| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
An interesting perspective from Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe:
THE PRINCE of Wales was at the White House last week, hoping, the Daily Telegraph reported, ''to convince President Bush of the merits of Islam . . . because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since Sept. 11, 2001." This is a drum Prince Charles has been beating for years. In 1993, for example, he scolded those in the West who peddled ''unthinking prejudices" about Muslim culture -- for example, ''that sharia law of the Islamic world is cruel, barbaric, and unjust." Two months after 9/11, he was lambasting the American attitude toward Islam as ''too confrontational."More to Charles's liking, presumably, would be something more conciliatory and politically correct. Something like this:
''The killers who take the lives of innocent men, women, and children are followers of a violent ideology very different from the religion of Islam. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against anyone who does not share their radical vision. . . . Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing chapter 5, verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity."
If that's the way Charles thinks Bush ought to speak about Islam, I have good news for him: It is. Those were Bush's words. He spoke them on Oct. 17 at the fifth annual White House ''iftaar" dinner during the Muslim month of Ramadan. He praised the ''countless acts of kindness" that followed the recent earthquake in Kashmir. ''For the first time in our nation's history," he said to applause, ''we have added the Koran to the White House library."
Too intolerant? Considering that America is at war with the forces of Islamofascism, and that for 25 years Americans have been attacked or killed by radical Muslim terrorists, the president's words about Islam were remarkably benign and uncritical.
As indeed they have been since 9/11, when he went out of his way to proclaim the peacefulness of Islam -- sometimes in the company of Muslim leaders whose history has been far from peaceful.
Of course, it goes without saying that most Muslims are not terrorists. Of course many people professing Islam are compassionate and generous. Of course Islam should not be gratuitously insulted. But neither should it be sugar-coated or kowtowed to. Yet too many Western elites are unwilling to speak plainly about the problems within Islam itself, or to hold Muslim culture to what should be universal standards of decency and justice. Far from being ''too confrontational" in their attitude toward Islam, they have been too indulgent and deferential, careful never to say anything that might be deemed insensitive. One result has been an increase in extremist behavior: Witness the ''Eurofada" raging in the streets of Paris.
We do Muslims no favors by excusing attitudes or practices that ought always to be deemed inexcusable. In Australia's Victoria state, the Herald Sun reported recently, police have been issued a ''religious diversity handbook" that advises them ''to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits." The Australian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau's handbook provides guidelines for modifying police procedures to accommodate minority sensibilities....
Could anything more perfectly capture the moral bankruptcy of multicultural relativism? The Koran may tolerate wife-beating (Sura 4:34: ''As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to bed apart and beat them"), but why on earth should Australia?
''All Muslim husbands are not wife-beaters," remarks Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam, ''and it is condescending and irresponsible . . . to give those who are a free pass, instead of denouncing the practice unequivocally and calling upon Muslim men to heed the better angels of their nature." In much the same way, he says, the West's unwillingness to ''confront the elements of Islam that jihad terrorists use to justify violence, for fear of offending moderate Muslims, " ends up undercutting the ability of those very moderates to demand reform from within.
The war against radical Islam is above all a war of values -- the values of liberty, equality, and human dignity against the values of jihad. The jihadis don't hesitate to proclaim their values. We must not be shy about defending ours.
Posted by Robert at November 6, 2005 8:48 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
A "war of values, not religion?" What an absurd declaration. What else is religion but a value?
Posted by: epg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 6, 2005 9:32 AM
More and more journalists are beginning to publicly address Islam's dark side.
Robert Spencer is a gifted and prolific writer, who has, unfortunately, little audience in the MSM.
Jacoby's article, and others like it, along with Robert's, and in conjuction with explosive current events such as the 'Eurofada' are gradually awakening the sleeping, lumbering Western giant.
Now if only more in the MSM would drop the nondescript 'roving bands of youth' crap...
Posted by: PRCS at November 6, 2005 9:54 AM
Was listening to WQXR-FM, a NYC area classical music station yesterday. During the news break there was a piece on the Eurofada, on what, the 9th or 10th day, and there was not ONE reference to muslims or islam.
(In a soothing syrupy tone) "Nothing to see here good people, move along."
Enjoy the quartets now, if the islamic ascendancy is allowed to be completed, the only stringed instrument you'll see will be a garrote.
Posted by: t-ham at November 6, 2005 10:29 AM
"...Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam..."
In the pages of the Sunday Globe, no less.
Progress.
Posted by: Mad_Jack at November 6, 2005 11:39 AM
"calling upon Muslim men to heed the better angels of their nature."
That's a lovely way of putting it, Angels being the universal messengers of God.
at November 6, 2005 12:19 PM
Jeff Jacoby is absolutely correct about Bush. If he weren't a lame duck, and he were in his first term, I would vote him out. I'd rather have a Kerry than a Republican who should know better sugarcoating every reference to Islam and Muslims he can without the slightest hint of a wink to us starving anti-Jihadists out here in the windy hinterland. Shame on Bush and Rice, et al.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 6, 2005 1:03 PM
From an article about Holland's attempt to deal with Muslim immigration and the tragedy wrought by multiculturalism...
FOLKERT JENSMA, the editor in chief of the respected Handelsblad daily: "It's funny. We now want to teach immigrants more about our identity, and we discover that we're not sure what's left of it!"
HIRSHI ALI, Somali-born Dutch Parliamentarian: "All of Europe is in a state of denial. It thinks these killings [Fortuyn and Van Gogh] will go away, but they will not.
"We should acknowledge that it's a very violent religion...We should demand an Islamic Reformation."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/16/mews/islam1.php
at November 6, 2005 1:50 PM
Dr. Pepper:
What makes you think Kerry would suddnely have grown a backbone, stood up, and acknowledge we're at a war with barbarian Islamists? I'm not defending Bush, but let's face it most politicians in this country are cowards.
Posted by: JadeDragoness at November 6, 2005 2:17 PM
Excellent point Jade.
Step back to the atmosphere preceding the Jan elections for a Constituent assembly in Iraq. The Arab League, the EU, Jimmy Carter and even members of the Iraqi interim gov't were all calling for postponement...that there was no way possible to conduct a fair vote with an insurgency raging.
If anyone thinks for one minute that had he been elected, John Kerry wouldn't have succumbed to such a clamor, the John Kerry that campaigned on fighting a "sensitive" war on terror, who put such a premium on French and German approval, you're being incredibly naive.
The historic vote would never have been held, the momentum towards Democracy would have been halted before it began, the insurgency would have gained MORAL currency - the fight against the occupation AND Democracy would have been merely a fight against occupation...and the entire situation inside Iraq would have - in my 'umble opinion - unravelled.
Pepper, most of your contributions are excellent. But I think you are being unduely influenced by all the Bush-bashing going on here. Like you, I'm appalled at his recitation of Quranic quotes to exonerate Islam from the terrorism of its practitioners. I'm appalled at his border policy. I'm appalled at his refusal to subsidize industry R&D for alternatives to fossile fuels.
But to derive from all that a spineless, waffling, leftist panzy like John Kerry would be preferable...is one hell of a leap.
Posted by: Cornelius
at November 6, 2005 3:00 PM
I didn't say Kerry was preferrable. It would be a punitive vote to express my disgust.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 6, 2005 3:40 PM
Jacoby quotes from President Bush's speech:
"Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing chapter 5, verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity."
Very nice, but according to the Koran, that's what God ordained for the Jews, not for the Muslims.
The President is not alone. Gul Mohammad, secretary general of the British Muslim Federation, has also twisted this verse to suggest that this is a integral thought in Islam.
See The Adventuress for an excellent analysis.
Posted by: Paul at November 6, 2005 4:25 PM
The oxygen is thin up in that ivory tower...
Posted by: Kemaste at November 6, 2005 4:40 PM
its getting to the stage when charley is making even less sense than his own father. at least philip now seems to have learned to keep his mouth shut, at least its a while since i heard of any of his inanities.
charles can be forgiven for his idiotic outbursts on the subject of architecture etc., but this is going too far. he has no right to be making pronouncements of this nature, and it is tony blair who should be putting him right on the matter.
the sole function of these people, with regard to the spoken word, is to make meaningless noises at charity "dos" and when they are cutting ribbons to open things.
if they are going to stray into other matters, such as the menace of islam, for which they are not qualified (good grief what is the bugger qualified for?), then this is a very serious matter which blair must address
at November 6, 2005 6:09 PM
Paul is spot on with his observation, but does not take his argument far enough.
Sura 5:32 is definately not directed at Muslims.
The Adventures article reveals how that sura is twisted by the uniformed and the deceitful to suggest, as Paul notes, that it is an integral Muslim thought.
But, take a minute or two and read the article at:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/cain.html
There, you'll discover where that sura actually originated, how misinformed our president really is, and how little most Muslims actually know, or are willing to admit, about their own Qur'an.
An eye-opener.
Posted by: PRCS at November 6, 2005 6:37 PM
Sorry Jeff, but your semantics are all too transparent As others here have said above, values=religion. And these savage barbarians have no civilized values, which speaks volumes about their religion.
I refer you to this eg.,
"This Muslim girl defied her father, and her lover paid with his life"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858245,00.html
It is NOT an isolated case, Jeff.
"Of course, it goes without saying that most Muslims are not terrorists."
Then why don't they protest, Jeff.
There are only a handfull I'm aware of who actively oppose the evil. Most of the rest of them, though not actively participating in the evil, tacitly approve of it, because...
If the majority of any Muslim community opposed terror, there would be no terror. There is terror, ergo....
The appearance of "peaceful muslims" needs to be examined more closely to see if it stands up to factual analysis, as opposed to P.C. propaganda.
Keep working on it, Jeff, and you'll 'get-it.'
meanwhile, check this out to help you start connecting the dots:
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/index.htm
(They are among the few relatively peaceful Muslims that I'm aware of)
at November 6, 2005 6:40 PM
Chapter 5 "The dinner Table" (go figgure!?)
"[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,"
What these barbarians are said then, same as today, was that if anyone else (especially a Jew) kills a Muslim, aside of for whatever the Muslim definition of "manslaughter" and "mischief" are, then Muslims must slaughter them!
Oh, yeah, that's REALLY got me sold on their "peaceful" intentions.
WAKE UP PEOPLE
Posted by: yonason at November 6, 2005 6:58 PM
"For the first time in our nation's history," he said to applause, "we have added the Koran to the White House library."
Cornelius, did you see the bold-faced word above? Please tell me exaclty why Kerry would've done the same.
Cornelius, did you see The Vacation King KISS and hold hands with the King of Saudi Arabia? Did you ever see Bill Clinton do that? Please tell me EXACTLY what Kerry did that makes you think that he would've done the same.
Cornelius, what do you say to this:
For the first time in history, Bush is arranging YOUR tax money to be handed to "faith-based" Muslim "charities" who will in all likelihood use the money for Dawa and Jihad.
You idiotarian liberal haters need to grow up and face the facts: YOUR SIDE has plenty of dhimmis; maybe not more than the "free palestine" left but certainly in possession of waaay more influence. And they are selling our nation and our military men to Saudi. Period. It ain't Clinton, it ain't Carter, it ain't Hillary. It's Dub, Condi, Kissinger, Baker, Cheney, Rummy, Hastert, etc.
But on the big boy skivvies and deal with it.
k
Posted by: kj at November 6, 2005 7:08 PM
KJ,
You actually compared the Armenian genocide to American seniors going to Canada for drug discounts. That was good enough for me. I hardly feel the inclination to respond to your rants.
Posted by: Cornelius at November 6, 2005 7:12 PM
"For the first time in our nation's history," he said to applause, "we have added the Koran to the White House library"."
Hey, Cornerlius, it's fun to pretend what President Kerry would have done, but I do know that he and Edwards both said that we need to get Saudi Arabian influence out of American politics at the convention.
Cornelius, why are you still lying about Kerry? Didn't you get your notice that you're supposed to focus on Hillary and Slick Willie?
Cornelius, Gary, et al.: it's time to put on the big-boy skivvies and face the facts: YOUR top leadership is 100% pro-Saudi dhimmi, period.
There may be more left-wing "Free Palestine" liberals, but you side has waaaaay more influence. College professors aren't the ones that are letting in 10,000 MORE Saudis a year to "attend college". That's your Condi.
Left-wing attorneys like Lynne Stewart aren't defending Saudi Arabia in the lawsuit brought by 9-11 survivors, widows, and orphans. That's your Jimbo Baker.
President Gore and President Kerry didn't put the Queeran in the White House library and then brag about it to a bunch of mobots. That's your Dub.
The RNC hav gotten everything they wanted by exploiting 9-11 and attacking the only threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. And Saudi thanked us by closing all of our bases. And with Saddam first crippled for ten years, and now gone altogether, guess what Iran has the money to do now?
But hey, the important thing is that abortion will soon be illegal, right? Then we'll have SOMETHING ELSE in common with Iran and Saudi.
LOL... I feel safer already.
kj
fanorollins@yahoo.com
PS... Maybe Cornelius can explain this away (God knows Gary won't touch it):
BUSH IS HANDING YOUR TAX MONEY TO "FAITH-BASED" MUSLIM "CHARITIES" THAT ARE SURE TO DIVERT IT TO USE ON DAWA AND JIHAD.
Posted by: kj at November 6, 2005 7:20 PM
You actually compared the Armenian genocide to American seniors going to Canada for drug discounts. That was good enough for me. I hardly feel the inclination to respond to your rants.
...a tactic right out of the RNC playbook. I guess if I couldn't answer your charges, I would look for "reasons" not to debate too. That's on of the many good things about having the truth on your side; you don't have to run from debate (quick, Cornelius, say that I called you a "racist"! That'll stop me!)
Meanwhile,
BUSH IS HANDING YOUR TAX MONEY TO "FAITH-BASED" MUSLIM "CHARITIES" THAT ARE SURE TO DIVERT IT TO USE ON DAWA AND JIHAD.
....and Cornelius can't say anything about it. Because allegiance to Lord Bush is more important that exposing Islam for what it is.
Posted by: kj at November 6, 2005 7:24 PM
Oh, wait, I know: Mike Moore said Lord Bush was a deserter, and if I say he has a right to speak that means I'M also over the top, right? (Hey, it worked on General Clark didn't it?)
Posted by: kj at November 6, 2005 7:44 PM
kj,
I wouldn't gloat too much. The PC Kool-Aid which Bush has evidently sipped too much of was concocted by the Leftist culture of the likes of Kerry. Bush is to be faulted for succumbing to the PC Leftist idiocy; Kerry and his ilk are to be faulted for being true believers and co-creators of it.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 6, 2005 8:09 PM
bush has not been sipping any "pc kool-aid" - his sole diet is neo-con stodge. islam is one of several flies in the neo-con ointment, bush has shown himself incapable of dealing with any of them
all this talk of what kerry would or would not have done is meaningless. the fact is he was not given the chance to do or not do anything, and the present half-wit incumbent of the white house was voted in by many people, as far as i can see, on this site. ok he is not doing the business, so why turn on kerry? blame yourselves, because bush is failing
at November 6, 2005 8:45 PM
Why the hell did this disolve into Bush bashing? The point that was trying to be made was that politicians from both ends don't have the balls to stand up to the Barbarians.
Posted by: JadeDragoness at November 6, 2005 9:07 PM
KJ,
One can almost hear you hyper-ventilating. Calm down. Take it easy. You're coming off like an impetuous child throwing a tantrum because you're being ignored.
Posted by: Cornelius at November 6, 2005 11:41 PM
Does anyone know if the Iranian government, when sentencing virgins to death for some blasphemy or other, still 'marries' them to a Revolutionary Guard who rapes them before they are executed, because of an Islamic law that virgins may not be executed?
I had heard of this law and practice being carried out some years ago, and could hardly believe it. I have just finished reading the first volume of Persepolis, the graphic novel by Marjane Satrapi, in which there is this dialogue (I wish I could include Marjane's drawings - though they are black and white, there is something psychedelic about them, not in the druggy sense, but in the sense that after a while they feel as if they carry potent forces of the unconscious that deeply etch themselves on the psyche):
[drawing of Marjane Satrapi as a child in Iran, addressing her teacher:]
you say that we don't have political prisoners anymore. But we've gone from 3000 prisoners under the Shah to 300,000 under your regime. How dare you lie to us [about that]?
The next drawing shows the whole class applauding, and the teacher in angry exasperation, saying
Oh, Satrapi!
Marjane Satrapi narrates: Obviously, that evening my father got a phone call.
[drawing shows father on phone saying:] Yes, of course...yes...
[mother asking father]Who is it?
[father smiling]It was the principal of Marji's school. Apparently she told off the religion teacher. She gets that from her uncle.
[mother angry at father, says:]Maybe you'd like her [Marjane] to end up like him too? Executed?
[mother angry, takes hold of Marjane, says:]You know what they do to the young girls they arrest?...You know what happened to Niloufar? The girl you met at Khosro's house?...You know that it's against the law to kill a virgin...So a Guardian of the Revolution marries her...and takes her virginity before executing her. Do you understand what that means???
[the drawing shows mother almost screaming at daughter now, then next drawing shows mother embracing daughter, crying and saying:]
...If someone so much as touches a hair on your head, I'll kill him!
[next drawing, marjane, answers:]but how do you know that for sure? Maybe they just executed her!
[drawing of father responding:]No, your mother's right. Traditionally, when a girl gets married, the husband is supposed to pay her a dowry...if the girl dies, the husband has to give the dowry to her family... That's what happened with Niloufar. After she was executed, to make sure her awful fate was understood, they sent 500 Tumans [$5] to her parents
[Marjane's response:]
500 tumans for the life and virginity of an innocent girl...I had no idea
[Niloufar's crime was to be a communist. Obviously one can be an anticommunist and still be horrified by the barbarity of this Islamic law. Is this still the practice in Iran?]
at November 7, 2005 1:26 AM
Democratic Transparency, Dictatorial Opacity, Advancing Technology, and Apocalypse
When comments turn into petty hits against Dems or Republicans, the commenters should be studiously ignored and the subject changed. People who think the main issue is between the two parties just don't get it yet that the main issue is between what are today called 'democratic' societies, on the one hand, and fascist/autocratic/theocratic/dictatorial societies on the other. Why is that the main issue?
Because if the non-democracies are not in the coming years transformed into democracies, or else destroyed, then advancing technology will increasingly threaten civilization with apocalypse -- though that may happen in any event, but without establishing worldwide the relative transparency of democratic forms of government, arms-control treaties must remain largely ineffective, because without transparency it will be impossible to verify compliance with those treaties, and WMD technology, now advancing at a prodigious rate, will spin completely out of control. England's Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, argues that biotech will soon reach a point where small groups, or even individuals with limited resources and expertise, will be able to inflict huge casualties. Rees has a bet for substantial money he hopes to lose, that within the next decade (or did he say 15 years?), at least a million will have been killed through bioterror or bioerror.
The matter is fairly urgent, because accelerating technology is likely ever more quickly to invent ever more flavors and varieties of WMD, with ever more destructive power, at ever lower costs per unit of destruction, accessible to ever larger numbers of people, but requiring fewer and fewer people with fewer and fewer resources to inflict more and more damage. Anyone who is aware of the nearly miraculous and ever increasing acceleration of scientific progress since the onset of the industrial revolution in the mid-eighteenth century, will perhaps recognize what we are up against. Democratic transparency worldwide may not be sufficient to solve our problems, but it will probably be necessary to solve them, and if we don't get it fairly 'soon', we may well be doomed.
Posted by: eduardo odraude at November 7, 2005 2:10 AM
Police investigate claim that officer threw Qur'an into rubbish bin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1635975,00.html
"This is the first time I'm aware of where it is alleged that the Qur'an has been desecrated by police officers. If it is true it will have a huge impact."
Oh boy, this story has everything! Islamic misogyny, Dhimmi police, a known criminal pleading his human rights and a Quran thrown in the trash being reported as a far worse crime than beating a woman who was "out of line".
Posted by: 1630r at November 7, 2005 4:02 AM
"For the first time in our nation's history," he said to applause, "we have added the Koran to the White House library."
From above.
It doesn't belong in the White House. Neither does an "Iftar Dinner"- it is the same as celebrating cannibalism.
The Koran itself, if Bush himself, or somebody close to him, were to use it, to learn about the strategy and mindset of the enemy, it would be a good thing, no doubt.
It is deplorable that the Koran remains untouched, without any thought, for it is indeed the key to understand what makes Jihadi's wage war on infidels, fly jets into buildings and blow up trains and buses and kill 300 plus children in a School.
The 164 Jihad verses should be taught to every one in the administration, to CIA and FBI personnel and to everyone in Iraq, right down to the last soldier.
Ignorance will bring about our defeat.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 7, 2005 5:34 AM
Freddie
You are shameless.
Attacking the right again for snuggling up to Islam?
After you cuddled up real close to KT in a typical lefty attempt to score cheap points off of me?
I think it is time you apologised for that, so I can stop reminding you of it every time you go off on one of your anti Bush lefty rants.
Apologise & we can get on with commenting & debating on the Jihad we all face, & stop this left wing right wing bickering.
The alternative is for me to shame you every time you appear.
Posted by: albion at November 7, 2005 6:01 AM
'Oh, wait, I know: Mike Moore said Lord Bush was a deserter, and if I say he has a right to speak that means I'M also over the top, right? (Hey, it worked on General Clark didn't it?)'~kj
Only if moore was a conservative would that even be close to true, kj. We all know who does the most to silence freedom of speech:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/suzannefields/2005/11/07/174505.html
You can defend moore all you like. Just don't expect us to sit back and take it.
Posted by: Gary at November 7, 2005 6:59 AM
Albion
OT but we discussed this last week. Did you see this comment from one of the defence solicitors for the 7 soldiers accused of murder on no evidence?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4405208.stm
Apparently there is not even firm evidence that the alleged victim actually died.
Judge Blackett also criticised the "serious omissions" in failing to search for hospital records related to the case and "not establishing whether there was a register at Al Najaf shrine in which Nadhem's burial may be recorded".
Martin Thomas QC, who represented one of the seven men, later said the question of whether Mr Abdullah had actually died had been "very much an issue".
"There was no exhumation, there was no post-mortem and the death certificate was issued by an Iraqi doctor who never saw the body himself," he told BBC News.
The result is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1859664,00.html from yesterday's Sunday Times. My husband was near speechless with rage. This is treason.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 7, 2005 7:49 AM
Why all this Repub-Dem monkey business? After all, all administrations and presidents since FDR have been very kind to the Saudi royals [self-crowned, by the way]. During Truman's administration, the system began of giving the brave desert democrats special subsidies or foreign aid disguised as tax breaks [foreign tax credits] to ARAMCO but easily finding its way to the royals. BTW, the darling Dulles brothers, true blue Repubs, were also supposed to have involved in the decision-making.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/kindly-making-arabia-rich.html
for bibliog on the politics and economics of oil, see:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-does-left-really-mean-in-2005.html
Now, was it right of Michael Moore, owner of 2,000 shares of Halliburton, to portray the Bush family as if they were unique in their "friendship" with the desert democrats? Indeed, Saudi influence in Washington and the US universities demonstrates how silly the traditional notions of left and right are --and have long been.
Posted by: Eliyahu at November 7, 2005 8:18 AM
PRCS, Paul,
Regarding 5:32.
Thanks for those links. As far as I'm concerned, verse 5:32 is an absolute joke. As you noted, it is in reference to the Children of Israel. However, this is not the main problem with it, because, in the Koran, it is taken as a statement from Allah and it is extended to believers (Muslims).
The main problem with 5:32 is the "corruption on earth" exemption. Corruption (or mischief) on earth is an extraordinarily loose, broad category that could encompass just about anything that could be interpreted to go significantly against Islam. ("War against God", also mentioned in 5:33, is likewise very broad; practically anything that goes against Islam significantly could be included). If you google "corruption on earth" and "death penalty" you will come across all kinds of examples of people in current times being given the death penalty for this crime (generally in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). Here's some of the actions that could constitute corruption on earth: questioning the wearing of the hijab; saying that Islam needs to be more progressive and tolerant of pluralism; a non-Muslim man having sex with a Muslim woman; "sorcery," "witchcraft," or "charlatonism"; participating in a porno movie; highway robbery; murder; destroying a building. In other words, the category is huge, encompassing a variety of non-violent and violent "offences". Indeed, verse 5:33 and subsequent verse make clear that death, dismemberment, or banishment are penalties for corruption on earth.
Now the question people should be asking when they read 5:32 is "Okay, but what the hell is 'corruption on earth'"? Wouldn't you want to know?! Consider this wording: "Killing a person is a terrible offence, except for manslaughter, and except if the person killed had done or said something significantly detrimental to Islam." In other words, pious obedient Muslims are safe, but non-Muslims better watch their step. (It's not difficult for disbelievers to do or say something that could be construed as against Islam).
The broader question is simply, What do the Islamic texts say is acceptable killing for Muslims? The Koran generally forbids a Muslim to kill another Muslim. The Koran never forbids the killing of disbelievers. With Mohammad having poets assassinated for their satire and Jews killed simply because they are Jewish, it's pretty clear that Islam allows quite a lot of killing which we, in the west, would consider murder (i.e., unjust killing). Indeed, disbelief is the worst crime/sin, and the Islamic mission is to make all religion for Allah, through killing, conversion, and subjugation.
Conclusion: 5:32 is worthless if your a non-Muslim.
If anyone believes that 5:32 is a peaceful verse, I've got some very scenic swampland in Florida for sale.
Posted by: Archimedes at November 7, 2005 8:32 AM
Greetings Granny,
No body. No postmortem. No Evidence.
And all the witnesses were paid to be there.
"The doctors described morale in some units as very low with soldiers cynically suggesting they needed a solicitor with them before they shot back at any Iraqi who attacked them."
If New Labour do not know the damage their PC has done to our Armed Forces, they will soon.
I speak to many serving patriots.
It is a shame that New Labour don't speak to the lads & lasses who are out there doing their dirty work.
Speechless with rage? I know that feeling, particularly where this story is concerned.
Cheers
Posted by: albion at November 7, 2005 8:39 AM
Actually Archimedes, I think islamic scriptures argue against killing non-muslims (but, as you or someone posted, this is essentially a miasmal and delinquent copy of a line or two in Genesis or Exodus) but only - ONLY - if those obstinate kufr are citizens of a muslim country (this is in Buhkari and others, Dawud too I think) and, therefore, hopeless dhimmis, oppressed and repressed.
Gee. Isn't Allah kind? Merciful, sure sure.
Prophet Geoff [bagels be upon me]
Posted by: Geoff at November 7, 2005 9:03 AM
In other words, Mohammed sayeth: "Don't kill the slave tax base."
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at November 7, 2005 9:04 AM
Geoff,
There was actually considerable debate among the Ummayids on whether or not to prosletyze among the conquered peoples of Byzantium, Persia and Egypt because of the loss of revenue from jizyah.
Eventually, it was decided that religious obligation superceded the financial needs of empire.
The fact that this argument ever took place underscores the fallacy of apologists that Jizyah was no more a financial liability than the tithes paid by Muslims.
Posted by: Cornelius at November 7, 2005 9:37 AM
no albion, i merely warned a certain individual as to how you operate, as you well know
but its funny that when the right wing is under attack, this can be viewed as mere "right wing - left wing bickering", but attacking the left is seen as essential to resisting jihad.
reading some people on this thread youd think john kerry was the power behind the white house. i take the view that those in power are acting from their own agenda, not other peoples. so if they are hosting fancy muslim dinners and displaying their total ignorance by adoring the quran, or giving the time of day to the views of charles and camilla, then it is they who must be attacked
in any event, what with iraq, the new orleans debacle, withdrawn nominations and broken legged sidemen in court, it seems the wheels are finally coming off the neocon juggernaut
incidentally the comments and links posted today on the subject of 5: 32 have been a revelation
Posted by: freddiefreeloader at November 7, 2005 9:41 AM
Prophet Geoff,
You don't seem too worried about what 'corruption on earth' means. Anyone guilty of it can be put to death in some jurisdictions, even today. Certainly 5:33 makes the punishment clear as far as Mohammad is concerned.
The verse may refer to the Children of Israel, but Mohammad took all kinds of material from other sources. He addressed it to Muslims, and you will see if you follow along the verses just after 5:33 that he addresses the disbelievers explicitly later on (i.e., when he condemns them to hell).
My reading of the Koran and Hadith (i.e., partial reading of the Hadith) suggests that killing disbelievers is permissible unless it is detrimental to Islam to kill them. Over the past few days myself and other posters have put up a number of reports from the Hadith that clearly state that killing disbelievers is either not a big deal or, indeed, is part of the mission of Islam. (I.e., killing, conversion, and subjugation are the main options, and there is the pledge of jihad against all mankind, etc.). Indeed, killing in jihad (directed against disbelievers) is to be rewarded. In Suras 8 and 9, jihad is considered mandatory of able-bodied male believers.
I agree with your second post (above). Slaves (because they are Muslim property) and those with whom Muslims have a treaty are protected. (The protection is beneficial to Islam). Note that the treaties are regarded as temporary tactical moves and do not override the overall strategic goal of conquering all religions.
Check out these links for historical backing for my claim that killing disbelievers is considered acceptable or, at most, minimally punishable for believers. Here you will find some blood, gore, and terror, plus some Islamic commentators who are cited justifying the blood, gore, and terror.
Andrew Bostom 1
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14578
Andrew Bostom 2
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14964
Link.
Robert Spencer 1 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18732
at November 7, 2005 9:58 AM
OK Freeloader, have it your way.
I will re-post your sucking up to KT submission tonight on every thread & let everyone decide whether "you were just warning a certain individual" about the "way I operate", or if I as I now know, you would suck up to the devil himself if he were wearing an anti Bush teeshirt.
(Or even a pro Galloway teeshirt, as you have declared you have "no problem with him").
Afterall, I will only be warning "certain individuals" about the "way you operate".
As if anyone around here needs to know anything more about you.
Troll on.
Posted by: albion at November 7, 2005 10:03 AM
Geoff,
Here is an example of how Mohammad punished people in relation to verse 5:33. Ouch!
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crucify.htm
Posted by: Archimedes at November 7, 2005 10:14 AM
For those arguing along partisan lines I suggest the lying about Islam is, unfortunately, quite bi-partisan. I welcome bold uncompromising leadership from either party.
Posted by: JasonP at November 7, 2005 12:38 PM
Jason,
"For those arguing along partisan lines I suggest the lying about Islam is, unfortunately, quite bi-partisan. I welcome bold uncompromising leadership from either party."
1) the deeper and more disturbing problem is not "lying" about Islam -- it is in sincerely believing the lies. Bush and Rice sincerely believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that most Muslims around the world can become democratic Western-loving capitalist consumers in the span of a few months, if only given the right circumstances.
2) However, on a certain level, this is a partisan issue. When Bush and Rice succumb -- against the grain of their conservative common sense -- to such naive sincerity, it is because of the dominant PC sociopolitical culture that has taken root around them for the past 50 years. When a Kerry or a Hillary or a Kennedy express the same naivety, it is because they are breathing deeply and euphorically of the dominant PC atmosphere which their particular Leftist culture created, elevated to dominance, and continues to perpetuate.
at November 7, 2005 12:57 PM
albion any talk of sucking up to anyone is a nonsense. have i ever agreed with kt? no. do i read his posts? no. have i ever encouraged him in any way? no. did i know why you were arguing with him? no. did i however happen to clock that you issued him with one of your "dreaded dismissals"? yes i did
and having myself undergone this awful fate, thought it quite proper to point out how empty this famed pronouncement of yours is.
btw he did not respond to my post, perhaps because he had the savvy to know that it had nothing to do with him, but everything to do with the person who actually responded to it
however, if you are denying the essence of what i said about you in the post, then i apologize and withdraw what i said.
if you thought i was ott, insulting or hurtful in the way i said it (a distinct possibility,since it came from me) then i apologize for that
(mind you, it would be a bit late in the day for that. as i recall, you never indicated you felt that way at the time, but gleefully seized on my post as further "evidence" of trollism)
i may have accurately or inaccurately lambasted you in the post, or indeed may be totally wide of the mark about you, but i did not take sides with kt against you
as for the bush administration, if you are as anti-dhimmi as i am, and see whats happening, how can you not stick the boot in?
Posted by: freddiefreeloader at November 7, 2005 12:58 PM
Arch,
No, I quite agree with what you're saying - but I think the more accurate way to portray the plight of non-muslims (and let me just re-emphasize, as is not done enough, the utter horrors of the Sufi genocide against the Hindus, since so often we think of 'Western' religious people trapped amongst islamicists) is as slaves rather than necessarily always as being lined up for disposal. Islamicist sensibilities seem, from the constant yammering about "humiliation", to be the sort that would profit greatly in emotional smugness from having reminders of other, freer times around as cultural and economic slaves trapped in their nations.
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at November 7, 2005 1:43 PM
Thanks, Chaz. Pepper, you may be right about their ignorance and the fact that the failure to face the Islamic threat means something different in each political camp. I still bet on the conservatives waking up first but whoever gets it, gets my respect.
Getting back on topic, Charles, however, seems to be following the in footsteps of the Duke of Windsor.
at November 7, 2005 2:36 PM
Geoff,
Quite true. I think many of the Muslims enjoyed having the subjugated dhimmis, not just for economic but for psychological reasons (e.g., feeling superior), as you say. Their religion tells them they're the best, and that the disbelievers are the worst.
(Note of clarification: I used the word "subjugated" above meaning dhimmis, slaves, captured wives and children, etc. ).
Also note: dhimmis were protected to some extent, but they were still expected to conform to many Islamic rules (and additional rules for dhimmis), and the punishments to non-Muslims were generally much harsher than for Muslims for any transgressions--a principle of unfair treatment enshrined in the Koran.
Another problem with 5:32 is that, even if we take the apologist cropping of the verse as it is, which is what Bush and others have quoted, it's still not that impressive. Basically, (the intended meaning of the) the cropped verse says "murder is very bad." Any kindergarten child could tell us that!
at November 7, 2005 3:24 PM
All these "posts" by armchair generals.
Iran and Syria are next after Iraq. Saudia Arabia will see the handrighting on the wall. One doesn't reveal the true nature of strategy in warfare. Why inflame them more when we have troops in harms' way. See the big picture?
After all who said, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick"??
Posted by: learjet0450 at November 7, 2005 4:54 PM
A "war of values, not religion?" What an absurd declaration. What else is religion but a value?
I wouldn't call religion a value; it's a system of ideas that might or mightn't have values.
Posted by: redwine at November 8, 2005 3:10 AM
Freddie
Accepted. By gones. We move on against the common enemy before us.
Best regards
Albion
at November 8, 2005 5:09 AM
Ah, Bonny Prince Charlie, self-proclaimed "Defender of the Faiths." Widely observed holder of no faith whatsoever.
Posted by: Chatillon at November 9, 2005 5:03 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)