cannnot without embarrassment at this point drop it, will find no difficulty in seeing right through the "reformer" Mustafa Akyol. And one can imagine -- or one may know from talking to them -- what both Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali think of the likes of Mustafa Akyol.

Akyol means "white" in Turkish, but he did not give his name to part of the Weiss-Schwartz syndrome. The "Weiss" or "white" in that syndrome belongs to Leopold Weiss, in arte (commedia dell'arte) Mustafa Asad.

Posted by: Hugh at May 13, 2007 2:14 AM

From a website tha thinksk the world of Akyol:

"Mr. Akyol is a courageous voice of moderation and reason concerning Jihadist terrorism. In addition to his writings (see his English Web site at: http://www.thewhitepath.com/), he has participated in illuminating dialogues with scholars who have been quite critical of Islam, e.g., Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or. This spirit of honest, candid dialogue is vital to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and tensions. One of these dialogues concerned “The Pope and Islam”; the other, “Convert or Die,” addressed the forced conversion of two Western journalists. (The URLs, in case the links don’t work for you are, respectively: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25789 and http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24999)"

You can find Akyol's contributions to what is described above as his participation in "illuminating dialogues" with Spencer, Bat Ye'or, et al. at the links given above. They are "illuminating" all right, but not in the way the writer of the puffery above seems to think, or as Akyol allows himself to believe.
You can find Akyol's "illuminating" exchanges with Spencer

Posted by: Hugh at May 13, 2007 2:19 AM

Just pointing out that the article is linked from the Washington Times website, not the Washington Post.

Posted by: staff_of_magius at May 13, 2007 2:34 AM

Bingo-

You answered your own question for an updated "P.C.":

I.C. = Intellectual Crap.

Fraudulent Drivel by any other name is still intellectual crap.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 13, 2007 2:49 AM

1000 years ago Islam was "advanced". (According to the Washington Times' article.)

Who cares?

1000 years ago strangling witches before they were burned at the stake was considered merciful.

Out concept of mercy has advanced.

Islam has not.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 13, 2007 2:53 AM

Thanks for putting history into perspective, profitsbeard. lol. They really haven't advanced much, have they?

Posted by: Bingo at May 13, 2007 3:00 AM

Reading this, I burst into song.
You call it potato, I call it potato, tomato - tomato.

Islamism not to be confused with
Islam as a religion.
Islamdon
Crisis of Islam

Just putting together some phrases for my playbook.
"One should recall that Islamdom was probably the most advanced and enlightened part of the world 1,000 years ago."
Actually I don't recall any such thing.

"The crucial question is whether the current intolerant attitude is an integral component of Islam as a religion or a historical attitude retained from premodern times."
And these premodern times would be the aforementioned period 1,000 years ago?

"Jews found it preferable to the attitude of medieval Christendom." Funny how I have never heard this point of view from a Jew (only from Muslims)

When it comes to the point of all this drivel, Turkey in the EU, the Ottoman empire was the greatest, no wait is was not the greatest, no wait it was the French's fault, no wait the Muslims were humiliated and oppressed, no wait there was equality of religion, no wait there is democracy in Turkey, no wait.

I am getting dizzy. I have to go lie down.

Posted by: auntbea at May 13, 2007 3:18 AM

The mainstream media is very adept at presenting comforting rationalizations about Islam. Whitewashing Islam is the opiate of the masses.
After I read the Islamic texts themselves, Robert's books, Ali Sina, and watched some MEMRI videos, I felt disillusioned, but things made more sense.
The whole concept of a just war by Islam is ridiculous because Islam itself is unjust and was spread through extortionate and unjust means. The only just war here is the one against Islam.

Posted by: jewdog at May 13, 2007 3:56 AM

Hugh

That's a surprise. Another poster on this website, who shall remain nameless since I'm too scared of being sued, had this to say about him:

Mustafa Akyol, a big fan of the Pope's and one of the best reformists on the planet. That's HIS grandfather and grandmother he's talking about. He is a Muslim, and one of the very finest people I have ever known. He is a deep, passionate supporter of the State of Israel (on Qur'anic grounds that Israel belongs as a land to the Jews), opposes the institution of shari'a ANYWHERE until it clears up entirely inequities about women's rights, and openly -- and in print -- decries all violence and jihad...
I have never met a better human being than Mustafa Akyol in my life. And that's saying something, because I have some very incredibly good people...
This is a very, very good man. The best. He is asset to the future of the world, to be frank... Mustafa Akyol is an incredible person.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 13, 2007 3:58 AM

The Washington Post's Pamela Constable recently wrote a piece on abuse of Muslim wives: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701936.html?hpid=topnews

The article has some virtues and no doubt took some courage to write, but notice how Constable refers to Quran Chapter 4, Verse 34:

Many Muslims also believe that men have the right to beat their wives. An often-quoted verse in the Koran says a husband may chastise a disobedient wife, but the phrasing in Arabic is open to several interpretations.

Constable here is telling us that Quran 4:34 says a husband may "chastise" his wife.

The first definition of "chastise" in my Oxford Desk Dictionary is "rebuke or reprimand severely." That sounds like it might be only a tongue-lashing. And no wonder, since to "punish, esp. by beating" is only a secondary meaning of "chastise."

Well, a mere verbal reprimand didn't sound like what I'd learned of 4:34, so I decided to check eleven translations of the verse to see how many use "chastise."

Turns out only two of eleven translators use the relatively mild-sounding and ambiguous "chastise them." What a surprise. Seven translators use the crystal clear "beat them." And two translators use "scourge them." The primary meaning of "scourge," according to my Oxford Dictionary, is "beat, whip, lash," and the secondary meaning is "castigate, chastise, discipline, afflict."

So why did Constable select an unusual -- dare I say whitewashed -- translation of Quran 4:34, and present that to the Washington Post's readers? Why does she obscure the fact that almost all the translators use "beat them" or "scourge them," expressions which clearly mean a physical blow, not just a verbal rebuke? Does Constable think she will be protecting abused Muslim wives by hiding the content of Quran 4:34? Wouldn't it be better for the Washington Post and for Muslims to be open about the verse's meaning, so that reform can take place? How will people reform Islam if they don't look at problems squarely?

1) Pickthall: scourge them, 2) Yusuf Ali: beat them, 3) Hilali-Kahn: beat them, 4) Shakir: beat them, 5) Sher Ali: chastise them, 6) Khalifa: beat them, 7) Arberry: beat them, 8) Palmer: beat them, 9) Rodwell: scourge them, 10) Sale: chastise them, 11) Dawood: beat them.

Notice below that a few of the above translators interpolate their own advice in parentheses; thus Yusuf Ali has
"beat them (lightly)"

Here are the full translations:

Quran 4:34:

Pickthall translation: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Yusuf Ali translation: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all).

Hilali-Khan translation: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see illconduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.

Shakir translation: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Sher Ali translation: Men are guardians over women because ALLAH has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with ALLAH's protection. And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and keep away from them in their beds and chastise them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely, ALLAH is High and Great.

Khalifa translation: The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

Arberry translation: Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.

Palmer translation: Men stand superior to women in that God hath preferred some of them over others, and in that they expend of their wealth: and the virtuous women, devoted, careful (in their husbands') absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed-chambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great.

Rodwell translation: Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!

Sale translation: Men shall have the pre-eminence above women, because of those [advantages] wherein God hath caused the one of them to excel the other, and for that which they expend of their substance [in maintaining their wives]. The honest women [are] obedient, careful in the absence [of their husbands], for that God preserveth [them, by committing them to the care and protection of the men]. But those, whose perverseness ye shall be apprehensive of, rebuke; and remove them into separate apartments, and chastise them. But if they shall be obedient unto you, seek not an occasion [of quarrel] against them; for God is high and great.

Dawood translation: Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.

Posted by: traeh at May 13, 2007 4:24 AM

From Akyol's article itself:

They also adopted several laws from Sassanid Persia, which included the specifications for the second-class status of conquered Jews and Christians as dhimmis.
[.....]
The Ottoman Turks, ruling much of the Islamic world, saw the need to reform the Shariah according to modern political concepts. In two substantive reform edicts, first in 1839 and then in 1856, the dhimmi status was abolished, and Jews and Christians gained equal citizenship rights. Religious freedom was also guaranteed. The Ottomans accepted a Constitution in 1876, and set up a parliament that included members from all faiths.
The crucial point is that the Ottoman Empire wasn't abandoning Islam by reforming its laws, but it was modernizing from within the tradition. The Koranic verse "There is no compulsion in religion" was stressed by the Ottoman religious elite to justify the reforms.

Also, at the conclusion of his piece

That should help us understand why the current tension in Turkey between the moderate Muslim government (led by Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the AK Party) and the radical secular establishment is all too crucial. The government might have policies that deserve criticism, but its strong support for the European Union process, free markets, and liberal reforms is an invaluable experience showing the possibility of a Western-friendly and still genuinely Muslim popular movement.
This should not be sacrificed to the paranoid fears and the authoritarian ambitions of Turkey's secular fundamentalists. The United States should vigorously support Turkey's democracy, which is the only thing the county needs to further cultivate its "moderate Islam." If Turkey keeps walking on that path, it may well be a light unto many other Muslim nations.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 13, 2007 4:31 AM

Infidel Pride:

You quoted Akyol's article:

The Ottoman Turks, ruling much of the Islamic world, saw the need to reform the Shariah according to modern political concepts. In two substantive reform edicts, first in 1839 and then in 1856, the dhimmi status was abolished, and Jews and Christians gained equal citizenship rights. Religious freedom was also guaranteed. The Ottomans accepted a Constitution in 1876, and set up a parliament that included members from all faiths.

Here is Bat Ye'or, p.123, Islam and Dhimmitude:

...from 1839 to 1876 the European Powers strove to oblige the Ottoman sultan to abrogate the dhimma and to recognize, albeit in theory only, equality between Muslims and dhimmis...From the time that Sultan Abd al-Majid promulgated the emancipation edict...of 18 February 1856, European consuls in the Ottoman Empire strove to enforce compliance with two major principles: the right for Christians and Jews to give evidence in Islamic courts when a Muslim was a party, and respect for the life and property of non-Muslims. Acceptance of these principles symbolized the abandonment of the concepts of Muslim superiority over infidels, of jihad, of harbi and dhimmi -- intended to be replaced by the principle of equal rights. In both cases their efforts failed...

Infidel Pride, the above quote from Bat Ye'or seemed like it might cast another light on the quote from Akyol.

Posted by: traeh at May 13, 2007 4:54 AM

Akyol got completely owned in an editorial exchance on NRO of all places on the whether beheading was Islamic.

Here is Akyol's original op-ed; here is Andrew McCarthy's response. Good shtuff - I'm sure it found it's way to Jihad Watch as well.

Posted by: Gnosis at May 13, 2007 5:20 AM

"modernize"???????

LMAO...yet another lame taqqiyah-esque play on words.
I believe what he meant to imply (they never SAY anything, only allude to them in catch-all taqqiyah format) "reform", never mind it's too little, and too late...but back to the issue.

Considering their quest for nuclear weapons, reactors to process them, rockets to deliver them and other exotic weapons, not to mention financing all those "external projects" like hezbollah, hamas, al-qaeda, taliban, pay off the russian mob for those nuclear warheads they smuggled into their enemy countries as well as cyclosarin, botulinum, anthrax, smallpox & other nasties, and those submarines, as well as al-qaeda ghost ships concealed under other nations flags, as well as financing 5th column activites within our own respective countries for the obvious goal of 5th columnist activities when they commit to their worldwide assault...

Hmmm, well, ok, under those auspices, I guess "modernize" is as good a word as any.
Of course the thought is bone-chilling as hell, but it is, nonetheless, correct.

LMAO...their evasiveness and feinging innocence (especially their expectation of nobody seeing right though this doublespeak hokum) never ceases to amaze me.
Too bad it failed miserably-too late Akyol, it didn't evade our radar, otherwise known as a bullsh*t-detector.

Posted by: jcom972 at May 13, 2007 5:54 AM

traeh

Thanks. On a separate note, I'm checking into whether the Quran itself indeed is ambivalent about whether apostates should be put to death, and that one needs Sunnah to pull that off.

Incidentally, side question - we know that the Sunnis follow the Sunnah i.e. Hadiths, Tafsirs and Sira. Is the same true about Shia?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 13, 2007 5:58 AM

900+ years ago Islam was NOT in advance of Christendom. I have just been reading James Parkes' 'Whose Land?', the bulk of which deals with the history of Eretz Israel between AD 70 and AD 1949. During the Romano-Byzantine period, once the populations had recovered from the wars of 70 and 135 (and they did recover), Jews and Christians mostly did quite well - towns, trade, farms - despite Roman persecutions of Christians (Diocletian) and Christian persecutions of the Jews after Constantine converted. Then the Muslim Arabs invaded - things steadily went downhill - Parkes catalogues the wretched process.

There was one brief interlude of genuinely good government once the Crusaders established the Latin Kingdoms. Parkes makes it quite clear that all the historical evidence - including the Muslim visitor whose remarks Spencer quotes in 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades' (pp. 131-132) - forces one to conclude that the Franks were better rulers than the Muslims who had preceded them OR any of the Muslim rulers who came after. Parkes' summing-up: "In spite of the constant warfare of the Latin states, commerce and agriculture flourished, justice was administered in a hundred baronial and commercial courts, Syrian Christian, Jewish and Muslim peasants went about their business in safety. ALL THIS DECAYED WHEN THE FRANKS WERE EXPELLED" (p. 101). Of the Mamluks who took over after the Crusaders were driven out, Parke says simply that they "spread economic havoc, administrative decay, and the destruction of all social order" (Gaza, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, anyone reminded of some contemporary examples?). Essentially - anyone judging even by raw economic indicators would be forced to conclude that the Franks back then (these so-called European barbarians) were, quite simply, ALREADY better at government than were their Muslim contemporaries.

Parkes was focusing on Islam in eretz Israel over about 1300 years, four different Islamic regimes, all dismally similar (though the Mamluks were the absolute worst). But I would bet my bottom dollar that a similar examination of any other region pre-, post- and during Islam would reveal the dreadful truth - that there is simply nowhere that the imposition of Islam (especially the strict varieties of Islam but not only those) has not led inexorably over time to what can only be called total social and ecological collapse.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 13, 2007 6:08 AM

Here is an article by our friends at jihadunspun which explains how mohametanism is really a religion of violence theft and enslavement. In their own words...

http://jihadunspun.com/index-side_internal.php?article=107152&list=/index.php&

And don't forget. If we said any of this we would be vicious liars and bigots. Enjoy!

nabi ZK

nabi to the infamous mohametan trolls.

Posted by: zonie kafir at May 13, 2007 6:16 AM

Greg - in filling out the "WT" form to send a derisive comment, which "Department" would you have us choose to send it to?

Want to make sure my comment,

"There is no difference between "Islamism" and the religion of Islam. You've been taken for a fool by "Mustafa." Read the Qur'an for yourself, why don't you? Never take a Muslim's word for it as there's a little Arabic thingy called "taqiyyah."

gets to the right place.

Posted by: darcy at May 13, 2007 8:22 AM

FROM THE WT EDITORIAL:

"The Ottoman Turks, ruling much of the Islamic world, saw the need to reform the Shariah according to modern political concepts. In two substantive reform edicts, first in 1839 and then in 1856, the dhimmi status was abolished, and Jews and Christians gained equal citizenship rights. Religious freedom was also guaranteed. The Ottomans accepted a Constitution in 1876, and set up a parliament that included members from all faiths.
The crucial point is that the Ottoman Empire wasn't abandoning Islam by reforming its laws, but it was modernizing from within the tradition. The Koranic verse "There is no compulsion in religion" was stressed by the Ottoman religious elite to justify the reforms. "

Now isn't this the amazing. The writer portrays what happened in Turkey as modernization!! Sure--we kill the Chritians in genocide and deny it--that is the modern way!! How do these idiots overlook that Christian population in Turkey went from over 20% in 1900 to less then 1% by 1950. Yes, that's modernization all right!! What freedom!

Posted by: BB at May 13, 2007 9:23 AM

Should I post "The Big Rock Candy Mountain" again?
Oh, 1000 years ago, with Islam at the helm, it was all roses and love and....no?
Today we have news of some of our soldiers being captured in Iraq, now what? You and I know what these "enlightened moslems" will do to them.
So to this guy, I say, blah, blah, blah! Bullsh*t.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 13, 2007 10:13 AM

Ditty for the Day

The 'whitepath'is not the straight path.
After I laugh heartily, I'll take a bath
and wash away the naivete and taqiyya
he splashed around like muck in a barnyard
trying to 'white'wash what is fard.

Posted by: the poetess at May 13, 2007 11:00 AM

(My letter to the Washington Times)
Dear Editor of Letters:
I resent the fall of Journalism into the Yawning Chasm of Quote Me. Some is quoted, ergo quad erat demonstratum. Who is then served? The reader? Perhaps, if the source is true and words are likewise not falsehood. But you can quote Islamic apologists from now till Armageddon and you will not learn one thing about the seething, boiling-over cauldron of hatred in the Muslim World. The Quran, by scripture, not interpretation, calls for the murder of unbelievers, demands unwavering allegiance to Islam (submission) or death, and urges men to strike their disobedient women. You would believe that Islam needs "modernization"? Have you checked out Hamas' "Mickey Louse" television show, where a young girl is instructed in bigotry and the world domination aims of Islam? That is Islam "modernized". Stop wasting time puzzling about how to modernize Muslims, they do pretty well with modern tools like uranium enrichment and IEDs.

What Islam needs is Humanization.

Sincerely,

Posted by: JamesB at May 13, 2007 11:14 AM

quote

The doubts are well justified, but it would be wrong to extrapolate the current "crisis of Islamdom" to a general negative view about Islam as a religion. One should recall that Islamdom was probably the most advanced and enlightened part of the world 1,000 years ago. Perhaps, we are just living in a bad episode in its extremely diverse history.

end quote

What is the current crisis? Invasion of the West and attempting to subjugate it.

What was the crisis of Islamdom in 633 AD? Invasion of the West and attempting to subjugate it.

What was the crisis in all the years in-between? Invasion of the West and attempting to subjugate it, although part of the time they were busy conquering India and subjugating it.

"most advanced and enlightened part of the world 1,000 years ago."

Would that have anything to do with their conquering the most advanced part of Christendom? They invaded Egypt and took control of the most advanced library in Christendom. Would that have anything to do with Christendom then being less advanced?

And who was reading those texts after conquest? Christian slaves or converts from Christianity?

Monday the Senate starts debating immigration amnesty. Some of the Fort Dix Six and some of the 9-11 hijackers were illegals at least to overstay visas.

Some talking points:

Call Your Senator No Amnesty: Talking Points HUTCHISON-PENCE PLAN

Following work for Jim Webb or Warner and some of them for other states or even countries.

On May 14 Call Senator John Warner VA to vote against Amnesty

Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 13, 2007 11:18 AM

I just sent the following to the Washington Times's online letters to the editors link:

Islam already has modernized. It has discovered how to use victimhood and political correctness as offensive tools in its battle against Western culture, and it supplements the sword with the AK-47 and plastic explosives to wage Jihad elsewhere (and here at home, soon).

Read the Quran, available at the Website of the University of Southern Califoria, in three, authoritative translations.

If you are short on time and want to cut to the chase, read the Ninth Sura. Yes, the means have modernized, but the end has not.

Islam means "Surrender," not, "Peace," unless you mean the peace of the grave, or the fearful silence of the persecuted non-Muslim minorities in any country where Islam is dominant.

For the truth about Islam, find out for yourself. Try
www.jihadwatch.org

Tom Cox
Muncie, IN

Posted by: RedStateInfidel at May 13, 2007 11:21 AM

Where is Morgan Sinclair?...Aykol is apparently a guru of sorts for her....and the embodiment of the great moderate hope. One would expect a defense.

Posted by: Cornelius at May 13, 2007 12:16 PM

My response is here

Posted by: Don Singleton at May 13, 2007 12:30 PM

Here is an article by our friends at jihadunspun which explains how mohametanism is really a religion of violence theft and enslavement. In their own words...

http://jihadunspun.com/index-side_internal.php?article=107152&list=/index.php&

[...]

Posted by: zonie kafir

That is truly one sick logic these mahometans employ. Should be required reading for all gubmint officials in the West.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at May 13, 2007 2:18 PM

"One interesting point of note is that the author, Mustafa Akyol, of the Turkish Daily News (also at www.thewhitepath.com), manages to mention the interpretive principle of Quranic abrogation "-Robert

"The cat's out of the bag" as Hugh says. And we can see where the shoe is pinching on the heads of folks such as Ibrahim Hopper and other deceivers. The truth hurts.

Posted by: Frank at May 13, 2007 2:26 PM

Infidel Pride:

I'm checking into whether the Quran itself indeed is ambivalent about whether apostates should be put to death, and that one needs Sunnah to pull that off.

One place Spencer discusses apostasy is in an April 3, 2006 post titled "From the Chicago Tribune, yet another misleading analysis." Here's an excerpt from the article. Maybe you've already seen it. It confirms that the Quran is, not so much ambivalent as a little ambiguous on the subject (but see what Spencer writes in the excerpt) and that one does need to turn to Muhammad's example for crystal clear determination that apostasy deserves a death sentence (as all the four main schools of Islamic law rule on the matter).

April 03, 2006 "From the Chicago Tribune, yet another misleading analysis"

...Bassiouni then, perhaps knowing how weak his argument is in Hadith and fiqh, appeals to the Qur'an. In doing so, he ends up acknowledging that his is a minority position among Islamic scholars.

The principal category of crimes in Islam is called hudud. These crimes are referred to in the Koran and thus require prosecution. They are: adultery, theft, transgression (physical aggression), highway robbery, slander and alcohol consumption. Apostasy is included in this list by most scholars, but not by a few others. The Koran refers to it as follows: "And whoever of you turns [away] from his religion [Islam] and dies disbelieving, their works have failed in this world and the next [world]. Those are the inhabitants of fire: therein they shall dwell forever." Surat (chapter) al-Ma'eda, verse 35. This verse does not criminalize the turning away from Islam, nor does it establish a penalty.

Now we finally hear that all this comes from Muhammad, but that -- you guessed it -- he has been misunderstood:

Turning away from Islam, which is translated as apostasy, would not have been considered a crime, except the Prophet Muhammad (praise be upon him) in the 7th Century applied the death penalty to a Muslim who turned away from Islam. Historians of the Sunnah, the tradition established by the Prophet and deemed binding upon all Muslims, failed to note a significant fact about that case--that person not only had a change of faith, but decided to join the enemies of Islam at a time of war, thus making it a crime of high treason. Such a crime exists in all legal systems, many with the death penalty.

But it is not true that Muhammad ordered the execution only of apostates who joined the enemies of Islam. His statement baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu -- if anyone changes his religion, kill him -- includes no caveat. He didn't say, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him only if he joins the enemies of Islam." He simply said, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." This statement is amply attested in the Hadith, and is accepted as authentic by all except the most disingenuous Islamic scholars. It appears in various forms in Bukhari, Ibn Majah, An-Nasai, Tayalisi, Malik, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and other authorities.

Nor does Muhammad make any exception when enunciating the principle in this way: "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims" (Bukhari, vol. 9, bk. 83, no. 17).
Also, Muhammad ordered the killing of more than one apostate, and they weren't all people who had joined up with his enemies. Take, for example, the case of Abdullah ibn Khatal. Muhammad's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, tells us that "he had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was a Muslim.) When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked him and killed him and apostasized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him" (Ishaq 819). There is no suggestion that Abdullah ibn Khatal had joined Muhammad's enemies, unless singing satirical songs about him counts.

Infidel Pride said:

Incidentally, side question - we know that the Sunnis follow the Sunnah i.e. Hadiths, Tafsirs and Sira. Is the same true about Shia?

My understanding is that both Sunni and Shia follow the Sunnah. Shia merely refers to "Shiat Ali" or Party of Ali, because the Shia believed that Ali should have been the first successor to Muhammad, while Aisha claimed Muhammad intended Abu Bakr to be first successor. Abu Bakr, and the Sunnis, won out.

Posted by: traeh at May 13, 2007 2:36 PM

For what it's worth, here's the "derisive" comment I sent to the Washington Times:

In Mustfa Akyol's May 13 "commentary," he writes: "Many think intolerance is built into Islam, but actually the Koran decrees no sanction for apostasy and recognizes the rights of Christians and Jews to worship according to their own traditions." Akyol thus hides the fact that all four of the main schools of Islamic law prescribe the death penalty for apostasy. Islamic law rules thus because Muhammad, according to canonical Islamic traditions (Sahih Bukhari, for example) said, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." For Akyol to suggest it is a mistake to consider Islam intolerant is a disgusting lie, and the Washington Times ought to be ashamed to have published it. And for Akyol to assert that intolerance is not necessarily "built into Islam" is deceptive and something only apologists, the ignorant, or the intimidated could go along with. It flies in the face of over a millennium of subjection of Christians, Jews, and others, as per verse 9:29 of the Quran: "Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given [Christians and Jews] as believe in neither Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace Islam, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." This verse, among other parts of the Islamic tradition, was the basis of over a thousand years in Muslim lands of non-Muslim second-class status, unevenly enforced, but often worse than Jim Crow was for African Americans in the U.S. See Bat Ye'or's book, Islam and Dhimmitude. Only when foreign powers compelled the Ottomans to end dhimmitude did it begin to end, and yet it still survives around the world in discriminatory and violent Muslim behavior today, behavior infinitely worse than anything to which Muslims were subjected in the U.S. even after 9/11.

Akyol also says: "There are 'verses of the sword,' to be sure, but it is possible to argue these verses refer only to those non-Muslims who have been belligerent toward Muslims in the first place." Well, what matters is not whether "it is possible to argue" something -- as I recall, some remarkable things are argued in the classic tale, Alice in Wonderland -- but rather what most Muslim scholars do argue and what huge numbers of Muslims believe. And Jihad is generally not limited to self-defense. But Akyol very conveniently ignores such things and others that should be of grave concern to anyone who cares about America and the West's survival, especially considering current demographic realities trending toward Muslim majorities in Europe before the end of the century. The Washington Times ought to be ashamed. Sincerely,

Posted by: traeh at May 13, 2007 3:57 PM

MUSTFA AKYOL's comments were encouraging and included a certaim amount of insightfulness, but they were also fanciful.

It's certainly understandable that Mr. Akyol -- who I would suggest is a genuine moderate Muslim -- would like to believe that his Islamic religious faith is somhow compatible with the enlightment ideals of the West, and that the conflict between the Jihadist and the West is merely a misunderstanding by the Jihadists of the true and enlightend character of Islam.

It might be true that the Koran says nothing about killing apostates, but it says a great many other things that reveal Islam's incompatibility with the the Western concepts of freedom, individual liberty and equality. And the adieth says a bunch more that puts it in conflict with our ideals and principles.

I'm afraid that Mr. Akyol is in a great deal of denial about the chasm that separates the Western and Islamic worlds. It's a great wider than he seems prepared to himself.

It's pretty obvious that Mr. Akyol admires the values of the European enlightment, and he would like to live in that world. But it's also obvious that he's still in the grip of a violent and primitive Arab religion that is immune to any thoughts that can be remotely called enlightened.

I'm sorry for Mr. Akyol, but he's never going to get that square peg into that round whole as he appears to be trying to do.

The gentleman has only two options: Become a full fledged Muslim Jihadist, or dump Islam and enter into the modern enlightend world.

But, for God's sake, don't west time trying to make the two compatib;e

Posted by: rational at May 13, 2007 3:59 PM

Next step we need a new magazine-Hugh and Robert!
It is really bad how they are playing this! They let our soldiers down again! Bigots!! Sspuoooww!

Posted by: MZ at May 13, 2007 7:28 PM

Infidel Pride,

Try this site for the facts about the death penalty given to apostates from Islam:

http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/thread/355.aspx

Posted by: J.S. at May 13, 2007 9:54 PM

Oops...I hadn't bothered scrolling all the way down to the bottom of the page...(IP has been there, done that)...but, there's lots of good info, nonetheless (for us late comers).

Posted by: J.S. at May 13, 2007 10:23 PM

JS

Thanks for visiting it. Yep, that's a part of a project Archimedez is doing, along with Caroline and me. Quite a few topics have been teed to date, but currently, progress is somewhat at a standstill. Others are welcome to join as well.

Also, Ali Sina has a new wiki site wikiislam.org, which has a collection of all the articles about Islam from him. That's another good place to go. Also, if one has the stomach, one can also go to Islamic sites themselves, although some familiarity with Islamic terminology is desirable. No, I never doubted that Shia also follow the traditions of Mohammed; I was just curious whether the hadiths that they recognize as authentic are different from Bukhari, Muslim or Sattih. Given that the Jaafari school of jusisprudence is the only school in Shia Islam - as opposed to the Hanafi, Shafaii, Maliki and Hambali, I thought the sourcings might be different.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 14, 2007 1:24 AM

One should recall that Islamdom was probably the most advanced and enlightened part of the world 1,000 years ago. Perhaps, we are just living in a bad episode in its extremely diverse history.

This kind of trash is something you can only pull off in front of an audience so parochial as to know nothing of Asian history.

The Song Dynasty in China, the Heian Imperium in Japan, the Chola Dynasty in India, and a Buddhist culture that was already half a millenium old just to name a few obvious items that stand out in any half-way decent history book.

Sure, Europe was having one hell of a long rough patch, but one might bear in mind that the legacies of Rome and Athens, however bedimmed, did live on. Not to mention the regrowth of the Christian cultures and the Frankish empire of Charlemagne which began a whole quarter millenium before.

And all this is to leave entirely out of mention the entirely intact historical continuity of Jewish philosophy and jurisprudence -- and the monastic scholarship of the Irish that kept classical learning alive through the medieval period.

So no, it is a long stretch to compare the primarily military achievements of the mohammedan warlords to the creative accomplishments of all those other cultures a millenium ago.

I, for one, am entirely unimpressed.

Posted by: joeblough at May 14, 2007 3:11 AM

whew, joeblough, my thoughts exactly!

why is it we don't know this stuff unless we find it our on our own? have our schools been failing all these years? you ask.

hogwash, i say, they've been quite successful. at keeping you witless for the half-wits in charge, that is.

so, when will you counter that witlessness in your children? it's up to you, for the schools will do naught to correct!

Posted by: kafir_kelbeh at May 14, 2007 12:01 PM

CORRECTION: why is it we don't know this stuff unless we find it out on our own?

Posted by: kafir_kelbeh at May 14, 2007 12:01 PM

kafir_kelbeh:

10-4

Posted by: joeblough at May 14, 2007 10:10 PM