| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
In an interview at FrontPage today, Mary Habeck, a professor at Johns Hopkins and author of a book about the jihadists entitled Knowing the Enemy, makes a number of observations about the jihad ideology, and why more Muslims don't stand up to the jihadists, that are worth looking at more closely.
...Thus, Muslims are allowed to fight these unbelievers in a just jihad. Their definition of jihad is quite different from that generally accepted by Muslims today. Most Muslims say that jihad is first and foremost an internal struggle to control one's desires or, if it is about fighting, jihad is a defensive just war.
Most Muslims may indeed believe that. Yet while this likelihood provides comfort for non-Muslims with its suggestion that most Muslims would prefer to tend to their own souls rather than to wage war against their non-Muslim neighbors, it actually doesn’t establish what both Muslims and non-Muslims seem to wish it did. This is because the traditional pedigree of the spiritual jihad is not as firm as it is often advertised to be. The hadith in which Muhammad makes a distinction between “greater jihad” of spiritual struggle and the “lesser jihad” of warfare doesn't appear in any of the hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable. Jihad understood as warfare against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law has much greater support in Islamic scripture, tradition, and historical practice -- and leading jihad theorists including Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden’s friend and intellectual mentor and co-founder with him of Al-Qaeda, challenge the authenticity of the saying in their writings. This only buttresses their claim, which Habeck notes below, to represent the "true believers."
These extremists make jihad into the central tenet of their religion, arguing that it is primarily about fighting both defensively and offensively (to spread the just laws of Islam). They also say that any Muslim who does not participate in their jihad is not a "true believer," and is at most a sinner and at worst an unbeliever and can therefore be killed with impunity.
Habeck gives no hint here of the fact that the theology of offensive and defensive jihad is far older than the "extremists," and is in fact rooted in the Qur'an (2:193 and 9:29 for offensive jihad) and Muhammad's statements, notably the one in which he directs his followers to offer non-Muslims conversion, subjugation, or war. Then there are the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which all teach the necessity for offensive jihad in order to subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Sharia.
All this answers the follow-up question below far more convincingly than Habeck answers it: the moderate Muslims don't speak out more forcefully against the jihadists because if they do, the jihadists can easily portray them as unfaithful Muslims, and quote Qur'an and Sunnah to establish their position. And that can make the lives of the moderates difficult in many ways.
Habeck is aware of this. Last year, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross reviewed her book and noted that in it she drew a sharp distinction between jihadist theology and "traditional Islam." I wrote to him, asking him a number of questions about the content of this distinction and related matters, and he discussed them with Dr. Habeck over lunch. At the time, he got permission from her for me to publish her answers from his emails -- and he gave me his permission also to publish what he wrote to me.
Here's what Gartenstein-Ross wrote to me in response: "I had lunch with Prof. Habeck on 8/8, a couple of days after receiving your e-mail, and was able to put the question to her myself. Prof. Habeck's answer was that she used the term 'traditional Islam' sloppily in her book. She says that she generally has used the term two ways: referring to Islam as practiced before Napoleon's 1798 invasion of Egypt and referring to Islam as practiced in individual societies such as Indonesia or Pakistan before exposure to Wahhabism/Salafism or other foreign strains that alter the indigenous practice." So in other words, she is referring to what I refer to as "cultural Islam."
I had also asked if Dr. Habeck could name any orthodox sects or schools of Islamic jurisprudence that rejected the necessity of jihad warfare in order to institute Sharia. Gartenstein-Ross answered: "I also put to her your question about traditional Islamic sects that 'reject the proposition that the umma must wage war in order to establish Sharia.' She agreed without hesitation that such sects have not existed within mainstream Islam historically."
Yet despite knowing this, Habeck goes on in the FP interview to assert that the jihadists have hijacked Islam, and to make several other dubious assertions:
FP: Why are “moderate” Muslims so silent, in general, in the face of jihadism?Habeck: There are probably many reasons for this, but I can give at least three. First, many Muslims have spoken out against jihadism, but they have been ignored by Western media. There was, for instance, a huge demonstration against violence carried out in the name of Islam is Morocco not too long ago (late 2005), but I don't remember reading anything about this is in the mainstream media.
Maybe the mainstream media didn't cover it, but here is a story about it from Lebanon's Daily Star. The story says that the demonstrators were protesting "Al-Qaeda's decision to kill two Moroccan hostages in Iraq," and were "holding banners and chanting 'Muslims are brothers. A Muslim does not kill his brother.'" So they were upset about Al-Qaeda killing Muslims. That is a phenomenon we have noted here many times: Muslims taking umbrage at Al-Qaeda killing fellow Muslims. But where are the protests against Al-Qaeda killing unbelievers? It is not enough for Muslims to "speak out against jihadism" only when its victims are Muslims, but to remain silent when they're non-Muslims -- not enough at least for non-Muslims.
I read memri.org and see many, many moderate Muslims speaking out against these guys every day. Second, in many countries these guys control the public arena and intimidate or even murder anyone who speaks out against them. The intimidation carried out in Western countries recently shows the power that just a few fanatics can have. Finally, there is a peculiar dynamic going on in the Islamic world: most people do not trust their governments or media to be reporting the truth, so they refuse to believe that the jihadis are carrying out these terrible atrocities. It's far more satisfying to believe that the government/US/Zionists are lying about all this rather than to confront the fact that someone has hijacked your religion for their own purposes.
Indeed. And it's also far more satisfying to pretend that the jihadists have "hijacked" an essentially peaceful Islam rather than confront the ugly reality of the deep roots that the jihad ideology has within Islam, even when one has acknowledged that the facts are otherwise.
Now certainly most Muslims aren't jihadists. Most probably do think of jihad primarily as a spiritual struggle. But to pretend that the jihadists don't have the intellectual upper hand in the Islamic world today is to undercut any chances for genuine Islamic reform, which can only proceed from an honest acknowledgment of the realities of Islamic doctrine, not from ignoring those elements and implying they don't exist.
Posted by Robert at May 17, 2007 4:34 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"...Thus, Muslims are allowed to fight these unbelievers in a just jihad."
A "just jihad", did I read that right? How is taking innocent lives JUST?
Posted by: champ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 17, 2007 6:41 PM
Is it just me or (based on this date's news entries) has this myriad of islamist entities completely flipped their ever-loving minds?
Amazing how it all seems orchestrated, all of it sounds like it came from someone whose "cheese slid completely off their cracker", and all of it is so beyond-absurd that only schizopaths, stoners, drunkards, and ditzes would think it made sense.
Oh well...nothing like inmates running the asylum.
What's next? "Cyrus the virus"?
OMG, LMAO...
at May 17, 2007 6:46 PM
Glenn Beck , Habeck What's the difference? Same ignorance same distortions .
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 17, 2007 7:05 PM
How is taking innocent lives JUST?
But of course this is just because the unbelievers or apostates are not innocent, as far as Islam is concerned.
According to Islamic law, the people in the WTC were not innocent because they didn't support Islam and openly supported a government and system that is antithetical to Islam.
Posted by: PMK at May 17, 2007 7:12 PM
Another reason why Muslims don't speak out.
They are told it is enough to leave Islam. Don't tell anyone. Cut back gradually on your visits to the mosque. Wean yourself from it gradually. Don't speak out about what jihadists are doing. Just protect yourself.
http://islam-watch.org/AliSina/Pakistani-Muslim-Apostasy-from-Islam.htm
"Good people are leaving Islam everywhere. They are not making any public announcements and there is no need for that either.
.....
if they live in an Islamic country and this could jeopardize their lives, it is better that they keep this a secret. In this way the foundation of Islam is weakened. There will come a day, and that day is not too far that this entire edifice of lies will fall."
Of course in the meantime the dhimmis will just have to watch their own backs.
Posted by: PMK at May 17, 2007 7:22 PM
It is difficult or impossible for reformist Muslims to create a new consensus effective against Islamic supremacism and militant jihad because from earliest times, the consensus of the most devout Muslims and of those most knowledgeable of the central Islamic doctrines has been based on a demonization and dehumanization of the Other. That demonization is expressed in the dogmas of Islamic supremacism and in the reliance on militant jihad to impose about Islamic sharia law.
Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews have all shown themselves capable in practice of dehumanizing and demonizing others, but none of these groups has, as does Islam, central texts whose main thrust in effect demands the demonization and dehumanization of the Other.
For reformist Muslims to ask Islam to accept the Other (the non-Muslim) as equal, might help reform some who think of themselves as Muslim, but Islam itself cannot drop its dehumanization of the Other without changing so radically as to become something else entirely. In other words, though Islam might, for some, be replaced with something else, Islam itself cannot incorporate respect for the Other (the non-Muslim) as an equal; the debasement of the non-Muslim is simply too deeply entrenched in the life of Muhammad, in the Quran, in the Hadith.
Posted by: traeh at May 17, 2007 7:28 PM
It is amazing that so many can read the same material, understand its meaning the same, with so few actually "getting it". At the very least a strong refusal to even admit what they know is true.
It's got to be killing the truly "peaceful" Muslims to know they have to side with the Infidel to actually have Peace.
Well, actually, it is killing them. About 50-100 a day in Iraq. Some never learn
A kinda KILL BILL Movie writ Large
Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 17, 2007 7:39 PM
The whole concept of a holy war being taught by any religion is dangerous. The hoi polloi lacks the sophistication to parse the dictum responsibly; it's nothing but an invitation for trouble. And in Islam's case, when taken along with all the other bloody quotes and exhortations to dominate, the violent result is inevitable.
Posted by: jewdog at May 17, 2007 7:41 PM
Am not sure what point the good Professor is attempting to make...Are Infidels or 'moderate' Muslims reassured by having finer points of Jihad
defined academically? Does Al Quaeda read her books??
Sorry luv,BOMBS & BULLETS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
at May 17, 2007 7:57 PM
"...(T)hey refuse to believe that the jihadis are carrying out these terrible atrocities."
I wonder if this "peculiar dynamic" is really at play and what evidence there is of it. I mean, we have all heard Muslims (and leftists) claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by Zionists or our own American government rather than by Islamists, but is it really possible that Muslims are incredulous regarding the thousands upon thousands of jihadist attacks in just the last few years? Is it really true that the silent Muslim masses--disinterested in protesting or condemning the daily horror of innumerable "terrible atrocities" perpetrated in the name of Allah--are complacent largely because they don't believe in the veracity of the reporting?
Frankly, I doubt it, and I note that one of the professor's other explanations for why Muslims don't protest violent jihad--that they are indeed averse but we aren't paying attention to their protestations--is simply BS, as Robert has shown regarding the only example she proffered.
At any rate, I wonder if anyone else here (Robert didn't exactly refute Habeck's assertion in this regard) similarly reckons that large numbers of Muslims are convinced that the rivers of blood running in virtually every corner of the globe are either contrived outright or caused by unbelievers rather than by Muslims.
Now I do believe that Dr. Habeck is spot on in describing the intimidation factor that serves as a firewall for Muslims who might be inclined to speak out, since we all know what happens within Islam to dissidents and free thinkers. But as for Muslims not speaking out because they don't believe Muslim atrocities are happening, I just don't buy it.
I admit that this may be more pervasive a problem than I suspect, however, and I wonder if anyone is sympathetic to the professor's assertion and can present any evidence in support. She maintains that the Muslim masses are largely distrustful of "their governments or media to be reporting the truth."
Huh? Distrustful? Even of al-Jazeera? Even of the Baghdad Bob School of Broadcast Journalism?
Well, I can certainly understand that.
Regards,
HAID
at May 17, 2007 8:24 PM
"These extremists make jihad into the central tenet of their religion, arguing that it is primarily about fighting both defensively and offensively (to spread the just laws of Islam)".
The conventional wisdom is that the "extreme" is aberrant in a belief-system. The truth is that the "extreme" is the purer form of any belief system and that is why they are generally tolerated and not angrily attacked by the "mainstream". I now believe we must judge any belief-system's meaning by its extreme, that which is tolerated (not angrily attacked) by the "moderates".
In the final analysis it is the "moderates" who are the foundation of the "extreme". For example, the Nazis needed the silent support of millions of "moderates" to exist.
Posted by: Frank at May 17, 2007 8:28 PM
If the violent Jihadists did not represent the purer form of Islam they would be angrily attacked by "mainstream" Muslims. The truth is that the "mainstream" Muslims are less motivated by "pure" Islam. People like Bin Laden are to Islam as Saint Francis is to Christianity, Gandhi to the Hindu view, Orthodox Jews to Judaism, etc. The "extreme" is the more devout expression a belief-system. The "moderates" are further from the core of a belief-system, though they tolerate the "extreme".
Posted by: Frank at May 17, 2007 8:37 PM
Frank
Gandhi was by no means a manifestation of Hinduism. If anything, he started and ran his own cult - without actually calling it that, and also invoking Hindu Gods like Rama to flaunt his piety. Hinduism has been reasonably aggressive in its own right, as far as ensuring that Righteousness prevailed. That's pretty much the essence of the Bhagvad Gita, as well as Hindu mythology in the Puranas, which pretty much mirrors ancient Greek mythology.
I also doubt that when battling in self defense, orthodox Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, et al would be livid at battling the Muslims. Sure, they are all peace loving, and don't want to be provocateurs. But for something like this, they'd either look in places like their religious texts for exceptions to the anti-violent messages, or ignore them altogether. Like the Constitution, religious texts aren't suicide pacts either.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2007 9:03 PM
If there's such thing as a Just Jihad...
then there's such a thing as Just Defense.
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at May 17, 2007 9:18 PM
Robert notes:
"The hadith in which Muhammad makes a distinction between “greater jihad” of spiritual struggle and the “lesser jihad” of warfare doesn't appear in any of the hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable."
Ms Armstrong, among many, is fond of trotting out this distinction but has never to my knowledge provided an exact citation.
Can anyone oblige?
Posted by: MBR at May 17, 2007 9:18 PM
Forget about "moderate" Moslems, the momentous struggle atm is with folks self-consciously on the side of Western Civilization.
It is as if most of them have severe reading comprehension disabilities. And you know something, maybe they do.
These folks are so intelligent, it cannot possibly be an innate lack of logical ability. Perhaps it is a lack of education in logic.
When one of these folks uses the word "islamo-fascism" they are loudly proclaiming their muddled thinking, their ignorance, and their lack of curiosity.
Perhaps the banality of it all makes it seem impossible to them.
Spencer's books are perfectly pitched. As with all good literature, the re-reading confirms the depth and clarity.
Is it sheer laziness? Has our civilization become this trite and worn out?
Posted by: Moonzoo
at May 17, 2007 9:27 PM
If moderates don't speak out more forcefully against the jihadists because if they do, the jihadists can easily portray them as unfaithful Muslims, and quote Qur'an and Sunnah to establish their position,i isn't this saying that the jihadists have the stronger theological argument for violent jihad?
If moderates are afraid to argue that Islamic scripture supports their definition of jihad as an internal struggle, because they know that the jihadists will win the argument using the same scriptures, they know in their hearts that the johadists are the more authentic and faithful Muslims.
Otherwise they wouldn't be afraid to confront the jihadists.
The bottom line is, Moderates don't have a leg to stand on.
Posted by: rational at May 17, 2007 9:46 PM
Instead of making contortionistic apologies for violent and despotic Islam, why don't these people ( Habeck, Young, D'Souza, et al) just vigorously defend our Civilization?
I've read the root texts of Islam, and find them crude, plagiarized, irrationalistic, contemptuous of anyone who will not bow to their anti-intellectual tenets, brutal, cruel, misogynistic, homophobic, petty, meddlesome in the extreme (how to wipe your butt, ad absurdum), medieval, superstitious, imperialistic and expansionistic.
What's to like?
Why all of this going-out-of-their-way to be freelance shieldbearer's for such despotic dogmatics?
Muslims should be ashamed for not stopping their own home-made maniacs.
And for not Reforming Islam's darker passages into something more humane and healthy.
Jefferson put it best:
"Oppose all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."
Don't coddle them. Or make lame excuses for them.
Call them to task.
Fight for human liberty.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 17, 2007 9:49 PM
Infidel Pride-
Thanks for the clarification re Gandhi. I am not as familiar with Hindu belief as I should be, though I detect no positive mandates to violence with them.
I don't doubt non-Muslim religions sanction self-defence. However, I do not know of one that affirms violence against unbelievers, "or making them feel subdued" as permitted. Islam is the only one that permits that.
Islamic "moderates" will say violence against unbelievers or "making them feel subdued", or Jew-hating, is an "extreme" interpretation of Islam. I think it is the pure form of the belief-system. It is in the Islamic "extremes" that we find the meaning of the belief-system (actually the meaning of any belief system). We must judge a belief-system by its extremes.
Posted by: Frank at May 17, 2007 9:57 PM
Yeah, Ghandi was passive to the point of suicide. Not the way we instinctively operate under duress.
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at May 17, 2007 10:00 PM
I read the interview with Dr. Habeck this morning at frontpagemag.com and printed it out. I dissected it and put voluminous notes in the margins to indicate my exasperation with her thinking. Clearly, she is probably fairly representative of our foreign policy elites ensconsed within academia. She has not shown evidence of having the depth that Robert or Serge Trifkovic have with respect to Islamic scriptures and jurisprudence.
I suspect that her department has to tread carefully on these subjects, since the shadow of our State Department probably casts a shadow all the way to Baltimore...
at May 17, 2007 10:09 PM
Most of this thread discusses the substance of Habeck's book, I found these comments most inaccurate offensive and fraudulant. And if I were Robert or Hugh, I'd give her a good verbal thrashing!
"After two years of waiting, I decided that academia wasn't interested in this issue and if a book on the subject was going to be written, I'd have to do it.
... So there are no academics who have the training, intellectual tools and desire to put together religion and 9/11.
Excuse me? I don't know what degree(s) any of the authors in JW's Books section have, and frankly, I don't give a hoot. Whether or not they are in "academia" doesn't lessen their importance or place into doubt the truth of the matters discussed or the depth of the analysis. They speak to the truth with better insight and courage than this woman does.
Each of them have as much, if not more, "training and intellectual tools ( and honesty) to put together religion and 9/11" than her.
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 17, 2007 10:21 PM
Miss_Anthrope-
My point re Gandhi was re extremes. Most of the "extremes" (always a distinct minority in every belief-system) in non-Muslim religions (Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish) tend to condemn all violence as evil-without exception. Only the Muslim extreme (also a distinct minority) advocates violence as good. At the core of Islam there are definitely positive permissions to violence and those permissions will never go away and "moderates" in Islam will never tolerate pacifism. In fact, any pacifist "extreme" will be persecuted by "moderates" in Islam.
At the core of the Islamic belief-system is violence. The violent "extreme" is pure Islam.
Posted by: Frank at May 17, 2007 10:22 PM
If jihad as "spiritual struggle" is so important, why is it the primary meaning in only 3% of the usage of the word "jihad" in the hadith?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015139.php
For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either.
For crying out loud, if I talk about, say, baseball 97% of the time and football 3% of the time, which sport are you going to assume is the more important to me, baseball or football?
In this case, it's just as Nietzsche said, "Error is cowardice". Cowardice not to face the facts.
Posted by: venividivici at May 17, 2007 10:23 PM
From reading all this, one is left wondering why "moderate" Muslims do not speak up about the traditional Islamic practice of sneaking into non-Islamic lands and murdering unbelievers there so as to force Islam upon the inhabitants there. If these "moderate" Muslims were truly so 'moderate' one wonders why they tacitly continue to permit this Islamic practice to continue without commentary (they should be outraged by it).
Could you imagine moving into someone else's country and bringing into it an ideology that teaches the killing of the persons in that country (all the while pretending to be friendly to the citizens of that country?). The very thought of such a thing is revolting; yet that is exactly what Muslims immigrating into western democracies are doing every day. I find it blood curdling.
If the "moderate" Muslims were so bloody 'moderate' wouldn't they would speak up about this sort of thing? Perhaps they would also publicly call into Islam's practice of according itself the right to attack and kill non-Muslims in non-Islamic lands and the fact that Muslims have absolutely no right whatsoever to do such things.
Until I hear "moderate" Muslims condemn such Islamic practices, I will continue to remain skeptical about the existence of true "moderate" Muslims.
Posted by: pythagoras at May 17, 2007 10:29 PM
Ms. Haybeck makes the same mistake all do in not equating it is not jihad, but the benefits of jihad which nurtures jihad.
If Hamas is driving out Jews in murder, then it benefits those Muslims with their inner struggle as they get Gush Katif in billion dollar floral industries.
If al Qaeda drives out America from Iraq, then the common Shia and Sunni factions become kings of their own realm.
If Spanish Islamists blow up trains in Spain, then all Spanish Muslims all gain a new fear and respect from the Spanish.
Until people start concluding that jihad benefits all Muslims in power and finance "even if they are not taking part in it directly", that indirectly the entire Muslim community is making jihad either by silence like CAIR or by intimidation like Keith Ellison.
All intimidation just like nuclear missiles or vast armies benefit those peoples who are behind them.
at May 17, 2007 10:30 PM
Unanswerable. And it will not be answered. Instead, the Grand Strategy in the War of Ideas today, in and around Washington, is to play the game of Let's Pretend with Muslims, so as to win the hearts and win the minds of the "moderate" Muslims (vide "Ten Things to Think When Thinking About Moderate Muslims"). It's in the air. It's among the higher-ups, among generals, for example. But among the captains and the majors and the colonels who have served in Iraq, and certainly among most of the soldiers who have, through experience, unbrainwashed themselves about the "mission" and about the essential wonderfulness or just plain common decency of Muslims, the thoughts and understandings, thank god, are far more realistic, and quite otherwise.
Is Mary Habeck by any chance now at the Johns Hopkins School of... not International Studies, but sometthing far grander, Advanced International Studies, where that Middle East expert Paul Wolfowitz was once Dean, and where the new head is charming, intelligent Fouad Ajami, the one who used to smite Said hip and thigh, but who on his own trip to Iraq found himself stirred elementally by his visit with Sistani, called his book on Iraq "The Foreigner's Gift" instead of, as it ought to have been called, "The Infidel's Gift," and clearly, like other "good" merely "cultural" or Muslim-for-identification-purposes Muslims, listened to a bit too much, and neither Fouad Ajami, still less Vali Nasr or others of that ilk, could conceive, could bear to hear, of the only policy that makes sense: to educate Infidels, and then to create the conditions that will force a sufficient number of Muslims as well, to recognize that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Islamic states and societies suffused with Islam are a direct result of Islam itself.
Posted by: Hugh at May 17, 2007 10:39 PM
It would be fascinating to gather together the signers of the St. Petersburg Declaration, including Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan, people born and raised in Islam (or is one simply struck with total amnesia the minute one becomes an apostate from Islam, and become completely unreliable narrators, as Muslim spokesmen appear to believe?), and see whether they think Robert Spencer has understood Islam better, as a Belief-System, or that Mary Habeck has done so.
I already know the answer. It wasn't even close.
Posted by: Hugh at May 17, 2007 10:42 PM
where's the proof that most muslims believe jihad to be an inner struggle,WHO is it that speaks for all muslims who believe jihad is an inner struggle?
Is it the same person that preaches to the ones that believe jihad to mean war fare.
Is it the guy that perhaps teaches the view of jihad depending on what believers are in the crowd that day?
Like i keep saying the deafening silence says a lot.
Everyone seems to keep saying what islam is and isn't ,except muslims.
Or do they say what they believe?
It's only getting harder by the day to convice people like me that islam can even remotely reckognize equality or the desire to live amongst all others.
No matter who says what about islam i refer back to thier guide through life and i see it begets violence at every turn.
I see everywhere you turn an establishment to teach muslims how to hate and to kill.
They are taught to be racist and embrace supremecy.
These are thier laws and thier lives.
You know if you have "police" in your country chasing you down with switches and clubs and have the ability to kick your butt on the spot.....
maybe just maybe you could think something is quite wrong with that.
Some would say thats all they know,how they were raised.Well that doesn't pan out for those who have moved to the west or even born in the west.
These are the people silent.The ones who should have the knowledge and the ability to say there is something wrong with islam,islam has gone over the edge.Been over the edge....whatever.
One of these peoples main concerns is that the west steals from them,while oppressing them.You hear it all the time.
When the facts are they spend thier money on war,they don't allow anything "unislamic".Didn't muhammad die pennyless? (i don't know)
To see an untouched pristine islam is to see the days of scimatars.Nothing new ...ever. All thier wealth (for the most part)and over a billion people and nothing much to speak of for it except millions dead and millions homeless and dieing.
All they have and all they lost was by the sword and they still wield it to regain what they lost and more.
People can hem and haw but it's just heming and hawing....it's futile.
In 1400 yrs all the west has managed to bring islam is advanced weoponry and not to be as harsh all the time.
Democracy or not islam is still all encompassing.
No matter what anyone else says.
Until the silence is broken and over one billion muslims say what jihad is,an inner struggle, and until the day they practice what they preach,jihad is an inner struggle,they are ONE to me.
Why these people can't feel it in themselves to stand up and risk it all for thier sons and daughters and thier kids knowing the beatings and rape and death threats is WRONG for a peaceful religion.
The amount of innocent muslims killed by muslim who didn't stand up to thier "hijackers" died for nothing.They died for a point to be made by the lunatics,they died as tools.....and they don't see this is wrong.
No other religion or Nation does these things,not those who have pulled themselves out of it.
This is islam this is allah this is muhammad.I DON'T WANT IT......EVER.
And i don't care about the muslims feelings they lost any chance of my caring the longer the silence went on,the more attcks on innocent people that piled up.
No voices.
No what islam really thinks.
In fact polls that show the majority if not close to it believe islam is doing the proper thing,allahs will.
I suppose these muslims that feel jihad is an inner struggle are the "moderates" too huh?
Another topic to pass the time till reality rolls around.
Posted by: Dar al-harb at May 17, 2007 11:40 PM
"If moderates don't speak out more forcefully against the jihadists because if they do, the jihadists can easily portray them as unfaithful Muslims, and quote Qur'an and Sunnah to establish their position,i isn't this saying that the jihadists have the stronger theological argument for violent jihad?"
Posted by: rational
That or the lunatics have always been in charge of telling what the TRUE view is in islam and that muslims are really weak and cowardly for being subdued for so long by so "few".
Same difference i think though.
It's the imams that say whats what and the mullahs,who teaches them?
Who funds it all?
The "prisoners" that are the umma do what it's told it is thier duty,it's implanted from birth into thier fresh and innocent brains .....they are to die in the cause of allah.In any way and fashion......JIHAD.
If they are not in the position to defeat the enemy wait till you can.Lie to the infedel then stab them in the back.
Infiltrate and lay in wait.
BE SILENT.
at May 18, 2007 12:13 AM
Shakespeare had the solution. But instead of lawyers, imans.
Or maybe imans in addition to lawyers would be better.
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at May 18, 2007 1:32 AM
Robert said
Now certainly most Muslims aren't jihadists. Most probably do think of jihad primarily as a spiritual struggle.
Boy, those are two assumptions that I would really love to see tested for validity.
Posted by: special_guest at May 18, 2007 2:37 AM
I agree with the posters who remain skeptical about the alleged prevalence and importance of the inner jihad.
Without evidence directly pertaining to the question, such as from polls of Muslims' opinions on this question, we have no reason to believe (or deny) it. However, it is reasonable to suppose that prayer would be included under most Muslims' concept of inner jihad. About 61% of British Muslims said they prayed at least once a day.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/246.pdf
Suppose that, on a questionnaire, most Muslims would agree with the proposition that "jihad is primarily an inner struggle". Suppose also that they are being honest and have understood the question. Then what?
-It does not change the fact that the "inner" aspect of jihad (striving, struggle, exertion) is only one part--there is also jihad of the tongue, pen, hand, and sword. Islam is not a pacificist ideology. Even the most extremist apologists will admit that Islam allows for "defensive" jihad of the sword. The fact that a Muslim may be engaged in inner jihad does not necessarily, nor likely, mean that they do not strive socially, politically, financially, or in some cases militarily, to defend, spread, or promote Islam.
-The inner jihad is not necessarily disconnected with the outer forms of jihad. Indeed, to carry out the outer forms of jihad, there must be "inner" factors such as motivation, beliefs, and goals.
-The inner jihad is not necessarily benign as far as non-Muslims are concerned. Indeed, the Koran--the core of all Muslims' beliefs--deals primarily with extreme hostility and aversion towards disbelief and disbelievers (non-Muslims).
-It does not change the fact that most Muslims want sharia law to be imposed in Islamic countries and that most want those countries together to be all ruled under a Caliph. (As shown in polls).
-It does not change the fact that most Muslims in the west want critics of Islam to be criminally prosecuted and punished.
-It does not change the fact that the majority of Muslims are quite willing to elect hard-line Islamic governments when given the chance. And why not? It is primarily non-Muslims, not Muslims, who are affected aversely by Islamic governments. The rights of non-Muslims are simply not very high on most Muslims' list of priorities. As the Muslim population grows rapidly, Islamization increases and the likelihood of Islamic governments being established in formerly non-Muslim regions increases.
-Regarding the "greater" vs "lesser" jihad distinction, even if the hadith in which that distinction was made was widely-accepted among Muslim scholars (from what I have read, it is not), those labels are of no discernible consequence, aside from propaganda purposes. Putting the Orwellian label "lesser" on physical jihad fighting does nothing to reduce its real impact on the non-Muslims targetted by it.
Bottom Line: Whether or not Muslims' endorse publicly or privately the proposition that "jihad is primarily an inner struggle" is of no real positive consequence for non-Muslims. If anything, the notion gives a false sense of security to those non-Muslims who lack the time to study Islam and jihad more thoroughly.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 18, 2007 4:36 AM
"....to educate Infidels, and then to create the conditions that will force a sufficient number of Muslims as well, to recognize that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Islamic states and societies suffused with Islam are a direct result of Islam itself".-Hugh
In the final analysis, the violent Jihadists are right in their assertion that they represent true Islam. The "moderates" tolerate-apologize for them because there is no way (short of total rejection of Islam) to remove the core beliefs that are represented by the "extreme", dogmas that will never go away. Bin Laden and Bin Laden types are the Saint Francis and the Franciscans of Islam. Yes, they are the extreme, but only because they are more devout.
The core of Islam is violence, deception, Jew-hating, etc. (though these things are not generally practiced by the less devout "moderates"). That's its essence. Many want to pretend that this is not reality. It is the reality of Islam.
Islam is just another of the many Imperialist systems (in this case Arab Imperialism) that rationalizes supremacist attitudes and the destruction of some lately "indigenous culture". It is the Arabs' "Manifest Destiny". The belief-system is buttressed with costumes and rituals, etc. that dress it up as "religion". But its just another rationalization for Imperialism, and I think it is unreformable. The "extreme" are right: they represent true Islam.
People are not fooled anymore. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion that permits violence, and "moderates" are simply less devout Muslims. It is impossible for this "religion" to produce a Saint Francis or a Gandhi. It is what it is.
at May 18, 2007 5:55 AM
Actually, I think Islam should be part of an Imperialist Studies Program at universities. It should be studied along with other religions-ideologies for its use as a tool for removing-dominating or destroying "indigenous cultures". One day that will happen.
For an assortment of political reasons, it is pretended that this pattern is limited to the West. Actually, its a universal pattern among humans, including the Aztec, Manchus, Spaniards, Ottomans, Romans, America, Arabs, etc. (BTW, in many ways British Imperialism (I'm Irish-so this hard to say) was one of the milder forms of Imperialism.)
The pristine core of the belief-system is represented by its extremes (as are all belief-systems). I don't think it is reformable.
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 6:24 AM
At some time in the future Islam will be seen as just another one of the many Imperialist-Rationalization-Systems that are used by humans to subdue, colonize, destroy "indigenous cultures". (After such systems are successful, their history is usually written by people from the system and myths are created as to how it benefited the subdued.) The current "extreme" in Islam is the pristine core of the belief-system. Islam is just another "Manifest Destiny" rationalization system. It's part of the human problem.
Islam must be the subject of rigorous critical analysis and studied as part of an Imperialist Studies Program. One day in the future that will happen.
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 6:42 AM
"to win the hearts and win the minds "
...what an impossible goal and useless phrase..(to those of us who know)...
at May 18, 2007 8:38 AM
"Maybe the mainstream media didn't cover it, but here is a story about it from Lebanon's Daily Star. The story says that the demonstrators were protesting "Al-Qaeda's decision to kill two Moroccan hostages in Iraq," and were "holding banners and chanting 'Muslims are brothers. A Muslim does not kill his brother.'" So they were upset about Al-Qaeda killing Muslims. That is a phenomenon we have noted here many times: Muslims taking umbrage at Al-Qaeda killing fellow Muslims. But where are the protests against Al-Qaeda killing unbelievers? It is not enough for Muslims to "speak out against jihadism" only when its victims are Muslims, but to remain silent when they're non-Muslims -- not enough at least for non-Muslims."
You might want to take a look at this :
http://www.bladi.net/3891-juillet-depart-du-train-de-la-vie-et-de-l-amitie-de-casablanca.html
http://www.maroc-hebdo.press.ma/MHinternet/Archives_597/html_597/surles.html
http://www.maec.gov.ma/en/f-com.asp?num=1669&typ=dr
Robert, not only were there Muslim demonstrations against the Madrid bombings in Morocco but there are still commemorations and solidarity movements that continue till today.
Stop misleading your cult.
The big problem with your thinking is that you view humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals, and as you might well know this is how a racist mindset works. You might argue that Islam is not a race but that is not the point. The point is that you cannot go beyond the collective thinking and you dismiss those individuals who seem different from the group by saying that they practice taqqiya. I might add for you that Judaism is not a race either, but this did not stop many people from killing jews for what they are. You know it has not been such a long time ago that your dear western civilization killed 6 million Jews and 58 other millions of people during World War II. You might say that it is preposterous to link you to what the Nazis did and what Stalin did. I know it is, but since you like to link all Muslims in one lump and to divide this world between Muslims and Westerners, you'll at least allow me to do the same with regards to you.
Do you understand how ethnocentric your point is now ? If not, you might seriously want to consider doing college all over again.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 9:02 AM
"You know it has not been such a long time ago that your dear western civilization killed 6 million Jews and 58 other millions of people during World War II."
Posted by: sublimer
...I guess you might say we policed our own, unlike Muslims who refuse to police their own...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 18, 2007 9:09 AM
"Bin Laden and Bin Laden types are the Saint Francis and the Franciscans of Islam. Yes, they are the extreme, but only because they are more devout."
Frank,
I think that if we should make a historical comparison, Ben Laden is more of a Martin Luther. They both are both puritans in the sense that they both want to reform or "purify" the religion so that it is devoid of any cultural, folkloric or superstitious beliefs. This comparison might shock some protestants but people should realize that, although Ben Laden is a monster, a lot of Catholics thought the same about Martin Luther. He was very dogmatic, a huge antisemite and his movement led to the century old war of religion in Europe. You might also want to look at the puritanism of the Jansenists in France for example. If you read Pascal's letters (Provinciales), you'll see how the jansenists were at least as dogmatic and as puritan as the Islamists of today. In it he criticizes the debauchery and hypocrisy of the Catholics, the Jesuits and the Casuits.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 9:21 AM
"...I guess you might say we policed our own, unlike Muslims who refuse to police their own..."
Killing 6 million Jews is policing ??????? what are you, a neonazi ?
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 9:23 AM
How many Millions have Muslims killed?...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 18, 2007 9:24 AM
by the way, The western world will clean the mess the Muslims are creating...it may take a while ....however...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 18, 2007 9:27 AM
exsgtbrown,
Wow !!! I really thought I did not understand your policing statement, but your reply to my question makes it seem that for you, it is ok to kill 6 million jews in the name of "policing" !!!!!! And all you have to say is a compare and contrast murders committed by the West and Islam. Go back and read my initial statement. I don't believe in a west/islam dichotomy. I blame Robert for diving the world in such a manichaean fashion. But since you seem to be part of the cult, I'll answer your question.
Muslims killed way fewer people than the west did. Do you realize what 58 million people is ? That was done in the span of a decade too.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 9:34 AM
Jefferson put it best:
"Oppose all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."
Don't coddle them. Or make lame excuses for them.
Call them to task.
Fight for human liberty.
Posted by: profitsbeard
I stand with profitsbeard and Jefferson.
Shakespeare had the solution. But instead of lawyers, imans. Or maybe imans in addition to lawyers would be better.Posted by: Jimmy BonesPosted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Housesfuggetaboutit - da mullahs got to go!
at May 18, 2007 9:46 AM
Islamic violence will be conquered....as it always has been....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 18, 2007 9:50 AM
"Islamic violence will be conquered....as it always has been...."
It is impossible to have an intelligent debate with bullies. Where are the smarter Jihad Watchers ?
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 9:52 AM
Sublimer-
At first I thought your comparison does not fit, but in many ways it does fit. Luther wanted to get back to basics. The basics in Islam are Muhammad's last (chronological) command. That is true Islam. The Arab Imperialist machine is trying to make a comeback in our time on the basis of true Islam.
-------------------
On another note...I find it of interest that Protestantism in Europe became more state dominated (Church of England, Lutheran Churches in Germany, etc.)than Catholicism. It has always been very difficult for the state to use the Catholic Church for state purposes. Even Hitler had to recognize that, so too the Communists.
The full separation of Church and state came in America. Many Protestants in America fled the state churches in Europe and they are very independent of state power in America. We owe the flowering of self-government in America to the Protestants who fled state dominated churches in Europe.
---------------
Click on the Bin Laden cartoon for my prediction of how this crisis with Islam will end one day in the future....
http://www.cards-n-toons.com/view.php?card=humor_bin
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 9:56 AM
Frank,
Just two disagreements :
"The Arab Imperialist machine is trying to make a comeback in our time on the basis of true Islam."
This is conspiratorial thinking. You make it seem like all Arabs want to dominate the word under the banner of islam. First, not all Arabs are Muslim. Second only 15 percent of Muslims are arabs.
"We owe the flowering of self-government in America to the Protestants who fled state dominated churches in Europe."
No, we owe the flowering of self-government to enlightenment thinkers who were for the most part deists, pantheists or spinozists. Check Thomas Paine's "the age of Reason".
For a look at the puritanism of some protestants in the US, you may want to look at the history of Salem, MA.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 10:06 AM
Frank -
Totally with you on your point...just trying to state that those extreme pacifist philosophies doesn't really wash with our US DNA.
Before that creates a major stir, I'm just saying in fight or flight I think many Americans would fight. We are ridiculed for our redneck mentality over guns, religion, et al...so I'm betting fight.
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at May 18, 2007 10:09 AM
As for :
"That is true Islam."
I don't know which Islamic school of jurisprudence you belong to (maybe the ben laden school) but that remains your opinion. It is not mine.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 10:09 AM
I'm not asserting a conspiracy at all. I'm just noting that interests tend to work together to an end (based on a common belief), though that sometimes makes events look coordinated. I don't buy conspiracy theories where more than a handful of people (3 or 4) are involved.
Islam is at its core the engine of Arab Imperialism. Even some people in former Indian territory (Pakistan)-many of whose ancestors were exterminated by Arabs-now bow to Mecca. It's a terrific Imperialist system. The core is in Arabia.
Islam is just another Imperialist rationalization system. It began as Arab Imperialism, it will end that way.
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 10:16 AM
I had the opportunity to listen to Dr. Haybeck speak in early 2006 in the grand surroundings of Saddam's Al Faw Palace in Baghdad. The 18th Airborne Corps Commander, LTG Vines simply could not get enough of her and invited her over on more than one occasion. She even stayed on to tour the country, (mostly Kurdistan if I remember correctly) and give the various commanders on the ground the "no kidding" answers to all their Islamic and cultural questions. In her defense, I consider her heads and shoulders above the Esposito's of the world but a key statement she mad just never sat right with me. She asserted that after the Islamic defeat outside Vienna in 1683, that the traditional concept of jihad simply vanished! More or less, Muslims chose to block it out and lived in relative harmony until Sayyid Qutb came along that is. What a load of Hoooey! I've met and conversed with the dhimmi people of the Nineveh plane first hand, the jihad has never ceased to exist.
Posted by: James son of Zebedee at May 18, 2007 10:17 AM
What part of jihad do this John Hopkins professor does not get?
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 18, 2007 10:18 AM
sublimer-
I hold to my opinion. You believe as you please on the issue.
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 10:18 AM
"Islam is at its core the engine of Arab Imperialism.
You can definitely look at it that way in the sense that Islam started in the Arabian peninsula, and people pray towards Mecca.
"Even some people in former Indian territory (Pakistan)-many of whose ancestors were exterminated by Arabs"
who were the exterminated ancestors ? You defintely know that there is an ethnic difference between Arabs and Indo-Pakistanis ? Arabs do not live in Pakistan. Most of the locals in northern India converted, originally Buddhists or Hindus, were converted by sufis, and sufism is the most pacifist philosophical branch of Islam.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 10:28 AM
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/moghal_atro.html
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 10:45 AM
I would rather suggest the more respectable History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. But for any history you can always find two subjective tales, and it is up to you to see what is more accurate and what is mere revisionism. But even in the link you posted, you'll realize that the man in charge of the conquest of India is Muhammad Ghori. He is not arab but Persian. The same thing happens with the conquest of spain. By the time Islam reaches Morocco, the man who leads the charge to spain is not arab but Berber (a local). This means that Arab imperialism was not the major force, but it was the religion itself which was embraced quickly. That said, what are the degrees of persuasion and force during religious conquests becomes subject to debate. It's the same with Christianity. If initial conversions were more pacifist, later ones (think the Americas) were particularly violent.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 11:00 AM
In the same website you referred me to, they purport that the Taj Mahal was originally a hindu temple. Now, if that is not historical revisionism, I don't know what is.
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 11:06 AM
http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/india.htm
The Persians were also victims of Arab Imperialism and they too bow to Mecca.
Islam is the engine of Arab Imperialism. Such rationalization systems are plentiful in history, making the conquest, exploitation, even genocide of some recently "indigenous people" holy. The Aztec did it to the Toltec, the Spaniard to the Aztec, the Arab to the Spaniard, the Ottoman to the Greek, the Europeans to the "Indians" of North America (who were busy killing each other), the Manchu in China, etc. It is a pattern of history.
For political reasons, it is pretended that this is just a West European phenomena. Actually, the pattern of Imperialism is history and is repeated again and again and again everywhere. Only the infantile or frauds pretend that they are the only group (ethnic, race, Arab, American, Aztec, etc.) that are above this reprehensible feature of human nature.
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 11:15 AM
However, when we humans screw people we humans always have to have a good reason, a rationalization, often a "holy" reason for our marvelous establishment of nations and empires. Every nation, every empire in history has been accomplished by violence, and that often means the extermination of some lately "indigenous people" or "indigenous culture". The Arabs are no different.
A group's claims to righteousness or to "victim" status usually depends on whether they are the fuckor or fuckee at any given time (to borrow some lawyer talk-LOL). The problem is a human problem.
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 11:33 AM
I see your point Frank, but you are generalizing quite a lot. Of course, conquests are part of history. We are living in a Pax Americana today but when history repeats itself, it might repeat structures but rare is it when it offers exact replicas. The Romans for example conquered most of the Mediterranean basin, but this did not mean that most of the subjugated were forced to speak latin or worship Roman deities. Most of the Aztecs today are catholics who speak spanish. Most of the nations conquered by Muslims now follow the Muslim religion but they all speak different languages. The Berber speak berber, the Persians speak persians, the Pakistanis speak urdu and the malaysians speak malay. The Greek is still Greek and the Spaniard is still (after 800 years of occupation) still Catholic and hispaphone. So I see what you mean but you need a little more nuance in your analysis. talking about manifest and historical destiny is often a way of using religious motifs to explain things scientifically.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 11:36 AM
"The Arabs are no different."
Of course they are no different. There I totally agree.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 11:39 AM
Islam is/was the engine of Arab Imperialism. Those are its roots. I stand by my view. It began as Arab Imperialism, it will end that way when pluralism is permitted in Saudi Arabia. However, the Arabs are no better or no worse than other Imperialists in history. Islam is just another Imperialist-rationalization-system.
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 11:41 AM
To go a little deeper, you can say that The "Father" is an imperialist-rationalization-system. Whenerver you say "in the name of....." you are acting on behalf of a higher order to perpetuate its lineage. Conquest "In the name of God....." but also during colonial periods "in the name of civilization". Victor Hugo wrote, "France is the new missionary of civilization in europe and the world". and today "In the name of democracy...." Whether the reference to the signifier is sincere or not depends on the faith of the warrior. whether they really believe in God, Civilization, or Democracy. The problem becomes methodological. Whether to propogate the "in the name of..." you believe that the end justifies the means. If one does, one is bound to use violence.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 11:51 AM
When I say everyone, I mean everyone, including the USA. However, I don't think Americans will want an Imperial destiny in the future. The German Panzer General Heinz Guderian once made a comment (after WW2) re America that I think was insightful. He said, "Americans treat war like a football game. They like to win and then go home and celebrate". He predicted that we would be the first great power to decline overseas empire-and want to go home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian
at May 18, 2007 11:52 AM
Well Rome went from being a republic and became an empire without consciously declaring a change of status. But Rome's decline started once it became apparent that it was an empire. That is the big debate between traditional republicans (who believe that the US should remain a Republic) and neocons (who believe in one world government, another euphemism for empire). If America can resist the temptation, it will be the first superpower in history to do so. will it or not? For now, at least, it doesn't look so. That's why I believe that someone like Ron Paul can be a significant candidate in the next elections.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 11:59 AM
"If America can resist the temptation, it will be the first superpower in history to do so. will it or not"?
I think we will resist the temptation. Republics and empire are incompatible. Most Americans do not want anything to do with empire. I think we have to consciously walk away from an Imperial role. I think we agree here.
As per Islam, I think it will remain a dangerously intolerant and supremacist belief-system until such time as full religious pluralism and tolerance exist in Saudi Arabia. Until that time, it will remain, at its core, in its root, the engine of Arab Imperialism.
In any case, I don't want empire for America or to bow to one.
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 12:24 PM
"As per Islam, I think it will remain a dangerously intolerant and supremacist belief-system until such time as full religious pluralism and tolerance exist in Saudi Arabia."
You are combining two things. I agree with you that the radicalization of islam will die out once there is full religious pluralism and tolerance in Saudi Arabia. But saudi Arabia is only one country. There are many other Muslim countries where Christians, Muslims and Jews live in peace. Generalizations just obfuscate the problem. We got to be more precise at the risk of becoming pedantic experts.
The way I look at it, a lot of the Islamic supremacists bark since they are incapable of biting. They talk about annihilating people as if they could ever do so. It's like the mating frog which doubles in size or the frightened cat which seems to inflate when getting ready to fight. But let's be serious here. There have been terrorist attacks carried out by islamists, but we should not forget that the U.S. has bases practically all around the world. The American embassy in bagdad is as big as the vatican. If you think that the U.S. is in Iraq to spread democracy, you're being a bit naive. american foreign policy these last years has been abandoned to lobbies and corporations who fight for "america's special interests". Think about what these special intrests are. It is the "american oil" which happens to lie under arab soil. It is also the need to satisy the stakeholders of the industrial military complex. America produces more weapons than any nation in the world. If these weapons are not used, it will cripple an important sector of the economy. so what do you do ? you need to use them and look for a pretext to use them. You should take heed of eisenhower's warning at his farewell address :
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
at May 18, 2007 12:42 PM
There is another very natural reason why the so called "vast majority of peaceful Muslims" do not actively speak out against or otherwise try to thwart jihadists: it is one thing to passively opt out of participation in one's religious traditions, but quite another to actively defy them.
For example, take any number of non-observant Christians you may know, who where baptized as infants, and grew up going to church and Sunday school, but then fell out of or maybe even consiously rejected those habits as adults. Maybe these people are even highly critical or skeptical of their born faith.
Now, ask them to urinate on a cross, or an image of Christ and the Virgin Mary. No matter how non-observant, cynical, or even skeptical they may have grow to be, most would recoil at the idea of doing something that is so obviously against the faith of their birth.
Jihad is an ideological cornerstone of Islam - a fact that is known to the vast majority of Muslims. And of course, like most rules, traditions, and customs of Islam, jihad has a spiritually mandatory quality about it for Muslims - it is established by Allah himself in the Koran and was practiced by way of example to all Muslims by that Most Perfect Muslim, Mohammed. Given these factors, can we really expect Muslims to actively confront the jihadists whose actions are, in fact, traditionally and genuinely Islamic?
The non- or less-observant Muslims may not actively support jihadists; they may wish privately that the jihadists would stop killing people; they may dread the news of every attack, knowing that each one puts their own future and freedom in doubt. But to ask Muslims to actively defy jihadist activities - nevermind asking them to directly collaborate with infidels at the expense of fellow Muslims - is akin to asking Muslims to piss on an fundamental aspect of their faith - Islam.
Couple that with the physical intimidation and dangers cited in this post, and it's no wonder the silence from all those peaceful Muslims is so deafening.
Don't hold your breath waiting for their help. We're on our own.
Posted by: orangeducks at May 18, 2007 12:51 PM
orangeducks,
I second much of what you say. A lot of Muslims just go about living their own lives just like any other human would do. That does not mean that there is no criticism of Jihadis in the Arab and Muslim media. If the silence is deafening, it is because you do not receive it. If only you spoke Arabic or at least French, you'll realize that there are daily articles that tackle this same problem. Check out this article :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2034041,00.html
The problem I often see is that most Islam critics like Robert Spencer get their news from MEMRI but this "news organization" created by an ex-Mossad officer has been discredited for manipulating news and for being awfully selective with the translations it offers to non arab speakers. Even in the case of the late Mickey Hamas incident. (something Spencer - who apparently speaks arabic completely ignored willfully or incompetently) Check this :
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2007/05/arabic_under_fire.html
One last disagreement; You say, like spencer, that the jihadis are the only truly islamic people. That is akin to saying that the only truly jewish or christian people are those who follow all the precepts and maxims of the OT and the NT. If that is true, real Christians and Jews would be enslaving people, killing disbelievers, etc....There are peaceful passages in the OT and the NT just like there is in the Koran, but since there are also violent passages, you imply that true believers *have* to follow these too.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 1:13 PM
"One last disagreement; You say, like spencer, that the jihadis are the only truly islamic people."
Robert does NOT claim, sublimer, that the jihadis are the only true Muslims, and you know it, because you're here ad nauseum. If you intend to mount a defense of your characterization, please supply quotes.
Regards,
HAID
Posted by: Haid Dasalami at May 18, 2007 2:39 PM
Sublimer...Possibly you are not aware that Islamic literature states that jihad is an 'obligation' incumbant on every muslim. This is directly from Allah. I have posted the following several times but it is always pertinant: From Imam Bukhari: "Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite."
Please note the last two lines...there is nothing like this in Christian literature...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 18, 2007 2:41 PM
Haid,
What do you insinuate from this passage from this particular article :
"The hadith in which Muhammad makes a distinction between “greater jihad” of spiritual struggle and the “lesser jihad” of warfare doesn't appear in any of the hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable. Jihad understood as warfare against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law has much greater support in Islamic scripture, tradition, and historical practice -- and leading jihad theorists including Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden’s friend and intellectual mentor and co-founder with him of Al-Qaeda, challenge the authenticity of the saying in their writings."
Check the list of scholars he cites as worthy to understand what jihad really means in Islam. Isn't he implying that those who believe jihad is primarily an inner struggle don't understand their religion or are not really muslims ? Instead of citing Hasan al-Banna he can cite his brother Gamal. But he chooses not to do so.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 3:05 PM
duh_swami,
check this website :
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 3:09 PM
duh_swami,
Regarding the Jihad, the reliability depends on which school of thought you come from. as for "This is directly from Allah". No it is not. It is from Bukhari purportedly recounting something Muhammad might have said. In Islam only the Quran comes straight from God. and even this is debated, especially among the Mutazillites.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 3:19 PM
sublimer: You'e full of sh*t, my friend.
In India alone, Islamic invaders wiped out over 80 MILLION Hindus and that does not include the number of Buddhists slaughtered there (a religion which interestingly is now virtually extinct there, despite the Buddha having been Indian), or Jews and Christians (who were also massacred there by the millions at the hands of Muslim jihadists). In the twentieth century, Islamified nations slaughtered over 50 million Christians on their own territory.
Estimates of the number of non-Muslims massacred over thge past 13 centuries by Islam run to well over 300 MILLION.
The western democracies have yet to rack up homicidal carnage on that scale. I doubt they ever will.
at May 18, 2007 4:18 PM
if you want to throw unsubstantiated claims with no evidence for shits and giggles, here is mine :
Hindus have killed 1 billion people
Christians killed around 3 billion and a half.
at May 18, 2007 4:36 PM
"There are many other Muslim countries where Christians, Muslims and Jews live in peace". -sublimer
Name one. Even Egypt, with its "tolerance", is no great shakes for Jews or other non-Muslims-including Christians.
-----------------------------
BTW, my hunch is that Bin Laden realized that a pluralistic Saudi Arabia will spell the doom of Islam. It is his nightmare. What was it that happened in 1990 (prior to Desert Storm) that spooked him? Who knows, it might have been the sight of an American woman driving a jeep and Saudi women looking at her. Something spooked that guy-really rattled his Islamic cage.
Maybe Saudi Arabia and Mecca will be the Las Vegas of the Mideast one day and all the people there will bow to slots. I can see it now: the Muhammad Casino.
Underneath all this Jihad are oceans of fear-especially re free women. Bin Laden is not alone in the ocean of fear and the need to assert controls to keep from drowning.
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 6:16 PM
Mary Habeck in her writings appears to believe that after the second, failed siege of Vienna by the Ottoman Turks in 1683, the doctrine of Jihad simply disappeared. It did not. It was as much a part of Islam then as it was in 700 A. D. or 2007 A.D. What changed was the ability of Muslims to act on the doctrine, and as long as Muslims understand their duty of Jihad, and attempt to fulfill it whenever and wherever it proves possible, they need not quixotically attack, through military means, those Infidels who are simply too strong. Besides, the instruments of Jihad are now far more varied than they were in 700 A. D. or in 1683 A.D. There is the "money weapon" to pay for mosques and madrasas, academic centers taking their orders, subtly or openly, from the Arab funders, and of course there are small armies of Western hirelings, journalists, businessmen, public relations experts, former diplomats, former intelligence agents for Western countries, all of whom have in the past, and still now, are hired to limit the Western understanding of, and hostility to, Saudi Arabia, the Arabs, and Islam.
She confuses -- she who just began her study of Islam a year or two ago (as the non-tenure handwriting on the wall at Yale became clear, she began to repackage herself as an "expert on Islam." If Judith Kipper the sociologist could overnight transform herself into a "Middle East expert," why then so can any man...or woman.).
Posted by: Hugh at May 18, 2007 7:29 PM
Hugh,
your points are often way off mark but your hunch to look for fantastical intrigues and secretive plots where there are none and your belief that in this conspiracy there is a vast network of operating "Arab funders" and "small armies of Western hirelings, journalists, businessmen, public relations experts, former diplomats, former intelligence agents for Western countries" could make a good lurid sensationalism novelist a la ian fleming. You should give it a try instead of wasting your time here where no one but the "cult" takes you seriously.
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 7:50 PM
Sub-
Yeah-all Jews and Christians are just yearning to live in Morocco and Malaysia because of the tolerance and pluralism. The Jewish people fled to Israel because of the tolerance in Morocco-LOL.
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 8:32 PM
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/morocjews.html
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 8:43 PM
Personally, I'm gratified that you're here, slublimer, because unlike the garden-variety troll with whom we're all familiar, you are at least semi-literate. Hell, I may even come out of lurkdom for a time just to deride you, since you at least will understand you're being insulted.
As for what I make of the Spencer passage you cite, I certainly don't make of it that Robert asserts jihadists are the only true Muslims, as you claim he does. In no way have you established that, nor can you.
Other than noting that, I haven't much more to say. For one thing, the "cult" is already doing an admirable job of exposing your nonsense as the incoherent drivel it is. But more importantly, if you're going to take disrespectful pot shots at Hugh directly, it will only be a matter of time before he pulls himself away from writing his potboiler and dispatches you personally. I needn't get my undies in a wad.
BTW, there ARE no "violent passages" in the OT or NT that enjoin or even urge the faithful to commit murder, enslave others, or the like, while there are hundreds of Koranic passages that indeed do so. Again, I'm awaiting dubious quotations if you intend to take up the challenge. In a more recent thread, Robert asks us to formulate answers to the most common “jihadist obfuscations.” Your argument is silly little number seven on Robert’s list, and here is my short rejoinder to it:
BS! Be specific about the scriptural verses to which you’re referring, as we are when referring to abhorrent passages in the Koran, as numerous and annoying as flies at a barbecue.
Regards,
HAID
at May 18, 2007 8:45 PM
Sublimer - Malaysia is NOT a good place to be a non-Muslim...and it's getting worse all the time. Just ask Lina Joy, who converted to Christianity and wants to marry a Christian. Look at what happened to her, and what is still happening. And she isn't the only one.
Ask the Hindus in Malaysia what's been happening to their temples.
Oh yeah - and ask the grieving widows of those Christians who were murdered in the most sadistic and horrible manner in Islam's name ...in 'secular' 'moderate' Turkey.
One more tiny little question - why did so many thousands of Jews LEAVE Morocco? If it was so great to be a Jew in Morocco? I don't see thousands of Jews hurrying back there to live.
at May 18, 2007 8:49 PM
Sub-
It's no great shakes in Morocco-and that's supposed to be an example of Muslim tolerance? Try Morocco compared to what-Egypt?
Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2007 8:53 PM
Frank,
read this :
http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/990730/king.shtml
Posted by: sublimer at May 18, 2007 9:30 PM
HAID, you want quotations of violent passages from the bible ? Here you have it :
1. Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8
2. God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17
3. God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4
4. God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23
5. God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10
6. Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." 16:6
7. Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8
8. God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24
9. Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26
10. God threatens to kill Abimelech and his people for believing Abe's lie. 20:3-7
11. Sarai tells Abraham to "cast out this bondwoman and her son." God commands him to "hearken unto her voice." So Abraham abandons Hagar and Ishmael, casting them out into the wilderness to die. 21:10-14
12. God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13
13. Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God. Only an evil God would ask a father to do that; only a bad father would be willing to do it. 22:10
14. Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is "defiled" by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive. 34:1-31
15. "The terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them." 35:5
16. "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7
17. After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10
18. After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." 38:24
19. Joseph interprets the baker's dream. He says that the pharaoh will cut off the baker's head, and hang his headless body on a tree for the birds to eat. 40:19
Exodus
20. Moses murders an Egyptian after making sure that no one is looking. 2:11-12
21. God threatens to kill the Pharaoh's firstborn son. 4:23
22. God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26
23. God will make sure that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses, so that he can kill Egyptians with his armies. 7:4
24. "And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD." Who else could be so cruel and unjust? 7:5, 17
25. God tells Moses and Aaron to smite the river and turn it into blood. 7:17-24
26. The fifth plague: all cattle in Egypt die. 9:2-6
27. The sixth plague: boils and blains upon man and beast. 9:9-12
28. "For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth." Who else but the biblical god could be so cruel? 9:14
29. The seventh plague is hail. "And the hail smote throughout the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast." 9:22-25
30. These verses clearly show that the mass murder of innocent children by God was premeditated. 11:4-6 (see 12:29-30)
31. God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." 11:7
32. God explains to Moses that he intends to "smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast. 12:12
33. After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." Finally, he runs out of little babies to kill, so he slaughters the firstborn cattle, too. 12:29
34. To commemorate the divine massacre of the Egyptian children, Moses instructs the Israelites to "sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix" -- all the males, that is. God has no use for dead, burnt female bodies. 13:2, 12, 15
35. After hardening Pharaoh's heart a few more times, God drowns Pharaoh's army in the sea 14:4-28
36. Moses and the people sing praises to their murderous god. 15:1-19
37. "The Lord is a man of war." Indeed, judging from his acts in the Old Testament, he is a vicious warlike monster. 15:3
38. God's right hand dashes people in pieces. 15:6
39. If you do what God says, he won't send his diseases on you (like he did to the Egyptians). But otherwise.... 15:26
40. Joshua, with God's approval, kills the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword." 17:13
41. "The Lord has sworn [God swears!] that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." 17:14-16
42. Any person or animal that touches Mt. Sinai shall be stoned to death or "shot through." 19:12-13
43. Like the great and powerful Wizard of Oz, nobody can see God and live. 19:21
44. God gives instructions for killing and burning animals. He says that if we will make such "burnt offerings," he will bless us for it. What kind of mind would be pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals? 20:24
45. A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. 21:15, 17
46. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 21:24-25
47. If an ox gores someone, "then the ox shall surely be stoned." 21:28
48. If an ox gores someone due to the negligence of its owner, then "the ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall be put to death.". 21:29
49. If an ox gores a slave, the owner of the ox must pay the owner of the slave 30 shekels of silver, and "the ox shall be stoned." 21:32
50. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18
51. "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." Is it really necessary to kill such people? Couldn't we just send them to counseling or something? 22:19
52. "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20
53. If you make God angry enough, he will kill you and your family with his own sword. 22:24
54. "The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me." (As a burnt offering?) 22:29
55. God promises to "send his fear before the Israelites" and to kill everyone that they encounter when they enter the promised land. 23:27
56. Moses has some animals killed and their dead bodies burned for God. Then he sprinkles their blood on the altar and on the people. This makes God happy. 24:5-8
57. Get some animals, kill them, chop up their bodies, wave body parts in the air, burn the carcasses, and sprinkle the blood all around -- in precisely the way God tells you. It may well make you sick, but it makes God feel good. 29:11-37
58. Have your killed and offered your bullock for a sin offering today? How about the two lambs you are supposed to offer each day? 29:36-39
59. Wash up or die. 30:20-21
60. Moses burned the golden calf, ground it into powder, and then forced it down the throats of all the people. 32:20
61. Whoever puts holy oil on a stranger shall be "cut off from his people." 30:33
62. Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14
63. God asks to be left alone so that his "wrath may wax hot" and he can "consume them. 32:10
64. God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill "every man his neighbor." "And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men." 32:27-28
65. But God wasn't satisfied with the slaughter of the 3000, so he killed some more people with a plague. 32:35
66. If you can't redeem him, then just "break his neck." Hey, it's all for the glory of God. 34:20
67. Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." 35:2-3
Leviticus
68. God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic animal sacrifices. such bloody rituals must be important to God, judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions. Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord." Chapters 1 - 9
69. "Flay the burnt offering; cut it into pieces." 1:6
70. Burn the head, fat, and entrails for "a sweet savour unto the Lord." 1:8-9
71. "Kill it and sprinkle blood round about." 1:11, 3:2, 3:8, 3:13
72. "Cut it into pieces and burn it for a sweet savour unto the Lord." 1:12-13
73. "Wring off its head and burn it." 1:15
74. "For a sweet savour unto the Lord." 1:17
75. "Part it in pieces... it is a meat offering." 2:6
76. "It is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire." 2:10
77. What to do with the fat, kidneys, and liver of your burnt offerings. 3:3-4, 3:9-10, 3:14-16
78. "Kill the bullock before the Lord and take of the bullock's blood." 4:4
79. "The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord." 4:6, 4:17
80. "Pour all the blood at the bottom of the altar." 4:7
81. What to do with the fat, kidneys, liver, skin, head, entrails, and dung from your burnt offerings. 4:8-11
82. "The bullock shall be killed before the Lord." 4:14
83. "Kill it and pour out the blood." 4:24-25
84. "Slay it for a sin offering, pour out the blood, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord." 4:29-31
85. Slay it for a sin offering, put the blood on your finger, and pour out the blood at the bottom of the altar. 4:33-34
86. Wringing off the heads of pigeons for God. 5:8-9
87. Kill the sin offering before the Lord. "It is most holy." 6:25
88. The holy law of trespass offering: Find an animal; kill it; sprinkle the blood around; offer God the fat, rump, kidneys, and caul; burn and eat it in the holy place, for "it is most holy." 7:1-6
89. The priest must sprinkle the blood of the peace offerings. 7:14
90. Be careful what you eat during these animal sacrifices. Don't eat fat or blood -- these are for God. (And he doesn't like to share!) 7:18-27
91. God gives instructions for "wave offerings" and "heave offerings." He says these offerings are to be made perpetually "by a statute for ever." Have you made your heave offering today? 7:30-36
92. Moses does it all for God. First he kills an animal; wipes the blood on Aaron's ears, thumbs, and big toes. Then he sprinkles blood round about and waves the guts before the Lord. Finally he burns the whole mess for "a sweet savour before the Lord." 8:14-32
93. More killing, sprinkling of blood, waiving animal parts, and burning carcasses "before the Lord." 9:2-21
94. Kill the calf, dip your finger in the blood, sprinkle the blood round about, burn the fat and entrails, and wave the breast for a wave offering before the Lord. 9:8-21
95. Two of the sons of Aaron "offered strange fire before the Lord" and "there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." 10:1-3
96. If priests misbehave at the tabernacle by uncovering their heads, tearing their clothes, leaving with holy oil on them, or by drinking "wine or strong drink", then God will kill them and send his wrath on "all the people." 10:6-9
97. After a woman gives birth, a priest must kill a lamb, pigeon, or dove as a sin offering. This is because having children is sinful and God likes it when things are killed for him. 12:6-8
98. God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 14:2-32
99. God "put the plague of leprosy" into the houses of the Canaanites. 14:34
100. God explains the use of scapegoats. It goes like this: Get two goats. Kill one. Wipe, smear, and sprinkle the blood around seven times. Then take the other goat, give it the sins of all the people, and send it off into the wilderness. 16:6-28
101. Sprinkle the blood and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord. 17:6
102. If you upset God, he'll cause the land to vomit you out. 18:25
103. "Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations ... shall be cut off from among their people." 18:29, 19:8
104. Don't eat sacrifices on the third day or God will cut you off from among your people. 19:6-8
105. Kill anyone who "gives his seed" to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off. 20:2-5
106. "For every one that curseth his father or his mother
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)