| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In "Journey into Islam" at RealClearPolitics, Tony Blankley explains that Akbar Ahmed of American University is his friend. My own experiences with Dr. Ahmed have not been remotely as positive, as he has ignored my invitations to debate or dialogue (with the exception of one noncommittal email saying he was looking forward to "talking soon"), and has responded to my views on C-Span with evasions and irrelevancies. But in any case, he enjoys worldwide renown as a moderate leader, and so what Blankley says here is of enormous significance.
I have just finished reading a deeply disheartening book by my friend Professor Akbar Ahmed. Dr. Ahmed is the former Pakistani high commissioner to Britain and member of the faculties of Harvard, Princeton and Cambridge, current chair of Islamic Studies at American University -- and is in the front ranks of what we Westerners call the moderate Muslims, who we are counting on to win the hearts and minds of the others.[...]
His new book, "Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization," is thus particularly heartbreaking for me. As a trained anthropologist, he took three of his students on a six-month journey around the Muslim world to investigate what Muslims are thinking.
His conclusion: Due to both misjudgments by the United States and regrettable developments in Muslim attitudes, "The poisons are spreading so rapidly that without immediate remedial action, no antidote may ever be found." And Dr. Ahmed has always been an optimist.
He divides Muslim attitudes into three categories named after Indian Muslim cities that have historically championed them: Ajmer, Aligarh and Deoband.
Ajmer represents peaceful Sufi mysticism, Aligarth represents the instinct to modernize without corrupting Islam, Deoband represents non-fatalistic, practical, action-oriented orthodox Islam. It traces to Ibn Taymiyya, a 14th-Century thinker who lived when Islam was reeling from the Mongol invasions. He rejected Islam's prior easy, open acceptance of non-Muslims.
In short, Dr. Ahmed is an Aligarth. As a young man he was one of new Pakistan's best and brightest, led by Pakistan's founding father and first president, Dr. Jinnah. They hoped to build a modern democracy, overcome tribalism and the more obscurantist aspects of Islam while still being "good Muslims." The Deobands are the Bin Ladens and all the other Muslims we fear today.
Even one or two years ago, I think Dr. Ahmed was reasonably hopeful that his views had a fighting chance around the Islamic world. So, my jaw dropped when I got to page 192 of his new book and he described his thoughts while in Pakistan last year on his investigative journey: "The progressive and active Aligarth model had become enfeebled and in danger of being overtaken by the Deoband model ... I felt like a warrior in the midst of the fray who knew the odds were against him but never quite realized that his side had already lost the war."
He likewise reported from Indonesia -- invariably characterized as practicing a more moderate form of Islam. There, too, his report was crushingly negative. Meeting with people from presidents to cab drivers, from elite professors to students from modest schools (Dr. Ahmed holds a respected place in the Muslim firmament around the globe), reports that 50 percent want Shariah law, support the Bali terrorist bombing, oppose women in politics, support stoning adulterers to death. Indonesia's secular legal system and tolerant pluralist society is being "infiltrated by Deoband thinking ... Dwindling moderates and growing extremists are a dangerous challenging development."
Although I dissent from several of Dr. Ahmed's characterizations of the Bush Administration, Washington policymakers and journalists should read this book because it delivers a terrible message of warning both to those who say things aren't as bad as Bush says, and we can rely on the moderate voices of Islam -- with a little assist from the West -- winning; and for those who argue for aggressive American action to show our strength to the Muslims (because, in Bin Laden's words, they follow the strong horse).
To the first group he says that the "moderate" voice is in near hopeless retreat across the Muslim world. Don't count on them....
Posted by Robert at June 20, 2007 10:36 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Previous posting on Akbar Ahmad:
"Keynote Speaker:
Ambassador Akbar Ahmed
Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University, Washington DC
Visiting Fellow, The Brookings Institution"
-- from a posting above
Akbar Ahmed is not to be trusted. Not one bit or whit.
In conversations with someone who, after a family tragedy, became noted for his (vain)efforts to establish a real, as opposed to phony, Muslim-Jewish dialogue, this Akbar Ahmed has denied the importance of the Hadith, dismissing their contents entirely. That of course gets him, and others, conveniently off the hook.
Why? Because the Hadith (and the Sira, which he carefully refrains from mentioning) are, to Infidels, much clearer than the Qur'an in their expressed hatred for non-Muslims. There is nothing of the Quran's sheer incomprehension (20% of the Qur'an, Western scholars repeatedly note, is incomprehensible even to those who understand Arabic of the period -- see the remarks of Christoph Luxenberg), nor the vagueness of much of it, nor the phrases which need a gloss (an untutored Infidel, not well-versed in the meaning given to the phrase "struggle in the path of Allah," might, if he did not pay close attention, not realize that there is much more than the all-important Sura 9 to alarm him).
And in any case, Akbar Ahmed knows perfectly well that hundreds of millions of Muslims take the Hadith to heart, that all over the Islamic world the example of Muhammad in the Sira (Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil) and his sayings and doings as recorded in the Hadith, and as those Hadith have been winnowed and assigned levels of "authenticity" (based largely on studies of the isnad-chain) by the most authoritative muhaddithiin, is held up, and that the very word "Sunni" comes from "ahl al-sunnah," the "people of the Sunnah" which is to say, the Believers who follow Qur'an and Sunnah, the Sunnah consisting of the ways, the customs, the beliefs, the example, of Muhammad and the Companions.
And in the same colloquy with that hapless Jewish worker for a "dialogue" with Muslims -- a grasping-at-straws effort -- Akbar Ahmad, the "Ibn Khaldun Professor," had brought to his attention the words of Ibn Khaldun on the necessity and rightness for agressive Jihad, which are included in Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" and, two years before that, could be found by readers in Robert Spencer's "Onward Muslim Soldiers."
And what was the dismissive reaction of Akbar Ahmad, "Ibn Khaldun Professor of Islamic Studies," to being made aware of this view, so clearly expressed by Ibn Khaldun, and easily accessible to Spencer and to Bostom? It was to replay that he had never heard of such sentiments in Ibn Khaldun's writings. And then to further insist that the translation of the original must be faulty.
The translation "incorrect"? The translator of Ibn Khaldun's Maqaddima, in this case, was the tremendously learned scholar, possibly the world's expert on Ibn Khaldun, the late Franz Rosenthal.
There is a good deal more to be said about Akbar Ahmad. Oh, he's amiable, he's plausible. He has a post at Brookings. He gets around. But study carefully his words, what he owns up to about Islam, and what he so craftily continues to deny.
And then ask yourself this question: why are Pakistanis living in America, where they would have every desire to prove themselves and to shore up their own position in this sociey, now be raising funds so publicly and noisily for a destroyed church in Pakistan at this moment?
Why did they never speak out before? Christians and Hindus have been under assault in Pakistan, and in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) since the earliest days of its existence. A few years ago, after one more "blasphemy" charge was levelled at a hapless Christian boy, Bishop John Joseph martyred himself -- in the true, not the Muslim sense -- as a protest against the steay murderous persecution of Christians in Pakistan.
When, and why, did destroyed churches suddenly become a matter of interest to the people involved? Did the fact that news of such things is now reaching the Infidel world, including the largely-Christian United States where these Suddenly Concerned Pakistanis all live, have anything to do with this interest? Could it be based on a realization that the mood is changing in the Infidel world, and that publicity of another sort is needed to protect Muslim standing in this country? And could Akbar Ahmad simply be shoring up his self-proclaimed credentials as a Muslim "moderate" and "truth-teller"-- neither of which, given what is offered above, has yet quite been earned.
And let's see if any of those involved will publish Open Letters to the Pakistani press, or will picket the Pakistani Embassy, demanding greater protection for churches in Pakistan by the only group that can provide it -- the Pakistani government police and army?
And let's see if they make the same kind of efforts for Hindu temples, or bring to the world's attention the attacks in Pakistan (and Bangladesh) on Hindus --when there is not quite the same need to placate Hindus in America as there is to soothe Christian sensibities.
And one more thing.
Why is there no effort by the 140-million Muslims in Pakistan itself, or why hasn't the Pakistani government taken upon itself, the rebuilding of this church?
Haven't the Pakistanis received tens of billions in Infidel (American) aid over the decades? Can't Musharraf spare a little, set aside just a bit, to rebuild that Sangla church destroyed by Muslims?
He can't?
Why not?
[Posted by: Hugh at January 5, 2006 12:14 PM]
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 20, 2007 11:02 AM
And an article in which Akbar Ahmad (misspelled as "Ahmed") makes a non-cameo appearance:
Fitzgerald: Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
The grotesque attempt to ambush the Pope on his immediate arrival, to lecture him like a schoolboy on the wonderfulness of Islam, to demand that the "theology" of this or that faith be forever beyond any discussion, was all done by Dr. Ali Bardakoglu, head of the state-run religious affairs department.
One can assume that Dr. Bardakoglu is comfortable with, since he is a participant in, the Kemalist-mandated government control of religious affairs that is supposed to ensure that “moderate” clerics reading “moderate” khutbas will prevail. Bardakoglu used and abused the Pope (so much for famed "Muslim" hospitality) and in doing so was ably assisted by Erdogan, who after a fifteen-minute private discussion with the Pope then claimed to the outside world, without any confirmation by anyone, that a Pope who had for more than a decade expressed doubts about Turkish entry into the E.U. had suddenly -- no doubt on the basis of vague and non-committal remarks twisted in timeworn Muslim fashion to say whatever Erdogan wanted them to say -- now supported the entry of Turkey into the E.U.
And that is the headline that goes out while the Pope, still a hapless guest, must refrain from setting the record straight at least while he is still in Turkey. Perhaps even when he has returned to Rome he will not find it wise to directly contradict the Turks, lest their ill-concealed fury create other Santoro-like martyrs.
The intolerable behavior of both the leading “political” figure in Turkey, Erdogan, and the leading “religious” figure in Turkey (it’s a distinction that in Islam means very little, but only Kemalism gives it some minor meaning here), and the stories they have put out about the Pope’s sudden conversion to support for Turkey in the E.U., so quickly reported by the world’s press (eager to collaborate in this nonsense, uneager to show any skepticism) simply demonstrates one more time something that we all know is true, especially when it comes to what Muslim apologists and propagandists have been able to do against the Americans, the Israelis, the Indians, the Christians of Lebanon, the Biafrans, and anyone else who stands in their way and athwart their goals:
A lie travels half-way round the world, while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
Akbar Ahmed, to take a recent example, knows this well. He is a plummy-voiced, smooth-talking "snake" (the noun, I believe, comes from Ibn Warraq). He managed somehow -- he's not the first anglophone, pseudo-"moderate" Pakistani apologist to do so, nor the last -- to get a position filling an academic seat that might, were he not sitting comfortably in it, be given to someone who might enlighten rather than buffalo his naive students.
About those naive students: that plummy voice, those English tweeds (child of zamindars? What is Akbar Ahmed's history as a most unrepresentative representative of Muslim Man?), and above all the little business of taking his students to Pakistan (who pays for those airfares?) where they then go to a mosque. There they see their champion, their soft-voiced teacher-hero, confront those "immoderate" Muslims and tell them they should "welcome" these Christian guests. And so they do. And the students, impressionable and very impressed, come away thinking what a swell guy, what a wonderful guy, what a guy to be trusted, is our own Professor Akbar Ahmed.
A crock. A predictable crock.
The Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove reifies the phrase "fortiter in re, suaviter in modo." As a tactic for Muslims, it had some early success, and Akbar Ahmed and Ali Bardakoglu are doing their best in their own ways to sustain that success, but in fact such success is not capable of being sustained.
Things, you see, are not quite working out. The message of the Akbar-Ahmeds and Ali-Bardakoglus and others desperately trying to disguise or camouflage or explain away or distract Infidel attention onto the trivial isn't quite up to the worldwide task at hand. Not only Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri and Nasrallah and other terrorists are getting in the way, but so too is Sheik Al-Qaradawi and so many other Muslim clerics, from Tantawi, the former Sheikh al-Azhar, to all kinds of people in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Pakistan, each more blood-curdling than the next.
The problem for Muslim apologists (and their well-paid running dogs, such as Esposito) is that as more of us begin to read and study and observe and make sense, we discover -- and so do all kinds of Infidels -- just a bit too much fortiter, and not nearly enough convincing suaviter. One is playing fast and loose with the Latin here, but what else is to be expected when someone demonstrates a liking for the adverb of manner "fast and loose"?
Bardakoglu and Erdogan know well what it means to play fast and loose. The Infidel world better learn.
[Posted by Hugh at November 30, 2006 10:57 A.M.]
at June 20, 2007 11:08 AM
"...Could it be based on a realization that the mood is changing in the Infidel world,..."
....absolutely....and the Muslims are not going to like the changes...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at June 20, 2007 11:13 AM
I read this book review on the Washington Times op/ed section. All I can think is that poor Tony Blankley suffers from the same delusion that appears to plague just about everyone inside the US Capitol's beltway.
While the temptation to ridicule those so dispossessed of understanding is strong, that does not and will not create a solution to the problem. Mr. Blankley is a learned man, but apparently not in the heart and substance of Islam. His column shows clearly that like so many others, he does not understand that "good Muslims" are the ones who kill, murder, rape and enslave and the "bad Muslims" are the ones who wish for peaceful co-existence.
If Tony has a fault, and it is one that by no means he is guilty of in exclusivity, it is that of a mental, or should I say educational laziness. It is the onus on all whom dwell in the Dar al-Harb to learn what those who wish to enslave us believe, for this is the only way to be strong and to resist.
Shalom,
Theosebes
at June 20, 2007 11:16 AM
The goal (should be pretty obvious) of this tripe is the following: "The West must lay down its arms against Muslims!" So we get the usual propaganda spiel. First, there's the implicit threat (if you don't become pacificists and accept Muslim terrorism, then Muslims will become violent!). Second, there's the complete reversal of reality. Thus, we hear yet again, the dishonest claim that it's Muslims who are being "attacked", and non-Muslims who are the "aggressors." Blah, blah, blah. Who cares? Chalk it up to the usual whinings made by the propagandists, and the usual inability of Muslims to acknowledge reality.
Posted by: J.S. at June 20, 2007 11:17 AM
*yawns*
Moderate Muslims are not the Golden Ticket.
This is all heading towards World War. Nobody can stop it now.
Get your helmets, your gas masks, your ammunition, whatever makes you feel better, but reality is about to smack the globe across the face any day now.
In a way, it will do us all good when the conflagration in the Middle East finally gets raging out of control. We will finally be able to drop the thin veneer of civility and get down to business.
I'm sick to death of reading, living and dealing in Islam every day of my life. I want to break that ideology into tiny little pieces and see it waft away with the wind.
Political correctness and multiculturalism be-damned! Fight for what is RIGHT!!
Posted by: Foehammer at June 20, 2007 11:23 AM
Re: Akbar Ahmed: "The poisons are spreading so rapidly that without immediate remedial action, no antidote may ever be found"
"-- what they demand of us is nothing less than that we should abolish the spirit of the age. Our very thoughts are a menace".-James Russel Lowell, Jan 1861
All of this reminds me of the reaction of the Old South "Slaveocracy" (as John Q. Adams called it) to criticism of their "institution", their beliefs, in the generation prior to the Civil War. At first the Slaveholders attempted to silence criticism in the congress ("gag rules") and elsewhere. Anyone who criticised them was an "agitator" and hate-monger.
But finally it became clear that what they wanted was total acceptance and submission to their beliefs re slavery. As Lincoln noted, they were not only a threat to the African but had become a threat to all free men everywhere. The mind-set of many many Muslims is similar to that noted by Lowell in 1861. Thought has become the menace and enemy of Muslims. They too want everyone to submit to their beliefs.
Posted by: Frank at June 20, 2007 11:23 AM
Somebody posted this link yesterday:
http://islamicexpansionanddecline.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-11-parasitic-civilization.html
It includes graphs tracking Islamization vs. individual achievement in various countries. I thought it was an excellent study of what the author defined as ‘conversion curves’ and the effect on society.
I’ll take the liberty to extrapolate the link to Akbar Ahmed’s observations. Islam is a self-purifying form of regression. Countries with a significant Muslim population have one of two choices. The can either slowly become Islamicized and lose their freedoms, or they can become some form of Dictatorship and lose their freedoms (Ataturk, Tito, Shah, Hussein, name your own). The Dictator typically does things like erase entire families who step out of line. George Bush’s policy of democratization leads directly to a takeover by the ‘terrorists’. A stubborn leader who is right is a statesman, a stubborn leader who is wrong is a catastrophe.
Posted by: pez at June 20, 2007 11:26 AM
I started reading this site just about the time when Akbar Ahmed’s C-SPAN interview with Robert Spencer was aired. The thing that is still fresh in my mind is how Ahmed’s foot started dancing around wildly every time Lamb presented him with a taped challenge from Robert.
He was not used to being questioned.
Posted by: pez at June 20, 2007 11:31 AM
@Frank: Great quote.
It is exactly that. Thought-police. Fascism through brutality and violence and intimidation.
Islam must be pushed back.
The next 'Battle of Tours' is coming. Force of conviction, belief in our superiority of morality and wit and wisdom and culture -- do not underestimate the fire that will burn in your gut the day you, all of you, decide you've had enough of this evil ideology. It wasn't force of arms alone that gave the French the field that day -- it was because they we battling for all they held dearest against a foe that would have ravaged the land into a shell of itself had the Frankish army failed.
I feel no differently this many centuries later.
Posted by: Foehammer at June 20, 2007 11:38 AM
Source of poisons: Koran.
Answer: reform the violent suras out (9:5, 9:29-30, et al).
Or be prepared for a century of terror from poisoned Muslim minds.
Nothing anyone else does or does not do will change this from the outside.
The change must come from inside Islam.
We could surrender completely or fight in a totalwar WW II fashion, and it would not change one Muslim mind.
It's the poisonous Koran, al-stupid.
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 20, 2007 11:47 AM
*yawns*
Moderate Muslims are not the Golden Ticket.
This is all heading towards World War. Nobody can stop it now.
Posted by: Foehammer
*************************************************
It absolutely appears that you are correct. The Islamic world is digging and reaching. they will find any ecuse to hate us and they try desperately to keep fabricating these imaginary injustices upon themselves. the proof of their hypocricy IS exactly what is going on in Gaza right now. they treat each other worse than they claim we treat them.
-------------------------------------------------
reality is about to smack the globe across the face any day now.
Posted by: Foehammer
*************************************************
Scary but spot on. our heads are now firmly buried in the sand and up our asses .no amount of wishful thinking will make these people anything other than what they truly are...anyone care to say it?
-------------------------------------------------
In a way, it will do us all good when the conflagration in the Middle East finally gets raging out of control. We will finally be able to drop the thin veneer of civility and get down to business.
Posted by: Foehammer
*************************************************
Isn't it sad that it is not even obvious to most Westerners yet? that's really what scares me. I can't count how many people i know are oblivious and really think they just want what we want. *rolls eyes* Yeah, if what we want is to force the Muslim world to their knees and convert to christianity or die a horrible death. what a crock!
-------------------------------------------------
I'm sick to death of reading, living and dealing in Islam every day of my life. I want to break that ideology into tiny little pieces and see it waft away with the wind.
Political correctness and multiculturalism be-damned! Fight for what is RIGHT!!
Posted by: Foehammer
*************************************************
I have a friend who asked me if all i do is think about and concern myself about Islam all day ( in a concerned way ), and i had to be honest and say YES i do . I had to tell them it was not out of hatred or racism or anything that Liberal will tag you but it was genuine concern from the education i have recieved here and on my own and concern for our civilization itself . how a seemingly intelligent person can dismiss all this Jihadism and violence in Islams name as just a few whackos and a HIJACKED religion is astonishing. i tell them how can a Religion be highjacked when it's most influential Clerica and Imams are the ones inciting this Evil, and when the Founder himself taught EXACTLY what we see happening now? will they listen? ... no.
Posted by: MoBlows at June 20, 2007 12:37 PM
@MoBlows et al
Once a person goes I-Phobe, they're an I-Phobe all the way, from their first Koranic text, to their last dying day.
On a positive note: there is no cure for Islamophobia. We will never need to threaten or cajole people to remain Islamophobic.
When you're a I-Phobe,
And the shit hits the fan,
You got brothers around,
You're a family man!
You're never alone,
You're never disconnected!
You're home with your own:
When Muslims are expected,
You're well protected!
Then you are set
With a capital I,
Which you'll never forget
Till they cart you away.
When you're a I-Phobe,
You stay an I-Phobe!
at June 20, 2007 12:51 PM
@ ynkedoodl2
Sneaking away from the keyboard to watch a bit of 'West Side Story', have we?
Posted by: awake at June 20, 2007 1:38 PM
Re: "His conclusion: Due to both misjudgments by the United States and regrettable developments in Muslim attitudes, "The poisons are spreading so rapidly that without immediate remedial action, no antidote may ever be found." And Dr. Ahmed has always been an optimist".
"The more things change, the more they remain the same". The problem is in Islam, just as it was in Slavery and only the most ruthless response, the most punishing response (a la Sherman) will change hearts and minds in this matter.
Eventually, the supremacist delusions at the core of Islam will result in an attack on the West, including Israel, that will require a devastating response. It is ultimately the free mind that they are at war with, and like the Old South, the clerics and other true believers in Islam will wage war until they are destroyed.
The comparison fits because unlike many other aggressive ideologies(Communism, e.g.), Muslim anger is really based in fear and projection, as it was with the aggressiveness of the Old South. Muslims fear losing control of their cultural environment as a result of the transport and communications revolutions of the past 50 years.
They must destroy their critics. There can be no accommodation with this belief-system because most Muslims will not take responsibility for the evil supremacist ideology that is at its core. The truth is that only a devastating defeat will end their supremacist delusions. Sherman said that of the Old South and he did what had to be done to break that supremacist ideology.
at June 20, 2007 3:06 PM
Muslims are almost immune to logic and to taking responsibility for their actions. This, at its core, is a psychiatric problem.
Posted by: Frank at June 20, 2007 3:09 PM
yeah, come on ynkedoodl2...get down with the sickness!
foehammer & moblows -
the apocolyptic topic of your message is what freaks most out, i bet.
i predicted ww3 was beginning militarily last summer, around the isareali-lebanon conflict. i wasn't that ahead of the game in making that prediction, i thought...but my friends all thought i was nuts.
i was adamant with them, making it clear that the mideast problem was just going to deteriorate rapidly, along with se asia (indo & thai) and europe, until it brought the whole planet into conflict.
hubby & i are hoarding food, water, ammo, the works. and since we're in a major east coast city, we have an escape plan already in the works. plus who gets which weapon for the route out.
why is that nuts, when we have already been hit, here and abroad? is there a 'lightening' rule i'm not aware of here?
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at June 20, 2007 3:10 PM
Foe,
It is a great quote. There is a similarity in the projection and hate of Islam and the Slaveocracy. John Quincy Adams saw what was coming as he fought the "gag rules" in congress. He was not a happy bunny re what he saw coming and (luckily?)he passed in 1848- 13 years before the Civil War-so he never saw his predictions come true. Adams knew that they wanted to impose their beliefs all over the US and shut down all criticism. It was about controlling thought.
BTW, many in the Old South really sided with the Union (most were not slaveholders). The election returns of 1860 show that. But a steady diet of propaganda had done its work with the masses in the Old South.
As it turned out, the elite there were shocked at the determined response of the North and particularly President Lincoln. Old Abe saw the big picture. He knew the elite there had to be crushed or else we too would be slaves, Foe.-LOL Islam has the same fears re the free mind and would impose "gag rules" and crush criticism if given power.
Posted by: Frank at June 20, 2007 6:08 PM
Foe,
This issue of the "gag rules", of PC speech re the slavery issue, is something that fits into our own time. Elderly (former President) Congressman John Q. Adams was quite brave on the issue. He stood practically alone at first, was threatened, heckled, but he did not back down. That old man hit hard with facts. He also saw early and very clearly where the whole issue was going to end. The attempt to suppress the free and open exchange of ideas is an act of war. It's a prelude to open war.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/016423.php#c393664
at June 20, 2007 9:08 PM
"Islam is a primitive and brutish religion and unfortunately hence, only primitive and brutish methods work with islam."
--an Indian (East-, not Moslem)
from a post at
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/10/even-more-drastic-times-call-for-even.html
If you haven't read it yet, it behooves you to do so. Caveat dhimmi.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at June 20, 2007 10:59 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)