The supreme authority in the United States is the Constitution. Nothing deemed to contradict that constitution is permitted; if and when a case or controversy is properly brought (standing, a real interest, a remedy), a law declared unconstitutional is gone, without force and void.

In Muslim countries, such as the Sudan and now in Iraq (where the new constitution says that nothing can be done which "contradicts Islam"), but in fact in all of those in which Islma is taken seriously, the role that the American Constitution plays in the American polity is taken by Islam. Nothing deemed to contradict Islam is permitted.

And that's why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not been accepted by Muslim countries (save by the Shah of Iran, and now his acceptance of that document means nothing in the Islamic Republic of Iran) and cannot be. Instead, a completely different version, billed as an "Islamic version" the "Universal Declaration," in which the rights of freedom of conscience, and indeed all the guarantees of individual rights, are fatally vitiated or violated or ignored, was created, and various Muslim countries solemnly adhered to this meaningless document, one by one by one.

That's that. That's Islam, and its "rights" guaranteed to non-Muslims, to women, and to any Muslim who might, just might, decide he no longer wants to remain a Muslim -- not even a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim.

Posted by: Hugh at October 18, 2005 3:16 PM

The minister of justice, Mohamed Ali al-Maradi, said in a press statement following his meeting with the special rapporteur on human rights in Sudan, Ms Sima Samar, that Sudan would not accept any article that contradicts the Islamic religion.

Now that would have been an interesting interview. A Ms Samar (possibly muslim?) interviewing a male minister of justice in an islamic country. I wonder if the "meeting" took place via CCTV, or something like that?

Posted by: DP111 at October 18, 2005 4:50 PM

I say force the issue. Sudan needs to spell out exactly which of the articles of the CEDAW contradict Islam, and why Sudan can't adhere to them. Sudan should be forced to explain which women's "rights" are "protected" in their sorry excuse for a country.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at October 18, 2005 6:30 PM

o/t
been wondering where your tax dollars promised
by bush to the palestainians are going??

..how about..."The SS-X-26 (which) appears to have several different conventional warheads, including a cluster munitions warhead, a fuel-air explosive enhanced-blast warhead, a tactical earth penetrator for bunker busting and an electro- magnetic pulse device for anti-radar missions."

russia also selling them to syria(see Debka)..wtf are they thinking?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ss-26.htm

Posted by: otterfisher at October 18, 2005 7:28 PM

Hugh mentions the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. The title alone is very instructive: "in Islam".

Where is Islam?

Conquered Earth

Sura Nine
Human rights in action:

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Posted by: Beagle at October 18, 2005 7:53 PM

Off-topic: I've noticed that when searching on Google for text from Comments sections of jihadwatch, nothing shows up until you go back at least 4 days. Is this normal, or is Google being laggard perhaps out of discrimination?

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 18, 2005 9:48 PM

Thanks Live Aid, thanks Sir Bob & St Bono for getting the citizens of the West to dig real deep into their pockets to save Sudan from starvation so they can build a nation that oppresses women & unbelievers.

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 7:26 AM

Danger, Danger! Danger! A cautionary example of how dangerous Muslims are to the West. When sufficient numbers congregate they begin to agitate for Sharia as "voluntary" for Muslims. Eventually voluntary becomes obligatory. As numbers and influece grow, the insidious effect of Sharia spreads to include non-Muslims living among or nearby. Soon, as in the case of Darfur or Nigeria, AND ALL OTHER areas where Muslims have gone, Sharia then trumps all laws, constitutions, decrees, statutes, and so on. Stopping the introduction of Muslims is the only way to prevent this outrage.

Posted by: epg at October 19, 2005 7:43 AM

albion: "Thanks Live Aid, thanks Sir Bob & St Bono for getting the citizens of the West to dig real deep into their pockets to save Sudan from starvation so they can build a nation that oppresses women & unbelievers."

King: Pathetic, inhuman drivel!
Translated: You'd rather see poor masses of starving people who are caught up in a brutal civil war perish than to become potential Muslim nation. This is a depth I previoulsy thought unattainable.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 8:00 AM

epg: "Stopping the introduction of Muslims is the only way to prevent this outrage."

King: How do you propose to do that, then?

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 8:01 AM

Clam down KT.

It was an observation.

It didn't warrant your usual eyes rolling "instant, non Muslim, rage"

Must be a slow day for you here on DW if this is all you have to carp on about.

I have no problem with people democratically choosing to be a theocracy & never voting again - but I do object to us funding it - either through taxes or charity.

Obviuosly you are more angry with me (one individual) for making a simple observation than you are with Sudan (a "Nation") for imposing a system of "Law" that deletes women & unbelievers from humanity.

Strange that, for a liberal westerner who constantly claims not to be a Muslim to be so instantly enraged.

Are your eyes rolling yet?

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 8:18 AM

King, the 'tolerant' one:

"Inhuman drivel!"

"Islam good, Christianity/Judaism bad..."

Go on mate! No buyers here, nothing to see, just move on....

Gagagagagaaga...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 19, 2005 8:29 AM

albion: "Clam down KT. It was an observation."

King: Nice to see you are changing your tune now that you have been clearly called on it. You did not make an 'observation.' You made a bold faced comment, complete with the usual blame everyone else invective:
"Thanks Live Aid, thanks Sir Bob & St Bono for getting the citizens of the West to dig real deep into their pockets to save Sudan from starvation so they can build a nation that oppresses women & unbelievers."
No amount of obfuscation, retooling or backpeddling will change your blatantly inappropiate and insensitive comment.

albion: "Are your eyes rolling yet?"

King: No, my eyes are wide open...

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 8:36 AM

I retract nothing. Your poor understanding of the English language & its contextual use is not my problem, but is just another for you to add to the oh so long list.

And of course, there is your instant rage eyes rollin' that stops you reading correctly.

As you have so clearly stated:

Your intent is to denigrate this site & its "followers" to make it unpalatable to new comers.

Heard you loud & clear.

Again:

Obviously you are more angry with me (one individual) for making a simple observation / bold faced statement than you are with Sudan (a "Nation") for imposing a system of "Law" that deletes women & unbelievers from humanity.

Nothing to add to the story then KT? No defence of your new best pals KT in Sudan? Any comment on the ethnic cleansing by Sudan? The mass rape, the mass murder being committed there? No bad words for them, no judgement, no pearls of KT reason & wisdom for them?

Sums you up.

As I have also stated:

If you are not a Muslim & actually believe the rubbish you come out with, I would have seen your name & opinions on the many Jihad websites I visit.

It would only be "fair", you sitting in the middle of them & us & all that. But you don't have any presence on Jihad websites.

Why? Are we worse than them? Do they not need to hear your message of TOLERANCE too, KT? No?

You are either a Muslim practicing the age old ways of communicating with infidels, or you are scared to make yourself known to them.

Muslim or coward.

Which is it?

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 8:53 AM

As long as Sudan is supplying China with oil, China will veto any vote in the UN to try and give Sudan basic human rights. Meanwhile China will suppress the threat of Islam in its own borders by exterminating Muslim rebels. China is not stopping the introduction of Muslims, China is putting them to good use as fertilizer for the rice fields.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at October 19, 2005 8:59 AM

albion: "I retract nothing. Your poor understanding of the English language & its contextual use is not my problem..."

King: I see. Your comment, in plain English, is now being taken "out of context." NOW my eyes are rolling!

albion: "Your intent is to denigrate this site & its "followers" to make it unpalatable to new comers."

King: Wrong. My intent is and always has been to come here and mix it up with people who share an opion 180 degrees from mine. Its called debate. If they, in their rebuttals, wish to denigrate their own site with tumbrel invective, that's equally fine with me. Newcomers will either find it unpalatable and move along (which is what they do), or they will join in the harangue and add further nonesense.

Does this bother you?

albion: "The mass rape, the mass murder being committed there? No bad words for them, no judgement, no pearls of KT reason & wisdom for them?"

King: I am one of the people whom you slander with your 'observation.' I've donated money to the cause of the Sudanese people. You, on the other hand, question Bono and Bob Geldoff for "getting the citizens of the West to dig real deep into their pockets to save Sudan from starvation so they can build a nation that oppresses women & unbelievers."

The rest of your post, to me, is squirming to eclipse the obvious: you've been had.

albion: Muslim or coward?

King: Hmmm. You are the one asking through a computer. If you were in front of my face we'd see who the coward wuz, I ASSURE YOU.

Now off you go to create more bile!

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 9:08 AM

Obviously you are a coward then, though the threat at the end makes me wonder?

Could you be both?

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 9:46 AM

More bile. How predictable. By the way, you are behaving exactly to my "plan." The more names you call, the more bile you post, the more you defile your argument, your relevance and the website.

Provoking this sort of response has become child's play. Now, if you wish to engage in adult discussion minus the vituperation, I am able to switch into that mode instantly.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 9:53 AM

KT

Not bile, an "observation" on the myriad of KT evidence to hand.

If you are indeed the "luke warm water" stuck in between the "Islamic fire" & the "Infidel ice"
then surely you would have a presence on Jihad websites, where you would be pointing out your liberal credentials & selling the faithful the line that "not all infidels are bad", & demanding, as you do here, that they are tolerant of other sides point of view & of course explaining / spinning away the "cultural misunderstandings" of the last few hundred years.

Again I ask, why do you not have a presence on any of these sites?

By your absence from these sites, I can only deduce that:

A: You are a Muslim

B: You are afraid of them

Of course there is a C. You could be one of those Westerners who so hates their own society & culture that you would side with the Devil if he was wearing a STOP BUSH teeshirt.

Again, without bile or ranker:

Obviously you are more angry with me (one individual) for making a simple observation / bold faced statement than you are with Sudan (a "Nation") for imposing a system of "Law" that deletes women & unbelievers from humanity.

Nothing to add to the story then KT? No defence of your new best pals KT in Sudan? Any comment on the ethnic cleansing by Sudan? The mass rape, the mass murder being committed there? No bad words for them, no judgement, no pearls of KT reason & wisdom for them?........................................................You see you copied & pasted the piece & then went on to tell me that you gave some money to Sudan. I have re-read what you wrote & found it devoid of an answer regarding the mass murder, mass rapes & ethnic cleansing being committed in Sudan - let alone the imposition of Sharia Law.

Please, put your eyes on "lock", concentrate & try to read clearly without the rage building up & taking over. There's a good chap.

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 10:12 AM

"Please, put your eyes on "lock", concentrate & try to read clearly without the rage building up & taking over."

King: LOL - As much as I'd love to keep seeing you post more self-defeating crap as you dangle on the end of my hook, I'm done with you. Dismissed.

I shall magnanimously let you have the last word...use it wisely as my eyes are on "lock."

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 10:18 AM

How unusual for you to cut & run when exposed.

You will no doubt be delighted to hear that this is my third victory against you.

3-1 to me.

Thanks for the last word.

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 10:22 AM

Bohemond: "As long as Sudan is supplying China with oil, China will veto any vote in the UN to try and give Sudan basic human rights."

King: Of course - herein lies the heart of the issue. Oil, and its unobstructed flow for export. If China were, as you speculate, to veto any UN efforts to change the Sudanese government it would be right in line with how the West has played politics in oil producing nations. There really is not one nation on the face of the Earth that exports mass quantities of oil that exists wihtout foreign interference of some sort. Whichever government is most willing to play ball with their chief customers, they are the ones who are propped up, regardless of their horrific violations to human rights.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 10:32 AM

OT:

QUOTE>
King: Hmmm. You are the one asking through a computer. If you were in front of my face we'd see who the coward wuz, I ASSURE YOU.
We had presumed by evidence of past postings that this person >King Tolerance This does not wash.But that is fine.. just fine.

Keep up the good work KingT.

We are watching every 12 hour cycle, and are amused by your ongoing words.no scrolling past anything at THIS particular station occurs.

On the topic.. we/I have no statement nor judgement to offer.

Posted by: AvrageJoe at October 19, 2005 11:10 AM

October 18, 2005
Sudan rejects laws on women rights which contradict Islam
Sharia Alert from Sudan, from the Sudan Tribune with thanks to Twostellas:

Oct 17, 2005 (KHARTOUM)— The Sudanese government has affirmed that it has reservations on some articles of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), particularly those which contradict Islam.
The minister of justice, Mohamed Ali al-Maradi, said in a press statement following his meeting with the special rapporteur on human rights in Sudan, Ms Sima Samar, that Sudan would not accept any article that contradicts the Islamic religion.

He added that women rights are guaranteed in all legislation and the constitution which enable women to assume public work and posts on equal footing with men.

Posted by Robert at October 18, 2005 02:20 PM | Email this entry | Print this entry

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)
The supreme authority in the United States is the Constitution. Nothing deemed to contradict that constitution is permitted; if and when a case or controversy is properly brought (standing, a real interest, a remedy), a law declared unconstitutional is gone, without force and void.

In Muslim countries, such as the Sudan and now in Iraq (where the new constitution says that nothing can be done which "contradicts Islam"), but in fact in all of those in which Islma is taken seriously, the role that the American Constitution plays in the American polity is taken by Islam. Nothing deemed to contradict Islam is permitted.

And that's why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not been accepted by Muslim countries (save by the Shah of Iran, and now his acceptance of that document means nothing in the Islamic Republic of Iran) and cannot be. Instead, a completely different version, billed as an "Islamic version" the "Universal Declaration," in which the rights of freedom of conscience, and indeed all the guarantees of individual rights, are fatally vitiated or violated or ignored, was created, and various Muslim countries solemnly adhered to this meaningless document, one by one by one.

That's that. That's Islam, and its "rights" guaranteed to non-Muslims, to women, and to any Muslim who might, just might, decide he no longer wants to remain a Muslim -- not even a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim.

Posted by: Hugh at October 18, 2005 03:16 PM
The minister of justice, Mohamed Ali al-Maradi, said in a press statement following his meeting with the special rapporteur on human rights in Sudan, Ms Sima Samar, that Sudan would not accept any article that contradicts the Islamic religion.

Now that would have been an interesting interview. A Ms Samar (possibly muslim?) interviewing a male minister of justice in an islamic country. I wonder if the "meeting" took place via CCTV, or something like that?

Posted by: DP111 at October 18, 2005 04:50 PM
I say force the issue. Sudan needs to spell out exactly which of the articles of the CEDAW contradict Islam, and why Sudan can't adhere to them. Sudan should be forced to explain which women's "rights" are "protected" in their sorry excuse for a country.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at October 18, 2005 06:30 PM
o/t
been wondering where your tax dollars promised
by bush to the palestainians are going??

..how about..."The SS-X-26 (which) appears to have several different conventional warheads, including a cluster munitions warhead, a fuel-air explosive enhanced-blast warhead, a tactical earth penetrator for bunker busting and an electro- magnetic pulse device for anti-radar missions."

russia also selling them to syria(see Debka)..wtf are they thinking?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ss-26.htm

Posted by: otterfisher at October 18, 2005 07:28 PM
Hugh mentions the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. The title alone is very instructive: "in Islam".

Where is Islam?

Conquered Earth

Sura Nine
Human rights in action:

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Posted by: Beagle at October 18, 2005 07:53 PM
Off-topic: I've noticed that when searching on Google for text from Comments sections of jihadwatch, nothing shows up until you go back at least 4 days. Is this normal, or is Google being laggard perhaps out of discrimination?

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 18, 2005 09:48 PM
Thanks Live Aid, thanks Sir Bob & St Bono for getting the citizens of the West to dig real deep into their pockets to save Sudan from starvation so they can build a nation that oppresses women & unbelievers.

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 07:26 AM
Danger, Danger! Danger! A cautionary example of how dangerous Muslims are to the West. When sufficient numbers congregate they begin to agitate for Sharia as "voluntary" for Muslims. Eventually voluntary becomes obligatory. As numbers and influece grow, the insidious effect of Sharia spreads to include non-Muslims living among or nearby. Soon, as in the case of Darfur or Nigeria, AND ALL OTHER areas where Muslims have gone, Sharia then trumps all laws, constitutions, decrees, statutes, and so on. Stopping the introduction of Muslims is the only way to prevent this outrage.

Posted by: epg at October 19, 2005 07:43 AM
albion: "Thanks Live Aid, thanks Sir Bob & St Bono for getting the citizens of the West to dig real deep into their pockets to save Sudan from starvation so they can build a nation that oppresses women & unbelievers."

King: Pathetic, inhuman drivel!
Translated: You'd rather see poor masses of starving people who are caught up in a brutal civil war perish than to become potential Muslim nation. This is a depth I previoulsy thought unattainable.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 08:00 AM
epg: "Stopping the introduction of Muslims is the only way to prevent this outrage."

King: How do you propose to do that, then?

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 08:01 AM
Clam down KT.

It was an observation.

It didn't warrant your usual eyes rolling "instant, non Muslim, rage"

Must be a slow day for you here on DW if this is all you have to carp on about.

I have no problem with people democratically choosing to be a theocracy & never voting again - but I do object to us funding it - either through taxes or charity.

Obviuosly you are more angry with me (one individual) for making a simple observation than you are with Sudan (a "Nation") for imposing a system of "Law" that deletes women & unbelievers from humanity.

Strange that, for a liberal westerner who constantly claims not to be a Muslim to be so instantly enraged.

Are your eyes rolling yet?

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 08:18 AM
King, the 'tolerant' one:

"Inhuman drivel!"

"Islam good, Christianity/Judaism bad..."

Go on mate! No buyers here, nothing to see, just move on....

Gagagagagaaga...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 19, 2005 08:29 AM
albion: "Clam down KT. It was an observation."

King: Nice to see you are changing your tune now that you have been clearly called on it. You did not make an 'observation.' You made a bold faced comment, complete with the usual blame everyone else invective:
"Thanks Live Aid, thanks Sir Bob & St Bono for getting the citizens of the West to dig real deep into their pockets to save Sudan from starvation so they can build a nation that oppresses women & unbelievers."
No amount of obfuscation, retooling or backpeddling will change your blatantly inappropiate and insensitive comment.

albion: "Are your eyes rolling yet?"

King: No, my eyes are wide open...

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 08:36 AM
I retract nothing. Your poor understanding of the English language & its contextual use is not my problem, but is just another for you to add to the oh so long list.

And of course, there is your instant rage eyes rollin' that stops you reading correctly.

As you have so clearly stated:

Your intent is to denigrate this site & its "followers" to make it unpalatable to new comers.

Heard you loud & clear.

Again:

Obviously you are more angry with me (one individual) for making a simple observation / bold faced statement than you are with Sudan (a "Nation") for imposing a system of "Law" that deletes women & unbelievers from humanity.

Nothing to add to the story then KT? No defence of your new best pals KT in Sudan? Any comment on the ethnic cleansing by Sudan? The mass rape, the mass murder being committed there? No bad words for them, no judgement, no pearls of KT reason & wisdom for them?

Sums you up.

As I have also stated:

If you are not a Muslim & actually believe the rubbish you come out with, I would have seen your name & opinions on the many Jihad websites I visit.

It would only be "fair", you sitting in the middle of them & us & all that. But you don't have any presence on Jihad websites.

Why? Are we worse than them? Do they not need to hear your message of TOLERANCE too, KT? No?

You are either a Muslim practicing the age old ways of communicating with infidels, or you are scared to make yourself known to them.

Muslim or coward.

Which is it?

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 08:53 AM
As long as Sudan is supplying China with oil, China will veto any vote in the UN to try and give Sudan basic human rights. Meanwhile China will suppress the threat of Islam in its own borders by exterminating Muslim rebels. China is not stopping the introduction of Muslims, China is putting them to good use as fertilizer for the rice fields.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at October 19, 2005 08:59 AM
albion: "I retract nothing. Your poor understanding of the English language & its contextual use is not my problem..."

King: I see. Your comment, in plain English, is now being taken "out of context." NOW my eyes are rolling!

albion: "Your intent is to denigrate this site & its "followers" to make it unpalatable to new comers."

King: Wrong. My intent is and always has been to come here and mix it up with people who share an opion 180 degrees from mine. Its called debate. If they, in their rebuttals, wish to denigrate their own site with tumbrel invective, that's equally fine with me. Newcomers will either find it unpalatable and move along (which is what they do), or they will join in the harangue and add further nonesense.

Does this bother you?

albion: "The mass rape, the mass murder being committed there? No bad words for them, no judgement, no pearls of KT reason & wisdom for them?"

King: I am one of the people whom you slander with your 'observation.' I've donated money to the cause of the Sudanese people. You, on the other hand, question Bono and Bob Geldoff for "getting the citizens of the West to dig real deep into their pockets to save Sudan from starvation so they can build a nation that oppresses women & unbelievers."

The rest of your post, to me, is squirming to eclipse the obvious: you've been had.

albion: Muslim or coward?

King: Hmmm. You are the one asking through a computer. If you were in front of my face we'd see who the coward wuz, I ASSURE YOU.

Now off you go to create more bile!

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 09:08 AM
Obviously you are a coward then, though the threat at the end makes me wonder?

Could you be both?

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 09:46 AM
More bile. How predictable. By the way, you are behaving exactly to my "plan." The more names you call, the more bile you post, the more you defile your argument, your relevance and the website.

Provoking this sort of response has become child's play. Now, if you wish to engage in adult discussion minus the vituperation, I am able to switch into that mode instantly.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 09:53 AM
KT

Not bile, an "observation" on the myriad of KT evidence to hand.

If you are indeed the "luke warm water" stuck in between the "Islamic fire" & the "Infidel ice"
then surely you would have a presence on Jihad websites, where you would be pointing out your liberal credentials & selling the faithful the line that "not all infidels are bad", & demanding, as you do here, that they are tolerant of other sides point of view & of course explaining / spinning away the "cultural misunderstandings" of the last few hundred years.

Again I ask, why do you not have a presence on any of these sites?

By your absence from these sites, I can only deduce that:

A: You are a Muslim

B: You are afraid of them

Of course there is a C. You could be one of those Westerners who so hates their own society & culture that you would side with the Devil if he was wearing a STOP BUSH teeshirt.

Again, without bile or ranker:

Obviously you are more angry with me (one individual) for making a simple observation / bold faced statement than you are with Sudan (a "Nation") for imposing a system of "Law" that deletes women & unbelievers from humanity.

Nothing to add to the story then KT? No defence of your new best pals KT in Sudan? Any comment on the ethnic cleansing by Sudan? The mass rape, the mass murder being committed there? No bad words for them, no judgement, no pearls of KT reason & wisdom for them?........................................................You see you copied & pasted the piece & then went on to tell me that you gave some money to Sudan. I have re-read what you wrote & found it devoid of an answer regarding the mass murder, mass rapes & ethnic cleansing being committed in Sudan - let alone the imposition of Sharia Law.

Please, put your eyes on "lock", concentrate & try to read clearly without the rage building up & taking over. There's a good chap.

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 10:12 AM
"Please, put your eyes on "lock", concentrate & try to read clearly without the rage building up & taking over."

King: LOL - As much as I'd love to keep seeing you post more self-defeating crap as you dangle on the end of my hook, I'm done with you. Dismissed.

I shall magnanimously let you have the last word...use it wisely as my eyes are on "lock."

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 10:18 AM
How unusual for you to cut & run when exposed.

You will no doubt be delighted to hear that this is my third victory against you.

3-1 to me.

Thanks for the last word.

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 10:22 AM
Bohemond: "As long as Sudan is supplying China with oil, China will veto any vote in the UN to try and give Sudan basic human rights."

King: Of course - herein lies the heart of the issue. Oil, and its unobstructed flow for export. If China were, as you speculate, to veto any UN efforts to change the Sudanese government it would be right in line with how the West has played politics in oil producing nations. There really is not one nation on the face of the Earth that exports mass quantities of oil that exists wihtout foreign interference of some sort. Whichever government is most willing to play ball with their chief customers, they are the ones who are propped up, regardless of their horrific violations to human rights.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 10:32 AM

OT:

QUOTE
King: Hmmm. You are the one asking through a computer. If you were in front of my face we'd see who the coward wuz, I ASSURE YOU.
END QUOTE

We had presumed by evidence of past postings that this person King Tolerance was NOT muslim........

This does not wash.But that is fine.. just fine.

Keep up the good work KingT.

We are watching every 12 hour cycle, and are amused by your ongoing words.no scrolling past anything at THIS particular station occurs.

On the topic.. we/I have no statement nor judgement to offer.

Posted by: AvrageJoe at October 19, 2005 11:13 AM

vicious terrestrial biped,hammering away ineffectually at poor defenseless keyboard

Average Joe's profile. Seems 100% accurate to me!

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 11:24 AM

KT - Roll on. Your bilious replies strengthen my resolve. I am correct in my observations about the mixture of Muslims among non-Muslims. Be aware: not all Westerners are wimpy and willing to give in to the depredations that Islam will cause to them and their children.

Posted by: epg at October 19, 2005 11:26 AM

"Your bilious replies strengthen my resolve.not all Westerners are wimpy and willing to give in to the depredations that Islam will cause to them and their children."

King: Good! Enlist in the armed forces, go to Iraq, and have at it instead of whining here, getting pissed off by difference of opinion. That's the most risible thing here with you and your equal minded minions. Daily, you whine, incessantly, and do nothing but tell me to "roll on" or call colorful names.

Now off to the enlistment center! You have a "strong "resolve thanks to me!

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 11:34 AM

What the hell, lets go for 4-1:

KT: Please respond to this that I have now posted twice:

"If you are indeed the western liberal "luke warm water" stuck in between the "Islamic fire" & the "Infidel ice", then surely you would have a presence on Jihad websites, where you would be pointing out your liberal credentials & selling the Muslim faithful the line that "not all infidels are bad", & demanding, as you do here, that they are tolerant of other sides point of view & "different opinions" & of course explaining / spinning away the "cultural misunderstandings" of the last few hundred years.

Again I ask, why do you not have a presence on any of these sites?

By your absence from these sites, I can only deduce that:

A: You are a Muslim

B: You are afraid of them

Of course there is a C. You could be one of those Westerners who so hates their own society & culture that you would side with the Devil if he was wearing a STOP BUSH teeshirt.

Now no rollin' the eyes & LOL as you are exposed, calmly address the points I have made.

There's a good chap.

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 12:16 PM

albion: "Please respond to this that I have now posted twice"

King: I've already dismissed you. I've no further interest in your run-on sentence.
4-1 it is! I would not want to interfere with your score keeping and counting whatever it is you wish to count...

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 19, 2005 12:28 PM

KT

Coward or Muslim or Western Hating Liberal.

(or all three)

Will we ever know the truth about you, KT?

Yet again when the questions focus & zoom in on you, you LOL, your eyes roll & you dismiss the questioner. I'm not sure if I should notch this up as a Muslim trait or a Wester Liberal one?

We know your style, & we know when you have been trounced (well it happens so very often here).

I will continue to seek you on the many Islamic Jihad websites I frequent, hoping against hope that I will see you there, being that tolerant beacon of western liberal light for the faithful there, as you attempt to be the "Luke Warm Water" between the "Islamic Fire" & the "Infidel Ice".

Go on, prove us all wrong. Go to a site - any site that promotes Jihad & state your case for tolerance on both sides as you do here to a greater or lesser degree.

Then post the link here.

(And all the others from your past excursions to those sites)

This is 5-1.

"KTs on the pitch, he thinks its all over...it is now"

Posted by: albion at October 19, 2005 1:15 PM

albion:

"...the many Jihad websites I visit..."

Any good links?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 19, 2005 3:01 PM

In general, Mr King Tolerance is saying something true. But what about the specific cases? He writes:
"regardless of their horrific violations to human rights" the Western oil importing states will prop up tyrannies that supply oil. Well, that applies to all of the Arab oil exporting countries, doesn't it? In particular, Saudi Arabia. It also applied to mass murderer Saddam Hussein too, while he was in power. So Mr T agrees that these specific countries horrifically violated "human rights." Now, what does he propose to do about these tyrannical states? Since he claims that Western oil importing states prop up these Arab/Muslim tyrannies, does he advocate helping to overthrow their governments? And whom should the Western powers help to take power after the present tyrants are gone? Does he want the Peepul to take over, the people, as represented perhaps by the Islamic insurgents/mass murderers in Saudi Arabia? Does he advocate forbidding Western universities from accepting grants from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, etc., for chairs of Islamic studies? Does he oppose the Hamas which gets financing from the Saudi princes to kill Jews? Or does he make an exception for the Hamas because it is fighting against Jews (who have no right to dominion in a waqf land, which is how Hamas describes Israel)? Does Mr Tolerance believe that all was OK in Islamdom before the Western imperialists came and ruined paradise? Can he explain why Jews in Jerusalem [and in the Land of Israel in general] were the low man on the social totem pole, even more oppressed and exploited than Christian dhimmis, before the Ottoman empire made reforms in the mid-19th century, under Western pressure? How does he feel about Bolshevik support for the Ottoman Empire in 1917-1918, even to the point of handing over to the Ottomans a large region in northeastern Anatolia [historically parts of Georgia and Armenia] that the Russians had held since the 19th century? While deciding his response to this last question, he should bear in mind that handing Armenian-inhabited areas over to the Ottoman Empire at that time meant that more Armenians would be massacred [continuing the World War 1 genocide], while at best the Armenian inhabitants might run away before the Ottoman troops got to where they lived, thus these areas would be "ethnically cleansed" one way or the other. How does Mr T feel about the dhimma?

Posted by: Eliyahu at October 19, 2005 4:29 PM

albion: "Thanks Live Aid, thanks Sir Bob & St Bono for getting the citizens of the West to dig real deep into their pockets to save Sudan from starvation so they can build a nation that oppresses women & unbelievers."

King: Pathetic, inhuman drivel!
Translated: You'd rather see poor masses of starving people who are caught up in a brutal civil war perish than to become potential Muslim nation. This is a depth I previoulsy thought unattainable.

Again, King, you do need to work on your relaxation skills. If albion's gets you this riled, you're going to die of stroke. Don't drive or post angry -- you'll live longer for it.

As for matters in the Sudan, it a matter of perspective and cause and effect. The effect is the people are starving, primarily, iirc, in the south. Specifically, the African / Muslim south. Now, by some odd coincidence, this is the same area where Arab/Islamic raiders, the goverment-backed "Janjaweed" militia. Is it not probable, KT, that these two problems are linked? What with the Janjaweed stealing villagers stored food and burning crops, stealing cattle, etc.??

The Arab dominated government is empowering Arab Muslims to raid the predominently African south. They, the Janjaweed, are stealing foodstuffs from the Afrcian southerners, along with committing the usual crimes of war -- looting, rape, etc.

To simply replace the food the Arabs of the North have stolen is not a solution to the problem in the Sudan. In the first part, it creates dependency and, in the second, it does nothing to curtail the raiders.

Posted by: Cthulhu at October 20, 2005 10:01 AM

Eliyahu: "Now, what does he [KT]propose to do about these tyrannical states? Since he claims that Western oil importing states prop up these Arab/Muslim tyrannies, does he advocate helping to overthrow their governments?"

King: You ask a lot of questions and I shall try to answer as many as I can in my limited time today.

I advocate that the West work in decisive, deliberate methods and apply the appropriate pressures to help overthrow all tyrrancial regimes in the world. Diplomacy, peaceful coaltion buidling, & leadership are qualities that have fallen by the way-side in lieu of lucrative contracts and kissing the ass of anyone who is most willing to "do business." This has been the M.O. in the M.E. for some time. As oil prices rise, so does the profiteering and puppeteering.

Eliyahu: "And whom should the Western powers help to take power after the present tyrants are gone?"

King: Understanding that democracy is not built overnight and is not the same across all cultures is one of the keys to answering this question. Additionally, the West has been COMPLICT in helping the current thugs and tyrants get in and stay in power by supplying them with the money and or arms they needed to be there! Let us stop this practice and, instead, allow internal politics to drive themselves without throwing guns and bombs into the mix. You cannot build an army in most countries without being able to buy arms on the world market.

Eliyahu: "Does he oppose the Hamas which gets financing from the Saudi princes to kill Jews?"

King: I oppose any militant efforts to solve problems, especially when the efforts are directed at any one religion or group, and I oppose the funding of such efforts as I describe above. I observe that there are two sides to every story.

Eliyahu: "Does Mr Tolerance believe that all was OK in Islamdom before the Western imperialists came and ruined paradise?"

King: Certainly not, it would be naive to think so, wouldn't it? This being said, the Western Imperial ideation was one of invasion and occupation, something "Islamdom" never took kindly to and obviously never forgot.

Eliyahu: "How does he feel about Bolshevik support for the Ottoman Empire in 1917-1918, even to the point of handing over to the Ottomans a large region in northeastern Anatolia [historically parts of Georgia and Armenia] that the Russians had held since the 19th century?"

King: This would require a rather lengthy reply that I'd be happy to produce at a later date. I'd hope that you accept my replies herein as proof of good-faith.

Eliyahu: "How does Mr T feel about the dhimma?"

King: I consider such ideation self-defeating and
provacative. This being said, I also know, first hand, that many Muslims DO NOT accept the dhimma and the descriptions of non-Muslims therein. I have many Muslim friends whom I enjoy, respect, and while we have differences as all friends do, we respect each other's religious perspectives and actually share a lot of our political ones. This prooves, to me, that Muslims are capable of living peacefully, individually, nd productively as many other religious persons do.

"When politics and religion meet, there is morass."

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 20, 2005 10:46 AM

Yawn.

Posted by: albion at October 20, 2005 11:13 AM

Cthulhu: "As for matters in the Sudan, it a matter of perspective and cause and effect. The effect is the people are starving, primarily, iirc, in the south."

King: Indeed, and meaningful international intervention is most certainly in order. A large UN peace keeping force is desperately needed but this process has been almost fatally undermined by the US invasion of Iraq, but I digress.
As usual, I stop short of calling this issue "Islamic" and simply call it another rogue ethnic situation that has been allowed to go on way too long. Africa is plauged with this in general, due, in large part, to Western/Erupoean colonialism. Why not discuss places like the Congo, Rwanda, Zimbabwe as well?

Cthulu: "To simply replace the food the Arabs of the North have stolen is not a solution to the problem in the Sudan. In the first part, it creates dependency and, in the second, it does nothing to curtail the raiders."

King: What do you propose, then?

Cthulu: "King, you do need to work on your relaxation skills. If albion's gets you this riled, you're going to die of stroke."

King: LOL - I'll be just fine! Not riled in the least up here on the high road.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 20, 2005 11:49 AM

KingIntolerance: "I also know, first hand, that many Muslims DO NOT accept the dhimma and the descriptions of non-Muslims therein. I have many Muslim friends whom I enjoy, respect, and while we have differences as all friends do, we respect each other's religious perspectives and actually share a lot of our political ones. This prooves, to me, that Muslims are capable of living peacefully, individually, nd productively as many other religious persons do."

And, regrettably, many do not. I've met several muslims in my life also. One uttered one of the most shocking anti-semitic marks imaginable in my presence at an interdepartmental function. Another asked me once if I was Jewish.

Personal experiences are all fine and dandy. But if the self-styled King of Tolerance can't accept that personal negative experiences with islam are indicative of islam's true character, why would he feel that positive ones (well, actually neutral by his description) are? Both are personal experience. Why is the one valid, and the other not? Does KT then think that people are good with evil impulses and not the reverse?

Prophet Geoff
BBUH

Posted by: Geoff at October 20, 2005 12:34 PM

Cthulu: "To simply replace the food the Arabs of the North have stolen is not a solution to the problem in the Sudan. In the first part, it creates dependency and, in the second, it does nothing to curtail the raiders."

King: What do you propose, then?

Prophet Geoff: Er...stop the raiders, maybe? Just a thought. Or we could wait until a trained medical professional arrives. Your call.

Prophet Geoff
BBUH

Posted by: Geoff at October 20, 2005 12:39 PM

Geoff: "if the self-styled King of Tolerance can't accept that personal negative experiences with islam are indicative of islam's true character, why would he feel that positive ones (well, actually neutral by his description) are?"

King: I accept all experience, positive and negative. In my personal "jihad" to be as fair and balanced as humanly possible, I judge each human being on his/her indivdual merits/demerits.

Geoff: "Why is the one valid, and the other not?"

King: Never said anyone's experiences were any more/less valid than anyone else's. See above.

Geoff: "I've met several muslims in my life also. One uttered one of the most shocking anti-semitic marks imaginable in my presence at an interdepartmental function."

King: OK, then, this obvious trauma now means all Muslims are anti-semitic terrorists who seek world domination and justifies your "ass in the air, face in the ground" invective.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 20, 2005 12:54 PM

Cthulhu: "As for matters in the Sudan, it a matter of perspective and cause and effect. The effect is the people are starving, primarily, iirc, in the south."

King: Indeed, and meaningful international intervention is most certainly in order. A large UN peace keeping force is desperately needed but this process has been almost fatally undermined by the US invasion of Iraq, but I digress.
As usual, I stop short of calling this issue "Islamic" and simply call it another rogue ethnic situation that has been allowed to go on way too long. Africa is plauged with this in general, due, in large part, to Western/Erupoean colonialism. Why not discuss places like the Congo, Rwanda, Zimbabwe as well?

RANT MODE = ON (Sorry, rough day...)

As you wish. To start with the obvious, the UN has already proven they are unwilling or unable to intervene in Africa, as demonstrated by the example of Rwanda. Likewise, they ahve demonstrated they are unwilling to even resort to harsh language, as demonstrated by Zimbabwe and the Sudan. Europe, the root cause to the colonial difficulties in Africa, lacksthe strength of thew, arms or will to address this issue, save occasionally for France, and then only occasionally and against opposition they know they can beat. And, as recently pointed out, the world doesn't wish the US to intervene. Africa's leaders are feckless and venal, and that's on a good day. They have the desire to prove themselves, but lack the wherewithal.

The UN is a failed effort, in short because its guiding principles have been smothered in layer upon layer of bureaucracy. Its only meaningful large intervention was accomplished because the Soviet ambassador stormed out of the room. They are corrupt, they are ineffective and they suffer delusions of becoming a world government when they grow up. We have the travesty of a UN human rights commission with Saudi, the Sudan and China in attendence and these incompetant, venal sobs, known to loot the place during prolonged black-outs, want to control the internet.

If you haven't guessed, this is something of a hot button with me. and, the unfortunate fact of the matter is, unless you want to impress/draft the whole of the American population and put them under arms, we do not have the power to be the world's cops. If Western Europe had honest militaries not starved for resources, maybe we could do something. If Africa wasn't run by a collection of tin-pot dictators, maybe we could do something. Maybe if the UN had more utility than the plastic Jesus dangling from my rear-view mirror (the plastic Jesus at least makes me smile... its not *THAT* high a bar to clear...)

Its a rotten situation, eight hands round. When we intervene where we, the US, have an interest, its "imperialism." When we let the EU handle their own trouble, we get a bigger problem when they come to their senses and invite us in, once its become a larger problem. Frankly, I'd like to have the US take a year off from everything -- foreign aid, peace-keeping, the whole shebang, just so the world can catch a clue of what an isolationist US would be like, because I fear that is where things will end up, since the other option, being the docile, open pocketed, do-whatever-the-UN-demands United States just isn't an option.

RANT MODE = OFF

Sorry, what were we talking about??

Posted by: Cthulhu at October 20, 2005 11:31 PM

"King: I accept all experience, positive and negative. In my personal "jihad" to be as fair and balanced as humanly possible, I judge each human being on his/her indivdual merits/demerits."

So, where are the links to pro Jihad websites where you have stated these beliefs of yours to them?

Its only fair, if you are to remain the King of Tolerance, the "Luke Warm Water" between the "Islamic Fire" & "Infidel Ice".

If you are "King of Tolerance", prove it.

Surely, to be soooo knowledgable about Muslims & Jihad you are going to dig a little deeper than coffee mornings with a few Muslim colleagues?

You must accept the "dark side" of Islam exists, (abundant evidence even for you)& therefore, if you are King Tolerance, you would have to confront it on-line, as you confront here. It would be only fair, & your stated Liberal Credentials would make it a necessity - I know how Liberals like to preach to both sides of an argument. Its an international standard & trait for all Liberals.

Post the links to the pro Jihad websites you have confronted the pro Jihad Muslims.

Pretty please.

There's a good chap.

(& until you do, everytime you appear here I am going to ask you the same question over & over & over & over.....)

Links please. Today.

Posted by: albion at October 21, 2005 4:36 AM

King: I accept all experience, positive and negative. In my personal "jihad" to be as fair and balanced as humanly possible, I judge each human being on his/her indivdual merits/demerits.

Seeing as you don't *KNOW* ever person sufficiently well to make such a judgement, this is really just so much blue smoke and mirror. If you honestly do this, you must lack a constant pole star, ethically speaking. As I have pointed out before, you efforts to equate medieval Christianity to modern Islam is apples and oranges.

King: OK, then, this obvious trauma now means all Muslims are anti-semitic terrorists who seek world domination and justifies your "ass in the air, face in the ground" invective.

No, it doesn't... however, its another useful data point. A casual perusal of the statements of Arab Muslim leaders and "men on the street", a review of the translations of what they say in Arabic via MEMRI and other sites, an actual examination of the deeds of the organizations they claim to support and an evaluation of the information that comes directly from their community via polls and other statistical tests, demonstrates a broad, virulent and sometimes violent anti-Semitism. They have tendency toward conspiracy theories and one of the work cases of "little man's disease" since the Austrian paper-hanger.

On a nation state level, they have demonstrated they have little respect for human rights and international law, given their nearly unbroken string of tin-pot dictators and quasi-theocratic rulers.

Given their broad behavior, as a culture, Islam is not tolerant and, therefore, deserves little tolerance in return. Abbas' mealy-mouthed words aside, the Israeli security fences, both east and west, have proven effective, despite the hang-wringing comments of the "tolerant" who say that such fences don't provide "real security." Ironically, the Palestinians need the Israelis far more than the Israeli's need the Palestinians. One wonders if the Palestinians actually realize this. My own personal suspicion is that Sharon withdrew from Gaza partly for military reasons and partly to give the world a chance to see what a Palestinian ruled state would look like. The looting of the greenhouses has already shown that they have no appreciation for the mid to long term, demanding immediate gratification -- effectively cutting off their own noses to spite their face.

Posted by: Cthulhu at October 21, 2005 9:25 AM