| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media makes a modest proposal for resisting the spread of Sharia in Britain.
[...] That’s the new mantra, you know: “for fear of offending Muslims.” We don’t give away piggy banks (to say nothing of other “pig related items”) “for fear of offending Muslims.” We don’t draw cartoons of Mohammad “for fear of offending Muslims.” We mustn’t publish articles pointing out the demographic disparity between the Muslims of Canada and Europe and other parts of the population “for fear of offending Muslims.” We mustn’t even publish books saying critical things about “Saudis and terrorists” “for fear of offending Muslims.”It’s all part of the campaign of soft jihad. Traditional jihad is waged with scimitars and their contemporary equivalents, e.g., stolen Boeing 767s, which make handy instruments of mass homicide. Soft jihad is a quieter affair: it uses and abuses the language and the principles of democratic liberalism not to secure the institutions and attitudes that make freedom possible but, on the contrary, to undermine that freedom and pave the way for self-righteous, theocratic intolerance. Soft jihad is patient. It can add and multiply as well as Mark Steyn can (and here). It, too, sees the demographic writing on the wall and is content to wait a few years to occupy the West’s real estate—it’s so much easier, when you come right down to it, than blowing the stuff up and then finding yourself with a massive clean-up and rebuilding bill. Just sit tight and watch the infidels tie themselves into knots making excuses for you while, elsewhere in their lives, they embrace barrenness as an “environmentally friendly” alternative to Genesis 1:28.
Speaking as a right-wing, knuckle-dragging Eurocentric infidel, however, I feel it incumbent on me to point out that where traditional jihad is probably best dealt with by talented chaps like General Petraeus, soft jihad might often be more effectively countered by quieter crusades. Clever readers will doubtless have many fertile ideas to contribute to the fulfillment of what I hope will become the West’s new Quiet Crusade to make the World Safe for Christendom (remember that?). Here’s a modest proposal to get the ball rolling. It was suggested to me by another story from the London Times today. Under a headline shouting “Muslims shocked to learn that crisps contain alcohol” is the illuminating news that that Walkers snacks “contain traces of alcohol” and that eating them is therefore prohibited by Islam.
Shuja Shafi, who chairs the food standards committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that he intended to investigate. “Certainly we would find it very offensive to have eaten food with alcohol.”Is that so? Well, here’s my modest proposal, which I offer to British Food and Beverage industry free and for nothing: start putting a bit of alcohol in everything edible or potable. There are, of course, other reasons for wishing to increase one’s usual consumption of alcohol, but here is a patriotic imperative to guide you: what if you went into Harrod’s food hall or your local grocery shop and every item had at least some trace amount of alcohol (or, alternatively, pork residue)? I understand that there might be certain logistical difficulties, but if the EU can effectively police the system of mensuration used in its jurisdiction, if it can prohibit certain types of bananas because they deviate too markedly from the perpendicular, then surely they can employ the vast apparatus of their bureaucracy to assure that a drop of alcohol or a dollop of bacon fat is added to any food stuff sold in Britain.
It’s only a start, I realize, but from a tiny acorn the might oak does grow.
Posted by Robert at February 24, 2008 8:19 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Isn't Harrod's owned by Mohamed Al Fayed? I'm sure he'll be hot to add alcohol and lard to Harrod's comestible offerings. Why not just make Mohammedanism illegal, as we would a religion that required human sacrifice or animal cruelty?
Posted by: PTG![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 24, 2008 9:04 AM
Humorous, of course; but not really likely to happen.
But there is a viable alternative that I noted in reading the Walkers' snacks article at Islamonline.
Here's what I discovered:
Alcoholic Crisps Irk UK Muslims
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1203515511518&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout
"Certainly WE would find it very offensive to have eaten food with alcohol," Shuja Shafi, who chairs the food standards committee of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), told the Times on Friday, February 22."
Once again, the MCB purports to speak for every Muslim.
However:
"There is no unanimity, in effect, on food or soft drinks containing minute traces of alcohol.
Some scholars totally forbid any percentage of alcohol in drinks, arguing that it permeates the entire drink and change its qualities.
But scientists and scholars from the Islamic Food Council agree that from 0.01 to 0.05 percentage is insignificant and therefore the product can be considered halal."
Walkers should tell the MCB:
1. The findings of the Islamic Food Council are good enough for them
2. Don't eat the snack.
But. Do. Not. Apologize.
at February 24, 2008 9:26 AM
I was with a client the other day who is from India and I mentioned to him the ruckus Muslims were making over the alcohol in the chip debacle. He just rolled his eyes and said, "I know lots of Muslims who drink." LOL!
I like Roger Kimball's assessment of the situation and his remedy. It will be interesting to see what the pig farmers in England, and I believe there are a lot of them, do if the Brit dhimmi leaders try to appease Muslims by eradicating pigs and their products from the British Isles. I read recently about the obesity problem there and I'm sure folks who are attached to their food ain't going to give up their chips, their beer, their hams and sausages. You start messing with people's food and then I think we'll hear from the simmering rage that lies just below the surface in every English subject who sees their beloved England being undermined by Islam.
How appropriate that I bought a package of ham hocks last night and put the 15 bean soup beans in a bowl of water to soak overnight. Great minds think alike. ; )
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 24, 2008 9:28 AM
Easily done. Keep a supply of handi alcohol based anti-bacterial wipes/gel/spray handy for use on hands prior to handling produce, currency, grocery carts etc. It is the cold season, after all.
at February 24, 2008 9:39 AM
"...the simmering rage that lies just below the surface in every English subject who sees their beloved England being undermined by Islam." --IsabellatheCrusader.
Oh yes. It's not too far away that a saturation point will be reached and the Brits will start actively fighting back. The tide always turns.
at February 24, 2008 10:22 AM
Islamic jurist and scholar Khaled Abou Al-Fadl writes "Those who attack by stealth, while targeting noncombatants in order to terrorize the resident and wayfarer, are corrupters of the earth. "Resident and wayfarer" was a legal expression that meant that whether the attackers terrorize people in their urban centers or terrorize travelers, the result was the same: all such attacks constitute a corruption of the earth. The legal term given to people who act this way was muharibun (those who wage war against society), and the crime is called the crime of hiraba (waging war against society). The crime of hiraba was so serious and repugnant that, according to Islamic law, those guilty of this crime were considered enemies of humankind and were not to be given quarter or sanctuary anywhere. Those who are familiar with the classical tradition will find the parallels between what were described as crimes of hiraba and what is often called terrorism today nothing short of remarkable. The classical jurists considered crimes such as assassinations, setting fires, or poisoning water wells - that could indiscriminately kill the innocent - as offenses of hiraba. Furthermore, hijacking methods of transportation or crucifying people in order to spread fear and terror are also crimes of hiraba. Importantly, Islamic law strictly prohibited the taking of hostages, the mutilation of corpses, and torture."
Posted by: Comment at February 24, 2008 11:29 AM
They are a bunch of hypocrites (suprise). I know of lots of people who worked in Saudi and lots of the Palaces of the saudi princes had bars installed in the cellars (they love Whiskey). Also I frequently see muslims drinking in bars. A good friend of mine who was a sailor frequenting the middle east said that loads of the muslims got absolutely slaughtered on landfall (not by americans or Brits). One time they had to carry the captain OFF the ship and then back on again.
By the way this is not unusual or just the offences against islam of a few muslims its massive !
Can't say I blame them.
Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 24, 2008 12:33 PM
Western governments are not going to fight the war of ideas needed to defeat jihad. So much is clear. And perhaps it is for the best, given the incompetence of government generally.
And when you think about it, if the citizens of the West themselves do not fight the war of ideas, especially with our vastly superior intellectual and technical resources, then we deserve to be consigned to the Hell we face.
One suggestion I have had is a one hundred percent accurate movie biography of mohammed. The movie writes itself. Sex with a nine year old and sex with a woman whose husband you just slaughtered, killing others who have the nerve to make fun of you, hitler-like megalomania, manson-like mind control ... and so much more.
Of course, I have neither the resources nor the creativity to do it, but someone out there does.
Posted by: Moonzoo at February 24, 2008 12:52 PM
What would be useful and practical, would be identifying and making known, all the products we can that have alcohol, (or ethyl alcohol or ethanol) in them.
For example, ordinary household paint has ethanol in it.
Most of the time, the amount is so small it does not appear in the ingredients, but it is there, and that's enough to flip the rage switch.
I honestly think it helps us to have muslims kicking up a storm about stupid things.
It makes them look even more intolerant and exposes the backwardness of islam.
Over the longer term we could have ethyl alcohol added to our car fuel. Many countries already allow this.
Posted by: zoltix at February 24, 2008 1:16 PM
Just don't let them have access to our health know how, technological know how or anything else that benefits them and not us. This refers to all hostile muslim countries - unfortunately we still need the oil. After that they can go back to their tents or mud huts.
Also: be selective about muslim emmigration into western society, DNA test the lot of them, deport all terrorists back to their countries of origin or if they are "native born" and a case is proved against them lock them up for a long time. Deport the families of those who commit suicide bombings, or put them under close watch if born incountry. Jail all those who allow FMG or "honour killings" for a long time or if they are not born here deport them and their families. Enforce border controls, make sure that any marriages are consensual, close down the Commission For Racial Inequality. Boycott all Muslim businesses when they boycott ours. Make sure that any muslim who wants citizenship in the EU signs an oath of allegiance and has sufficient understanding of western values to be able to be a citizen. Stop all building of Mosques in built up areas, make sure that all beasts butchered for hallal meat is humanely slaughtered.
But, I think above all stop giving them our technological know how and put the fear of god into them.
Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 24, 2008 1:50 PM
Looks like some soft jihad in Aussie universities.
MUSLIM university students want lectures to be rescheduled to fit in with prayer timetables and separate male and female eating and recreational areas established on Australian campuses.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23269447-12332,00.html
Moslem toilets, washrooms, prayer rooms now this!
Sickening..
at February 24, 2008 2:38 PM
On the other hand a bureaucrat talking sense.
"Faith school boom 'creates division'"
And he does not seem to be talking about church schools...
"Professor McGaw's remarks reflect a profound shift in education in the past two decades, with more than 200,000 children — almost 40% of non-government school students — now attending a religious school outside the main Catholic, Anglican and Uniting systems."
Posted by: sri at February 24, 2008 2:54 PM
I propose "Soft resistance". I'm of the "Révolution Tranquille" generation in Québec, Canada and we have brought the once mighty Catholic church to the brink of bankruptcy, both moral and financial through sheer neglect and indifference, so I propose we all convert en masse to islam and promptly stop practicing, going to mosk, supporting it financially, start eating bacon, having a beer now and then and respectfully tell the imam to go take a long walk off a short pier. Within a generation, if we slack off hard enough, islam will become as benign as the Catholic church now is in Québec and nobody will give a rats derrière who's offended by what.
Posted by: Just being honest at February 24, 2008 3:10 PM
I know an infidel woman with a Muslim son-in-law, who used to make him trifle with a slug of sherry mixed in. One of those quiet little victories....!
Posted by: Nokingofmine at February 24, 2008 3:34 PM
MOONZOO: "One suggestion I have had is a one hundred percent accurate movie biography of mohammed."
I've had the same thought. The film could either be a "docu-drama" based on Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul, or a compendium of Sahi Hadiths acted out chronologically.
In either case, it would be clearly advertised as being based solely on Islamic sources...and due to the high probability of a hysterical (and violent) Muslim reaction, would most likely be released on-line as opposed to a theater-release...which would invariably mean it would be a low-budget affair (unless some affluent philanthropists could be found to adequately - and anonymously of course - finance the project).
The life of Islam's Prophet is a story that so desperately needs to be told in movie-form, so that Muslim and non-Muslim alike can visualize (and thereby emotionally contextualize) the tragic repercussions of Muhammad's 7th century reign of terror on the Arabian peninsula.
'Not Without My Daughter' was a film that had quite an impact on many who were otherwise impervious to warnings about the nature of Islam. One can scarcely imagine the impact of a well-directed movie that accurately depicts the life of Muhammad.
The question is, who has the gonads to step up and take on such a project?
Posted by: Cornelius at February 24, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment,
My questions to you (and comments) will be interspersed in your quote, in bracketed caps:
Islamic jurist and scholar Khaled Abou Al-Fadl writes "Those who attack by stealth, while targeting noncombatants in order to terrorize the resident and wayfarer, are corrupters of the earth. "Resident and wayfarer" was a legal expression [A LEGAL EXPRESSION WRITTEN BY WHOM? WRITTEN WHERE? WRITTEN WHEN?] that meant that whether the attackers terrorize people in their urban centers or terrorize travelers, the result was the same: all such attacks constitute a corruption of the earth. [THE PRECEDING IS AL-FADL OFFERING HIS OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE "LEGAL EXPRESSION" HE FAILS TO CITE BY AUTHOR, BOOK AND DATE]
"The legal term [LEGAL TERM FROM WHERE? WHAT SOURCE? WHEN WAS IT WRITTEN?] given to people who act this way was muharibun (those who wage war against society), and the crime is called [CALLED BY WHOM? WHAT SOURCE? WHEN WAS IT WRITTEN?] the crime of hiraba (waging war against society). The crime of hiraba was so serious and repugnant that, according to Islamic law [ISLAMIC LAW REPRESENTED BY WHAT AUTHOR(S), WHAT TEXT(S), WRITTEN WHEN?], those guilty of this crime were considered enemies of humankind and were not to be given quarter or sanctuary anywhere. Those who are familiar with the classical tradition will find the parallels between what were described as crimes of hiraba and what is often called terrorism today nothing short of remarkable. The classical jurists [WHICH CLASSICAL JURISTS? IN WHAT SPECIFIC TEXTS AND WRITTEN WHEN?] considered crimes such as assassinations, setting fires [SEE NOTE (2) BELOW], or poisoning water wells - that could indiscriminately kill the innocent [HOW IS "INNOCENT" DEFINED? WHEN A POPULACE IS PARTICIPATING IN ALLEGEDLY "ATTACKING" ISLAM BY AT THE VERY LEAST PASSIVELY SUPPORTING THAT "ATTACKING", ARE THEY STILL "INNOCENT"? (1)] - as offenses of hiraba. Furthermore, hijacking methods of transportation or crucifying people in order to spread fear and terror are also crimes of hiraba. [SEE QUESTIONS ABOVE] Importantly, Islamic law [ISLAMIC LAW REPRESENTED BY WHAT AUTHOR(S), WHAT TEXT(S), WRITTEN WHEN?] strictly prohibited the taking of hostages, the mutilation of corpses, and torture."
Notes:
(1) Concerning the definition of "innocent", what about the learned judgments of Ibn Kathir who, also citing many other Islamic sources, wrote that "injustice" which needs to be fought against is the persistence in unbelief?
For example, in his tafsir on Sura 2:193, Kathir writes:
"Verily aggression can only be started against the unjust."
And how does Kathir define the "unjust"?
"The unjust person is he who refuses to proclaim, `There is no God worthy of worship except Allah'."
I suppose you're going to tell us that the great Ibn Kathir was another "misunderstander" of his own Islam.
(2) A reader of Jihad Watch has provided an exhaustive refutation about the notion that Islam does not allow the burning of the enemy:
See: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019974.php#c510772
at February 24, 2008 4:06 PM
:-)
Posted by: joeblough at February 24, 2008 4:13 PM
Isabella, I'm also preparing a big pot of 16-bean soup with a nice ham steak diced up in it. What could be better? It's a blessing to be Christian and not have to bother with "uncleanness" as regards anything in God's creation.
If a group wishes to put some small donations together to finance a film on Big Mo, I'd like to send a few dollars. Any kind of resistance that I can mount (as a grandma) is my duty to the next generations.
Islam is Satan's greatest triumph. It codifies men's bad behavior and gives that behavior the imprimatur of religion, denies that Jesus is God, and denies that He died on a cross for you and me. So, Muslims can be "religious" and not have to deal with Jesus. No wonder Satan is portrayed as a snake in the scriptures!
Posted by: NavyMom at February 24, 2008 4:25 PM
Surely the Islamic (al)"chemists" who have been credited with knowledge of distillation techniques and properties of (al)cohol also knew of the ubiquitous nature of the chemical compounds belonging to the (al)kyl group?
Woe to you -- Islamic "scientists"!!
Posted by: Aiken Bryce at February 24, 2008 5:23 PM
NavyMom,
As a mother I agree w/you.If I ever win the lottery(I think that is the only wayI'll ever have a lot of $$$)I'd be happy to put up a nice chunk of change.I LOVE Cornelius and MONZOO's ideas!!!Only from "correct"Islamic sources...and let the convicted be sentenced via his own words so to speak!!What could the Muslims say,as we used "their"sources,but I'm sure they would find SOMETHING to whine about.
However,I'm not a Muslim....I'm Jewish,I DON'T believe Jesus was the son of G-d.I believe he was a great,great MAN,and a great Prophet...the son of G-d,only in that we are all sons and daughters of G-d,(Also,I've always been curious,I know Christians believe in the 10 commandments,and G-d said "Thou shalt have no other G-d but me-so how does that work for Jesus?And for Catholics,what about the graven image thing?Like crucifixes and saints??I know I'm way off-topic,I'm honestly curious.I'm not trying to ridicule anyones' Christian beliefs..)however,it is rare that someone becomes so truly spiritually evolved...outside my religion Gautama Buddha was another....however 'ol child rapin' Mo was not.....just another desert bandit w/delusions of grandeur!! It's interesting, if Mohammed was born now he'd be locked in a loony bin!
at February 24, 2008 6:03 PM
start putting a bit of alcohol in everything edible or potable. There are, of course, other reasons for wishing to increase one;s usual consumption of alcohol, but here is a patriotic imperative to guide you: what if you went into Harrods food hall or your local grocery shop and every item had at least some trace amount of alcohol (or, alternatively, pork residue)?
Muslims realise that in the numbers game they are winning, and in the near future they will be a majority. This increase in numbers, confirms their view that they have allah's blessing.
Islam will be dominant at sometime in the future if we continue on our present course. For this prize, this generation of Muslims, will pay the price to make it happen. In such a case, the consumption of alcohol or pork product, can be declared as halal, as it was done under neccesity, i.e., the principle of "darura", for the good of Islam.
I'm struck by the number of items that now offend Muslims (Are they deliberately put up to distract our fire?). I regard them all as dummy targets. If we use tactics such as the ones recommended to attack such false targets, they will do no harm to Muslims but actually help them. Firtly, we will be wasting fire on false targets. Second, there will be a howl of protest from Muslims, faux protest, but many in the West will fall for it, and Muslims will be further empowered.
It is the numbers game, and only policies that reduce the numbers of Muslims in the West, will stop the Jihad.
at February 24, 2008 6:07 PM
Meanwhile I am still waiting to see this movie come out:
http://www.victoria-film.com/english/index_eng.html
By the way I think they're still looking for funds.. so if anyone has any..
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at February 24, 2008 6:21 PM
OK, People,
1: Alcohol turns to sugar when cooked.
2: When RS used the phrase "A Modest Proposal", I want to believe he was referring to Jonathan Swift's sardoinic essay, "A Modest Proposal For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public"
which stated:
”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”
ie: RS was being literary, not literal.
Posted by: skevin at February 24, 2008 6:46 PM
whoops, sardoinic = sardonic
Posted by: skevin at February 24, 2008 6:48 PM
A proposed antijihad movie about Mohammed:
http://historyofjihad.org/movie_script_jihad_against_arabs.html
It looks fantastic. I think the actors will need to be made up to be unrecognizable. Who will make this film? I'd support it in a heartbeat.
Posted by: WestwardHo at February 24, 2008 8:20 PM
Sigh....You do know that some people of the Hindu faith , sued MacDonalds over using beef flavouring in their chips ( fries). So some big-noting Islamic 'leader' is making some noise on an trival issue that will certainly disappear. Islam isnt the only religion that makes silly demands... most are publicity stunts.
Posted by: David Xavier at February 24, 2008 8:43 PM
Bacon-flavored beer!
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 24, 2008 9:07 PM
assure that a drop of alcohol or a dollop of bacon fat is added to any food stuff sold in Britain.
--------------------------------------
What a great idea! I propose that we add a drop of alcohol rather than a dollop of pork. We don't want to hinder our Jewish friends in any way; they've suffered enough.
Perhaps regulations could be enacted requiring food handlers to sterilize their hands with alcohol before handling food.
There are any number of ways that we can "un-halal" the free world, so that the Islamo-Mafia will want to leave.
Thanks, Dhimmi Carter, for causing all of this Islamo-Mafia mess during your presidency.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at February 24, 2008 9:34 PM
I was with a client the other day who is from India and I mentioned to him the ruckus Muslims were making over the alcohol in the chip debacle. He just rolled his eyes and said, "I know lots of Muslims who drink." LOL!
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 24, 2008 9:28 AM
----------------------------------------------
How many Muslim-owned gas stations are there that ALL sell alcohol of all types: beer, wine, and hard liquor; even rubbing alcohol. They also sell hot dogs (i.e. pork).
It's amazing how the dhimmis don't even see this!
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at February 24, 2008 9:40 PM
I'm Jewish,....
Posted by: KittyBootz at February 24, 2008 6:03 PM
-------------------------
Hey, what do you know, a fellow person of the Book!
KittyBootz, I'm a Christian, and there are differences between our beliefs, but I'm very proud to be identified with your people by the Islamo-Mafia.
I only regret that many of my people throughout history were just as bad as the Islamo-Mafia in the way they treated your people.
From a fellow person of the Book ;)
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at February 24, 2008 9:52 PM
Here's an idea to stir up the Islamo-Mafia:
Require everyone to wear the Star of David.
Can you see their reaction to that?
I, for one, would be proud to wear the Star of David. I'm not prejudice.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at February 24, 2008 9:59 PM
Navy mom,
How come you got one more bean than me? ; )
KittyBootz, you said:
"However,I'm not a Muslim....I'm Jewish,I DON'T believe Jesus was the son of G-d.I believe he was a great,great MAN,and a great Prophet...the son of G-d,only in that we are all sons and daughters of G-d,(Also,I've always been curious,I know Christians believe in the 10 commandments,and G-d said "Thou shalt have no other G-d but me-so how does that work for Jesus?And for Catholics,what about the graven image thing?Like crucifixes and saints??I know I'm way off-topic,I'm honestly curious.I'm not trying to ridicule anyones' Christian beliefs.."
Well, as a Catholic I believe that the Old Testament explains the covenant between God and the Jewish people. It also tells of the coming of the Messiah. We believe that Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecies about the Messiah and that He is Who was promised by God the Father in the Old Testament. We also believe that he made a new covenant with the Gentiles because the Jews rejected Him and would not accept Him as the true Son of God who was foretold by the prophets. Jesus speaks about this Himself in the Gospels when he tells the parable of the king who had a great feast prepared and when everything was ready the guests he invited would not come.
Catholics believe in the Ten Commandments and we are obligated to follow them. Jesus said that all the commandments could be boiled down into two: love God with your whole heart and soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. Catholics are as bound to follow those as Jews are.
As far as graven images go, praying before a statue of a saint is not anything like worshiping a graven image. Praying to a saint who gave his life for Christ, either through a lifetime of sacrifice or through martyrdom is a special friend to Him. He honors the people who made these sacrifices for Him by allowing us to pray to them and ask them to intercede for us with God Himself. It's akin to asking a friend on earth for help. We're asking a supernatural friend for help along with asking God for help. There are many people who become indignant at the thought of this and say that they can go straight to God so they have no need to pray to saints. But if God himself allows the practice and showers blessings and aid on those who pray to saints, and since it's His universe and He can do whatever He wants in it, and since my prayers (and the prayers of my friends) to the saints are very effective, why would we limit ourselves just because someone else doesn't believe in it? The danger would be if we worshiped the saints or believed them to be another "god" but that isn't the case. If we did that it would be a sin against the first commandment.
I would add that an argument I used with a Muslim guy I dated in the 90's when he tried to tell me I should convert to Islam was that Jesus Christ foretold that He would die on a cross, be buried for three days and then would rise from the dead, and then He did it. There were eyewitnesses who attested to this fact. I asked the Muslim guy what Mohammad ever did that was comparable and he just shut up. In fact that's the only time I can ever remembering him shutting up during an argument or discussion. The point is nobody in the history of the world has done this, before or since, so I believe that He is who He says He is.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 25, 2008 12:40 AM
The number of times I have seen references to red wine being good for you is nobody's business. One glass of alcoholic red wine a day is beneficial - it keeps the doctor, and the guy with the scythe, away. That's my belief and I should be entitled to it, especially as there is scientific evidence to support it.
There was a school of thought in Islam, Mutazilah I think it was called, who believed that Allah must be wholly spirit and therefore could not interfere in what one did on Earth. The Mutazilah were extremely tolerant of non-Muslims, The only problem was that they insisted that every other Muslim comply with their beliefs. Eventually, other schools rebelled and drove the Mutazilah to extinction. That should be a warning to jihadists who now wish to force their beliefs onto others.
Posted by: philopast at February 25, 2008 4:32 AM
Jesus Christ foretold that He would die on a cross, be buried for three days and then would rise from the dead, and then He did it.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 25, 2008 12:40 AM
-------------------------------------------
Others foretold it too, such as Isaiah the prophet, who foretold that Jesus would die for our sins; and King David, who described the crucifixion in detail.
at February 25, 2008 8:03 AM
"Jesus Christ foretold that He would die on a cross, be buried for three days and then would rise from the dead, and then He did it."
and
"Others foretold it too, such as Isaiah the prophet, who foretold that Jesus would die for our sins; and King David, who described the crucifixion in detail."
OK , so Jesus knew about the prophecy and acted to make it so , getting his friend Judas to 'dob' him in. Engineering the circumstances of his crucifixion , with all that remaining was the disciples completing the plan by stealing his body and saying it had risen. Hence completing his own prophecy. Sure he could be God as there are the miracles though to fall back on , but I dont buy it.
Nethertheless , it beats Islam , which declares the Bible and Torah corrupt because they do not mention Mo ... which means the miracle-less Islam has only what was 'delivered' into Mo's head as proof ....talk about an excercise in the stupidity of blind faith!
at February 25, 2008 7:42 PM
Very good, David Xavier. And can you explain how come ol' Judas then commits suicide? And how come, with Roman guards, and a bloody big stone, the DEMORALISED disciples can do steal His body? And how come 500 witnesses all swear that they saw Him again? And Saul, that paragon of Jewish Pharisaical upbringing, can also testify that he saw Jesus?
You know atheists and agnostics who only pick and choose which bits of the Bible they want to believe irk me quite badly. Not as badly as Muslims do, of course. But did you read the part about Him DYING??? Let me tell you something else. His Apostles were also CRUCIFIED! For a lie? I think not. Methinks you misconstrue human nature. I will die for the truth, I will die for a lie I *think* is the truth, but I will NOT die for a lie I *know* is a lie. What for? Talk about cognitive dissonance!
I mean, for goodness sake. I read secular/agnostic/atheist-generated documentation, even if I think it's utter garbage. It would behoove you to at least *try* to read some Apologetics 101 too. Jesus would be an utter madman, to be put in an insane asylum, for Him to engineer His own death just to found a religion - unless He really was God and really was resurrected.
Posted by: gkong3 at February 26, 2008 10:14 PM
To CJK (thanks for notifying me about your response btw), Muslims have struggled to differentiate between when wars are allowed.
Fighting in defense is considered obligatory upon Muslims, according to the Qur'an. The Qur'an, however, says that should enemy hostile behavior cease, then the reason for engaging such enemy also lapses. The Hanafi school of thought holds that war can only be launched against a state that had resorted to armed conflict against the Muslims. War, according to the Hanafis, can't simply be made because a state was not Islamic. Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i, founder of the Shafi'i school of thought, was the first to permit offensive jihad (200 years after Muhammad). He limited this warfare against pagan Arabs only, not permitting it against non-Arab non-Muslims. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a well-known Pakistani Islamic scholar, exegete, and educationist, states that after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam (until Shafi'i) obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for military jihad is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. Islam completely prohibits the killing of those who have not participated in war. Commentators of the Quran agree that Muslims should always be willing and ready to negotiate peace with the other party without any hesitation. According to Maududi, Islam does not permit Muslims to reject peace and continue bloodshed.
"Fight in the cause of Allah those against those who fight you, but do not transgress, for Allah loves not the transgressor. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." (Al-Baqarah 190-193)
at February 27, 2008 8:33 PM
Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, he states:
"Jihad is one of the most misunderstood and abused aspects of Islam. There are some Muslims who exploit and misuse this concept for their own political objectives. There are many non-Muslims who misunderstand it. There are some other non-Muslims who misinterpret it to discredit Islam and Muslims. That is why the word 'Jihad' has been misused due to misunderstanding its true meaning. The word 'Jihad' is derived from the Arabic word jahd which means fatigue or from the word juhd which means effort. A mujahid is the one who strives in the Cause of Allah and exerts efforts which makes him feel fatigued. Jihad means exerting effort to achieve a desired thing or 'to prevent an undesired one. In other words, it is an effort that aims at bringing about benefit or preventing harm. Jihad can be observed through any means and in any field whether material or moral. Among the types of Jihad are struggling against one’s desires, Satan, poverty, illiteracy, and disease, and fighting all evil forces in the world. There are many religious texts that refer to these types of Jihad. One of the forms of Jihad is defending life, property or honor. Those who die while engaging in Jihad are considered to be martyrs, as confirmed by Prophetic Hadiths. Jihad is also done to avert aggression on home countries and on all that is held sacred, or in order to face those who try to hinder the march of the call of truth. Thus, Jihad is never a tool of waging war against the innocents. It is never a means of flexing the muscles or bullying the weak and oppressed. Jihad in Islam is something unique that is established to defend the divine message from being eliminated or hindered by its enemies.
Prominent Al-Azhar scholar Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh states:
"I would like to tell you, dear son or dear daughter, who may share in the same belief or have his or her own, that understanding defensive Jihad as initiating fighting without a religiously acceptable reason is a total misunderstanding of the tenets of faith and the clear Qur'anic verses. In the Qur'an, defensive Jihad is under condition of repelling aggression, whereas preemptive Jihad is done only when the Muslim Ummah seriously expects a treason or an attack against its territories from an enemy."
As I quoted before: “ Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah: 190). In one of the battles, a woman was found killed, and this was denounced by the Prophet saying "She did not fight." (Quick comparison, and forgive me if I offend you, but go check Numbers 31 for a comparison).
Abu Bakr gave instructions for his troops in Syria:
“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or bum palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”
at February 27, 2008 8:43 PM
Gkong3
Hey , alternately Christ could have really thought himself to be the Messiah in the prophecy, or is that such a far fetched delusion. His disciplies could have believed this to the point of being particpants in engineering the 'proof'.
Again , I only offer a personal opinion. I am not trying to convince anybody, and I leave open the possiblity that he is the Son of God. I would go as far to say that though I personally find Jesus is just a man , but he is still my master. But if there is a God , why havent I experienced the transcedence of him , why havent I glimsped him? I think I will stick to my 'real world' rationality.
at February 27, 2008 10:19 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)