I suspect some in the press will have a field-day with that, because of:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17957

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17927

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17958

Posted by: Gary at May 5, 2005 7:00 AM

Hate-filled running-for-their-life CAIR believe in `attack is the best form of defense`.

Posted by: hutchrun at May 5, 2005 7:49 AM

Other ways to influence from the inside.

Posted by: Shy Guy at May 5, 2005 8:21 AM

For more about this item see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44086

In which:

Robertson also called Islam "a monumental scam" and claimed the Quran "is strictly a theft of Jewish theology."

I can't say as I know quite where Robertson is coming from, so I take some exception to this statement. Muhammed certainly ripped off what he wanted from Jewish theology, but he also introduced all sorts of his own fanciful justifications for his various acts of aggression.

Were it a "strict" theft, it wouldn't be Islam, but Judaism and that wouldn't have advanced Muhammed's cause (his personal enrichment), would it?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at May 5, 2005 9:47 AM

A Muslim judge on the Supreme Court would bring a Muslim world view to the court. We all know what that means and where it will lead -- to Sharia. Some Muslims may be moderate but Islam is not moderate.

A moderate Muslim might mean well and expect to rule impartially, but extremists will a find a way to influence any Muslim that's a sitting judge through clerical influence, fatwah death sentence, or labeling him/her "un-Islamic" for not following the extremist Muslim line. We can't take this chance. The only influence on the court should be "American" not Sharia or the Caliphate.

See the big picture --- look at the world as it is, not how we Americans would like it to be. Understand the lessons of history and view contemporary events in context. Islam will kill or enslave us all because Islam is not tolerant of non-Muslims. Even now we are paying jizyah in the form of high oil prices and foreign aid that is going into the pockets of the elite...

Posted by: epg at May 5, 2005 10:21 AM

We now have 115 AllahIsms and counting.
To see them all, go to: http://muslimsandme.blogspot.com/

And…We have an Anti Dhimmitude Group on Yahoo for those interested in doing something more than whine.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Antidhimmitude/

Posted by: BillR at May 5, 2005 11:44 AM

Those who are judges undoubtedly must swear to uphold the Constitution. Can a real Believer, someone whose true allegiance is to Islam and to the umma al-islamiyya, who believes such things as that women can be beaten (whether "lightly" or not), that non-Muslims -- if "people of the Book" -- can be, indeed must be, subject to the status of dhimmi wherever the sharia can be imposed, that the sharia itself is based on the direct word of God, the Qur'an, and on the Hadith that record the sayings and acts of Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets. It will not do to "swear allegiance" if it cannot, as a matter of pure logic, possibly be meant. Islam itself, as Reza Afhsari and others born into Islam have exhaustively shown, contradicts in every particular the individual rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is why Muslim countries came up with a very different set of principles to which they claimed they would adhere, a kind of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Muslim Edition).

In such circumstances, would-be Muslim judges would, of necessity, have to ignore the principles of Islam. Their decisions could well be subject to challenge and review on the basis of the stated principles of Qur'an, Hadith, and the example of the Sira. Any Christian or, especially, Jewish or Hindu party or defendant would undoubtedly wish to raise the little matter of the doctrines of Islam, and how they could not but affect the Judge's decision. And the swearing to "uphold the Constitution" clashes so clearly and obviously with the principles of Islam (including the right of those who are Muslim to jettison the faith for another one, or none at all), that nightmares would ensue. Islam and the American Constitution are like immiscible liquids. Loyalty to Islam precludes, and is specifically designed to preclude, all other loyalties.

Only a very nonchalant, non-observant, entirely disbelieving "Believer" in Islam can, truthfully, swear allegiance to an Infidel nation-state, to fellow Infidels, and to the American Constitution. Such nonchalant, non-observant, secret or open dissenters from Islam who nonetheless, out of fear or filial piety or even careerism (for example, in their useful role as "moderate Muslim" commentators -- practically a new category of Occupation, with lots of opporunities for rapid advancement), who continue, quite misleadingly, to describe themselves as "Muslims," can possibly be trusted to feel and act upon that loyalty and that allegiance.

But how will we, the poor unwary Infidels, manage to detect the real from the feigned, the "disbelieving" Believer, or the "cafeteria" Muslim who selects only the five pillars of individual worship, and utterly rejects the notion of Jihad, and chooses to see much of the Hadith, Sira, and Qur'an as either apocryphal, or necessarily to be given only a figurative interpretation that will remove every sign of inculcation of hostlity or murderous hatred toward non-Muslims?

The melancholy answer is: we cannot. And the more Muslims assure us that we simply do not understand what Jihad is, or who invoke an entirely mythological history of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims (the myth has three components: tolerant, altogether paradisiacal Islamic Spain; the wise old scholars retrieving ancient texts at the court of fabulous Caliph Haroun al-Raschid; the tolerant Turks, whose devshirme system was simply a way to recruit talent, and much envied by the Muslim parents who wished their children, too, could be snatched from their homes and taken to Constaninople for preferment), the more they deny the clear evidence of the three canonical texts (Qur'an, Hadith, Sira), the more they feign ignorance about the treatment of non-Muslims through time and space, or simply deny the masacres and the persecutions (of the Armenians in the 19th and 20th centuries, as "giavours" or Infidels; of Hindus from roughly 1500-1800 under Muslim rule), of Zoroastrians (for 1350 years), and of course of all sorts of Christians and Jews along the way, again from 1350 years.

No, we Infidels owe our first duty to ourselves.But that is what happens whenever there is a menace. Not everyone whom the British and Americans bombed in Germany, in Hamburg and Dresden and Berlin, was guilty of participation in the concentration camps or other villainy -- though a great many were enthusiastic about Hilter, his willing collaborators. Not every Japanese civilian firebombed in Tokyo, or under the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was Tojo or Admiral Yamamoto, or among those who massacred and raped in Manchukuo, Korea, and Nanking, not to mention the treatment meted out to Allied prisoners in the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. War means having, at times, to punish the innocent along with the guilty.

We have no easy means to distinguish those who call themselves "Muslim" simply as a means of identification, but do not subscribe (not out of ignorance, but out of real disagreement) with any of the tenets of Islam that are so worrisome, and that sometimes seem to be akin to a dormant virus that can come to malevolent life, slowly or quickly, for all sorts of reasons, including perceived setbacks, humiliations, and depressions that everyone, Mulsim and non-Muslim alike, may encounter in the course of existence.

We cannot rely on those who deliberately pooh-pooh what is in the Sira, what is in the "authentic" Hadith (for some "Muslim reformers" like to suggest that it would be possible to jettison the Sira and Hadith entirely --an impossible dream, or scheme, lacking in authority, and easily dismissed), but that the Qur'an itself is not to be touched. But the contents of the Qur'an alone are, some Western scholars plausiblly suggest, the likely raw material from which Muslim writers ingeniously wove the stories about Muhammad that were later incorporated (after careful "winnowing" of the pseudo-authentic from the pseudo-inauthentic by tireless muhaddithin). Nor can we rely on those who invoke a single,"inauthentic" Hadith (not given the Seal of Approval of either al-Bukhari or Muslim), about Muhammad returning from the Battle of Badr to announce he was returning "from the lesser Jihad (of qital, or combat) to the greater Jihad" (of civil, domestic life) -- jihad uns nafs jihad ul akbar.

There are a thousand ways for Muslims to deflect the attention of non-Muslims from the real content of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. There are a thousand ways, not least those supplied by such Western writers of romanticized fiction as Chateaubriand (Le dernier des Abencerages), and Washington Irving (Tales of the Alhambra), and
Sir Walter Scott (The Talisman), to supply a false view of Muslim conquest and Muslim rule over non-Muslims.

Given that, one can only fully trust those Muslims who are truthful about the contents of their religion, and who do not engage, out of reasons of embarrassment or filial piety, in apologetics or misinformation - even at the mildest level of, say, Kanan Makiya.

Posted by: Hugh at May 5, 2005 12:09 PM

Interestingly and well put, Hugh.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at May 5, 2005 12:51 PM

Islam is incompatible with democracy.

Muslim federal judges-talk about a "conflict of interest".

In short, it's a bad idea.

Posted by: Freedom1 at May 5, 2005 1:58 PM

You go, Hugh, you're the man! Very well put indeed.

A conflict of interest, the impossibility of swearing to uphold the Constitution: who can tell if the person is using taqiyya to further the goals of Islam. After all, lying during the oath would be acceptable in this circumstance. It would be better not to take the chance.

Posted by: epg at May 5, 2005 2:59 PM

Much as I dislike Islam, I am also suspicious of Pat Robertson. He loves to say "the Lord told me" without book, chapter, and verse, and thus is a casual blasphemer; not "Mr. Evangelical".

Also, he is wrong on Islam as a theft of Jewish theology. It is a theft of a handful of Jewish and Christian stories, plus a lot of reinterpretation. I note as well that in Old Testament and Rabbinic law, the penalty for theft is restitution; whereas in Islam, it is amputation of the thief's hand.

Posted by: Kepha at May 5, 2005 9:43 PM

C.A.I.R.'s wording of its protest is intriguing. Its precision leads one to suspect that what they are saying is not that Roberston is wrong, but that Islam is "not monolithic".

Is it reassuring then that there are a hundred cannibal pygmies eating you instead of one sabre tooth tiger?

I think not.

Posted by: BigSleep at May 5, 2005 9:47 PM

Much as I dislike Islam, I am also suspicious of Pat Robertson. He loves to say "the Lord told me" without book, chapter, and verse, and thus is a casual blasphemer; not "Mr. Evangelical".

Also, he is wrong on Islam as a theft of Jewish theology. It is a theft of a handful of Jewish and Christian stories, plus a lot of reinterpretation. I note as well that in Old Testament and Rabbinic law, the penalty for theft is restitution; whereas in Islam, it is amputation of the thief's hand.

Posted by: Kepha at May 5, 2005 09:43 PM

I think Pat Robertson really believes it when he says "the Lord told me." I don't know because I don't know much about him, but perhaps Robertson's ""revelations" come in dreams, intuitive feelings, or hunches. Anyway, I think he is harmless and he's on the right side of this issue, even if he's wrong about where Islamic theology orginated.

Robertson's brand of Christianity gives Christians a bad name, but he has enough sense to realize that Islam is not compatible with our justice system or any other aspect of American society and culture. I think many people might be inclined to ignore him even when he's right about something because of his rather unconventional flair for the dramatic.

Posted by: Susanp at May 5, 2005 10:57 PM

Susanp~ I read one of Robertson's books- a fiction along the line of Lahayes material (LaHayes is the better writer, btw). I couldn't believe the Errors...

I class him with the Bakers and the Prophecy Club- ie, he doesn't represent Christians as far as I am concerned, nor would he ever get my vote for president.

Altho I would give him a bit more of a listen than those jokers (the latter of which made millions, I suspect, on Y2K). At least he is right on when it comes to trust and islam.

Posted by: Gary at May 6, 2005 6:34 AM

Pat Robertson's comments on Jihadwatch...
C'mon Mr.Spencer do u want to alienate ur supporters who are followers of Dharmic faiths. Here are some of Pat's nasty remarks:
1.>
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

2.>
"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening." -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981

3.>
"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

4.>
talking about apartheid South Africa) "I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 3/18/92

5.>
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

6.>
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/8/92

7.> Here's nastiest of em all:
"If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality. ... Can you imagine having the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as defense minister, or Mahatma Gandhi as minister of health, education, and welfare? The Hindu and Buddhist idea of karma and the Muslim idea of kismet, or fate condemn the poor and the disabled to their suffering. ... It's the will of Allah. These beliefs are nothing but abject fatalism, and they would devastate the social gains this nation has made if they were ever put into practice." --Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 219.

So Robertson doesn't want the Ayatollah of Iran, or Mahatma Gandhi (I really don't get why he decided to go after Gandhi, of all people) in our government. Instead, he wants a fanatical member of his religion...also, his definition of karma is incorrect. Karma basically means that you reap what you sow, something the Bible talks about.

Posted by: FuckMuslims at May 8, 2005 10:09 AM