He asked some very valid question the Coptic priest, however i really wonder how long it will be before his head falls off due to the Disease called Islam...

He just insulted (publicly mind you) on tv in an islamic country the Prophet or Islam...

Muslims dont take this very lightly and will retaliate..

I hope he survives as he is a brave man.

Posted by: jingoist at July 28, 2005 5:44 PM

jingoist:

I think this priest has complete faith in his Lord - Jesus. If he is killed, he is with Jesus and that is not unwelcome to him. It is faith such as this, that gives him the courage to speak the truth to muslims.

Posted by: DP111 at July 28, 2005 6:01 PM

Here is an article of interest

Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm

Posted by: DP111 at July 28, 2005 6:03 PM

jingoist:

What I fear is more likely, is that muslims in Egypt will vent their homicidal instincts on the remaining Copts in Egypt, incited and egged on by the mullahs.

Posted by: DP111 at July 28, 2005 6:19 PM

Thank to God for men like him. Thank Jesus.

Posted by: Franze at July 28, 2005 6:39 PM

This man is amazing, what an eloquent and powerful speaker - of the truth I might add. Would somebody ask Father Boutrus to contact Pope Panzer or forward the links to the pope and tell him "this is a real leader".

All of the western political leaders should talk to this man.

BTW - I couldn't download the clips - anyone else have any success or do you have to e-mail MEMRI?

Posted by: johnb at July 28, 2005 6:47 PM

johnb: "Would somebody ask Father Boutrus to contact Pope Panzer . . . ."

Sorry, but that's enough of that. His name is Pope Benedict XVI. But I will settle for calling him Pope Benedict.

Posted by: Rick at July 28, 2005 7:14 PM

Rick:

I apologize.

John.

Posted by: johnb at July 28, 2005 7:21 PM

The Muslims' brain in Egypt must explode watching this man take on Islam.

Take care Fr. Boutrous. Jesus may be watching over you, but it pays to help him out.

Posted by: reset at July 28, 2005 7:26 PM

This is the kind of television program, or channel, that is needed all over the Muslim world. It would be good if Assyrian Christians could, similarly, beam a show into Iraq -- and they should be able to make the point that once upon time Mesopotamia, the Land of the Two Rivers, was entirely Christian and Jewish, that many -- possibly most -- of those who think of themselves as Arabs are in reality islamized, and over time thoroughly arabized, descendants of those non-Arab Christians and Jews, and that this ought to be considered.

And furthermore, there ought to be some discussion of how the tenets of Islam encourage a habit of mental submission to authority that not only encourages despotism, but encourages intellectual inhibitions in all areas of life. Islam stunts mental growth. The Iraqis have at least been exposed, now, to a large number of Infidels -- Americans and others. They are able, some of them, to detect the difference in the mental agility, and morality, of those foreigners -- Italians, Britihs, Bulgarians, and others as well as Americans. Surely they are not all incapable of drawing their own private conclusions.

Another program could be devoted to what may be called inshallah-fatalism, the constant references to the will of Allah, to what Allah may whimsically do or not do, which can make one accept death more easily, but also leads to a kind of lassitude that has clear economic consequences. Churchill in that by-now famous passage on Islam in "The River Wars" noted that wherever Muslims went, agiculture suffered. Once the Fertile Crescent, Mesopotamia under Islam has been further desertified -- dates, and precious little else, to export. Muslims in Iraq, or some of them, must being to ask themselves why.

Still another program could be about the subject of antiquities. Why is it that with all the ancient civilizations of the Near East, that it was the British and other non-Muslims who unearthed, collected, cleaned, organized, studied, and preserved these antiquiteis --whether at the Museum in Cairo (founded by a Frenchman) or the Baghdad Museum (an outgrowth of Gertrude Bell's work as head of Antiquities during the British occupation of Mesopotamia?

Still another program might be offered on how Islam, by teaching Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims, and not to take non-Muslims as friends ("Do not take Jews and Christians as friends, for they are friends only with each other" -- a phrase repeated in many different guises), necessarily causes Muslims to forgive terrible behavior, even atrocities, if committed by Muslims, and to cut themselves off from the larger, more advanced, more interesting, more open and more tolerant world of all non-Muslims. Islam is the reason the Muslims have been falling behind, in every way that counts, and why they will continue to do so, despite the vast accidental wealth that the oil deposits happen, for now, to provide.

Either Islam changes, and it can only change if Muslims cease to lie to Infidels and to themselves about what is in the texts, or eventually, simply out of the desire for self-preservation, Muslims will be marginalized, or removed, from within Infidel lands, and long before that happens, all intelligent Infidels will regard them with permanent mistrust and hostility -- both of which will be, have already been, amply justified.

What Muslim parent would continue to wish for such a fate for his child -- that that child be condemned to the solitary confinement of Islam itself? Would you, if you were born into Islam through no fault of your own, wish to tell your child the truth about Islam, or force him to stay within its mind-forged manacles, and be content with that?

Posted by: Hugh at July 28, 2005 7:48 PM

OT but check it out:

Excellent article by Patrick Sookhedo of the UK on Islam in the Spectator:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001375.html

(Requires registration, but it's free.)

Posted by: Suzan at July 28, 2005 7:53 PM

Robert Spencer - you may have heard this already. But on this side of the Pacific, some independant New Zealand politician has described Islam as a beast with many heads that says one thing to us infidels, and another thing inside their Mosques. It might be worth investagating.

I heard it on the radio, none of the Aussie TV shows/news are reporting on it.

But the Kiwi polly is a real leader (in this sense) and worth a mention.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 28, 2005 8:03 PM

Father Botros is a very interesting character. Back in the 1940’s, his elder brother, a lay preacher, while visiting villages in Upper Egypt to strengthen the faith of the poor Christian inhabitants was captured and killed by the Muslim Brotherhood. The poor Mr. Botros was beaten with axes and while alive a skewer was pushed into his brain from ear to ear.

Father Zakria hails from a family with long ties with American missionaries in early twentieth century Egypt. He studied Islam for decades, interacting as a child with famous Muslim apostates who published seminal works on Islam. The man is simply an encyclopedia on Islamic matters. However, the heads of the Coptic Church are furious with his evangelical Protestantism, for turning his back on traditional Coptic ritual and dogma, and for intensifying the wrath of the Muslims of the already beleaguered community.

Posted by: have_mercy at July 28, 2005 8:05 PM

"Father Botros is a very interesting character. Back in the 1940’s, his elder brother, a lay preacher, while visiting villages in Upper Egypt to strengthen the faith of the poor Christian inhabitants was captured and killed by the Muslim Brotherhood. The poor Mr. Botros was beaten with axes and while alive a skewer was pushed into his brain from ear to ear."
-- from a posting above

That, no doubt, explains his fearlessness and his determination.

Posted by: Hugh at July 28, 2005 8:20 PM

Another interesting fact about Father Boutros, thanks to the internet and satellite television, he is able to take his message to the heart of Islam, Mecca and the entire Arabian Peninsula. Due to his efforts, there are Christians and house churches in Mecca, a spiritual invasion of sort --- A fact that infuriates Muslims to no end. Unfortunately, the Saudis and the Egyptian Islamists that view the Coptic Community as a threat have doubled their efforts to destroy the most vibrant Christian community in the Middle East.

Posted by: have_mercy at July 28, 2005 8:24 PM

Father Boutrus, in your faith
is the seed of all truth,
so clearly have you spoken
of the broken ones,
so precisely you pick their bones.
Father Boutrus, in your strength
is the seed of all courage,
how tall you stand over others
in this promised land.
Father Boutrus, in your love
is the seed of all life
watered by the blood of the lamb,
warmed by the rays of the sword of truth,
that cuts deep, your exile, your sacrifice,
will not be in vain.

Posted by: the poetess at July 28, 2005 8:34 PM

Is that Coptic he's speaking?

And if so, how do they say Jesus phonetically?

Posted by: Rupert at July 28, 2005 9:24 PM

And I'm assuming he was reading from the Hadith when you said 'Al-Halabi'. Is that hadith considered credible by Muslims?

Posted by: Rupert at July 28, 2005 9:29 PM

"Is that Coptic he's speaking?
And if so, how do they say Jesus phonetically?"

Jesus Christ in Coptic is "Issu Christo"
In Arabic he is called two different names by Christians and Muslims respectively : Yassoo’ and ‘Issa .

Father Zakria speaks Arabic to allow both Muslims and Christian’s to understand him. He also speaks English well enough. Anyhow, Coptic survives only as a liturgical language understood by the clergy and the very devout. You see, the Muslim rulers would cut the tongue of whosoever spoke it in an ear shot of a Muslim. The church had to Arabize the liturgy to sooth the conspiracy-obsessed hysteric minds of Muslims and assure them that Copts are not cursing Islam and conspiring against Muslim governments. Within centuries, Coptic (late Egyptian) died in its own land after thousands of years on the banks on the Nile in favor of the throat-clearing sounds of Arabic.

Posted by: have_mercy at July 28, 2005 11:02 PM

Let's have PBS and NPR get this guy's broadcasts translated and on the air to counterbalance their continual coddling of the Koran-ists.

Or would the sound of a voice telling the truth about Islam (in its own words) be too terrifying for them in their cultural-relativistic candyland?

Posted by: BigSleep at July 29, 2005 12:02 AM

"...would the sound of a voice telling the truth about Islam (in its own words) be too terrifying for them..."
-- from a posting above

Of course it would be too terrifying, too discombobulating, too altogether unpleasant, and un-explain-awayable, for either PBS or, especially, NPR. Out of the question.

Posted by: Hugh at July 29, 2005 12:26 AM

"too terrifying, too discombobulating, too altogether unpleasant, and un-explain-awayable, for either PBS or, especially, NPR."

Nope: Every news network in the West, including FOX.

Posted by: metaxy at July 29, 2005 12:42 AM

Didn't see the clips, but read the text. This was a brilliant rebuttal to Islam. After obsessing again on the problem of Islam after the 7-7 bombings, I had a similar thought. What this priest had in saying his piece was Moral Courage.

The biggest problem about Islam is that it is such a single-issue constituency, and is also bloodthirsty by definition, it just chips away bit by bit like the erosion caused by the infinite dripping of water down the Grand Canyon. We see this every day as the propagandaists and jihadists take the two-track approach to subjugating all of our societal infrastructure. Throughout time, apparently.

So, how do we effectively push back against it and solve what seems like an infinite and irrepressible force? We are used to quick fixes in there parts, esp since our elected leaders have short time horizons and short-term focus. We need to at least once push past a certain point where the efforts become some sort of high-water mark that Islam may not easily overcome. So how would you define that point, and how would you achieve it, ie make it actionable? It seems our constitution may not be enough as it is. They thought of darn near everything in there, but did they think of today's situation? Maybe what we need is a revision in there to deal with this.

A strategic analysis is needed, but first things first, who is the leader of our team? Who would stick their neck out in the face of popular PC opinion and murderous ideology as well as possible legal obstacles? If I am not hallucinating, and all the things I have filled myself up with by reaidng Mr Spencer's blog, Ali Sina's, Daniel Pipes, etc, are right, a concrete plan of citizen action is needed quickly, as it seems the US is the last best hope. And I suppose that's exactly why the US has the biggest target and bounty on it's head.

Goals, 0bjectives, Strategy, Tactics need to be defined. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats analyzed - what are we working with, how can the bad guys beat us (and how can we neutralize that), and what's our high-odds approach to beat it? What resources are needed to achieve the objective? That's the skeletal stuff of the analysis needed to make all this talk actionable. Maybe all this is in some of the books I have on my shopping cart at Amazon but have not yet poured through.

Anyway, brainstorm-wise, there IS this idea from the shower the other day. Fact is, the best defense IS a good offense, and to defend against the lobbying onslaught and constant demands of Islam, we need to fight back the same way - Ali Sina said it well: fight the military war militarily and the ideological war ideologically. It's clearly a two-track approach that needs to be blunted. And what are laws if not ideology, and what better way to fight back than to ammend the US constitution to ultimately redefine "religion" for the purposes of our national laws as a set of beliefs with certain features, and without certain other features.

If that "freedom of religion" clause is our weak spot, is that not fixable? Knowing what we know, redefining Islam as a cult, or as a political manifesto, or as a legal system, or as a "virtual state" instead of a religion seems doable, no matter how many sensitivities get pricked.

If Islam's problem is the rennassaince it never had, let's give it a chance by banning it in the US in it's current configuration, and telling it how it would need to morph to be considered compatible with the US constition. A secular country must do it that way, not by becoming anything close to the Christian theocracy that all the looniest of the left keep blithering on about. Anyway, this Coptic priest is demonstrating exactly the points that need to be forcefully and aggressively pushed into our constitution by the citizenry. Sort of like the Minuteman project for the US constitution. Islam wants to change our laws. Well, so do we - only in the OPPOSITE direction as Islam would demand. We need to get on this quickly. A long-term organized lobbying PAC to make our government work seems to be what is needed. OK, I got that far. It's a seed.

Posted by: sonofamarine at July 29, 2005 12:55 AM

Sonofmarine:

I like what you post and you deserve more ammunition: Use it wisely:

10. Here is a statement from the Ayatollah Khomeini. Do you think that this statement, from a leading Shi’a theologian, misstates Islamic theology, and is simply one man’s view, or do you think that it correctly expresses a view that can be easily derived from a reading of Qur’an and the hadith contained, for example, in the “sahih” collections of Bukhari and Muslim?

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.

But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world….Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies[. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we sould surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Porphet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Posted by: Terminator at July 29, 2005 7:10 AM

Terminator,

That is compelling, and a very concise demonstration of exactly what all western civilized people need to see. Any drive to actually change our laws for the extreme better like suggested would need one heck of an education drive. The Ayatollah provided many great examples of reality that we can refer to for that. Evidence is just laying everywhere on the ground right in front of us for to see. Like this one from Ali Sina's FFI site:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/KhomeiniSpeech.htm

In 1981 Khomeini basically said right there, "Hey America - the Mosques we build everywhere are the command posts for our war against you." 25 years later, his description seems to have been right on.

What is incredible is that the true followers of Islam boldly say exactly what it is they are doing, right in front of our faces, and still we sleep through the warnings. The Van Gogh trial is becoming typical now, no? Speaking of mosques, I used to work for a large Fortune 500 company in a huge sales office of theirs, and you know what that building is today? An Islamic school. It's huge. That was an eye-opener for me. Especially when one of my customers tried to invite me to that mosque to learn about Islam. Ummm gee, no thanks!

Most people are so caught up in day to day life that they may not even be paying attention to the constant undercurrents like these. They figure our government will take care of everything. Me, I am not so confident about that. Daniel Pipes wrote an excellent piece about the revolving door in our government and how easy it is for Saudis to buy these gov't folks one by one just by flashing big bucks in their faces. How predictable. And how foreboding that essay was.

Anyway, just imagine all of the pieces that would need to fall into place for such a radical change in our constitution to be made. It's very early in the grass roots campaign, isn't it? I salute Robert Spencer and others for the work they do. For my part, I post links to these sites all over the place. The word has to spread a lot more before anything bigger is going to happen.

Thanks for the text - BTW, where's the original? Is there a link to that somewhere or is it in a book? if I were going to write my Congressman, I'd need to reference the source for best impact. thx.

Posted by: sonofamarine at July 29, 2005 2:44 PM

The nature of Islam is one topic that has occupied us all for sometime now. Islam not as a religion, but its reality. Is it islamosfascism, islamo-nazism, or some other totalitarian ideology? The simple fact is that, none of these definitions, as is obvious by now, are sufficient to merit an immuno-response from the West, as the West regards islam as a religion.

If one examines islam and its practices, it is more akin to slavery. Islam and those who convert to it, effectively become slaves. Islam = submission = subjugation, is not coincidence. Wherever islam dominates, slothful attitudes start to dominate. Free thinking stops, and people become mere cogs, almost children, dependent on the cleric on matters of any substance. Muslims are thus the first victims in this institution of slavery. I would therefore term Islam as the "religion of institutionalised slavery". It is no surprise that muslim countries are intellectual deserts. Free thinking can only occur in Free societies.

Some points worth considering

1. The institution of slavery, crushed the spirit of slaves. They were unable to think originally for themselves as a consequence. A striking feature of islamic societies.

2. Another striking feature of islamic societies is that they blame everyone else for their acts or predicaments.

In what may be consider as a traditional slave society, a similar situation holds. The slave has no power over the direction of his life, and no sense of responsibility to himself, the civic society or the state. This leads, quite naturally in my view, to blame others for his predicaments.

3. The subjugation of women and the view that women were simply chattels, ie slaves.

4. Runaway slaves used to be beaten, and oft executed as a lesson to other would be runaway slaves. The same punishment is koranically sanctioned for the muslim apostate. Is it mere coincidence?

The most public manifestation of our acceptance of institutionalised slavery in the West is the burqa. It is a symbol, that we as a Western society, have recognised the institutionalised slavery of women in islam, as legitimate in the West. This is absolutely absurd. Freedom and slavery are mutually incompatible. One can only expand at the expense of the other. It is a tragedy that we have allowed in, into the domain of Freedom, a society that practices slavery, and worse we give it legitimacy under the guise of multiculturalism.

So here we are, in the 21st century, right here in the domain of Freedom, and we have allowed islands of slavery to become established within this domain. This is absurd.

Freedom and slavery can never co-exist. Islam, in its practice, turns out to be the oldest totalitarian ideology of all - slavery, with just the added but genius touch, that it is divinely sanctioned by allah.

I'm tentatively putting this hypothesis, that islam is really a religion for slavery, and to garner more slaves, is the purpose of Jihad. Slave society can only exist economically, if it continues to grow at the expense of Free societies, and thus get the succour that itself, it cannot produce. We were fooled into letting Islam into the domain of Freedom. Islam avoided the radar that protects Free societies, as it cloaked itself as a religion. (The radars needs to be re-programmed).

To fight the cultural and physical war against islam, one needs an identifying cause, a just cause, a righteous cause, as Baron Bodissey put it. Defence or offence on the basis of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or an amalgam of all three, will not work. All three religions are essentially pacifist, and besides, the West is essentially secular. The defeat of the last citadel of slavery on this planet, is most certainly a worthwhile, righteous and secular cause that will unite all.

It is worth remembering that Winston Churchill did identify islam as slavery

"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Posted by: DP111 at July 29, 2005 7:43 PM

DP111,

That was brilliant. Any kind of political approach to counter the scourge of Islam needs a hugely meaningful and easy to digest rallying cry. Every American person on the street needs to easily "get it" in the form of a pithy elevator pitch sandwiched in between MLB, NFL, and MTV broadcasts. You crystalized it right there.

And now that we see they are obsoleting "the war on terror" for some other unpronounceable and forgettable thing, so much for the governments' previously issued pithy rallying cry. Well yours is better anyway, and maybe the death of the other one comes just in time. After all, terror is just the symptom. Islam is the disease. Your comments cut right to the heart of why the disease must be battled and cured right here if Amercia really stands for freedom and democracy. If one of our Achiles' heel problems in fighting back is the divisiveness of the issue and how many separate internal factions there are and how easily they splinter, your theme could unite a strong political majority in the world's last best chance, America. Well said!

Could that be the guts of a constitutional amendment that more tightly defines what is a religion, as in our precious "freedom of" constitutional protections? Just imagine a solid national push in that direction from a coalition of like-minded organizations. Wow. (aside: In my dream, Europe could then take ours as an example and could also finally stop acting as a base for this cancer.)

Posted by: sonofamarine at July 29, 2005 8:21 PM

sonofmarine:

Thank you for your encouragement.

The above post followed what I posted at the Gates of Vienna. I post it here again for completeness.
---------------------------------------
I have stated many times over the last couple of years, that we will easily win a full scale war with the Islam. What worries me is that in the event of a nuclear event in the West, we will rapidly go for the THIRD CONJECTURE option. Over the last two years I have stated on LGF and Jihad/Dhimmi Watch, that our inevitable large scale nuclear response, will also shatter the foundations of our own civilisation. Our Judaeo-Christian civilisation has a built-in guilt complex, and we will not be able to sustain the shock of our victory bought at such expense. That is why the war option is not really a good one unless.. unless we can re-define what this war is about.

To state the obvious, there are two principles in any war. The first is that the home front is secured. The second is to carry the war to the enemy. However, if we do NOT carry the war to the enemy with a correctly defined moral and political purpose, we will not be able to have public backing for the war. The Jihad in the meantime will continue, for in the eyes of the jihadis and the Muslim world, they have a clear moral and religious purpose, and divinely sanctioned to boot. It allows them to continue in the face of adversity and against overwhelming odds.

The question is how do we carry the war to an enemy whose ideology we recognise as a religion, while ours is multi-culturalism. You see the difficulty here. There is no way we can conduct a war, so long as we subscribe to either one of those two tenets. Even if we discard multi-culturalism, this in itself is not sufficient. This inevitably leads us to ask, can we somehow re-define Islam, in particular for a Western audience, not as a religion but as a political ideology, and one whose tenets are sufficiently evil, so that it merits destruction, much as Nazism. (Note here that I do not recognise that Islam is susceptible to reformation). This construct has to take place so that the Western populace sees it as justifiable to actually give the physical and moral support that is required for such a large scale venture. (In passing it is worth noting the political difficulty that Bush and Blair are having in Iraq in sustaining political support for the war, once they had proclaimed that Islam is a RoP — they had conceded the moral ground). They now have the same problem here in the West, as the bombs go off.

The jihadis have a clear moral purpose, and thus we too have to define an even more powerful moral argument as to why our cause is more just, more moral and better — not just to our public, whose unwavering support we need, but to many Muslims around the world. Once we have such a clear moral purpose, then indeed we can go to full scale war and even respond to a nuclear attack in an appropriate fashion without being fatally afflicted by guilt.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_gatesofvienna_archive.html
-----------------------------------
I have noticed that rallying the West on the basis of Defence of Christendom, was a futile task. The West is essentially secular. There was no rush to the standard.

Yet a defence was necessary. The West is committed in a religious way to Freedom, as shown in two world wars and the Cold War.

"We will pay any price, shoulder any burden "

or when Pres Lincoln committed America to a civil war (the worst kind), to free America from slavery.

"that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

or Churchill, "This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."

There is no doubt that the West will rise if Freedom is under threat. Not only will it rise to defend Fredom, but it will go forth to extend the boundaries of Freedom, and use any means necessary to achieve it.

Posted by: DP111 at July 29, 2005 9:36 PM

If we continue further

Islam is a religion that forcibly converted others at the point of a sword, can be justifiably regarded as a slave organisation and ideology, as it forced other people to adopt a way of life against their wishes. Virtually all muslims in the world are descendents of those poor people, who were so horribly treated by muslim invaders. Islam not only enslaved those people in body but also in spirit and in mind. This enslavement of the mind is the main reason why muslim society has been so lethargic and impoverished, in body and soul. How can slaves be expected to be original and enterprising - these after all, are the characteristics of free men and women. The crime of apostasy i.e. the islam-sanctioned execution of a muslim who attempts to leave islam, is similar to the execution of runaway slaves.

If one examines other Islamic practices, one finds a similarity with notions of what constitutes traditional slavery. For instance, in traditional slavery, the slave owner used female slaves for sex and the “production” of more slaves. In islam, Muslim women are also regarded as mere sex slaves and the production of more muslims. Unlike the traditional slave, the muslim woman, due to FGM, did not even have the solace of getting some sexual pleasure. Again, islam regards its young, and even children, as mere canon fodder, very much akin to the views and practices of the feudal lord vis-à-vis the serfs on his estate.
------------------------------------

I shall leave it there. I wonder what JW/DWers think.

Posted by: DP111 at July 29, 2005 9:43 PM

Last thought for tonight.

The reason why criticism of islam by Christians such as Fr. Zakaria Boutrus and Dr Sookhdeo will fail, is because the West is essentially secular and liberal. It will see this battle as an internecine battle within the "faith" communities, and dismiss it of no relevance to the modern world or to them.

I feel that this war has to be defined within a broader secular framework. It may then be possible to get the attention of the MSM, which BTW is overwhelmingly secular.

Posted by: DP111 at July 29, 2005 10:07 PM

DP111:

"Our Judaeo-Christian civilisation has a built-in guilt complex, and we will not be able to sustain the shock of our victory bought at such expense."

Our Judaeo-Christian civilization only has developed this built-in guilt complex in the last 50 years. We handled our gravely necessary prosecution of mass-murdering millions of innocents in terrible fire-bombings of Germany and Japan + the A-bombing of two major Japanese cities without succumbing to the "shock" you mention.

And prior to WWII, from the time of the Battle of Tours in the 8th century AD clear through to "the shores of Tripoli" in the 18th century, the West was quite capable of defending itself against Muslims without wringing its hands.

I am not minimizing the psycho-culturally devastating effects of our Leftist PC change we have undergone in the last 50 years (I bitch about it often here on jihadwatch and elsewhere). But I must object to your implication that our present PC idiocy is something innate to Western civilization. It is not. It is a new sea change in Western thought and attitudes. A new and insanely idiotic Zeitgeist.

I also take issue with your contention that Christianity was essentially "pacifist": the battalions that Charles Martel was able to rally around him in order to effectively repulse the Muslims from invading further into Europe in 732 A.D. were Christian battalions (as were all the subsequent Crusaders).

Posted by: metaxy at July 29, 2005 11:02 PM

Good posts, DP111. And good counterpoints, metaxy.

"I am not minimizing the psycho-culturally devastating effects of our Leftist PC change we have undergone in the last 50 years (I bitch about it often here on jihadwatch and elsewhere). But I must object to your implication that our present PC idiocy is something innate to Western civilization. It is not. It is a new sea change in Western thought and attitudes. A new and insanely idiotic Zeitgeist."

Earlier Christians knew you could not fight the sword of islam by wearing only a sackcloth stitched of guilt.

Posted by: Rick at July 30, 2005 10:38 AM

metaxy:

Charles Martell was able to rally the troops, as at that time, the message of Jesus ie one of pacifism, was unknown to most of the peasantry. Thus it was possible for the state to use religion as one of the rallying calls.

As for the bombing of Germany and Japan, this was not done by relying on any Christian calls for defence or unity. It was the secular arm of the state that waged the war. Freedom from tyranny was the call. Christian principles could safely be rest on the doctrine of separation of church and state. The liberal secular state is the most benign, as well as the most ruthless of all states.

It for this reason that I'm tryimg to get away from battling islam on religious grounds, and take it to a ground which suits us. As long as we persist in battling on quasi-religious grounds, we fight on islam's preferred territory. This just further raises the profile of islam.

Posted by: DP111 at July 30, 2005 4:18 PM

Hey DP,

I still like the idea very much and agree that to have any sort of national unity, it would take a secular unifying theme of that kind of significance. Freedom and anti-slavery seem the closest thing as a defendable core value for our country. But I do have this little issue now. For some reason, I finally decided to look up the site for John Lofton, who I have seen interviewed on FOX many times. His site is very interesting, and he is an att'y that represents whistle-blowers. He's interesting because he does seem pretty non-partisan, and he has some interesting things to say about what has gone on behind the scenes in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and even farther back than that. And that's the problem. Check out this article:

http://www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp#congress

I voted for the guy, but do have isues. One is the conflict of interest between Bush Sr, his cronies, and Bush Jr, at least as an heir and our country's national interests. The conflict of interest because of their interest in the Carlyle Group was already a problem for me, but for the sake of this topic, now there is the issue of their support for the Saudis. The Saudis are as much in favor of slavery as is the Islam they propogate. So, if we strongly support the Saudis at the very top of our government, how can we ever say we are united in the value of freedom? If we conveniently support a regime like Saudi, who we know is prone to, among other things, enslaving their domestic help even when residing in our own country, then how could we say we stand for freedom, and thus we want to tighten our laws to better define religion (as belief sets that do not enslave people), etc? I am reminded by the Lincoln quote on Ali Sina's site:

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." Abraham Lincoln

Thereupon I concluded: As I would not be a dhimmi, so I would not be a Muslim. Ali Sina."

Check out that article and some of his other stuff and let me know what you think.

sonofa

Posted by: sonofamarine at August 1, 2005 10:43 AM