"I have no desire to make any accommodations to Islamic law, and that's my opinion." by James Lindsay.

Hats off to this professor! We infidels join you in this declaration whole heartedly. Let us resolve to make NO CONCESSIONS to Islam.

Posted by: IndianTiger at September 22, 2008 1:38 PM

Well that was refreshing.

Posted by: Gorkhali at September 22, 2008 1:38 PM

I nearly fell off my chair. We need to clone Professor James Lindsay and have a duplicate of him teaching students in every infidel university.

Posted by: Dsinc at September 22, 2008 1:52 PM

Concerned Citizen, (where are you?)

"OFF TOPIC"

To close our thread on “Virginia: Christian extremists leave threatening note on 9/11 statue -- no, wait...”

I find your “opinion” just that…quite an op ed with no scholarly support.

Perhaps you should amend your document with references? This way I may research and refute, because this opinion is easily refutable, and I believe I can refute all of your sources. Will you provide them?

Now I find this extremely funny, “multicultural, peaceable Quraysh,” “the Quraysh were quite tolerant for the most part” …as well as being evidence that you are ill informed of the “peaceable” nature of the Pagan Quraysh. Did you type this with a straight face?

The Pagan Quraysh tortured a Muslim by holding him down on a bed of hot coals until the fat of his back dripped off, they held Bilail down in the hot sand of the desert torturing him by stacking sun heated heavy stones on his chest trying to force him to return to their idol worship, they held down and tortured to death two Muslim parents in an effort to get them to convert back to polytheism to which they refused and became the first two martyrs, they tortured and abused so many Muslims that Mohammad, long before the invitation to Yathrib, advised a weak group among the Muslims to flee to Abasynia to the just Christian King Najashi, who eventually became a Muslim.

So this op ed of yours is incorrect, and a bias projection…the Quraysh were neither tolerant nor peaceable towards the Muslims of Mecca prior to Hijra.

I also take this time to remind you after the virtually bloodless victory in the liberation of Mecca from the Pagan Quraysh that Mohammad told them they were forgiven and peace was to be made. Not the “blood bath” you describe. This is funny…if any time there was opportunity for a blob bath it would be when the Quraysh were vastly outnumbered on the liberation of Mecca. What happened? The opposite.

“, the Khuza'a, by mere virtue of the shahada, were entitled to the privileges of the treaty” And this comment of yours is non-sequitor. The signatory parties of the treaty both knew full well these alliances and their mutual inclusion in the treaty.

Provide your reference for “Quraysh even stated, "I do not want to fight you,…”

And this I have already refuted with research references included; “butchery of the treatment of the Qurayzah”. You yourself admitted they were probably treated fairly, and yet now you spin it an entirely different way. The Banu Qurayza were given justice under Jewish law and the more merciful sentence was levied. This I proved.

Your op ed takes many liberties due to the fact that you do not accept the Quran or the Prophet as they rightly deserve, as the last Book from God, and the last Prophet from God, and this I can excuse because your faith is different than mine. But your being incorrect about historical facts despite my providing of verified references as to the validity of those facts I do not forgive.

“It may be that the Hanifi's in the 9th century invented the terms "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb".” Thank you for your candor on this issue. I have been informing people of for years that there is no standing order to take over anything…in fact, the opposite, and I provided support for my position with references ( you should attempt at least to do the same.)

On this comment of yours, “But you excuse Abu Basir” I made no such excuse. I noted as fact the Muslims of Madina abided by the treaty to the letter. Abu Basir was not accepted he was sent back, and he abandoned all affiliations and became a highway robber targeting his enemies the Pagan Quraish. I would no more condemn him than I would Dull Knife of the Tsitsistas ( Northern Cheyenne)…another subject altogether.

“…were obligated signatories by your definition.” (Basir) In fact I proved he was not, as the Muslims of Madina under order of the Prophet rejected Basir per the treaty and forced him to be returned.

The position of the Khuza and Banu Nadir was well known to all signatory entities in the treaty. Abu Sufayan ran to Madina to ask for time and to preserve the treaty despite the slaughter, yet failed to condemn or reject his alliance with the Banu Nadir. No, CC, you have failed to support your opinion here.

Now hypocrisy should be pointed out when it is due, and this ‘Empire expansion is not defense of "borders and boundaries".’ Is a hypocritical comment coming from someone, whom I assume, correct me if I am wrong, fully supports the war against Iraq. Am I wrong in this?

I reject as valid any invasion attack or occupation of Iraq.

I fully support the war against Afghanistan as a response to an attack on our soil by forces they harbored.

You sir, are a hypocrite if you support the war on Iraq while maintaining your position above of “Empire expansion is not defense of "borders and boundaries".”

Apologist?

Should I shed tears for a criminal? Should I apologize for ventilating a burglar who happens to be threatening my family? No. He breaks in at night, they carry him out feet first in the morning with the wind whistling through all the holes in him.

I do not apologize for justice. I insist on it.

I have not made Ijthihad, have not issued fatwa, and did not introduce any new concepts into Islam, as I am unqualified to do any of the above

I found the whole of your opinion just that, an unsupported emotional opinion. You need to reflect on what I produced and refute it with like, or simply admit you are unable to refute it.

Perhaps I should have been blatant in my request for your rebuttal, as you have failed in it with your opinion.

That being said, I am sure your closing argument at least impressed you.

I have since invited one whom I feel is more well equipped to refute my reasearch, yet I await his response as to whether he will entertain the debate.

Peace to you and yours,

Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 22, 2008 2:03 PM

Moreover, it is foolish to allow muslims to immigrate to the West, and proselytize here, at all. Close the mosques, shut the gates, and begin the deportations.

Posted by: HotSpur at September 22, 2008 2:18 PM

Its easy for them to be "objective", after they silenced everybody with whom they disagreed by threatening them with death. The latest one is the German professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch:

Professor for Islamic theology, Muhammed Sven Kalisch, faces death threats after denying Muhammads existence.
http://dachnews.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/professor-for-islamic-theology-muhammed-sven-kalisch-faces-death-threats-after-denying-muhammads-existence/

By the way, we started translating news connected to Islam a.s.o. from Germany, Austria and Switzerland. You can tell us if you find it necessary or if you think it a waste of time...

Posted by: Kybeline at September 22, 2008 2:22 PM

Abdillah. Please. I, nabi ZK (pbumn) am your nabi (pbum). So listen and learn. All of that history is but a smoke screen. Yes the mohametans were abused. Yes the quraish were slave keepers and generally nasty people. Yes there were wars and treaties and all that politics. But so very clearly there was a whole lot of killing going on. And your guy has blood on his hands. I, nabi ZK (pbum as usual), hear your Tu Quoque. I hear you saying that the non-mohamteans have blood on their hands TOO. OK conceded. But Jesus has no blood. Buddha has no blood. So many others with no blood. Those who we revere as teachers for mankind should have no blood on their hands. So why do you follow after a man who does? But the nabified one already knows the answer my friend. It is because you also glorify the warrior spirit. Blood Blood.Blood. A continuing sacrificial flow. Abrahamic indeed. /sarc :)

nabi ZK (pbumaamb)

...help help i'm being oppressed...now we see the violence inherent in the system...

Posted by: zonie kafir at September 22, 2008 2:43 PM

I hope the good professor has tenure. If not, better scratch that vacation because you're going to CAIR-sponsored sensitivity training.

Posted by: sonomaca at September 22, 2008 2:49 PM

The militant Islamic branch -- which the film says makes up about 10 percent to 15 percent of a worldwide Muslim population of 1.2 billion, the world's second-largest religion behind Christianity -- has a conquest ideology, Lindsay said

Only 10/15% of 1.2 billion. That must be the tiny, dinky, small, minute number of jihadi's they keep talking about.
And all this time I thought there were only three or four...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 22, 2008 2:51 PM

Oherwise said dude, if you said he was a great military and political genius leader I, nabified and wise, (pbumaamb), tec.,would have to agree. But please please please don't call him a holy man or prophet or whatever on a mission from God, because he so clearly was not.

nabi ZK (pbum)

... believe it or suffer a terrible fate in the next world to come ... um ... beyond the river styx ... exact change required ...

Posted by: zonie kafir at September 22, 2008 2:54 PM

It is tiresome to read the same lies, perpetrated by Muslims arrogantly that Islam is a religion of peace, that Koran is a revelation from God and that Mohammed is the last prophet. If Muslims want to believe that, it is their right to do so, but don't try to convince us about the same. For me it is as true as believing that I am the queen of Russia or that pigs can fly.

Religion is a matter of faith. It is what you believe, which is not necessarily what is real. Islam is peace does not wash with us infidels, particularly those who have suffered the brutalities of Islam. Islam came to India on the strength of swords and resulting compulsions. It destroyed a flourishing civilization, it destroyed universities (Nalanda, Taxila), it burnt their libraries, it killed the monks who ran the universities, it coerced the natives to convert or die. Indian history is full of accounts of Islamic barbarism. And these accounts have been recorded not by biased non-Muslims but by Muslim chroniclers (for example, Babar nama during the rule of Babar). So, while Muslims live in the fantasy world of peaceful Islam, the actions of Islam speak louder than the words.

Muslims can go believing whatever they want, but we infidels neither believe that Koran is God's word nor that Mohammed was a prophet of any kind, leave aside being the last prophet.

Posted by: IndianTiger at September 22, 2008 3:08 PM

Professor, stay strong. You are about to come under incredible attack, not only from CAIR but from many non-Muslim apologists as well, to say nothing of the 90% of the "peaceful" Muslims around the world.

Just think - a mere 10% of Muslims subscribe to this ideology. That means a little over 100 million people. Only 100 million out of 1.2 billion. We can all sleep well tonight.

Posted by: PMK at September 22, 2008 3:12 PM

I hope the good professor has tenure. If not, better scratch that vacation because you're going to CAIR-sponsored sensitivity training.
Posted by: sonomaca

Kudos to Professor Lindsay! Presumably he does have tenure, since that usually comes with promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor. Academic promotions also require extensive publications, letters of recommendation from external colleagues, as well as substantial agreement from faculty in his department, so maybe he's not as exceptional in his views as one might think reading JW and FP. He still is not completely free of potentially compromising political pressures, however, until he is promoted to full Professor.

It's ironic that the JBS Swift & Co. activities are in Greeley, Colorado (not far from Ft. Collins), that hotbed of 1950s American immorality so hysterically described in Sayyid Qutb's "Milestones."

Although James Lindsay's views, emanating from within American academia as they do, are refreshing and welcome, they would carry much more weight if they were expressed by someone with a name like "Mohammad" or "Abdullah". Instead, we are continually subjected to the harangues of apologists, such as above.

Posted by: Eastview at September 22, 2008 3:35 PM

"Always refreshing to see a member of that bastion of Islamic apologetics -- academia -- actually being objective."

Even a broken clock is right two times a day.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 22, 2008 3:36 PM

regarding the Pagan Quraysh...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020745.php

Posted by: pulsar182 at September 22, 2008 3:38 PM

Oh, Abdullah the Barbarian Mohammedan - your delusions of grandeur about mass-murderer Mo the Warlord fake prophet are hilarious! LOL!

Brainwashed 'Bot, Abdullah, a slave, yes, a slave to "allah" that doesn't exist, and Mo the Warlord Con Man!

Pitiful. So pitiful. Get smart, why don't you? All of the smartest people, along with Western "Infidels," are EX-Mohammedans.

Muslims have invented NOTHING! You like the Internet, invented by "Infidels," Abdullah? LOL

Using your cell phone today, Ab? Invented by "Infidels," Loser. Total Loser.

Posted by: darcy at September 22, 2008 4:02 PM

"...to Abasynia to the just Christian King Najashi, who eventually became a Muslim."

Amazing what someone will do under duress with a beheading sword poised above his neck.

Posted by: darcy at September 22, 2008 4:08 PM

The article really points out what we are all up against. Those who know the source material are against them. The ill-informed and willfully ignorant are for them.

Who's bright Idea was it to bring these Muslims here in the first place? They should have been given Guns and Ammo when they were still in their own Country. Tell them to defend their own freedoms if they wanted them so badly.

Telling us what to do after 18 months of being here. The raw nerve of some People.

Fired for Just cause, deny the unemployment benefits.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 22, 2008 4:17 PM

"The idea of the Jihad as laid out by extremists is one of the doctrines within the Quran itself," Lindsay said. "It's a fundamental tenet of Islamic religion and it has been in Islamic history -- engaging in warfare against the enemies of Islam." --Prof James Lindsay

Exactly, Exactly, Exactly.

Jihad = Islamic Holy War. End of story.

Hi Slave Abdullah - put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: darcy at September 22, 2008 4:21 PM

Says James Lindsay,associate professor of Middle Eastern history:

"I have no desire to make any accommodations to Islamic law, and that's my opinion."

Words that kafir all over the free non-Muslim world would like to hear from the mouths of every one of their politicians, company executives and religious leaders.

Words that might, perhaps, sound even better if rephrased something like this:

"We shall not make any accommodation to Islamic law. That is our final decision".

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 22, 2008 4:29 PM

zonie kafir; and, in particular, Indian Tiger

well said. Seconded.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 22, 2008 4:32 PM

Abdullah,

I'm back for one more try here.
I have 2 questions for you (with multiple corrolaries):

1) Do you see anything wrong in Islam whatsoever?

(Do you acknowledge that any of the following might be problems within your religion and/or may lead directly to terrorism and the murdering of non-Muslims: Islamic supremacism, the idea of "lesser jihad" being war on infidels, the verses in the Qu'ran about killing infidels, the warrior attributes of Muhammad, the history of Islamic warfare, or oppression of women? Or is everything just peachy in Islam, and all that bad stuff is just a result of a few crazies misinterpreting, mistranslating, or taking things out of context? Is there anything at all inherent in Islam you find problematic?)

2) Would you live in Saudi Arabia?

(This is one area you never responded to me before. Since Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Muhammad and Islam, and they practice what they consider to be the purest form of Islam, and religion is government, one would expect that they have the pinnacle of Islamic civilization. I think they do, but I also find it completely backward, barbarous, cruel and wrong. Do you support the things they do, and why or why not?--meaning, do you support no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion (for non-Muslims), no freedom of assembly, the systematic oppression of women, ie, they can't vote or drive or leave the house without a man, etc etc, the suppression of music art, etc ete.? If you don't, could you tell me how they got Islam so wrong?)

Since you said lying is permitted in war-time, and for all I know, you think we are at war with Islam, you could lie to me all you want, but I'd still be interested in your answers, however honest...

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 22, 2008 4:41 PM

Just think - a mere 10% of Muslims subscribe to this ideology. That means a little over 100 million people. Only 100 million out of 1.2 billion. We can all sleep well tonight.
Posted by: PMK

--

That is now. I guarantee you it'll be way more than 10% when it hits the fan.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at September 22, 2008 4:44 PM

I just clicked the link to the Greeley Tribune and read the whole article.

It's very interesting. It mentions Qutb.

As well as Lindsay, it features a couple of Muslim spin-doctors busy with the smoke and mirrors.

But it does include another splendid line from Ass. Professor James Lindsay. To wit:

'Lindsay has a more jaundiced view. He considers the gulf so wide, and the militant element within Islam so vehemently anti-West, that finding a path to peace is unlikely.

'He points out that the extremists believe they are doing the work of God and "that is a tremendous motivator. They don't mind dying."

'Lindsay doesn't expect to see an end to the conflict between radical Islam and the West in his lifetime.

'"If we value who we say we are, we have to be vigilant against this ideology, which is hell-bent on our destruction," he said.'

Bouquets for Ass Prof. James Lindsay:

"If we value who we say we are, we have to be vigilant against this ideology, which is hell bent on our destruction".

Frame those words and put them up on the wall.

I think, ladies and gentlemen, that we have a candidate for Non-Dhimmi of the Year 2008 (Academic Division).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 22, 2008 4:55 PM

By contrast to Ass. Prof. Lindsay's plain speaking, the article concludes with what has got to be the understatement of the year.

I quote.

'Bill Jerke, a Weld County commissioner':

'"I think we've been in religious and cultural conflict with Islam since the Middle Ages," said Bill Jerke, a Weld County commissioner, "and this is simply one of Greeley's small chapters in that worldwide discussion of culture and religion."'

'religious and cultural conflict' ... Come on, Commissioner Jerke, come right out and say it - call it WAR, plain and simple.

And then he backs off even further, and refers to a 'worldwide discussion of culture and religion'.

'Discussion of culture and religion'?? -So they were having a 'discussion' in the southern Sudan for fifty years, eh - over a million dead Christians and animists, and thousands more enslaved.

'Discussion'. Oh, and there was a *very* intense 'discussion' in Turkey in the late 19th and in the early 20th century, too - over a million Christian Armenians murdered by jihadis.

Last time I looked, according to Bill Warner at the Centre for Political Islam the guesstimated number of kafir directly butchered by jihadis in the name of allah stood at about 270 million (which isn't counting all the others who perished not directly under the scimitar, but indirectly as a result of jihad-caused famine, disease, etc.).

"a discussion of culture and religion".

Perhaps someone should tell Commissioner Jerke about the Martyrs of Otranto, and the 'discussion' that took place on the steps of the church in Otranto, when the invading Muslim jihad boss, bloody scimitar in hand, howled at the city's bishop that he must submit to Islam, and the bishop, shepherd's crook in hand, unperturbed, replied by inviting the jihad boss to repent and convert to Christianity - at which the jihad boss chopped the bishop's head off with the scimitar.

The 'discussion' - no words, just swords - that took place at Tours/ Poitiers, or at Lepanto, or at Malta in 1565, or outside Vienna in 1683, to name a few of the more famous engagements, were what saved Western Europe from being subjected to the horrors of jihad warfare and ensuing dhimmitude.

On every prior occasion that Jihad has assailed the kafir world, whether in the west or in the east, the south or the north, in the end, for the kafir, if they wished to stay free and alive, things always came down to what Churchill in 'The River Wars' (1899 edition) called: "The arbitration of the sword".

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 22, 2008 5:10 PM

Cheers to Prof. Lindsay. Glad, he watched it -- unlike many others who are criticizing "Obsession" without seeing it. Too bad the folks at the Greensboro News-Record wouldn't even let the DVD into the paper. Let people form their own opinions, get the debate going -- but at least watch the movie.

Posted by: ObsessionFan at September 22, 2008 5:13 PM

From the article:
"James Lindsay, an associate professor of Middle Eastern history at CSU, takes an opposite view on "Obsession." He believes it's a straightforward look at radical Islam."
------------------
For his sake, I hope that he already has tenure.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at September 22, 2008 5:27 PM

My apologies are due to Commissioner Jerke.

Despite the almost laughably diplomatic language he employed in the statements which I excoriated above, he *does* appear to have more of a handle on things than I thought.

From earlier in the article:

'Bill Jerke, a Weld County commissioner, said he worries that if a large percentage of workers walk off an assembly line at once, it can lead to an over-stressed and potentially dangerous situation for the remaining workers.

'He said the Muslim workers who walked off the job because of the prayer issue should be more flexible.

'"Every other group that's come to the United States, that maybe has a little different angle on culture and religion, has learned to assimilate with the majority, and that's what I think they need to be flexible enough to do," he said.

'Jerke has watched "Obsession" -- he bought the DVD a couple of years ago at a Republican function -- and read a book called "America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It." Those sources, which he deems well-researched, as well as worldwide bombings by radical Muslims over the past 15 years, make him circumspect of Muslims in America. {wise man! - dda}

"With the Muslim religion, their practices will dominate over what your American practices would wind up being," he said.

' "And part of that is they believe that Islamic law should dictate over laws of man." {So he *has* understood the important bit - dda}

'He said the issue in Greeley, Weld County and across the country boils down to "whom will accommodate whom and whom will assimilate to whom."

'He said "America Alone" argues that Europe is "reverse assimilating" in that fewer Europeans are being born compared to Muslims, and the continent is being overwhelmed by Muslims."

Well, well, well. I think he 'gets' it, after all.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 22, 2008 5:32 PM

While I appreciate Professor Lindsay's stance, I take the some exception to his argument:

"the conflict between radical Islam and the West"

The adjective 'radical' is the same used by the uninformed and Muslim apologists.

Indeed, Seeme Hasan (in the article) parrots a similar assertion:

"Hasan agrees that there is a radical strand that claims adherence to Islam. But she dismisses them as brainwashed and "sick, sick individuals" who don't practice Islam but rather a singular and misguided hatred of America."

A radical strand? Radicals? Extremists? As Muslims believe the Qur'an to be Allah's literal, unchangeable and eternal word, aren't the words 'radical' and 'extremsist' misplaced? Labeling true believers as such perpetuates the myth of a 'kinder and gentler' Islam.

I'd be willing to bet money that Seeme Hasan knows she's misrepresenting the facts.

Does the professor?

Posted by: PRCS at September 22, 2008 5:43 PM

This article from the 'Greeley Tribune' is actually quite interesting: I think Chris Casey, the journalist, is to be congratulated.

I find particularly thought-provoking the juxtaposition of *this*:

"Abdiamar Bare, 21, walks up to the nondescript mosque in Greeley for noon prayers and pauses a moment to talk about his faith.

"He is asked by a visitor if he's seen the DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." No, he says.

"He's asked if the principles of Islam allow other religions to coexist with it.

'"Every religion is the same. No religion is better than another religion," Bare says. "I believe in Islam. I like my religion, and I don't want it to interfere with other religions."...

with *this*:

'Sentiment has spread among some in the community that the newcomers are pushing too much, exhibiting a desire not to assimilate but rather impose their religion on others...

'...in the day-to-day operation of the Greeley meatpacking plant, the African refugees' religion is at odds, especially during Ramadan, with the assembly line production.

'Brianna Castillo, a JBS Swift employee for four years, said

'the Somali workers are asking for special treatment and making non-Muslim plant employees pick up the slack.

'"Somalis are running our plant," Castillo said at a recent protest by non-Muslims against the Muslims' request for a changed break time. "They are telling us what to do." '

So: a Muslim SAYS (concealing the fact that the Quran-Sira-Hadith plainly teach that Islam is to dominate and indeed erase all other belief-systems) 'No religion is better than another religion...I like my religion, and I don't want it to interfere with other religions."

but the reporter shows us that where the rubber hits the road, non-Muslims are experiencing exactly the opposite -

"They [Muslims] are telling us [non-Muslims working at the plant] what to do".

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 22, 2008 5:45 PM

Let Mr. Bare 'like his religion' at home, back in Somalia. We don't need him, nor any other muslims, in the USA.

Posted by: HotSpur at September 22, 2008 5:57 PM

OT...
but a "Jerusalem driver" has just plowed into a crowd.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_attack

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at September 22, 2008 6:00 PM

"I think we've been in religious and cultural conflict with Islam since the Middle Ages," said Bill Jerke, a Weld County commissioner, "and this is simply one of Greeley's small chapters in that worldwide discussion of culture and religion."
From the article, and commented on by Dumbledoresarmy.

Dumbledore, I think Mr. Jerke's "small chapters" comment may have been an ironic reference to the fact that it was Greeley, Colorado where Sayyid Qutb spent a couple of years in the late 40s-early 50s. As a slight and bashful young Egyptian, Qutb was very much out of place in this Western frontier cow town in those post war years. He was completely scandalized by the omnipresence of alcohol, the mixing of the sexes at church socials, scantily clad assertive women, and other perfectly normal features of modern society that we take for granted, but which were at variance with the conservative Islam he knew. Upon his return from America, Qutb became a central and very powerful figure in the Muslim Brotherhood until he was hanged by Nasser in 1966, but his death appears to have merely made him into a martyr in the movement. Check out his book "Milestones" for a glimpse into the mindset of this fanatic. (It was the publication of this book, which called for the overthrow of secular Islamic regimes such as in Egypt and reestablishment of a global caliphate, for which he was hanged.) In it you'll recognize many of the concepts and stock phrases later picked up by Arafat, bin Laden, Nasrallah, et al. in their denunciations of the West.

I don't know if there is a mosque in Greeley today, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is and it is dedicated to Sayyid Qutb. (Does anyone out there know about this?)

Posted by: Eastview at September 22, 2008 6:04 PM

What I would like to see happen next.

Ass. Prof. James Lindsay gets in touch with Commissioner Jerke and the non-Muslim Swift union boss and they organise a community forum on 'Islam: Myths and Reality', to be held in Greeley.

Ideally, prominent among the guest speakers - Mr Robert Spencer (available to sign copies of his books such as 'The Truth About Muhammad' and 'The PIG to Islam and the Crusades' [Spanish and English editions both on sale]). Others who might be invited - Lt. Joseph Myers, Stephen Coughlin, Andrew McCarthy, Wafa Sultan, Raymond Ibrahim.

And *then* watch the smiling mask rip right off the likes of Adbdiamar Bare, Seeme Hasan, 'a Colorado Muslim who co-founded Muslims for America and the Hasan Family Foundation', and "Amin Kazak, a professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies at the University of Colorado-Denver" who "said a conquest mentality is not representative of overall Islam."

ACT for America - is there any possibility of organising a community conference on Islam, to be held in Greeley, Colorado, ASAP? The historic connection with Sayyid Qutb could be a great 'hook' - all one needs is for someone like Spencer or Mr Ibrahim to give a public lecture entitled 'Sayyid Qutb - Radical or Mainstream?'

Spencer and Dr Sultan, with their no-nonsense take-no-prisoners approach would, I think, go down a treat with all those unhappy plain folks in Greeley, especially those who've been experiencing Muslim supremacism first-hand on the factory floor.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 22, 2008 6:06 PM

Eastview - if you click the link to go to the whole article as published in the Greeley Tribune, you will see that the first paragraph mentions "the nondescript mosque in Greeley".

It doesn't say whether the mosque has a name.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 22, 2008 6:15 PM

Do you know that Sayyid Qutb’s book, “ Milestones” has chapter titles with headings like “The virtues of killing a non-believer.”

Fanatic indeed.

Posted by: Odyessus at September 22, 2008 6:46 PM

When the second (far, far greater than 9/11) attack on America occurs, this is one of the precious few professors in Mideast studies who will still have a job. It show foresight.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at September 22, 2008 6:52 PM

'Sayyid Qutb - Radical or Mainstream?'
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 22, 2008 6:06 PM

It depends upon the audience.

Radical in Greely.

Not so much in Cairo.

Thoroughly mainstream in Waziristan.

Distinctions the West needs to get its collective head around.

Posted by: PRCS at September 22, 2008 7:46 PM

Mo Foe,

Good to have you back on the line.

If I were any more honest with you it would border on being “brutally honest.” If you think I am insincere and not being truthful, it is not my problem. I have nothing to gain from lying.

I do however not want to be rude to you, so sometimes I get a little verbose when trying to soften the answer. I don’t want you to take something the wrong way.

That being said, I find a lot wrong with humanity, and yet I find nothing wrong with Islam, and there are too many secular problems to start pointing to causal relationships…way too many.

The things most people here get upset about are the things that are mostly forbidden. And yes, you do get an occasional conflict that is just and requires a necessary action of self defense, I oversimplified with the burglar in the house parable…but you only find that in defensive situations, and even then no one in the modern day applies the rules of Islamic warfare.

There is a lot of international interference in “Islamic” countries from G-8 nations…and that negative influence abounds. This is a contributing factor to a lot of problems that continue to rage, and this, coupled with the ignorance of many of the target countries with something like 70% + illiteracy rate...this means easily controlled by a minority of zealots.

By the way here is another source on Islamic Rules of warfare from the US Army perspective:

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/march_2005/3_05_1.html

Read it and you will find many of the same concepts that I have been writing to you about…these are not my opinions…just results of research and study.

1A) (Do you acknowledge…) In response to this, if Islam is applied properly the result is peace and freedom, if you could only lay aside your prejudices long enough to see it.

Shafii Juris Prudence is often noted as the most strict. If it is difficult to perform and you are young and strong the Shafii believe it is duty upon you to do that which is harder in preference to the easier in the methods of worship, and believe that if they do less than you are able to do then you have done something sinful. This being said, ask yourself why a Shafii scholar did not even translate the classical Islamic Rulings on slavery?

Shouldn’t he be the one pushing the hardest to be most strict in adherence? Then why has he laid it aside? It no longer applies, the rules governing slavery, that’s why...slavery has been abolished.

But most people can’t get past the fact that slavery was codified as a means to an end in Islam…and the end was the end of slavery. Islam did not innovate slavery, it set mechanisms in order to end it. Shafii no longer even translate the old rules because slavery is ended.

Do people still practice slavery?

Yes, in every single country, on every single continent, in every single religion, there is slavery…some covert, like here in the US, some brutally open as in the African regions, and some, you noted as well, the underpaid resident aliens, and many societies practice this. Does that make it right? No. There are laws against it everywhere. Did they cure the problem? No.

"2) Would you live in Saudi Arabia?"

In a heart beat if I had enough in the bank.

Too bad the salaries are one quarter what they are here. Yes, the cost of living is cheaper to match it, but one can’t afford to pay for two Land Rovers, a house, and private school on one fourth of what you need, that is not the wisest career move to make.

Restrictions on driving, forcing sisters to ride with cabbies (non-Mehram ( non family)) all this I mentioned before, and take issue with it. There are changes being made, but slowly...it is an Arab Chauvinistic culture, and that is brutally honest...some Saudis would be offended reading this but that's my understanding of their culture.

That is not Islam...that is cultural influence.

No, there is no paradigm of Islam that is pristine…every society has its light and some shine brighter than others…but there is always the darkness in humanity that is there.

There are some things that are plainly not allowed in Islam, and the majority of humanity does not like to live a moral life by the order of God…that is just a fact. So as long as there are humans alive there will be humans that hate Islam because it commands what is good and forbids what is wrong, and too many people love the wrong and see it as good.

I have no desire to lie to you and won’t. God is the One who is watching over both of us, and when I am judged my conscience is clean with everything I have told you…it really is no difference to me what you believe, no one can control what other people think…only what they themselves say and do.

Hope you have a great evening.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 22, 2008 11:01 PM

Abdullah,

The Pagan Quraysh tortured a Muslim by holding him down on a bed of hot coals...blah, blah...Bilail down in the hot sand of the desert torturing him by stacking sun heated heavy stones...blah, blah...held down and tortured to death two Muslim parents in an effort to get them to convert back to polytheism...blah,blah...tortured and abused so many Muslims...

[Mohammad] then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions (Wudu'), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234

Do I need to link the Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl videos for emphasis? You don't admit ANYTHING bad that is done can be linked to Islam. This is not a debate about worldly expediency or human failings. This is a dialogue about whether or not Islam is culpable as a source of the evil perpetrated in its name.

We know almost nothing about the Quraysh except as recorded by Islamists. As a kafir, I am unimpressed the entire category of these types of references (see below). I am impressed with Mohammad. I am impressed that he was not a holy man.

I also take this time to remind you after the virtually bloodless victory in the liberation of Mecca...

LIBERATION! Oh, well, that was what it was! Why didn't I see that before!

, the Khuza'a, by mere virtue of the shahada, were entitled to the privileges of the treaty” And this comment of yours is non-sequitor. The signatory parties of the treaty both knew full well these alliances and their mutual inclusion in the treaty.

It is unbecoming of a holy man to construct a "peace" covenant a) he intends will not produce peace at the outset and b) that contains parameters he apprehends can be used to his advantage.

Provide your reference for “Quraysh even stated, "I do not want to fight you

Ishaq:455 ‘I summon you to Allah, to His Messenger, and to Islam.’ Amr replied, ‘I have no use for these.’ So Ali said, ‘Then I summon you to fight.’ Amr replied, ‘Why, son of my brother? By Allah, I do not want to kill you.’ Ali shouted, ‘But I, by Allah, want to kill you.’ Amr jumped from his horse and advanced toward Ali. The two fought until Ali killed Amr. He shouted, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Ishaq:456 As he returned to the Apostle smiling with joy [for having killed his uncle] Jumar asked him if he had stripped Amr of his armor. ‘No,’ Ali answered. ‘I saw his private parts and was ashamed.’

Are we going to quibble about the difference between fight and kill? No compulsion in religion? Modesty appears after the murder; despite the simultaneous joy of killing? My God.

And this I have already refuted with research references

I thank you for your time developing the references, but that is why you're here. To teach us what YOU believe. But given these are matters of faith, refutation is in the eye of the beholder. You've only proven that you can find references that support YOUR views amongst a myriad that support contradictory views. Did you expect us to provide them for you? I found your industry impressive, just not your personal conclusions.

"butchery of the treatment of the Qurayzah". You yourself admitted they were probably treated fairly, and yet now you spin it an entirely different way. The Banu Qurayza were given justice under Jewish law and the more merciful sentence was levied. This I proved.

How dare you attribute that to me. I believe nothing of the sort. You proved nothing except WHY you believe what YOU believe, and frankly, sir, I don't find it compelling. Mohammeds actions were beneath that expected of a holy man.

But your being incorrect about historical facts despite my providing of verified references

You don't get this at all. Let me provide a formula:

1) Muslim records a narrative. This potentially contains a combination of fact, bias and fiction.
2) Non-muslim reads narrative and must differentiate the above components.
3) The least flattering component is usually true.
4) The non-muslim now compares this component to the expectations of how the whole of Islam is being presented.

“It may be that the Hanifi's in the 9th century invented the terms "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb".

How dare you selectively quote me and then refer to my "candor". I demonstrated how these concepts were "concretely Mohammadan". You don't accept it, because you prefer to quibble about the exact terms.

[Abu Basir] abandoned all affiliations

Horsesh_t. Did he apostasize? Curious, you are saying he was still attacking the Quraysh because they were "pagan", weren't you? Why would that be? By the way, not responding on a topic often means it has become insolubly tedious or trite (see above things on this topic to which I have not reponded; p.s. you do the same). You can't see the double duplicity in Mohammad crafting a deliberately doomed treaty while pretending to be a holy man, and I can't make you.

‘Empire expansion is not defense of "borders and boundaries".’ Is a hypocritical comment coming from someone, whom I assume, correct me if I am wrong, fully supports the war against Iraq. Am I wrong in this?...You sir, are a hypocrite if you support the war on Iraq while maintaining your position above of "Empire expansion is not defense of "borders and boundaries".

You are becoming incoherent. It is best to calm oneself before typing. America has not "expanded its empire" by "invading" Iraq. You shame yourself by calling yourself an American patriot in the same breath; and you call me "hypocrite"? Shall I call you "Troofer" while we're at it?

Apologist? ...I do not apologize for justice. I insist on it...

That's the point of these exercises. To categorize you. Thank you. Welcome to JihadWatch. You are here for pedagogical reasons.

Now, that probably infuriated you. You thought we were debating. But as I said. We are adjudicating. This is not math or physics. Mohammad did some morally bad things. So far, you have only admitted that he "had faults...and these were forgiven". I've invited you to expound on your justifications for some of these "bad things". You gave the typical Muslim answers, swirling narratives of Muslim produced histories and jurisprudence. You did it well. But the fact remains, you, like all Muslims we've encountered before, cannot introspect and admit that it would have been better if Mohammad had not done (_______). You can't make yourself do it. Since you can't admit Mohammad had specific faults, you clearly believe a) he did not really have them b) you are unqualified to judge which one's they were, c) or they were prior to his "prophethood" and inconsequential. None of these choices are flattering to you. Now on the topic of Islam, we've reviewed numerous topics, yet you've NEVER said it had ANY inherent problem (let's not go back to human frailties, please). Not even that it seems to be prone to "misunderstanding". I say Islam DOES have inherent problems; neither of us will change, so we've met the end of the exercise. You've shown the same affection for obfuscating minutia, the same minimalization of gory details, proposed the same unctuous, morally pretentious hagiographical details, refried the same apologetic arguments (better than others, kudos), etc. You're self-admittedly NOT a reformer. You are totally opaque to the idea of or need for reformation, and I'm frankly disappointed. There is a LOT to be reformed in Islam, time is lapsing, and you want to focus on minutia and deny the elephants in the room.

[Mohammad] then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions (Wudu'), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234

Does that move you at all? No, no, no, no. NOT what the ex-Muslims did. What MOHAMMAD did. If you approve of that, YOU are Mohammad, YOU cut off their arms and YOU burned their eyes and enjoyed their screams. YOU cut off the heads of the Quraysh while lusting after their women. Is there anything human left in you? You knew the sira about Amr above. Why did you pretend? Are you lacking a conscience? Had a side point to make? And you call me a hypocrite. This isn't a game, Abdullah. Real lives are at stake. Non-Muslim lives, people that unashamedly don't give a rats _ss about Islam, except what they've had to learn to guarantee their own survival. All the hagiographical historical revisions, appeals to ancient unipolar partison narratives, selective obfuscations and tactical ommissions, and even social re-engineering is not going to put that jinn back in the bottle.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 22, 2008 11:14 PM

Abdullah! Look, neither you nor any other person, scholar or whatever, of mohametanism or of any other religion can prove anything. It is flat out illogical to say that my book is the word of God because it says so in my book. So you have nothing, zip, nada to back up claims of moral superiority. But your compadres, not to say you but many of your coreligionists, claim the right of unlimited violence, you might say limited but I, nabi ZK (pbumaamb), munificent, wise, etc., disagree that there is really any limitation at all, to push the point. So you sound like a simple minded fool when you talk like that. Or a liar perhaps. But that is what mohametanism produces, simple minded fools and liars, is it not?

nabi ZK (pbumaamb)

Posted by: zonie kafir at September 22, 2008 11:29 PM

Mohammeds actions were beneath that expected of a holy man...

I, you know, like nabi ZK (pbum), second the motion CC. Disgusting actions really. Just odious. And you are so correct that our unreconstructed specimen gleefully participates in all those crimes. We can see him reveling in them actually. Seems like he is channeling Ward Churchill or something. This is why the nabified one has no patience for such and sees fit only to mock them.

nabi ZK (pbumaamb)

Posted by: zonie kafir at September 22, 2008 11:51 PM

I find nothing wrong with Islam, and there are too many secular problems to start pointing to causal relationships

Whoa, a chink in the armor? Wait, that's right, those dang humans in the way of associating causality again.

you do get an occasional conflict that is just and requires a necessary action of self defense

Page after page in the Qur'an. Necessary actions, 70+ battles in a decade.

70% + illiteracy rate...this means easily controlled by a minority of zealots.

Canard. Most terrorists are educated.

if Islam is applied properly the result is peace and freedom

Naked assertion. Did you forget about those dang humans again?

...slavery has been abolished.

Canard.

most people can’t get past the fact that slavery was codified as a means to an end in Islam

Rationalization, minimalization. But otherwise nice admission, gratefully accepted.

That is not Islam...that is cultural influence.

Denial. Just a few Kubler-Ross stages left to go.

there is no paradigm of Islam that is pristine

Finally, truth.

the majority of humanity does not like to live a moral life ...So as long as there are humans alive there will be humans that hate Islam

Wow, you're really not a "people person", are you? Another fascinating admission. The last living person will NOT be a Muslim. WE WIN!!

no one can control what other people think

Unless you're illiterate and controlled by zealots.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 22, 2008 11:57 PM

"Seems like he is channeling Ward Churchill or something."

Nabi(pbuy),

I miss you when you are not around.

CC

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 23, 2008 12:03 AM

ummmm Robert -

I would add Lindsay to that elusive column of "Moderate Muslims" - even if he's not Muslim!

Posted by: Occupant at September 23, 2008 1:23 AM

worth revisiting:

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/005959.php

Posted by: pulsar182 at September 23, 2008 4:39 AM

Concerned Citizen,

good post to Abdullah. one thing though:

"Is there anything human left in you? You knew the sira about Amr above. Why did you pretend? Are you lacking a conscience? Had a side point to make? And you call me a hypocrite. This isn't a game, Abdullah. Real lives are at stake."

Seems to me that asking someone like Abdullah (and I've been reading most of his stuff here and other threads) these questions and communicating to him like this supposes that there's hope in him. There's obviously no hope in him. He knows that Islam wants to conquer the world because Muslims are better than other people because they have the truth of God on their side and others don't -- he knows this and he LIKES it. A person won't change to not liking something he likes, if he knows what he likes. And he knows. The mistake you seem to be making is that you think there must be some blind spot in Abdullah's grasp of Islam. I think he grasps it just fine. And he LIKES it.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 23, 2008 5:30 AM

P.S.: and Abdullah easily rationalizes all the other stuff that we find horrible in Islam--it's all necessary stuff for him because when you have the absolute truth on your side that will save you for eternal life, and you agree with your belief system that there are enemies around you all the time who are trying to seduce you and attack you, then anything is allowed to defend your system. Sometimes he seems to be denying some of the bad stuff, but when you press him on it, he maneuvers to redefine the bad stuff as expedient for defending the truth that he belongs to. It's a foolproof state of mind. I don't think it can crack, short of a few months (or years) of intensive ECT, a straitjacket and a padded cell. (Certainly not with debates like these.)

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 23, 2008 5:38 AM

Concerened Citizen 9CC) and Denver Rodeo (DR),

Let's keep this line open...I have some heavy things to take care of for a few days, but by all means let's continue this.

Try not to be so emotional, avoid hyperbole, and stick to the facts at least try to sort things out rationally before you jump to conclusions.

Sound bite mediums do not bring about the best results in discussing big issues.

And CC as far as crime and punishment is concerned, the punishment should fit the crime...so what did that person do to deserve that punishment?

You are putting the justice system and the law on trial and not considering the victims of the guilty.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 23, 2008 8:10 AM

"Try not to be so emotional, avoid hyperbole" --posted above

Any way you people can try not bombing other people, and buildings and hotels and vehicles, and all of the people inside those buildings, hotels, and vehicles, whom you mass-murder in the name of "allah," the moon god from Arabian pagan myth that doesn't exist?

"Try not to be so emotional, avoid hyperbole, and stick to the facts at least try to sort things out rationally before you jump to conclusions."

That's funny, coming from a Mohammedan.

Posted by: darcy at September 23, 2008 9:41 AM

"Alison Shah, a University of Colorado-Denver history professor who specializes in Eastern Islamic and South Asian history, said she is surprised the Greeley workers aren't being accommodated for their religious practice.

"I don't know a lot about how the industry works, but I do know that breaking fast during Ramadan is always at sunset, and this is not about jihad or anything other than devotion and correct practice," Shah said. "I suppose it would be like asking a Jewish person to eat during one of the fall fasting holidays, or to ask a Catholic to wipe the ash off his forehead on Ash Wednesday.""

First of all, no-one is forcing anyone to break any rule about fasting. Second, there is no religious edict that I know of that compels them to start eating at a specific time. Third, any Catholic turning up at a clinic, or a semiconductor clean-room, with ash on his forehead, would be made to wash it off. So this Alison Shah is falling far short of honesty here.

And being ignorant about how production lines work doesn't qualify her to pontificate.

Posted by: Monty at September 23, 2008 10:24 AM

Abdullah,

Ok, I have my answers. You wrote:

"I find nothing wrong with Islam"

So now I know that you don't think any bad things are linked to Isalm. In your view, Islam has nothing to do with 9/11, the Marriott bombing in Pakistan, the idea that infidels are less than human (apes & pigs), that women are baby-making property have NOTHING whatsoever to do with Islam.

Funny, all these things happen in Islamic countries, are committed by Muslims, and support can be found in Islamic scripture. But, Islam has nothing to do with any of it.

Ok, got it!

Secondly, you wrote that you would live in Saudi Arabia "in a heartbeat"

Funny, to me that means that by inference you support the restrictions on freedom; of speech, of the right to practice non-Muslim religion, of the right to assembly. And furthermore, that you support no separation of church and state, and public executions of gays and adulterers.

Funny you should mention slavery, since Saudi Arabia only outlawed it in 1960. That's quite a long time after Muhammad.

Also, you wrote "Islam is applied properly the result is peace and freedom" it seems that applied Islam sure did bring peace to Saudi Arabia--the peace of submission the peace of forced agreement and repressed criticism.

But it didn't bring freedom. How can it when one isn't allowed to criticize it or leave the faith if one wants?

So, now that you have told me that you are living in a fantasy world of denial where Islam is perfect, and no freedom means peace, I really don't think we have much to talk about.

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 23, 2008 10:32 AM

DenverRodeo,

The mistake you seem to be making is that you think there must be some blind spot in Abdullah's grasp of Islam.

A mistake, perhaps, but what was hopefully intended was an appeal to some remnant of character that was not "blind" to the inhuman cruelty being discussed. Note the follow-up: "...so what did that person do to deserve that punishment?" As though that exculpates Mohammad from the grotesque, cruel and inhuman, not to mention unholy and evil, response. This was Mohammad's opportunity to define himself. And he did.

Similarly, Mohammad defined himself at Khaybar, by ordering Kinana bin al-Rabi tortured by kindling a fire on his chest. For money! He then had him beheaded and celebrated by immediately raping his wife (adding insult to injury by calling it a "marriage").
Ibn Ishaq, p. 515.
Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, translated by Muhammad M. Khan, Darussalam, 1997, vol. 1, book 8, no. 371.

This is the point Abdullah wished not to deal with. Mohammad's actions as they reflect upon him as a "prophet", as opposed to how they related to the circumstances, the era in which he lived, etc. And this is how we must try his "justice system and [Islamic] law". In modern Western society, our justice system is designed to be humane. This says something about us as a society. Mohammad was neither just, nor humane, and this says much about him.

Abdullah will prepare a response to this citing voluminous Islamic references of the atrocities of the ex-Muslims tortured and left to die in the desert, of Kinana al-Rabi, etc. This will be all he will focus on, as though the mere citations "prove" the historical narratives and justifies the "punishment". Abdullah will say nothing about how what Mohammad did reflects upon Mohammad and his legitimacy as a "prophet". And this will say much about Abdullah.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 23, 2008 10:48 AM

"And CC as far as crime and punishment is concerned, the punishment should fit the crime...so what did that person do to deserve that punishment?"

would that include 600 lashes for alledgedly talking about love on a phone call?

or

Beheading a barber because he was telling jokes to customers?.

or

killing children who are playing "unIslamic things"..like soccer.?

Killing people who are watching Soccer on TV?

100 lashes for those caught watching Indian Soaps on TV..?

executions of those caught blogging on "UnIslamic websites"?

100 lashes for a woman caught driving without a male chaperone?

Hanging of gay people?

executions of Non Muslims dating Muslim girls?..

destruction of Christian Churches because they were singing religious hymns?

executions of Christians who refused to pay Jiyzah.?

destruction of Christian Churches because they were "too close" to a mosque..?

the beheading of teachers in front of their students for whatever Islamic reason they could come up with?.

THe executions of some Afghanistians who were caught smuggling sugar into Iran?..

The imprisonment of a traveler who was caught with a couple of sesame seeds in the tread of his tennis shoes..(probably some sesame seeds that came from a bagel at a western airport).

The prosecution attempt of a teacher who had a cuddly teddy bear, the same teddy bear that the Muslim Children wanted to name Mohammed in honor of their false prophet..

The beheading of a journalist who was seeking to interview Muslims to get information on the Muslims views to give to the rest of the world...(he succeeded , by the way when his beheading was posted by the Muslims on the Internet)..

and the list goes on and on....

were these examples of the Islamic punishment fitting the crime?...

Posted by: pulsar182 at September 23, 2008 1:11 PM

Concerned Citizen,

"A mistake, perhaps, but what was hopefully intended was an appeal to some remnant of character that was not "blind" to the inhuman cruelty being discussed. Note the follow-up: "...so what did that person do to deserve that punishment?" As though that exculpates Mohammad from the grotesque, cruel and inhuman, not to mention unholy and evil, response. This was Mohammad's opportunity to define himself. And he did."

I assume in the last sentence there that when you wrote "Mohammed's" you meant "Abdullah's"? Anyway, the first sentence up there shows exactly the mistake I was talking about. Don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a fine job sticking to the relevant points with Abdullah. But one of your motivations with all due respect "an appeal to some remnant of character that was not "blind" to the inhuman cruelty being discussed"--is preposterous, given how Abdullah has been consistently responding all along. Obviously Abdullah is hopelessly blind. We have to all get that through our heads about Muslims in general and not bank on some miracle that suddenly Muslims will wake up (whether to Christian evangelism or to the seduction of pop culture) and will therefore stop hungering and thirsting for submission to Allah's truth and Mohammed's totalitarian rules. As though if we just scratch diligently enough, the Muslim surface will come off, and there will be a reasonable Western person underneath. It will be suicide if we keep thinking this way. Look up the word "implacable" as in the old saying "implacable foe".

The twist with the Muslim is that many of them as you know do the Taqiyya. It's part of their military strategy. Muslims are not simply barbarians who only howl and brandish their weapons. They also use the weapon of Taqiyya. So when they do that, they seem to show signs of reasonable discussion, like Abdullah here, and therefore there seems to be cracks in them where the Muslim surface can be "peeled off" and an "appeal" to the Western person (ie, the "real human being") beneath can be made. This appearance of reasonableness on their part should be seen for the worthless superficial and misleading display it is. Not to see this completely, with NO HOPE for change, will lead to our peril and loss of lives.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 23, 2008 1:23 PM

DenverRodeo,

I appreciate your critique, but, no, I meant for the sentence to read "Mohammad's". I see no middle ground there, and I want this apologist to have to say it: "Yes, I implicitly approve of every grotesque and cruel thing Mohammad did." The permanently recorded public spectacle of our new "friend" (as our representative of all Muslims) failing the exact same moral test Mohammad failed, will be an invaluable educational tool into perpetuity, no longer assumed or inferred, but explicit.

So, despite how you've read it, my purpose is not dig down to release some glimmer of humanity, but to expose its absence.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 23, 2008 2:42 PM

What a relief to know that at least one professor isn't afraid to tell it like it is! And Abdullah Mikall should realize that when Americans get angry, WATCH OUT!

Posted by: angryamerican at September 23, 2008 3:06 PM

So, now that you have told me that you are living in a fantasy world of denial where Islam is perfect, and no freedom means peace, I really don't think we have much to talk about.
Posted by: Mo Foe

You may have nailed it right there: “no freedom means peace.”

Doesn’t this reduce the whole Islamic philosophy down to three words?

"Slavery is peace."

The rest of it: Jihad to spread this philosophy by force, ‘greater’ jihad to hone your skills as ‘lesser’ jihad conquest of infidels, Sharia to punish members into ‘submission’ with onerous punishments (per pulsar182’s list above), death for apostasy to enforce the slaves from leaving, subjugation of women to turn them into baby factories, booty and slave commerce (including taking captives for ransom) and jizya to keep the jihadi army solvent, taqqiya to keep the infidels away from the truth of this total-belief-system ideology, claiming Allah is the only one god to give it all a sense of religious legitimacy, threats of hell versus sexual rewards in paradise (for killing infidels) to cow the believers into total submission, Ramadan fasting to keep the jihadis emotionally disturbed (low blood sugar), and enslavement of children (Janissary style) to keep the jihadi army growing, etc. It’s all to enforce slavery and spread slavery, to deny human beings their natural freedoms, and only as slaves can they remain peaceful? Somehow, it all fits neatly together. 1400 years later, and 1.2 billion strong, this is the worst thing that could have ever befallen humanity, a world of absolute submission to slavery for peace. Not a religion, Islam is a Cult.

Nice going “prophet” of doom Mohammet. Abdullah, do you agree with this concise assessment of your religious-cult of Islam? Peace comes from freedom if it’s to be worth a damn. Else the truth is twisted into the greatest lie humanity had ever known. The devil is in the details. Your Cult-of-Allah is NOT from God! It is time to put an end to this Cult of "slavery is peace". No more mosques! And say NO to Muslim immigration. Enough.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at September 23, 2008 4:19 PM

Translated via Google via French Blog http://lecturesetcontre-lectures.hautetfort.com/&usg=ALkJrhjaFmV9frLR63PMLs8VfbjQ6JQSlQ">"Lectures and "against-lectures":

Die Welt.jpg

Muhammad does not exist and the Koran is not the direct word of God. This argument by Sven Kalisch, professor of Islamic studies at the University of Münster, aroused anger in his entourage. Kalisch was given the support of eminent personalities.

Sven Kalisch, professor of Islamic studies at the University of Münster fears for his safety. The news magazine Der Spiegel said it would be the subject of barely veiled threats. A number of Muslims would consider more as one of their own. Conservative Muslims saw apostasy a crime punishable by death. The magazine's "Focus" hopes that next year, Kalisch exposes his controversial thesis in a book in English. According to the newspaper, the author deny the existence of the Prophet Muhammad and plead for a historic and critical reinterpretation of the Koran arguing that it would not be the direct word of God. Kalisch has welcomed the theory of the School of Saarbruecken that the Koran based on a Christian text. Because of these differences of theological, the Council of Muslims in Germany has meanwhile suspended all cooperation with him. In addition, the University of Muenster decided to entrust the chair of Mr. Kalisch to another teacher.

Posted by: miira at September 23, 2008 5:56 PM

Concerned Citizen, ok thanks for your explanation, I understand now and agree with your approach.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 23, 2008 6:37 PM

American jihadwatchers, especially anyone in Colorado, the following would be in order:

1.a letter to the Editor of the Greeley Tribune, commending him for the publication of this article which clearly exposes, though without comment, the major disconnect between what Muslims such as Abdiamar Bare *say* and what they *do* on the factory floor, and between what individual Muslims may say about their religion, and what one discovers when one examines their canonical texts, and the history of their ideology as put into practice, and uses one's common sense.

2. You might like to inform the Greeley Tribune editor of the sacralised Islamic sources which flatly deny freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, which prescribe death for 'apostasy' and for 'blasphemy'; refer him to the texts for the canonical case of, for example, Asma Bint Marwan.

3. a supportive letter or email to the journalist, Chris Casey, himself - refer him to the books by Spencer, Bostom, and Bat Yeor, and to this website

4. a letter of commendation to Ass. Prof. James Lindsay's University, expressing how pleased you are to find that such a sensible man is a member of the faculty

5. a letter to Ass. Prof. James Lindsay himself, expressing particular approval of his clarification of the incompatibility of sharia with Western, and in particular, American law and custom, and urging that he resolutely maintain this position.\

6. A letter to Commissioner Jerke, approving his basic grasp of the problem and suggesting some further ways in which he could continue to educate himself about the scale and nature of the threat of the Third Jihad.

'Islam: What the West Needs to Know' might be recommended to him as 'follow up' to what he's already read and viewed. Is there anyone here from Colorado who can volunteer to send Commissioner Jerke a copy of 'The PIG to Islam and the Crusades', or of 'Onward Muslim Soldiers', or even just a printout of 'Islam 101' from this very site? Or Hugh Fitzgerald's 'Islam For Infidels'?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 23, 2008 8:09 PM