Blair isn't willing to trot out the "j" word just yet because that would make it harder to pretend that the "evil ideology" was a perversion of the faith instead of a pivotal--THE pivotal--tenet.

Posted by: scaramouoche at July 22, 2005 4:44 PM

A book plug. Now there's something I didn't see coming....

"At this moment of crisis, what the world needs is clarity, not obfuscation."

King: I coud not agree more. The world does need clarity - clarity in the form knowing who the enemies are and who the enemies are not.

Islam is not the enemy, those who perpetrate crimes in its name are. Building thread after thread about how much you think Islam sucks does nothing but make you look like ignorant jerks and certainly does not contribute to a solution. You simply partake in the distraction of negativity and wallow in it.

So you've all voiced your opinions that Islam sucks and you think we'd all be better without it. This accomplishes..........??

You bitch about Blair and Chirac and chastize them for "sanitizing" terrorism or "playing the dhimmi" when in reality, they are trying to maintain the peace and prevent the likes of you from running through the streets to hurt Muslims and burn down mosques.

I have an idea:
How about using what you think you know about Islam (which amounts to a few words of Arabic and a radical interpretation) to HELP the moderates change things for the better. Seek out and attend meetings - better yet, organize one. Bridge the gap, be proactive. Sitting in front of your PC has done nothing but prove you all love to congregate to comiserate and fight with me and others like me. How noble. How civil. How sad.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 22, 2005 4:48 PM

"Islam is not the enemy, those who perpetrate crimes in its name are"

A mobius strip of logic. Those who perpetrate crimes in the name of Islam do so BECAUSE of Islam, not in spite of it.

Posted by: scaramouoche at July 22, 2005 5:01 PM

King Tolerance, you're a day late and a dollar short. The meetings to bridge the gap have already happened in my city and many others.

We were told by the moderate muslims that islam was the perfect and final religion for mankind, a total way of life that was social, religious and political, seamless in its god-given nature and that the koran was the perfect, eternal word of god (whose real name is allah) and that by the way, as muslims they can't pray with the Xians.

Kufir can't change anything about islam for the better. It is their cult and they must change it.

Posted by: the poetess at July 22, 2005 5:13 PM

It is pleasing that N. S. Rajaram is a mathematician. And perhaps the occupational requirement of rigor (there are other mathematicians waiting to pounce if a proof isn't perfect) helps explain the lucidity of this piece, which one hopes will be distribtued throughout the Pentagon, and Congress -- so that the nature of Pakistan, its unavoidable nature given its origins, its makeup, the madness of its religio-political blend of Croesus-rich zamindarsand ruthless, mustachiosed generals, taking turns ruling over 160 million wretched, illiterate, ignorant masses, with their only defining feature, their only consolation, the grim consolation, Total Explanation, and Complete Regulation of Life the world now knows as Islam.

It is also fitting that we are put in mind not only of the most famous (save for Tagore) Indian of the last century, the mathematician Ramanujan, discovered by the man who would become his friend and champion and collaborator, the equally remarkable G. H. Hardy (who once made a resolution that he would murder Mussolini), and going farther back in time, to that period when among the cultural and intellectual products of higher civlizations that the Muslims claimed as their own, but turned out to have "borrowed" and somehow managed to get credit for (this includes the papermaking that Dard Hunter instructs us came to Damascus from China, and the Greek works that were... well, Greek, actually, and were translated in Baghdad and Cordoba almost entirely by Jewish and Christian translators, and there is much more in that vein), was the Indian "zero" and a good deal of what the Arabs did not create, though they added a little something to, and managed to call "al-jabr" -- which, of course, centuries later became the bane of American ninth-graders, and the undemanding object of study for sixth-grade South Koreans.

Posted by: Hugh at July 22, 2005 8:34 PM

King Tollerschwanz:

..."You bitch about Blair and Chirac and chastize them for "sanitizing" terrorism or "playing the dhimmi" when in reality, they are trying to maintain the peace and prevent the likes of you from running through the streets to hurt Muslims and burn down mosques..."

"Hurt Muslims and burn mosques" - are you afraid?
Be very afraid! At the moment Londoners are afraid of Mohammdans blowing up subways and buses. But you are concerned about Muzzies and mosques....?

Who guessed it!

Posted by: Terminator at July 22, 2005 8:40 PM

King Told,
Please stop parroting what your sheikhs tell you in the Friday khotba. Try to think on your own. Stop memorizing Quran; try to understand for a change. Read about how it was assimilated after burning all original sources. Ask yourself about Hadith and Sira, written 200 years after the prophet’s death.
You boast about your Arabic, why won’t you read for Khalil A. Kerim, Ahmed S. Mansour and Farag Fouda for example. You may get a hint what is structurally wrong with Islam. Time to learn!

Posted by: enoughisenough at July 22, 2005 8:51 PM

KingTolerance you are the worst kind of entity, the type that justifies killing and raping of millions throughout the centuries, a demonic soul who is so blinded by the cult of a Pedophile, that you deny to see the truth in front of you.

You wish to bury the history and the present day persecution of millions of ethnic communities by the Islamic monsters.

If Islam is so damn tolerant, then why? Why pray Why are we not allowed to practice our religions in Saudi Arabia, when you bastards demand freedom of religion and tolerance from others.

And if you people hate the West so much, then why in the hell do you people come, why can't you stay in you barren wasted lands and pray till you're blue in the face. Why do you have to invade and destroy the co-existence of other people who are willing to live together.
Because of you bastards, my bags were checked to day while travelling the Met, but I knew why, because I look like one of you freaks (although a much more improved version, with refinement ;))
even thought inside I am the complete opposite of what you psychos believe in.

If you don't like the west, then go to your stupid sand dunes and have an asthmatic attack.

Posted by: Gorkhali at July 22, 2005 9:30 PM

Hey Gorkhali, KingTolerance is not a Muslim. He is one of the self-righteous "atheist, secular" 'experts' on 'tolerance'. So please direct your anger towards that channel before giving this KingTutTut another chance at gratifying his larger-than-life ego as he looks down upon us 'racists and biggots'

Peace
Om Shantih

Posted by: Tushar Saxena at July 22, 2005 11:14 PM

Gorkhali and Saxena got your number Kingky. What have you to say for yourself now???

Islam is a house of cards, built on shifting sands. The very origins of the Quran are suspect. Did Mohammad really recieve messages from Allah and Gabriel, or did he just make all that stuff up...He told one of his scribes to change something Allah had dictated. This astonished the scribe who told townspeople about it. That really ticked Mohammad off...he later had the scribe killed...credibility? If Mohammad is not credible, then his creation Islam is not credible either...Thats why Islam needs Jihad...Jihad makes the incredible into the credibile, by force. Jihad keeps Islam standing up. 'Without Jihad Islam is destroyed and muslims fall into inferior positions', Acording to Bukhari, who also said that it was every muslims obligation to participate in jihad... and that Jihad was a pillar of Islam...
It's an amazing thing...we can rely on dead muslim scholars like Bukhari, to tell us the truth about Islam and Mohammads traditions...We cant rely on living muslims to tell us the truth about much of anything...strange but true...explain that Kingky...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 23, 2005 12:32 AM

duh_swami:
`The very origins of the Quran are suspect. Did Mohammad really recieve messages from Allah `

This is most interesting:

`Mecca is located in the Hejaz region of what is today Saudi Arabia. It is portrayed by traditional belief as a wealthy trading center, full of merchants trading goods by caravan from Yemen in the south and Syria and the Byzantium empire in the north. Crone shows that Mecca was in fact way off the incense route from Yemen to Syria, which bypassed where Mecca is today by over 100 miles. Further, there is no mention whatever of Mecca in contemporary non-Moslem sources:`
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml

Posted by: hutchrun at July 23, 2005 4:36 AM

Tushar... even if King Tolerence suggests tat he is not a muzzie... his comments here since May suggest the otherwise. No infidel in his right mind would ignore the overwhelming evidence of Islams backwardness and butchery presented on this website.. well almost all except probably Indian leftists and our dhimmified British Indian diaspora...

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 23, 2005 5:51 AM

KT may not necessarily be a Muslim ... he may be one of the suicidal-leftists who think the problem can be negotiated and reasoned with. One of those who nowadays give the Left a bad name by their treasonous behaviour (I'm a leftist, but one who's woken up and sees support of the Muslims as nothing short of betrayal of all the cherished ideals of the Left--freedom, democracy, equality, compassion, life-affirmation, secularism and the rest).

Posted by: Michael Zaretski at July 23, 2005 6:55 AM

If KT is a Mohound believer, than that explains his inbred mentality (it is probably the of continuous inbreeding over several generations). If he is not a Mohoundedan than he is even worse, he or she or it is a traitor to humanity, truth and freedom.

Whenever this freak comments about people being killed or places of worship destroyed, it’s always from a blind one sided holocaust denying frame of mind.

It seems they simply want to deny what the Islamic monsters are guilty for, when in fact almost all the atrocities committed were recorded by Islamic history books with such enthusiasm because they thought they would eventually conquer the world, which is what they are trying to do now.

They also forget that the majority of Mohounds are murdered by other Mohounds and they themselves cannot live in peace. The Taliban did not just persecute minorities but executed mass numbers of their Mohounds, and in Pakistan as elsewhere Shites and Sunnis kill one another. I didn’t see protests by these Islamic bastards or KT the Ass-munch when Muslim Kurds were being exterminated by a muslim leader named Saddam Hussain.

I didn’t see KT’s protest when moderate mohounds were gunned down by Pakistani-supported Terrorism in Azad (Free) India Kashmir.

I didn’t hear KT’s protest when the peaceful Hindu island of Bali was bombed for no reason by Islamic freaks on Acid, just because “white” tourists prefer to be among Hindus because they feel safe knowing that we are open minded, and not like the rabid dogs of Islam.

KT doesn’t protest the injustice towards women found in Islam and the present treatment with the use of Shaira against women.
Etc etc etc etc etc.

Cheers.

Posted by: Gorkhali at July 23, 2005 11:43 AM

"How about using what you think you know about Islam (which amounts to a few words of Arabic and a radical interpretation) to HELP the moderates change things for the better"

Change things? I'd be interested in finding out just which "words of god" King Taqiyyance proposes to change to make his "religion" compatable with infidel societies. Does he propose a revised, politically correct koran?

Posted by: Infidel33 at July 23, 2005 12:07 PM

King:
I do not think it is my (or our) responsibility to try to convince muslims to be nice.

If they are old enough to go to a mosque, if they are old enough to read, and if they are old enough to understand simple instructions, then their parents, elders, and teachers should have had plenty of opportunities to teach them to be nice to their neighbors.

If they cannot behave themselves in a civilized society, then they should be punished and/or retrained and/or expelled.

If you are a muslim, then this discipline is your responsibility as a muslim. If muslims do not discipline their own members, then they have no right to complain when others do it for them. If the discipline imposed from outside is thought to be too harsh, then they have only to assume the responsibility themselves in their own way. If they cannot accomplish discipline, then their way does not work, and someone else is entitled to try without interference from the ones who have failed.

If your are not a muslim, then you have little or no right to demand that others follow your suggestions unless you have first demonstrated that it is fitting and proper for the outsider to enter the community and solve the problem. In that case, I can only repeat that the muslims must take the first responsibility.

The efficacy of this approach is demonstrated in other areas. Catholics have excommunication; professional societies have grievance and disciplinary procedures; universities have provosts. When those institutions fail in their internal discipline, then it is time to summon the courts, the police, or the army. If islam is so great, then certainly there must be a procedure for correcting its faults. That is unless islam has no faults.

If islam has no faults, then your suggestion to urge change is, of course, absurd. The doing of a useless and unnecessary act.

Where does that leave you, and us, and islam, now? Are they going to be nice to their neighbors, or are we going to have to discipline them from the outside?

Posted by: texan at July 23, 2005 8:32 PM

If your are not a muslim, then you have little or no right to demand that others follow your suggestions unless you have first demonstrated that it is fitting and proper for the outsider to enter the community and solve the problem. In that case, I can only repeat that the muslims must take the first responsibility.

No infidel is ever going to convince any Muslim that a particular theological stance is wrong. Jihadist ideology will only be defeated by Muslims who show that peace is closer to the true message of the Qur'an.

KT has alluded to the existence of such Muslims, explicitly and implicitly, but nobody seems able to find them. We can find peaceful Muslims easily, but it's so far nigh on impossible to find people who can refute the Islamic reasoning of the jihadists. The recent fatwa from British Muslims was a feeble attempt. They quote the famous Qur'anic verse 5:32,

"Whoever kills a human being, then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Koran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32).

But they don't mention that this is an edited version. The full 5:32 says:

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land"

Quite what "spreading mischief in the land" means is not clear to me. However I find disturbing that it was excised and ignored in this fatwa. If the authors have to slice and dice a verse to make it say what they want, then I think their claim to be the "clear about Islam's stance on such acts" is decidely suspect.

Another cleric, from Pakistan, claims to be able to show that Islam condemns the 7/7 attacks:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4711003.stm

The piece is light on detail, and contains the usual BBC bias. "Muslim militants argue that if innocent Muslims are killed in enemy action then Muslims are allowed to kill innocent people in retaliation...But clerics strongly disagree with this line of thinking, arguing that Islam does not allow Muslims to respond to "a mistake" by another mistake." Note the bait and switch, as though the ideological battle is between "militants" on one side and "clerics" on the other. The implication is that militants are ignorant, when in fact there are plenty of militant clerics. Nevertheless, maybe this guy is the real deal. I'll reserve judgement until I see the details, though.

Posted by: Viking5 at July 24, 2005 7:29 AM