| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A new review for The Al Qaeda Reader, from the Terrorism and Political Violence journal, which was just brought to my attention by a terrorism analyst. Good to know that, while some in the government are still quarreling over what to call jihadists, others are bothering to find out, not only what the jihadists call themselves, but also how they think. “Islam and War: A Review Essay,” by John C. Zimmerman, for Terrorism and Political Violence, Fall issue:
In The Al Qaeda Reader, Raymond Ibrahim has translated and masterfully assembled a number of key statements by Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri, that shed light on their views. The centerpiece of this collection is a long exegisis by Bin Laden entitled ‘‘Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West.’’ Most of Bin Laden’s communique´s are intended to be read in the West as well as byMuslims.3 However, this statement was solely intended for aMuslim audience. He denounces a declaration by Saudi intellectuals that seeks co existence with non-Muslims ‘‘as if one of the foundations of our religion is how to coexist with infidels’’ (p. 23).Bin Laden rejects arguments that the West does not understand Islam. Rather, he acknowledges that there is a great deal of scholarship in the West on Islam. However, the reason for Western hostility is the Islamic doctrine of offensive jihad, which the West wants Muslims to abandon. Offensive jihad requires Muslims to attack non-Muslims and subordinate them to second class citizenship as dhimmis (non-Muslims under Muslim rule). ‘‘The West avenges itself against Islam for giving infidels but three options: Islam, jizya [a special tax imposed on non-Muslims] or the sword’’ (p. 42). Therefore, ‘‘Islam is spread with the sword alone, just as the Prophet [Muhammad] was sent forth with the sword’’ (pp. 46–47).
According to Bin Laden, Muslims cannot abandon offensive jihad because it ‘‘is an established and basic tenet of this religion’’ (p. 32). He asks: ‘‘Why else did the sword come as an important pillar, enslaving mankind to their Master [Allah]?’’(p. 33). Therefore, ‘‘Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread sharia [Islamic] law to the world–that and nothing else’’ (p. 33). Waging jihad ‘‘is our only option for glory, as has been continuously demonstrated in the [Islamic] texts’’ (p. 33). He states that ‘‘[b]attle, animosity, and hatred-directed from the Muslim to the infidel–is the foundation of our religion’’ (p. 43).
Posted by Raymond at August 26, 2008 10:27 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Shameless self promotion at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Posted by: deenxof![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 26, 2008 11:13 AM
This is the central problem with our country's "misunderstanding" of Islam. Most people cannot comprehend that Islam is a loaded pistol aimed at their heads. They do not understand that jihad has always been and will always be a doctrine of Islam.
I am not a fan of Pat (village idiot) Robertson. But he received a lot of undeserved grief for declaring that "Islam is a violent religion". It is. The only good thing you can say about Osama Bin Laden is that he is honest about the Qur'an, hadith and sira. Islam, throughout the ages, has called for the death of unbelievers. This concept is eternally true and cannot or will not be abrogated by devout Muslims.
The tolerant cannot tolerate the intolerant.
Posted by: tanstaafl at August 26, 2008 11:25 AM
Islam is not more and no less violent than Christianity or Judaism. There are passages in the Old Testament (and New) and the Torah that are so violent that you would think that Genghis Khan had written them. There are also passages in the Quran that state, to parahrase, that violence should only be used as a last resort. It should come as no surprise that bin Laden at al use whatever passages that best fit their agenda not unlike fundamentalist Christians and Jews. There is nothing in Islam that is "inherently" violent. It is really a matter of how religion is used to further political ends, isn't it? The Quran does not call for "death to the unbelievers". On the contrary, if says that to kill a soul unjustifiably would be as if all mankind were killed. (Clearly, a strong prohibition). Of course, Al Qaeda gets around this problem by calling their war against the West as a defensive war and, thus, justifiable.
Needless to say, the interpretation of religious works is a complex and difficult endeavor. All passages must be understood in there proper context, 7th century Arabia, for example. To do otherwise is a very slippery slope indeed.
at August 26, 2008 12:03 PM
deenxof - you are preaching your lies to the wrong group here. We are fully aware of abrogation, etc.... You must be new here. Welcome, read , learn......I also sugest you visit www.fathfreedom.org
Posted by: balticwaves at August 26, 2008 12:17 PM
deenxof--
wrong crowd. better head over to the DNC if you want to bring up all those lame arguments.
Posted by: kamala at August 26, 2008 12:20 PM
deenxof:
"Islam is not more and no less violent than Christianity or Judaism."
Really?
Quran 9:5, 9:29, 8:60. Where are the verses similar to that in the Bible ot Torah, and if there were, do Jews or Christians roam the planet murdering people and blowing sh!t up?
Muslims managed to total 11700+ terror attacks since 9/11 across the planet.
How many terror attacks from the Christians or the Jews can you document?
Here you cite 5:32 and not following with 5:33?
Who is out of context?
"The Quran does not call for "death to the unbelievers"." Again, here it is: Quran 9:5, 9:29, 8:60 and many more.
at August 26, 2008 12:22 PM
"All passages must be understood in there (sic)proper context, 7th century Arabia, for example. To do otherwise is a very slippery slope indeed."
Posted by: deenxo
Indeed. But you should be addressing your remarks to OBL, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and a hundred other jihadist groups. They're the ones making references to a 7-th c book (more like 9th c when first written down) to justify their murders. Point out to them that the pearls of Allah's wisdom whispered in Mohammed's ear by Gabriel were only relevant to 7th c Arabia. Do it in person, and see how long they let you live.
at August 26, 2008 12:26 PM
Islam is not more and no less violent than Christianity or Judaism. There are passages in the Old Testament (and New) and the Torah that are so violent that you would think that Genghis Khan had written them."
Oh, for god's sake. There are no such passages in the New Testament. The blood-curdling bits in the Old Testament have been firmly kept in their historical context, are not preached from any pulpit, are not used to inspire anyone in any synagogue, not today, not a thousand years ago, not two thousand years ago. It is treated as a historical text as one would treat the Epic of Gilgamesh.
But Qur'an, Hadith, and the example of Muhammad the warrior (war with the sword, and war through deceit, which he highly recommended to his followers), are living and vivid, and the Jihad passages -- start with Sura 9 and move on from there, and the hundreds of "authentic" Hadith, and the life of Muhammad (the close to 80 campaigns, that including mass decaptitation of bound prisoners, and attacks on entirely inoffensive farmers, as at the Khaybar Oasis, as well as the murders of Abu Akaf and Asma bint Marwan) provides not an example of someone whose words and acts we simply put into a historical context but do not mimic, but rather provides a permanent model of the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, which is why, for example, when Khomeini came to power, virtualy his first act as ruler was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine. Why nine? Because that was the age of little Aisha when she was "married" to, and had sexual intercourse with, Muhammad. The Ayatollah Khomeini, a learned Muslim theologian, was well aware of that, and determined that all Iranian males should have the same possibility.
One can continue to promote the kind of transparent Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque (google, for more on this subject) that a Muslim poster has attempted here, but at this website, and at many others, he will find that his nonsense will have no takers.
Sorry!
Posted by: Hugh at August 26, 2008 12:28 PM
deenxo sez:
"Shameless self promotion at the expense of the American taxpayer."
???
This website/blog is privately owned and operated. So what is it exactly, deenxo, that has been funded with taxpayer dollars that has your shorts all bunched up? What taxpayer expense are you so distressed over that relates to this post?
Posted by: USorThem at August 26, 2008 12:52 PM
Here is the 'proper context:
Foot note to Quran, sometimes attributed to Bukhari...I don't know who really wrote it, but it pretty much sums it up...
"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."
'By abandoning jihad, Islam is destroyed', muslims fall from power, they lose their lands, their honor, rule and authority...
How sad...This is why they can't give up jihad as defined here...ever. Its one of their pillars. It's obligatory, and no muslim wants to die a hypocrite...
Posted by: duh_swami at August 26, 2008 12:53 PM
Hmmm. Hilarious. LOL. I must have touched a nerve. There is so much invective, misinformation, and bigotry here I must be on to something. Or, oh I get it, this is another one of those echo chamber sites where everyone just feeds off one another, scratching each others back, everyone having the same point of view, of course.
There is considerable debate about Jihad within Muslim circles and without by much more learned people than anyone posting here; myself included. As in most things in life, posters take note, it is not black and white but shades of gray. The context is very important when the concept of Jihad is invoked.
Concerning the taxpayer comment; the person concerned knows what I mean.
at August 26, 2008 1:07 PM
What's "hilarious" is someone who thinks he's made an argument but only rehashed tired and shopworn cliches. The nerve you touched must be autonomic. It's certainly not above the brain stem.
But there's nothing like a new ad hominem slinging moron.
Posted by: Beagle at August 26, 2008 1:32 PM
deenxo. I, nabi ZK (pbum) am your nabi, peace and blessings be upon me and all my buds. Trust me and no other. You are wrong. Please take note of it.
nabi ZK (pbum)
...ZK guides who he chooses and who is guided by ZK will not go astray but instead traverse along the path prescribed by ZK...believe it or else...none other than ZK have the truth and this is not to be doubted...in fact ask not questions of ZK as your iman might waver from even the slightest hint of skeptical inquiry...so ZK will have none of that...
Posted by: zonie kafir at August 26, 2008 1:32 PM
deenxo
Put-up, or shut-up.
Whether 1 or 100 posters respond to your baseless accusations, you should be able to respond to them on your own if you disgaree and have something to base your opinions. Don't be cowardly and hide behind a numbers game.
To the only thing of substance you offer, Hugh responded quite pointedly, and to that you have nothing to say in except non-responsive over generalizations.
Be specific if you dare. Please point out some of that "misinformation" you decry.
If you see something you disagree with be man enough to return the volley. Let's see what you're made of. Other than that, if you can't take the heat, go do your whining elsewhere. In fact, there's a whine-fest going on in Denver right now. You'll fit right in.
at August 26, 2008 1:33 PM
deenxof -
You are definitely in the wrong neighborhood if you think that any of us on JW would buy into your pathetic lies about Islam. Be gone, liar!
Your prophet, Muhammad, was a liar too; and while I'm at it, he was a murdering marauder and sexual pervert. Some "prophet" you follow after, you would be better off following after some other false prophet than that loser. All false prophets will have to answer to the One True God when they die, as will those who follow after them, too.
deenxof, would you defend a child molester? Would you defend a murderer? Would you defend a liar? Would you defend a thief? I guess so, because you defend Islam, that was founded by Muhammad.
Posted by: champ at August 26, 2008 1:35 PM
deenxo. I, nabi ZK (pbum), nabi to ALL mohametan and pseudo mohametan trolls, am super cereal. You should get cereal too or you will face a trial in this life and possibly far worse in the next. So get cereal deenxo and stop being such a pathetic dhimmi.
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir at August 26, 2008 1:40 PM
Aah... those shades of grey in Islam. This shadowy concept of
Haram - Halal
Male - Female
Believer - Unbeliever
Dar-al-Harb - Dar-al-Islam
As for "learned people in Muslim circles": For centuries they left their thoughts in lots of books. Ibn Taymiah comes to mind. Not too many shades of grey in volumes of islamic books either.
at August 26, 2008 1:43 PM
"The Quran does not call for "death to the unbelievers". On the contrary, if says that to kill a soul unjustifiably would be as if all mankind were killed. (Clearly, a strong prohibition)."
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Actually it calls for the believers to slay the "mushrikun" -- variously translated as "unbelivers," "idolaters," "pagans," "disbelievers," or "those who join with other gods"
(9.5, 2.191, and so on).
2.191 (Pickthall):
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
Nice of you to quote 5.32. What about 5.33?
(Hilali-Khan):
The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.
Peace, but "mischief" is punishable by crucifixion and amputation leading to death. That's Islam in a nutshell. Dennis the Menace would be a quadruple amputee.
Posted by: Beagle at August 26, 2008 1:45 PM
deenxo didn't realize that all of his arguments have been used over the centuries. It's like deenxo is all proud like he thought of that himself. We heard it all before deenxo. Many times. Even our ancestors heard it before. It's that old. That is why it is so humorous for you to try to pass this off here.
As far as the scholars of mohametanism and their debates about jihad and other mohametan concepts go, they are wrong. You have it on the nabific authority of nabi ZK (pbum) that these so called scholars are but bumbling idiots. Please take note of it.
nabi ZK (pbum)
...and the nabific, the nabified one, wise, munificent, was heard to say "This troll will never respond point by point to Hugh. Not gonna happen."...
Posted by: zonie kafir at August 26, 2008 1:51 PM
deenxo -
What part of "kill the infidels" do you not understand?
Posted by: tanstaafl at August 26, 2008 1:56 PM
LOL, LOL. This is Great!
Beagle, You might want to mention 2:190,yes the verse before 2:191, "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors."
As for 5.33, during time of war enemies should be killed, shouldn't they. Does it matter if it is nuclear, chemical, biological, an M-16? 5.34 goes on to say "Except those who repent (to ask for forgiveness) before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
So what we have here is this: Muslims should not begin hostilities but if attacked they should kill the enemy but if the enemy says "sorry" all is forgiven. Sounds reasonable to me.
A little knowledge, or should I say selected knowledge, is a dangerous (but amusing) thing.
Posted by: deenxof at August 26, 2008 2:06 PM
This is your brain on drugs (*#@!+)
This is your brain on Islam ( )
....a great void....
Posted by: champ at August 26, 2008 2:11 PM
There are passages in the Old Testament (and New) and the Torah that are so violent that you would think that Genghis Khan had written them.
deenxof:
Care to cite a few? Or can you do nothing but make blanket statements?
Posted by: PMK at August 26, 2008 2:16 PM
deenxof,
Perhaps you could explain for us skeptical infidels,
what is wrong with Bin Ladens' theology. How does he misunderstand the Koran?
Or to put it another way, Where does the Koran and Islamic law say anything to effectively denounce the Jihadi terrorists?
at August 26, 2008 2:23 PM
deenxof - write Al-Qaeda & bin Laden with those "peaceful" passages from the Quran - as they are obviously the ones who need to be reminded of them. Not us.
Posted by: champ at August 26, 2008 2:44 PM
All passages must be understood in there proper context, 7th century Arabia, for example. To do otherwise is a very slippery slope indeed.
deenxof
What you say is only partially true. You forgot to point out the most important and relevant facts.
The Old Testament (Bible) and Tora, written in pre-Christian times was written in the context of the times. Life then was frugal, short, and sometimes very violent. Thus the writers of that time period wrote in their own context.
The New Testament (Bible), taught no such rightful violence to others and in fact Christ taught people to love one another. This represented a major change in that time period.
Some people like to revert to the Medieval days of the Spanish Inquisition. Certainly there were corrupt priests then as there are now. But again, corruption then manifested itself differently than now because of the different context of the times.
Finally, today in our modern times, where many poor people live their lives as did kings in the medieval and older times. You will find no Christian church, and I think not any Budda or Hindu religions that sanction violence against others as part of an effort to spread their religions. Only Islam continues to spread their religion "by the sword". There is no main stream effort among Muslims to reform their religion.
Posted by: Spot on
at August 26, 2008 2:59 PM
deenxof,
I think you are just as deluded as your Muslims brothers who are murders just like their founder Mohammad. I think your knowledge is very limited because you have forgotten the principle of abrogation. Moreover when the Muslims are weak it is always a wise tactic to lay low but as soon as there are large numbers then attack the infidels. It is also good to know that Islam will be resisted and that I think your disgrace and humiliation can be seen throughout the world. Firstly your Arab brothers really are enjoying great deal of wealth and apparently the rest of the Muslims are in a real pathetic state. That wealth was gotten through the help of the west. I mean Islam has truly failed. There is nothing great about Islam it is barbaric violent religion it is now and has been. People who live under Islam have contributed to nothing. They depend on the west for technology and know how. The Muslim mind is pathetic and imbecile just like Mohammad. So really I think you need to read more and stop making generalizations. Oh and stop the taquiya it is boring. Oh go join Al Queda before you lose your spot in the porn afterlife, if allah will it, by the way there is no guarantee, of yours. You are not being a good Muslim waisting your time here.
Posted by: savsiv at August 26, 2008 3:00 PM
- deenxof, king of shades of grey, says:
"So what we have here is this: Muslims should not begin hostilities but if attacked they should kill the enemy but if the enemy says "sorry" all is forgiven. Sounds reasonable to me."
Yes. And because the Hindus attacked your prophet Mo in Medina, Islam spread to India.But the theological finesse of learned scholars on Islam will certainly help us out here.
/Not.
at August 26, 2008 3:05 PM
deenxo. The nabified one, that is me nabi ZK (pbum), concede the historical context and so on. But many mohametans take these to be universally applicable at all times and against all non-mohametans. In fact, historically mohametans waged wars of conquest against all their neighbors and had amassed quite an empire through obviously offensive wars. Hmmm... So those rightly guided Caliphs didn't get your point either. Lesee. That's OBL doesn't get it and the Caliphs didn't get it. Lesee. Umm... who else. A few others are confused I, nabi ZK (pbum), think.
And by the way saying sorry wasn't it. More like saying uncle.
nabi ZK (pbum)
...if you repent not of your falsehoods then a woeful rep shall you aquire...
Posted by: zonie kafir at August 26, 2008 3:12 PM
On the contrary, if says that to kill a soul unjustifiably would be as if all mankind were killed. (Clearly, a strong prohibition). Of course, Al Qaeda gets around this problem by calling their war against the West as a defensive war and, thus, justifiable
deenxof, did you just refer to the "strong prohibition of killing a soul unjustifiably" here as a .... "problem"?
Posted by: yadayada at August 26, 2008 3:37 PM
deenxof writes --
So what we have here is this: Muslims should not begin hostilities but if attacked they should kill the enemy but if the enemy says "sorry" all is forgiven. Sounds reasonable to me.
So then, do you think Al Qaeda should apologize to the West, since they began and based their hostilities towards the West on a twisted interpretation of Quran 5:32?
Sounds reasonable to me.
Posted by: yadayada at August 26, 2008 3:52 PM
deenxof wrote--"There is considerable debate about Jihad within Muslim circles"
What's to debate? Either Islam is peaceful with other groups, or it isn't. There shouldn't be any debate at all about this. After 1400 years, you guys are still debating whether jihad is of the sword or not? That's a sign of a deep problem IMO.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at August 26, 2008 4:03 PM
To:
Champ: Not worth a response.
PMK: I found these in about 5 minutes. Deuteronomy 20 "If a city does not accept Israel's offer of peace and open its gates, then "when the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it" With regard to other cities, the command is (verse 16), "Do not leave anything that breathes."
With regard to Jericho, Joshua 6:21, the Israelites destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys"
In the New Testament the justification of burning herectics at the stake is found in John 15:6 “If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.”
As for the Torah, haven't you ever heard of Purim?
Sasiv: Islam has produced one of the greatest civilisations in the world with many of the world's greatest thinkers. Against much adversity Islam continues to grow whereas Christianity, particularly in Western Europe, has lost it's way. Much of what you write is nothing more than wishful thinking.
buraq_is_dead: Huh??? Hindu's never attacked Medina. So sorry.
nabi ZK (pbum): Did you forget your meds or are you always like this?
yadayada: Certainly it's a problem for Al Qaeda. No one would argue that Al Qaeda desires death and destruction. Don't confuse them with Islam. Do those who murder doctors who perform abortion represent all Christians?
yadayada: What is important is that their interpretation of the Quran is not twisted to THEM.
DenverRodeo: Is Islam peaceful with other groups? Generally, yes. Is Christianity peaceful with other groups? Generally, yes. But let's not forget the pograms against the Jews and their expulsion at one time or another from every European country, the Hundred Years War between England and France, brutal colonisation of the Americas and Africa, WWI, etc. etc. The Christian World has much more blood on it's hands than Islam. But, yet, Christians are generally peaceful people as are Muslims.
at August 26, 2008 4:42 PM
"Champ: Not worth a response."
posted by: deenxof
I can see why you do not have a response, as defending Muhammad is literally an impossible task, so dismissing me is much easier. You are smart not to defend the indefensible, so why bother; and I have dealt with this dismissive approach before, so this tactic is nothing new, nor is it very original. Yawn.
Bottom line - Muhammad is not worth defending, so thank you for proving my point.
at August 26, 2008 5:08 PM
That's right 'deen,' "hostilities," which can be as little as fixing a church, carrying a bible, opening a Christian school, selling alcohol, teaching girls to read, or running a barber shop.. Some of us can use our eyes and see what goes on in the Muslim controlled parts of the world. Your word games work on the stupid kuffar, but not on me.
Posted by: Beagle
at August 26, 2008 5:11 PM
Islam has produced one of the greatest civilisations in the world with many of the world's greatest thinkers.
Now that's wishful thinking. What about the last 1000 years?
at August 26, 2008 5:29 PM
Beagle,
There is enough ignorance to go around, on all sides. There is nothing in the Quran, or Hadiths for that matter, prohibiting girls from going to school (just the opposite in fact), running a barber shop, etc. Most of what you cite is a product of ignorance; Muslim's not understanding their own religion. This is not an indictment of Islam. In the same way that the behavior of some Christians is not an indictment of all of Christianity.
There is no word game here; "know the truth and it will...."
By the way there is considerable debate on the use of the word kuffar. Some believe that it is used to describe all non-Muslims, others believe that it should be used only for people who are not people of the book.
at August 26, 2008 5:43 PM
Certainly it's a problem for Al Qaeda. No one would argue that Al Qaeda desires death and destruction. Don't confuse them with Islam. Do those who murder doctors who perform abortion represent all Christians?What is important is that their interpretation of the Quran is not twisted to THEM [al-Qaeda].
deenxof,
Thanks for your response. I don't confuse al-Qaeda with Islam. And certainly I agree that those who murder abortion doctors don't represent Christianity...that's why those who do that are sent to jail or executed in a Christian-dominated country such as the USA.
Which is why I ask.....what's Islam's response to those who twist the Quran like al-Qaeda does? Should sharia dictate that al-Qaeda apologize, as you say the Quran teaches? Is there anyone in the ummah who has the integrity to demand that they do apologize? Or is al-Qaeda allowed to twist the Quran violently, unapologetically, and unopposed while escaping justice by sharia? At least the abortion doc killers got their due from their gov't. Not so, it seems, with al-Qaeda and their gov't. People shouldn't be asking why the USA hasn't caught and brought to justice guys like bin Ladin, Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and other AQ guys....people should be asking why sharia hasn't done so and why it allowed AQ to flourish so until non-Muslims took action against them.
For me, it's not whether al-Qaeda = Islam. It's the fact that sharia seems unable to punish al-Qaeda and its ilk, which reflects badly on Islam as a judicial system meant to dictate the earthly affairs of all mankind (much less God's judicial system).
Posted by: yadayada at August 26, 2008 5:55 PM
deenxof wrote:
"In the New Testament the justification of burning herectics at the stake is found in John 15:6 “If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."
--------
Nowhere in this passage does scripture suggest, justify, or encourage Christians to burn anyone at the stake. Rather, it speaks to judgment which is left to God.
It uses an analogy of a branch that withers. Once a branch is no longer part of a living tree, it is discarded. It addresses those who don't remain in Christ after accepting and believing.
Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at August 26, 2008 6:19 PM
Now you've got it Cool Ghoul. It's the interpretation. Check your history. This passage in John was precisely used to justify the burnings. The Inquisitors had a slightly different view than yours.
Posted by: deenxof at August 26, 2008 6:30 PM
Yadayada
You've hit on one of the major problems, if you will, of Sunni Islam. Ever since the abolition of the Caliphate by Ataturk there has been no leader of the Sunni community. There is no Pope or Ayatollah. Since, in Sunni Islam, and this is an important distinction with the Shia, there is no priesthood, no hierarchy, there really is no one to speak for them. Sure there is the occasional speech by an Imam at Alkhazar but that is not the same, and doesn't carry the authority, of the leader of the Catholic Church, for example. Many people in the West believe that because of this silence by the Muslim community that they condone the acts of Al Qaeda. The real reason for this, there is no grand conspiracy, is that there is simply no one who has the authority to speak for the Umma, the Muslim community.
In this case, one of Islam's greatest assets, namely, no priestly hierarchy and no intercession between the individual and God, turns out to be a great weakness in the PR war.
at August 26, 2008 6:43 PM
deenxof:
Deuteronomy 20 "If a city does not accept Israel's offer of peace and open its gates, then "when the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it" With regard to other cities, the command is (verse 16), "Do not leave anything that breathes."
Yes. But it was a one-time limited command to do so. It was not open-ended, unlimited warfare for all time. Look at Deuteronomy 9:5 where it makes it perfectly clear that God is judging the current inhabitants. Also see Deuteronomy 18:10 where again God makes clear that child sacrifice, sorcery, witchcraft are detestable to him.
And also see Jeremiah 18:5-10 where God lays down general principles about the fact that he has the right to judge nations that do evil and the right to bless nations that do good. Also see Ezekiel 33:11 where God make it clear he does not enjoy evil peoples destruction.
This is a one-off event where Israel is the instrument of Gods judgement, nothing more.
There is no command to make continual warfare for all time on surrounding nations.
deenxof:
John 15:6 “If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.”
That is not a command to Christians.
That is what will happen given time.
In constrast, Matthew 5:44-45 is a command:
"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
Moreover, you wont find a single verse in the New Testament where Jesus commands to make war against enemies. Nor Paul. Nor Peter. That is absolutely clear cut.
You will find Jesus using hyperbole e.g. "Hating your mother and father" Luke 14:26. Emphasis is being used to make it clear that God come first, not that hating your mother and father is what is wanted. And Jesus repeatedly uses hyperbole.
Now contrast all of that with the Quran 9:5 where it is unlimited "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free."
Or Bukhari in
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294
where it makes it perfectly clear that Muslims should go on the offensive if non-believers will not become Muslims nor pay the Jizya tax. Not defensive. Offensive. Thats right. Similar to Muhammad deciding to raid caravans once established in Medina - which is theft.
deenxof, what do have to say about the open-ended unlimited warfare that the Quran and Hadith commands Muslims in constrast to the one-off and limited events in the Bible? And there is no injunction, ever for Christians to slaughter those that disagree with them.
deenxof:
Islam has produced one of the greatest civilisations in the world with many of the world's greatest thinkers.
Such as who deenxof?
I would say that the thinkers in Islamic countries are in spite of Islam not because of Islam. They just happened to live in countries governed by Islam, it wasnt because the general climate of thought permitted free inquiry.
Take the recent death of Naguib Mahfouz, the Egyptian writer and Nobel Laureate. He was stabbed in the neck by an Islamic extremist.
Hardly a glowing testament to Islamic tolerance.
Or if you go back to the polymath Averroes (ibn Rushd) and Maimonides, you will find they persecuted in their day by Muslims. Maimonides was forced to emigrate to Cairo.
On the West:
The whole period of the Reformation & Enlightenment and Industrial revolution so such advances in Mathematics, Medicine, Chemistry, Biology, Physics that the scale dwarfs anything that went on in the Islamic world. I dont see the equivalents of Gauss, Newton, Leibniz, Voltaire, Fleming, Galois, Einstein, Plank, Priestley etc.
And that is not counting Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Brahms. I can enumerate achievements at will.
In general Islam has to look back to the 800-1300 period to find brilliant people and as mentioned above, these people did not arise because of Islam.
deenxof:
Is Islam peaceful with other groups? Generally, yes.
You are confusing the behavior of Muslims with Islamic theology. Once you take into account the doctrine of abrogation, there is no peaceful coexistance to other religions from the Quran, Hadith and Sirat. So if Muslims are peaceful - they are not following the commands of Islam.
Read Surah 9.
deenxof:
The Christian World has much more blood on it's hands than Islam.
I doubt that very much. Perhaps you have forgotten the constant raids on Europe by Muslims.
Spain was enslaved from 711AD to 1492AD. Nearly 800 years. France was invaded when it had done nothing in 732AD. That was before the Crusades.
I would contend Crusades would never have happened if Muslim armies not invaded North Africa, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel. Muslims started it. Do you have any idea when the Turks are going to leave Constantinople and Anatolia having slaughered the inhaitants on arriving? It is long overdue.
Would you care to explain why the Arabs repeatedly invaded India from 1000AD and destroyed their temples, raped their women?
It all started with Muhammad bin Qasim.
Would you care to explain why today harmless Buddhists in Thailand are being killed by Muslims?
deenxof:
But, yet, Christians are generally peaceful people as are Muslims.
I would point out that when Christians go against
Christian teaching, it is an aberration - there are no injunctions from Christ on committing warfare. In contrast, when Muslims commit warfare, it is not an aberration as the Quran backs it up and the example of Muhammad backs it up. I only have to look at the sections on Jihad in Salih Bukhari and Salih Muslim to know what the Islamic perspective is. And all 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence back up the concept of jihad.
UK Infidel Lover
Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at August 26, 2008 6:55 PM
“The real reason for this, there is no grand conspiracy, is that there is simply no one who has the authority to speak for the Umma, the Muslim community.”
Posted by: deenxof
I see absolutely no hesitance in the Umma, the Muslim community, in speaking out when it suits them. They certainly spoke loud and clear with worldwide rage, riot and murder over an Infidel cartoon. They also maintain a deafening silence whenever a Muslim brutally murders an Infidel in the name of Allah, which is quite frequent these days.
No, the Umma, the Muslim community articulates quite loudly – and often.
We kuffar are listening – and watching
YOU
at August 26, 2008 7:07 PM
Oh boy, the "debate" has advance to the No True Muslim (Scotsman) logical fallacy and to it's not in the Quran so it's not Islam.
I think I'll go watch some paint dry.
Islam is like any other peaceful religion symbolized by the sword which spread it.
Posted by: Beagle at August 26, 2008 7:20 PM
deenxof sez:
"Islam is not more and no less violent than Christianity or Judaism. There are passages in the Old Testament (and New) and the Torah that are so violent that you would think that Genghis Khan had written them"
read on..
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bible-Quran-Violence.htm
Posted by: pulsar182 at August 26, 2008 7:26 PM
New troll with the same old lies....next.
Posted by: champ at August 26, 2008 7:28 PM
The real reason for this, there is no grand conspiracy, is that there is simply no one who has the authority to speak for the Umma, the Muslim community.
Posted by: deenxof at August 26, 2008 6:43 PM
Yes, the lamentation for the lost Claiphate. Thank goodness for Ataturk for Muslims are bloodthirsty enough in their individual sects. Islam suits any individual Muslims needs at any time.
There appears to be a pandemic musunderstanding of what Islam is, but the misubderstanding is exclusively in MUSLIM comunities.
Your initial flawed argument, actually, not much of an argument at all but rather a fabrication, the moral equivalence between Islam and any other religion, only holds true with the willful suspension of reality and to ignore all that our lying eyes see. We simply need to ignore the words and actions of Muslims in the news articles right here at this site, words and actions that are so plentiful, they simply cannot be ignored.
I for one wish Muhammad's 7th century death cult had remained and evaporated in its own time, but alas, it continues to poison the world today. When Muhammad changed Islam to suit his sociopolitical needs over time, through abrogation in which Allah "changed his mind", we understand Islam quite clearly.
Muhammad may have originally intended a different end to what Islam was to be, but considering that the ninth sura, inarguably the most violent and intolerant verse of the Qur'an is supposedly the penultimate revelation chronologically, abrogating all earlier contradictions, there is little defense of the entire text itself.
Couple that with the reality that any interpretation of Islamic texts, ijtihad, ended almost a thousand years ago, it has been business as usual for quite some time.
Others have stated the obvious fact that you are indeed in way over your head here. I suggest you move along and spread your disinformation elsewhere, for you will find no takers here.
Posted by: awake at August 26, 2008 7:35 PM
Booya, Awake! No takers here, is right!
Move along, densefox.
Posted by: champ at August 26, 2008 7:54 PM
deenox:
DenverRodeo: Is Islam peaceful with other groups? Generally, yes. Is Christianity peaceful with other groups? Generally, yes."
Your two "Generally"s cover up different ratios. There are virtually no Christians today committing violence in the name of Christianity or in expanding Christian political rule. There are many Muslims around the world committing violence in the name of Islam and the expansion of political Islam. Those many Muslims actually doing that may be enough of a minority so you can say "Generally" Muslims are not doing it, but that minority is all over the world and represents too many people causing too much disturbance.
People of the West already had their debates about violence over two centuries ago. We've moved on. Too many Muslims today are still picking up the sword. In fact, the trend in the Muslim world seems to be to go backwards, not forwards to a world of peace. You guys are still having "debates" in 2008. Christians already have stopped long ago committing violence. When are you guys going to get with the program?
"But let's not forget the pograms against the Jews " blah blah blah. We haven't forgotten all that. We have been studying and apologizing for that and fixing the problem for at least two centuries. I don't see any Muslims studying and apologizing for all the violence they have done over the centuries and right up to today, August 26, 2008.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at August 26, 2008 7:55 PM
deenxof,
Again we can see from your response that imbeciles are the product of Islam. Islam again tries to produce wishful thinkers. You have proved my point and so has your fellow Mohammedans that Islam is a lost civilization that is barbaric violent and utter chaos. Your delusion has made loose track of reality. The simple and profound truth can be seen by the pathetic and sorry Muslims who are destitute throughout the world. Look at the news and see what is happening to your fellow Muslims they are so poor and uneducated like your prophet who was an illiterate. Again you have proved my point that Islam cannot get anything write it has never produced any great thinkers only deluded, child molesting, and thieves. Yes it has also produced lowlife murders and thieves. So you still did not answer my question and again you are losing your spot in your porn afterlife why are you not fighting alongside the Al Quaida. Plus stop lying your Islam is a total failure and world can see. Stop deluding yourself. By the way you still are not being a good Muslim, you should be fighting alongside the Jihadis. What are you doing here! allah will not give you a seat with the 72 virgins. As far as wishful thinking, I stating the facts. I think you are the one who is wishful thinking Islam has failed you miserably.
Posted by: savsiv at August 26, 2008 8:07 PM
deenxof:
fyi, The story of Purim is not in the Torah, which consists of only the 5 books of Moses. Rather, it is told in the book of Esther, part of the Kethuvim, or Writings. The Writings are part of the Hebrew Bible, but are accorded less status than Torah, which Orthodox Jews regard as from the hand of Moses.
More to the point, the book of Esther is the only one in the Hebrew Bible that does not have a single mention of G-d. The Rabbis interpret this as disapproval, or at least a lack of holy sanction of the destruction of the enemies of the Jews that takes place towards the end of the story.
Muslims commonly bring up the fact that Baruch Goldstein committed the mass murder of Muslim worshipers at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron on Purim in 1994. Goldstein is reviled by most Jews; I have never heard any rabbi even try to defend his actions, and rightly so. I would contrast this with the rapturous reception recently given the baby-killer Samir Kuntar by Hezbollah when he was released from prison. Both men committed heinous crimes; how they are viewed by their own people says a lot about their values.
Posted by: materialguy at August 26, 2008 8:11 PM
You've hit on one of the major problems, if you will, of Sunni Islam. Ever since the abolition of the Caliphate by Ataturk there has been no leader of the Sunni community. There is no Pope or Ayatollah. Since, in Sunni Islam, and this is an important distinction with the Shia, there is no priesthood, no hierarchy, there really is no one to speak for them. Sure there is the occasional speech by an Imam at Alkhazar but that is not the same, and doesn't carry the authority, of the leader of the Catholic Church, for example. Many people in the West believe that because of this silence by the Muslim community that they condone the acts of Al Qaeda. The real reason for this, there is no grand conspiracy, is that there is simply no one who has the authority to speak for the Umma, the Muslim community. In this case, one of Islam's greatest assets, namely, no priestly hierarchy and no intercession between the individual and God, turns out to be a great weakness in the PR war.
deenxof--
Thanks again for the response. Interestingly, I've talked to Muslims who prefer not to answer whether they are Sunni or Shia or whatever....they want to be known as just "Muslim". So there seems to be some inconsistency in the ummah whether this distinction is important or not.
So why doesn't the Shia ayatollah speak out against al-Qaeda? Doesn't the PR black eye that al-Qaeda gives Islam problematic for both Shia and Sunni? Don't both Sunni and Shia follow the 5 pillars of Islam the same way? Or is the distinction really that great? Sunni and Shia all seem to be in one accord re: the Muhammad cartoons and Salman Rushdie. Speaking of Rushdie, if the Shia leadership is willing to put a fatwa on a British author, why don't they do likewise with al-Qaeda (who've probably killed more Shia than Rushdie has)?
The pope, as singular a leader as he may be, still doesn't make or enforce laws. The abortion doc killers were punished based on laws not made or enforced by the Catholic church. In fact, the death penalty hasn't sat too well with many Catholic leaders.
So if one of Islam's greatest assets is having no priesthood or hierarchy, what then is the caliphate? Are you suggesting pre-Ataturk Sunni Islam went against Islam's greatest assets by establishing a caliphate? I smell a contradiction here....
It's unsettling that you might think of al-Qaeda as a PR liability for Islam. AQ kills and persecutes people who don't think like them, Muslims included. This is not a PR issue....it's life and death. And the lack of hierarchy or priesthood or leadership with which to deal with them is even more worrisome, don't you think? Especially when Islam claims itself to be a superior jurisprudence system (fiqh).
Posted by: yadayada at August 26, 2008 8:26 PM
Why waste time with someone like deenxof who worships a pagan moon deity that doesn't exist?
Posted by: darcy at August 26, 2008 8:33 PM
This will be the first of two postings, addressed not to the regulars, nor to the Mohammedan Spin-Doctor who has just popped up and is desperately trying to throw sand in our eyes, but to any interested non-Muslim who is here today, or in the future, for the very first time.
First up. New visitor, if you know little about Islam - despite the frantic protestations of 'deenxof', Osama bin Laden is - as Mr Ibrahim points out - saying nothing that contradicts the broad mainstream of classical Muslim ideology.
Here - shared with us by Mr Ibrahim in the course of *this* article
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022070.php
in the final paragraph - "they [two Muslim women sheltering a Christian woman in Indonesia] went against the Muslim doctrine of Loyalty (to Muslims) and Enmity (for non-Muslims), more commonly known as al-Wala' we al-Bara' - under al-Wala' we al-Bara', you will find the following piece of Quranic exposition, sourced to Qutb and Maududi (two leading modern interpreters of Islam):
http://salafiyyah-jadeedah.tripod.com/wala_wal_bara/Alee_Imran.htm
Al-Wala'u wa Al-Bara' Revealed in Al-'Imran (1/2)
by Khaalid al-Ghareeb
- Courtesy Of: www.islam.org.au
is a link to an article written by a Muslim, for Muslims, and found by Mr Ibrahim at a Muslim website, dealing with the principle known as al-wala wa al-baraa, loyalty and enmity. That is: Muslims are formally taught, by their religion, to actively hate and curse non-Muslims.
Whether they do it secretly or openly, and whether that enmity is expressed in hurtful and harmful acts, depends merely on the relative political and social power of the Muslims vis a vis the non-Muslims.
And here are two further examples of the sorts of of things that were being said and written by educated, literate Muslims, concerning Muslim attitudes toward non-Muslims, in the Middle East in the early 20th century.
1. From Andrew Bostom's article, 'Textbook Jihad in Egypt',
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C4BA519B-3644-4738-99B9-6B2BD900C894 the following passage:
"The seminal modern scholar of Islamic civilization, S.D. Goitein, warned more than a century later, in 1949, speaking of the Arab world generally, in particular Egypt:
“Islamic fanaticism (said Goitein)…is now openly encouraged…writers whose altogether Western style (was mentioned earlier) have been vying with each other for some time in compiling books on the heroes and virtues of Islam…
'What has now become possible in educated circles may be gathered from
the following quotation from an issue of the ‘New East’, an Arab monthly periodical describing itself as the ‘organ of the academic youth of the East’ [emphasis added]:
- ‘Let us fight fanatically for our religion; let us love a man-because he is a Moslem; let us honor a man- because he is a Moslem; let us prefer him to anyone else-because he is a Moslem; and never let us make friends with unbelievers, because they have nothing but evil for us.’"
2. From Samuel Zwemer (d. 1952), an American scholar of Islam, and former editor of Moslem World, in "Moslem World," Vol. 10, 1920, pp. 154-155):
“Its [Islam's] intolerance and persecuting spirit have been revealed within the past few years, the blood of a million {Armenian Christian} martyrs testifying to the failure of Islam, its absolute failure to understand the words that open every chapter save one of their Sacred Volume: ‘God the Merciful and Compassionate’.
"A few years ago one of the leading Moslems of Baghdad wrote an article for a French journal entitled, 'The Final Word of Islam to Europe' :
‘For us {i.e., for Muslims} in the world there are only believers and unbelievers; love, charity, fraternity toward believers; contempt, disgust, hatred, and war against unbelievers.
‘Amongst the unbelievers the most hateful and criminal are those who, while recognizing God, attribute to Him earthly relationship, give Him a son, a mother.
‘Learn then, European observers, that a Christian of no matter what position, from the simple fact he is a Christian is in our eyes a blind man fallen from all human dignity.’…"
The aggressive sentiments expressed in these statements made by educated early-20th century Muslims, as reported by Goitein and Zwemer - both formidable scholars who had spent years immersing themselves in the languages, culture, history and daily life of the Islamosphere - are *exactly* reproduced in the words of 'Bin Laden' - "[b]attle, animosity, and hatred-directed from the Muslim to the infidel–is the foundation of our religion’’
I could give other examples just as hair-raising, from as far away as India and North Africa, and from the Sufi stream of Islam, which is supposedly more pacific and 'tolerant'. But I assure you that those which I have quoted are absolutely typical.
The most important point for non-Muslims to grasp is that Islam DOES NOT teach a universal 'Golden Rule'. It has one ethic for intra-ummah conduct and an entirely different ethic - or, indeed, absence of ethics - for conduct toward non-Muslims.
Here
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005959.php#comments
you'll find an article by an apostate from Islam, Ali Sina, discussing the matter; the comments are interesting.
Among other things, Ali Sina notes:
"A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29) It says: 'Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.' [Yusuf Ali translation].
(In Dawood's translation this verse reads - '...those who follow him [Mohammed] are ruthless to the unbelievers, but merciful to one another'.)
at August 26, 2008 8:35 PM
deenxo
Do not challenge my nabific pronouncements for you speak, er type, to the nabific one. Fool...
nabi ZK (pbum)
...I told this guy he was wrong and all his respected scholars are idiots who spent a lifetime studying nonsense...how much more clear can I, nabi ZK, be?...
Posted by: zonie kafir at August 26, 2008 8:54 PM
buraq_is_dead: Huh??? Hindu's never attacked Medina. So sorry....
deenxo. We know this. So why again, did the DEFENSIVE ONLY mohametans go after the Hindus? LOL You do accept, of course, as a matter of historical fact the many 10s of millions of Hindus were killed by the invading and occupying mohametans LOL. A defensive action only of course LOL. What a tool you are deenox.
nabi ZK (pbum)
...LOL...mohametans are on thin ice...very thin...the nabi, peace be upon me and all of my buds, demands all mohametan property (stolen all of it with mass murder as part and parcel of the crime) and lands (all occupied lands right down to the last square inch in medina)as war reparations...LOL...
Posted by: zonie kafir at August 26, 2008 9:13 PM
deenxof wrote:
"Now you've got it Cool Ghoul. It's the interpretation. Check your history. This passage in John was precisely used to justify the burnings. The Inquisitors had a slightly different view than yours."
----------------
Placing meaning and words that are not there is not interpretation. Rather, that's misunderstanding. And is not Islam to be taken as literal and without interpretation? Therein lies one essential difference.
Thus, when Islam contradicts the teachings of Christ and mandates violent behavior it is no wonder that so much violence is committed by muslims.
Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at August 26, 2008 9:19 PM
Second posting, also for new readers here today or who may discover this page in the future, and who currently know little about Islam.
It is critically important to understand that classical Islam permits its followers to lie and obfuscate in order to advance or to protect Islam.
This practice of prescribed and justified deception and evasion, which has been elaborately developed by Muslim theorists down the centuries, and assiduously practised by Muslim diplomats, warmakers and rulers toward their hapless non-Muslim neighbours, is known by two technical terms - al-taqiyya, and kitman.
You will find an interesting discussion of al-taqiyya if you click on *this* link to an earlier article 'Excusing Taqiyya?' by Mr Ibrahim:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021625.php#comments
Be sure to scroll down and read the comments, which provide useful nuggets of additional information.
For those who might not want to read the whole thing, here's the 'money quote', which gives a reference to an Islamic scholarly source:
"...the very first lines of one of the few Arabic books wholly dedicated to treating the doctrine of taqiyya, called "al-Taqiyya fi al-Islam" (Taqiyya in Islam), by Islamic studies professor Sami Makarem, unequivocally states in its opening page:
'Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Nearly every Islamic sect has agreed to it and practices it….Indeed, we can go so far as to say that mainstream Islam practices taqiyya, and that those few sects that do not practice it are aberrant, diverging from the mainstream' (p.7)".
There it is: right from the horse's mouth.
Therefore NOTHING that 'deenxo' says can be safely taken at face value.
For good measure, here's another article - 'the truth depends on who's listening' - on the same topic - the Muslim practice of deception.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021617.php
And if you want to know what happens to a society when this sort of thing is practised, century after century, in here
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=17069DA6-6C04-4E06-81C7-010C9F29AD55
among many other interesting - and deeply disturbing - things, you will find this summary of the 'permission to deceive':
"On Arab TV, I once saw a Muslim preacher telling little children that lying is not allowed except under three conditions 1- Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam. 2- Lying to Muslims if it will end conflict between them. And 3rd: Lying to one’s wife to improve the relationship.
"Lying thus has become an obligation in international relationships, Muslim relationships and family relationships.
"Any wonder why Muslims were silent after 9/11? Those who expose the lying game are considered traitors.
"By allowing lying, Muslims have created a culture unable to distinguish between lies from truth;
"truth has become a convoluted game of saving face for the best interest of Islam."
And, finally, another classic piece,
http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/2006/04/life-in-iraq-part-ii-civilization-of.html
Friday April 28, 2006: Life in Iraq Part II, A Civilisation of Deception. Posted on The Autonomist web-site.
It's a cri de coeur from a frustrated American in Iraq who had learnt, painfully, first hand, that in Arabised Islamised countries flat-out lying and cheating and deception of every imaginable variety are the norm and truth-telling and the keeping of Agreements do. not. exist. in any meaningful form; all that matters is 'saving face' - and screwing the other guy - and people will say whatever they damn well like in order to cover their backsides or to get the drop on someone else.
On the perpetual pursuit of personal gain by Muslims at the expense of everything else:
"In the Middle East, there is no such thing as an Agreement. Whether a verbal commitment or a look straight in the eye or firm handshake or even a written contract, these things here are worth next to nothing.
"Rather than organizing or finalizing anything, these acts merely serve as a continuation of the struggle by one party to screw the other party more than they plan on getting screwed themselves.
" Accomplishing a given task, taking pride in one's work, achieving competence, and even basic concepts of economic gain through mutual trade, take a far back seat to the massive satisfaction gained by getting something more out of someone else then they get from you."
And then
"In addition to trying to screw each other, there is the opposite condition of trying to avoid embarrassment -- to "save face" or keep one's "honor" in front of each other. Under this cultural imperative the lies fly, efforts die, but the Muslim, forever, keeps his head held high."...
"For us [westerners], in order to operate effectively at all, everything must be assumed to be a complete pack of lies until a Westerner gets "eyes on" to give us the real, (and generally very bad), news.
"Lying is the only way a completely incompetent person who is trying to screw everyone can possibly retain any sense of dignity among others. Welcome to the Middle East."
THAT is the kind of 'civilisation' - or UNcivilisation - that centuries of Islam has produced. An abomination of desolation; of aggression and falsehood. Take away the universality of the Golden Rule - reduce ethics to a sort of thieves' code (with no ethic whatever governing conduct toward Outsiders or Designated Prey) - and the habits of violence and fraud will flourish within the Ummah as well as outside it. To be ruthless toward the unbelievers means, in the end, that ruthlessness rules *among* the 'believers' as well.
No: I am not going to listen to a word that deenxo says, and I advise all new readers to politely ignore him, for he is doing exactly what Nonie Darwish said the imam advised - "Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam."
Put it this way, O new reader: if *you* belonged to a violent supremacist cult pursuing World Domination and full of hatred, contempt and will-to-dominate toward all those who refused to join the Cult, would you prefer that your intended victims knew, or did not know, until the very last possible moment, the full extent and nature of your evil intentions toward them? And would you not lie yourself black in the face if you encountered some among them who did seem to be waking up to your real plans?
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 26, 2008 9:20 PM
Oh, and this is for the new reader as well, today or in the future.
At these two links
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021115.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021127.php#comments
you will find the text of an article on 'Jihad', by a Muslim writer, that appeared in the 'Pakistan Daily' in May 2008, seemingly sourced from a May 4 posting on a blog called 'Islamic Revival', and which was pulled from Pakistan Daily online, not long after its appearance.
It presents a straight-down-the-line traditional Muslim exposition of the meaning and purpose of Jihad.
Be sure to pay attention to Mr Spencer's remarks, and to explore the comments field, which will give you extra information, and some clues as to how to see through the Orwellian doublespeak - and the outright historical lies - perpetrated by the Muslim author.
at August 26, 2008 9:45 PM
Western civilization moved past the Inquisition. It's what we call HISTORY. What was done by the inquisition doesn't dictate how we behave today. When will Muslims get out of the seventh century?
Posted by: PMK at August 26, 2008 10:19 PM
Islam is a Religion of War. Jihad.
There is no allah. There might not even be a Mohammed.
In order to justify their invasion and conquering of the Jewish and Christian Middle East and Christian North Africa in the 7th century, Arabs made up a "religion" in which a God would approve of and reward such rapacity and plunder.
If you have a pipe, deenx, put the above in and smoke.
You're so mightily deceived.
Posted by: darcy at August 26, 2008 10:55 PM
Deenxof writes, concerning (Sunni) Muslim silence: "...there is no one who has the authority to speak for the Muslim community."
Sounds like a lame excuse to me.
Why not? Are they afraid to speak for themselves? Does this mean that there will never be anyone "to speak for them?" And in turn, does that mean that they will continue, for many more decades, to sit silent while the killing continues?
I think that's what you call an "accomplice" in legal terms, or is it "aiding and abetting"?
Deenoxof is wasting his time here, and maybe I came in a little too late, but I like it when the snakes crawl out from under their rocks. You can see them in the light then.
Posted by: charlie at August 26, 2008 11:07 PM
Your point is well taken, Dumble. Yet, I think it ignores 2500 years of Western Logic. To assume one’s opponent might be telling a lie is healthy skepticism. To assert that an opponent is always telling a lies because you can cite 7th Century dogma that you further assert your opponent must be following, is in itself potentially fallacious without grounded evidence that this particular opponent believes in that particular dogma. (Sorry, I’ve been reading a lot of Bertrand Russell lately, and I’m beginning to sound like him.)
What bothers me about always invoking the concepts of Taqiyya and Kitman when disputing a Muslim is that it opens the non-Muslim to circular reasoning and a universe of Liar’s Paradoxes.
http://philo.ruc.edu.cn/pol04/mirror/www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-liar.htm
I think it’s more constructive to disprove a specific lie than to call upon an alien dogma of lying. We are supposed to be the rational West. Let’s argue that way.
at August 26, 2008 11:41 PM
the Mohammedan troll deenxof has withered away from all the pointed attacks on his death cult. these trolls try to con us, but seems they attack the messenger and not the message. LOL
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 27, 2008 2:41 AM
No, I haven't whithered away. I've found that I don't have the time for this. I, unlike some, and you know who you are, on this site do have a life outside of ranting about religion.
dumbledoresarmy: Religious texts, like statistics, can be used to prove any sort of point you wish to make. Yes, you've the time to research your thesis and provide links (all to this site and sites like this) and you should be congratulated in attempting to look scholarly. Taqiyya is was originally a permitted as a way to conceal one's religion in times of persecution. Now, you have shown that not all Muslim's believe this and that taqiyya is a broader concept. For everyone of your scholar I can produce two that agree with the traditional interpretation of taqiyaa. And so what does that prove? That my scholars are bigger than yours?
Charlie: Individual Muslims do speak for themselves as you must know (if you ever met one). They just don't have a platform.
Farcy, sorry Darcy: You've got if backwards. Islam first conquest second. Islam first conquest second. Repeat. (I never cease to be amazed at the lack of command of the basic facts on these kind of sites)
PMK: They have. But it is not a good thing. In the so-called Middle Ages the Islamic world was the most advanced on the planet. Europeans were busy wallowing in their own filth and fighting each other. The tide ebbs and flows. They'll be back. ( to paraphrase Arnold).
Cool Ghoul: You're right it was a misunderstanding not a misinterpretation, or vice versa. Whatever. Last I looked they were synonyms. Is your first language English?
Well I must be off. I have other chains to pull. Overall I'd rate this bunch about a 5. Average. Some knowledgeable folks but a good share of pin heads. Many with an ax to grind I fear. E.g. Someone lost their girlfriend to some Muslim guy or someone Muslim commented on their weight and how pale they look living in their Mom's basement for the past decade or a member of some minority who feels under threat and just get over it, that the world has moved on.
One parting comment:
Islam and Muslims are not going away. If anything, they will have ever more clout in the future due to changing demographics and the increasing wealth of the Muslim world (its only been 30 years since they had any serious money). Coexistence and understanding is the only way forward. I suggest you pick up a good, balanced book about Islam, meet some Muslim folks and chill out. In time, you'll laugh at some of the muck written here.
Peace upon you all.
at August 27, 2008 4:36 PM
deenx-- You're a devil from hell, just like your false prophet and non-existent pagan moon deity.
Hope you enjoy roasting along with your false prophet! Enjoy the flames, Devil!
Newsflash, Dumbo: Conquest first, Islam second! Oh yeah!
Let me repeat:
In order to justify their invasion and conquering of the Jewish and Christian Middle East and Christian North Africa in the 7th century, Arabs made up a "religion" in which a God would approve of and reward such rapacity and plunder.
Islam's made up! Mo is made up! "allah" doesn't exist!
Poor deenie with his TEENIE-WEENIE brain!
POOR DEENIE WITH HIS TEENIE-WEENIE BRAIN! LOL!
Hi, teenie-weenie deenie!
Posted by: darcy at August 27, 2008 4:57 PM
Poor teenie-weenie deenie with all his muck!
Muck teenie-weenie! LOL! In fact, you don't even have a brain. All you have is a brainwashed piece of tissue.
Mohammedan Barbarian Teenie-Weenie Deenie!
Muslims, begone. Stay in your own Islamic Crapistans. And I do mean "Crap."
No wonder you Barbarians emigrate to the West! Your own countries are crap.
Posted by: darcy at August 27, 2008 5:02 PM
"No, I haven't whithered away." --Teenie-Weenie Deenie
No? Oh, too bad! Ruins the day to see the likes of you. Utterly ruins a beautiful day to see a Barbarian Mohammedan with an IQ of 3. Pity poor brainwashed Mohammedans, like teenie-weenie deenie.
Posted by: darcy at August 27, 2008 5:08 PM
Hey, Darcy! Good stuff! I laughed till I cried, not only because it was funny, but because it was ALL so true, LOL!
Yeah, what a teenie-weenie-loser, huh. This "densefog" character reminds me of another evil character I just saw in the movie, The Dark Knight. Know who I mean? The Joker, that's who! The Joker liked to "pull peoples chains", too; and if memory serves me correctly, then things didn't end too well for that heartless, soulless character either.
Funny how the numbers don't lie, as I can't count a SINGLE friend or convert that "densefog" made while visiting this site, but I can count at least 25 enemies that this clown has made. Nope, not a single friend, allah must be very displeased. Very displeased, indeed.
Just be thankful that we don't subscribe to the lies of Islam, Muhammad or allah, Darcy. Thank the One True God that we know the Truth, and that the Truth has set us free!!
at August 27, 2008 5:51 PM
deenxof,
Any luck finding passages from the new testament which advocate violence? Do keep us posted.
BTW - without realizing it, you have proven my point. You originally claimed that John 15:6 justified the burning of herectics (sic).
When shown that no such justification existed, you responded that it was an "interpretation".
You've now rightly concluded that indeed the justification is nothing more than a "misinterpretation" and "misunderstanding" of this passage. You see, "misinterpretation" and "interpretation" are what's known as antonyms in the English language.
Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at August 27, 2008 6:04 PM
Whew! I'm glad that snake slithered away. I am going to print his last comment though, as a reminder of the inherent hate of anyone non-muslim, and his threats and boasts of muslim clout and wealth.
Posted by: charlie at August 27, 2008 7:24 PM
Hey, Darcy! Good stuff! I laughed till I cried, not only because it was funny, but because it was ALL so true, LOL! --champ
So pleased you got some laughs, champ!
Teenie-weenie deenie is one deluded Mohammedan, but, aren't they all?!
Posted by: darcy at August 27, 2008 7:39 PM
One parting comment:
Islam and Muslims are not going away....
And may your nabi, peace and blessings upon me, ask as to how you know this to be true?
nabi ZK(pbum)
...wealth *snicker* and with what arms to protect it?...kuffar arms that's what arms...be good little mohametans...be good...
Posted by: zonie kafir at August 27, 2008 9:52 PM
"Teenie-weenie deenie is one deluded Mohammedan, but, aren't they all?!"
Posted by: darcy
Indeed! It's one thing to throw away your own life on a false religion/false hope, but quite another to lead other's down that same path to destruction.
__________________________________________________
"I am going to print his last comment though, as a reminder of the inherent hate of anyone non-muslim, and his threats and boasts of muslim clout and wealth."
Posted by: charlie
My thoughts exactly! Every comment made by this poster was full of hate, and then he ends with a boastful and disingenuous, "Peace upon you all".
Boy, didn't that just warm your heart? And then to speak of Islam's "clout" as if that were a noble position and hope for ones own religion; which certainly is very telling of the Muslim mindset. It's all about power and position within Islam, not service and humility, as exampled by Jesus Christ.
Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth; but I guess Muhammad didn't like that plan, nor do his followers, so their hope lies in taking over the world. Watch as their jaws drop - when in the end - taking over the world does NOT happen.
Don't say I didn't warn you, deen.
Posted by: champ at August 27, 2008 10:12 PM
Zonie kafir: good point - "with what arms to protect it (wealth)?... kuffar arms that's what arms.."
I do believe you are my nabi -- peace be upon you, and me, and Darcy, and Champ and....
at August 27, 2008 10:38 PM
ZK - as an official member of your Nabi Fan Club, I was hoping that you would send some 'happy-nabi-thoughts' my direction.....I could use some nabiness to cheer me up :-
Posted by: champ at August 28, 2008 1:26 AM
skevin
Nonie Darwish and Makarem are NOT 7th-century texts; they are contemporary witnesses to the fact that the 'permission to lie' is very much alive within Islam.
As I have gone through the archives at this site I have come across postings by people who have observed an apparent absence of any real sense of objective truth, in Muslims that they have met. Oriana Fallaci observed the total incoherence of Yasser Arafat's speech when she interviewed him.
From a practical point of view the question 'is this particular Muslim likely to deceive me, or not'? , or 'is he or she lying to me, or not?', resembles the question 'is this particular Muslim 'moderate' and 'peaceful' or not?'.
We know that some are NOT peaceful. We know that some that appear to be peaceful, are not. We know that some which were once peaceful, turn into the aggressive variety - sometimes quite suddenly. And we know that it is quite difficult to tell the difference. Safer to err on the side of caution, when the stakes are so high - indeed, the stakes are the survival, or the destruction, of our entire society and civilisation.
Likewise: we know from long and bitter experience, within history, that although kafir political entities aren't that good at keeping their word, Muslim entities are demonstrably treacherous toward non-Muslim treaty partners, etc., to a breathtakingly greater degree. It is probably more reasonable to suppose, in light of the history, that many Muslims deceive, than that they don't, and to be accordingly...cautious, reluctant to trust. Erring on the side of caution.
Since I know from Nonie Darwish (and Tawfik Hamid, too) that many Muslims are taught to curse the kafir, and not to befriend them, and indeed to actively harm them, and since I know that there is also a proverb "we smile at some people, though our hearts hate them", just how much upfront trust *can* I afford to give to Mohammedan persons and entities? *Should* I believe what they say, in the same way and to the same degree that I might prima facie believe what a Jew or a Buddhist or a Christian (unless they're an obvious crook) tells me?
Should I, can I, a Christian, in the ordinary course of affairs, trust a Mohammedan doctor or lawyer or accountant as much as I might trust a Jewish or a Hindu doctor, lawyer, accountant?
How much time and energy should I as an individual, or my political representatives on behalf of my entire community, expend on trying to sift the words of the Mohammedans - given that we do know that the Islamic ethic is supremacist and situational? That 'good' = 'whatever benefits the Muslim, or Muslims', and 'Bad' - 'whatever doesn't benefit the Muslim, or Muslims'.
See Spencer's discussion of the raid at Nakhla and the 'persecution is worse than slaughter' verse, on pp. 5-7 of "The PIG to Islam and the Crusades' and pp. 97-99 of "The Truth About Muhammad".
Four years ago a poster at this site unearthed David Hume's exposition of the nature of Mohammedan ethics, or lack thereof:
"But would we know, whether the pretended prophet had really attained a just sentiment of morals?
"Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society.
"No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers."
David Hume (1711-1776) "Of the Standard of Taste: Paragraph 4" (1757) http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume%20on%20taste.htm#p4
- Posted by: Rublev at September 4, 2004 1:17 PM
If one looks at some of the classic Muslim discussions of 'telling the truth' and 'lying', one finds that truth in and of itself doesn't seem to have much value. It's nice to be able to tell the truth, so long as the truth benefits Muslims/ Islam; but if a lie would be more useful than the truth, then lying is OK.
'War is deception' (put it the kafir way: the first casualty of war is truth) - but we know that the Islamic paradigm is that dar al Islam is supposed to be permanently at war upon dar al Harb.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that Islam treats language as a weapon, that the historical or scientific truth or falsehood of a statement (whether it corresponds to The Thing Which Is, as we kafir might say), is nearly irrelevant, what matters is that what is said will have an effect to advantage the Muslim or Muslims.
Say whatever you think will get you what you want...say what you think will get your listener 'on side' (even if it's completely false, meaningless flattery, a temporary promise to get the listener 'off your back').
Here is Dr Mark Durie, on dissimulation in Islam, discussing the Umdat al-Salik
"The manual quotes the eminent Islamic scholar Abu Hamid Ghazali as follows (r8.2):
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives.
"If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it.
"When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is
permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”
“When the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do to, it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying.
"But it is religiously more precautionary (def: c6.5) in all such cases to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying … ”
“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging,
one is entitled to lie… ”...
"These points confirm the validity of the discussion of dissimulation in Daniel Scot’s seminar.
"What might be the implications of accepting these shari’ah rulings?
"On the basis of the ‘Umdat al-Salik’s ruling, I [Dr Durie] conclude a Sunni Muslim who had the goal of establishing the Islamic state, perhaps using violence, and felt that revealing this could expose him or her to persecution, would be entitled to dissimulate to protect hself and cause from harm.
"This dissimulation could be regarded as a righteous act, not an immoral one.
"Likewise if a Muslim believed that exposing certain teachings about Islam could make Islam, the Prophet or the Islamic community vulnerable to ridicule or severe criticism, or that exposing such teachings could undermine Muslims’faith or turn potential converts away from Islam, then this teaching could be claimed to entitle them to lie or give a misleading impression, because in such cases the negative consequence could be judged to be worse than the dissimulation.
"In making these judgements, I take into account the extremely negative attitude in Islam towards ridiculing Islam or Muslims, leaving Islam, or exerting any influence on Muslims which might influence them to leave Islam.." END.
Now: here are three anecdotes which I encountered in the archives at this very site, concerning the speakers' experience of contemporary attitudes and behaviours of Muslims, as regards 'truth in discourse' and the use of language:
The first:
"Actually I have a friend who was raised a moslem in pakistian. He no longer believes in god period.
"But he stated to me any nonmoslem who thinks he can be friends with a moslem is a fool.
"Never believe what they say. To lie to or deceive a nonmoslem is a great honor...".
Posted by: ecil_man at July 8, 2005 7:52 AM
And here is another:
"... my experience, and that of my colleagues, is that they can never, never, never tell the truth.
"Ask them the time and they will lie for the sheer pleasure of having lied.
"Their testimony, even from the seemingly nicest of them, will always contain more lies than truth. It seems that they just can't help themselves.
"All the time, it's like dealing with a two year old caught raiding the biscuit barrel.
"It just gets very wearing after all these years and we tend to use insulting words more to protect our own sanity than to insult - it's some sort of distancing mechanism, I think, - otherwise we would all go mad because of their childish and immature approach to the world.
" According to some teachers who I know, the children and the adolescents are just the same - constitutionally incapable of telling the truth or, worse, relating to the real world…"
- Posted by: Certiorari at January 13, 2006 10:38 AM
And the third, most apposite:
"One gets to develop, in listening to Muslim voices, a third ear: it’s not what they say, because that is totally unreliable, whether it be lies, taqiyya, bad things or pleasant statements;
"it’s not how they say it, because it is usually angry or upset - and that seems to be endemic with the religion of peace;
"but it’s rather - how is the speaker trying to influence or manipulate you? - and here the analysis better be good, because your life depends on it."...
Posted by: dgene at September 19, 2005 10:19 PM
I find it very telling that degene's observations chime precisely with the teaching of Ghazali that I cited above.
Now, we kafir are well aware of the slippery use of speech, in which the truth of a statement is less important to the speaker than what they hope to gain; our conmen and politicians do indulge in this sort of thing rather more than they ought, and we have our boasters and our flatterers (whom we despise); but we do also have quite a strong sense that what people say *ought* to correspond to facts, be they emotional facts 'I love you' or scientific and/ or historical facts, even if the facts are unpleasant or disadvantageous to the speaker. "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". I think most of us kafir who are decent people feel a real discomfort saying something we know is factually untrue, even if it is a polite social 'white lie'.
Islam doesn't seem to instil that kind of discomfort in its adherents.
at August 28, 2008 2:32 AM
My dear friends I, nabi ZK (pbum) am NOT your actual nabi UNLESS and IFF you are a mohametan troll, such as the pathetic deenxo. Know that I, nabi ZK (pbum), am the true nabi of deenxo whose nabific pronouncements are not to be doubted. Which he did at great peril for his life in the world to come. Actually he will have a humiliating fate in the afterlife and be required to wear a sign which says "I doubted nabi ZK (pbuh)". He will have to wear the sign all the time. People will ask about it. Really.
Had I, nabi ZK, been an actual nabi or THE actual nabi major peace and blessings would be upon all of us. As it is, my nabific powers are mostly used to make fun of the trolls, such as the pathetic deenox who felt so superior to all here and told us so, and also betting on horse races. It is just so much easier to win when you know all and see all.
nabi ZK (major and I am talking serious peace and blessings upon me and all my buds)
Posted by: zonie kafir at August 28, 2008 5:23 AM
deenox. The nabified one mocks you and your silly belief system and all the silly little rituals of your silly little belief system and the silly pretenses of your silly little belief system. You are NOT being taken seriously. Feel the burn dude.
nabi ZK (mpabumaamb)
Posted by: zonie kafir at August 28, 2008 5:32 AM
islam shall perish from the Earth.
Money will be of no import.
This has been foretold. This is a promise.
"allah" is Satan and muhammad was his demon messenger.
Posted by: CGW at August 28, 2008 7:42 AM
CGW is word-4-word right!
Posted by: champ at August 28, 2008 3:01 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.)