If you google “Islam” and “news” this week, you will pull up from the Internet the inspiring story of Esma Voloder, who has just been declared Miss World Australia 2017.
Here is her message to the world:
My heart is full ❤️? Gratitude and joy overtook me last night as I was crowned @missworldaustralia 2017 at @grandhyattmelbourne ? Last night re-affirmed that dreams really can become realities. We have all heard this and some of us have been fortunate to not only think it, but truly know it… though it has never prevented the doubt that creeps up on us… it is faith in the best outcome provides us with the strength and motivation to do our best and continue striving. So many people I would like to give a whole hearted thank you to- My family for your love and support. Miss World Australia team and @pageantqueenaus (Miss World Australia director) for your kindness, understanding, faith and trust in me. The judges who represented diverse and relevant elements and industries in Australia that I admire- from an organisation dedicated to helping those in need and giving women opportunity, comedy to keep us light hearted, fashion that keeps us feeling who we are, health and fitness which equips us with the energy to chase our dreams and send positive messages, and reality which showcases bravery to be who we are in front of a large audience. To @phuketpearls for the stunning crown inspired by the Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge-it is so appreciated and considerate of you to have incorporated iconic Australian culture into your carefully handcrafted masterpiece, it is so beautiful and I love it dearly <3 The @hugthailand for your partnership and hospitality- I am so very excited to travel to the land of smiles once I have an extra big one to bring to your country ? @ozwearaustralia , @novoshoes and all our other sponsors for their generously donated gifts (products, thoughts, hospitality and love) . Each time I received something I felt so spoilt and meeting some of you has been a pleasure you are all so infectious and it really does translate in your products. Thank you for having myself as your ambassador. It has been a blessing to raise funds under #beautywithaprpose and for @varietyaustralia . Thank you Australia- for giving me a home and opportunity to do good ?? #missworldaustralia2017
So far, so breathtakingly banal.
This crazed, cliche-filled stream of naively covetous consciousness, by this pretty and mindless girl, who is grateful to, and is full of love for, practically everyone, begins with her heartfelt thanks — in the manner of someone accepting an Oscar at too great a length — to her family, for their “love and support,” to the Miss World Australia team for their “kindness, understanding, faith, and trust in me,” to the judges “who represented diverse and relevant [?] elements [?] and industries in Australia that I admire,” “from an organisation dedicated to helping those in need” and “giving women opportunity, comedy to keep us light hearted” and “health and fitness which equips us…” — possible spokeswoman for gym equipment? — “with the energy to chase our dreams” and “send positive messages” [?] and “reality [?] which showcases our bravery [?] to be who we are.”
But there’s not just this blend of nonstop nonsense and banality. There’s also the shout-out to, product placement for, the sponsors, for all the gifts they’ve lavished upon her, from “ozwear” to phuketpearls for providing her with a $58,000 necklace, and to an entire country, Thailand, for its “partnership and hospitality,” which she hopes to visit (and of course she will, it’s all part of her deal) — would-be tourists, please take note of her endorsement — just as soon as she can learn to give a smile big enough for that “land of smiles.” And then a last little incoherent thrust: “you are all so infectious [!] and it really does translate [!] in your products [!]. Thank you for having myself [English is not her strong suit] as your ambassador.”
But that’s not the main reason to deplore Ms. Voloder’s newfound fame. She doesn’t just want to be a brand ambassador for pearls and ozwear and tourism in Thailand. She wants to be a brand ambassador for Islam, the faith she was born into and which, she assures us, has been getting a bad rap. Included in her acceptance speech was this:
“The Islam that I know, that is in the Qur’an, I don’t associate that with any acts that are occurring around the world. People tend to blame religion for the atrocities that are happening, but if we do that we take responsibility away from the individuals.”
“A lot of things have been misconstrued about Islam. I feel that a category has been created that is not really what the Qur’an actually promotes. I believe Islam is about peace, unity, prosperity and inclusion.”
The Islam that she knows may be in the Qur’an, but only in the most misleadingly abridged of versions. Shall we yet again, as we always must on such occasions, remind her of 9:5 and 9:29 and 8:12 and 3:151 and 47:4 and 98:6? Is it possible that her eyes glazed over when she came to those verses, or did she somehow manage to ignore them and more than a hundred others like them, that command Muslims to fulfill the duty of violent Jihad against the Infidels, until such time as they are everywhere subdued, and Muslims rule, everywhere?
She may not “associate” the Qur’an “with any acts that are occurring around the world” (by this she is demurely alluding to terrorist acts by Muslims, of which there have been more than 30,000 since 9/11/2001), but apparently many of those who commit these acts do not agree. Some of them chant Qur’anic verses on uploaded YouTube videos showing the decapitation of Infidels, or the blowing up of enemy vehicles. Others show the warriors of the Islamic State, marching through Mosul or Raqqa under the black flag of Islam, with the Shehada written on it, apparently associated by these warriors not with peace but war. And the two killers of Drummer Rigby, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, converts to Islam who after their attack proudly held up their copies of the Qur’an, even quoting passages about violence — is it they who have misunderstood Islam, or is it Esma Voloder? What was it that that vastly learned Shi’a theologian, Ayatollah Khomeini, did not understand about Islam when he issued his many calls for making war on the West and, especially, on the archenemies Zionists and Americans? Was his successor Ayatollah Khamenei calling for “peace” or “unity” or “inclusion” when, a few weeks ago, he called for a Jihad against the hated Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir? Was Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, self-appointed caliph of the Islamic State, showing an ignorance of the “real” Islam when he so often called for “jihad,” or for ‘more jihad” or for “tornadoes of jihad to erupt,” with not the slightest doubt that he meant endless war against the Infidels? Like the Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei, al-Baghdadi has had extensive theological training. He obtained a BA, MA, and PhD in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad. Is it possible that all three were misinformed by their teachers about the true peaceful Islam, the only kind of Islam that Esma Voloder recognizes?
Esma Voloder, of course, has plenty of distinguished company in her certitudes. Tony Blair, who claimed to never be without his copy of the Qur’an, once praised that book as “practical and way ahead of its time. The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran – in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic – is to understand how progressive it is.” His successor David Cameron knew Islam, the real Islam, could do no wrong, so that after the killing of Drummer Rigby, he quickly denounced the attack, describing it as a “betrayal of Islam.” Theresa May has repeatedly called Islam “peaceful” after every terror attack — not just at home, but to an American audience in Philadelphia — and described the Muslim attack on Westminster Bridge as a “perversion of Islam.” Barack Obama has said, repeatedly, that “Islam is a religion that preaches peace.” His predecessor George Bush produced his own variations on the theme in a series of treacly Iftar messages: “Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.” And “Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion.” And “all Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith — face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate.”
For Pope Francis, who has somehow managed to overlook 1400 years of war against Christians by Muslims, “all religions want peace” (this was uttered shortly after an 85-year-old priest had his throat slit) and “Islam is peaceful” and the “Qur’an is peaceful” and “Muslim terrorism does not exist.” How many times must he say it, in how many variations on the nonsensical theme, to make you believe it? Credo quia absurdum — this should be the motto repurposed for this Pope — “I believe because it is absurd.”
Just repeat the Pope’s prescription for World Peace and Interfaith Outreach ad libitum, and surely something good will eventually come of it. Or will it? Lots of people in the Western world have wagered not just their own reputations, but the survival of their own peoples, on some version of the ever-more doubtful notion that Islam is about “peace, unity, prosperity, and inclusion.”
Esma Voloder has her precious crown, her ozwear, her phuket jewels, her endorsement deals and brand ambassadorships locked in, with many more no doubt to come. But she wants to do something for the good of everyone. She wants to promote Islam. Pro bono, apparently. She claims, and she may even believe, that Islam is all about “peace, unity, prosperity, and inclusion.” Though Muslims have been purveyors of taqiyya since 680 A.D., I don’t think that’s necessarily the case here. She sounds like a political naif who is simply repeating a line she has been fed. But perhaps I am being too kind. Whether she is misinformed, or deliberately deceptive, given her new position as Miss World she will undoubtedly have many occasions to tell interviewers her understanding of Islam. As always, such an interview will make even a minimum of sense only if the interviewer has properly prepared to question her by reading the Qur’an, and some of the hadith and sira. It won’t be time wasted; as a central subject of the age, Islam is here to stay, and anyone who has actually learned something about it will find many occasions on which such knowledge will come in not just handy, but indispensable.
Such an interviewer ought first to allow Esma Voloder to have her pollyannish say, all about “peace, unity, prosperity, and inclusion.” She should then be asked what verses in the Qur’an she thinks support her view of peace, or unity, or inclusion? Could she recite a single such verse? If she offers 5:32, make sure to insist on reciting 5:33, and explain how it modifies 5:32. And if there are some verses (early, Meccan) she manages to recall, remind her of the doctrine of abrogation, which she undoubtedly will never have heard of. Then suggest that there are quite a few verses in the Qur’an that help explain the dozens of military campaigns Muhammad took part in, just in the last ten years of his life. What does Esma Voloder make of this verse (read out 9:5)? Or this (read out 9:29)? Or this (read out 47:4)? Read them slowly. Explain that there are more than a hundred such verses in the Qur’an, and that you’ve posted them at your website, to which you then provide a link. Piqued by Ms. Voloder’s display of confusion, which will be obvious as soon as she tries to explain away just those three verses quoted by the interviewer, others will want to check out these and other Qur’anic verses for themselves. And with that link,you’ve made it easy for them.
Ms.Voloder will have a hard time explaining away these verses, but make her task harder still. Even before she can offer the “these-verses-have-to-be-put-in-context” excuse, the interviewer should proleptically note that “the usual way” these verses are dealt with by Muslim apologists is not to forthrightly acknowledge them, but instead to “contextualize” them, to pretend they apply only to specific enemies from 1400 years ago. “But,” the interviewer can add, “both the glosses provided by the most eminent Qur’anic commentators, such as Ibn Kathir, and the behavior of Muslims themselves over the past 1400 years, show that these verses were meant to be prescriptive, applicable for all time, and not merely descriptive, applicable to a particular time and place and enemy.” And if that interviewer is in a take-no-prisoners mood, even with one so winsome and mentally helpless as Esma Voloder, then let Esma be asked yet again, by way of summary so far, to explain why Muhammad’s life is so full of war, assassinations, mass decapitations, and the Qur’an so full of commands about conducting violent Jihad against, striking terror in the hearts of, the [Infidel] enemies, if Islam is all about “peace, unity, cohesion”?
And then it may be time to demonstrate, in the most telling way possible, how little Esma Voloder knows about Islam. Leave the Qur’an — the point about its sinister contents has been made — and raise the issue of the Hadith. Ask Ms. Voloder if she has ever read them, if she knows why the Hadith are so important to Muslims. If she answers that she has “never’’ read because she didn’t think they were that important, or still worse, had never heard of them, that will make her look not just ignorant, but idiotic. If she answers “yes” or “well, some of them,” take this as the moment to recite the usual horrifying list of events in Muhammad’s life that Muslims would prefer you never find out about: Muhammad’s marriage to little Aisha, the murders of Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, and Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, the rape (as it must be called) of the Jewish girl, Saafiya, by Muhammad on the same day he had her father, husband, and brother killed, the torture and murder of Kinana of Khaybar, the killing of the 600-900 prisoners of the Banu Qurayza. Don’t spare Ms. Voloder; ask sweetly, but ask, if she is familiar with any or all of these events in the life of Muhammad, just as you had asked her earlier about those Jihad verses in the Qur’an. Either she will have to admit to knowing about them, and then have to explain them away (just how do you explain away Aisha? Asma bin Marwan? Saafiya? Kinana?) as best she can, which makes her look both sinister and foolish, or she will claim she was not aware of those particular hadith, which leaves her looking merely foolish. And then ask if she is aware that Muslims consider Muhammad, the man responsible for that list of atrocities that have just been recited, as “al-insan al-kamil,” the Perfect Man, and “uswa hasana,” the Model of Conduct. Given what you have just told her about Muhammad, would she describe him as the Perfect Man? What can she say?
And then, just one last question for beauty queen Ms. Voloder. Ask her to imagine herself walking down a street in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Afghanistan or Pakistan, her hair loosely flowing, as she wears it in Australia, her makeup and dress just the same as she had for her Miss World competition, with her shoulders bare, or dressed as she does for her work as a criminal profiler. Then ask her what she thinks would happen to her, wearing that sort of getup, in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. We all know she would at the very least be yelled at, perhaps beaten by the mutawwa (religious police), even possibly taken into custody to be charged by the state, or might well have to endure both curses and beatings administered by outraged Muslim vigilantes. And don’t even ask what would happen to her in those countries if she dressed as she would have had to for the swimsuit component of the Miss World competition). She cannot deny the likelihood of such mistreatment. Doesn’t that at least give Ms. Voloder a moment’s pause as Defender of the Faith? And shouldn’t that be enough, along with those 30,000 acts of Muslim terrorism since 9/11 for which she can find no convincing explanation in Islam, to create, among the handful still wanting to believe her, more than a little doubt?
traci94 says
Why is it that only Islam is misconstrued? If there were as many terrorist attacks (or FGM’s, honor killings,etc.) committed in the name of Christianity as there have been (and continue to be) in the name of Islam, people wouldn’t even think TWICE about blaming Christianity and Christians along with it. If my faith was so complicated that it was often and easily “misunderstood” to entail violence and beheadings, among other things, I think it would be time to jettison that faith. It’s time that folks MAKE THE CONNECTION. One or two things here and there, I can see how they can say it has nothing to do with Islam, but over 30,000 since 9/11 and almost daily somewhere in the world, there’s no way to deny the connection, and I’m tired and pissed that people think we will fall for that “Islam is peace” crap over and over.
ripp846 says
In the meantime, the rest of us who aren’t Muslim, are wondering who the “real” Muslims really are. She said “that Islam is all about peace, unity, prosperity, and inclusion.” Where are the Quran verses that have Muslims “including” others?
Jack Diamond says
Islam teaches that we are all born Muslims (you just don’t know it yet or you are in rebellion). See, you were included.
The “comedy to keep us light hearted” must include the idea of Ms. Voloder as a criminal profiler.
mortimer says
Esma Volder is clueless about REAL ISLAM.
Islam is an INTOLERANT Bronze Age DEATH CULT combined with Arab racism and a totalitarian political system. Islam fits the bill of any definition of a RELIGIOUS CULT. Mohammed was similar to JIM JONES. Mohammed asked his followers to die for him and kill for him…because he said so. Mohammed had sex with any woman he wanted. Mohammed murdered anyone he wanted. Mohammed made any rule he wanted or cancelled it if he wanted. Mohammed never wrote down the Koran to keep people from reading his inconsistencies.
Psychologist Sam Vaknin said, “”Militant Islam is not a cancerous mutation of true Islam, but the very CONTRARY. Militant Islam is the purest expression of Islam’s nature as an imperialistic religion which demands unmitigated obedience from its followers and regards all infidels as both inferior and avowed enemies.”
Fr. Henri Boulad, SJ of Alexandria, Egypt wrote: “Islamism is NOT A CARICATURE, nor a counterfeit, nor a heresy, nor a fringe or atypical phenomenon versus classical, orthodox, Sunnite Islam.
To the contrary, I think Islamism is NAKED ISLAM, Islam without a mask and without paint, Islam PERFECTLY CONSISTENT and true to itself, an Islam that has the courage and lucidity to go all the way to its ultimate conclusions and final implications.
Islamism is ISLAM IN ALL ITS LOGIC and in all its RIGOUR. Islamism is present in Islam as the chick is present in the egg, as the fruit is present in the flower and as the tree is present in the seed.
Islamism is political Islam, the bearer of a project for a model society and whose aim is to establish a theocratic state based on Sharia, the only legitimate law—since it is divine—since it was revealed and enshrined in the Koran and Sunna—it’s a law that applies to everything.
Here is an all-inclusive and all-encompassing project, one that is TOTAL, TOTALIZING and TOTALITARIAN.”
Don Foss says
She’s a Neo-Left Tool or an ignorant idiot…and possibly both.
Hindu American says
She is a Trojan horse.
gravenimage says
True, Hindu American.
william says
islamme is a religion of peace.. There will be peace when every knee is bowed to alllie.. Then there will be peace.. A one world government,, The UN,, one world religion GOAT LOVERS!!!!!
Bob says
Or, as the late great Winston Churchill put it, “The peace of the graveyard”.
Tim Taylor says
You’re sooooo right!
Personally, I think we now know what the REAL messiah meant when he said in the last days the masses would suffer from “strong delusion that they might believe THE LIE,” indicating that this hellish lie would be the biggest ever told. That’s the reason WHY no matter how much evidence you present to these people they are never able to see that which is so obvious to you and I.
carpediadem says
Because so many people are doing deals with Muslims to screw over others.
The EU for example.
Obama.
Even Donald Trump who’s fallen for the “let’s make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians” idiocy.
b.a. freeman says
mr. trump and mr. tillerson just assume that all the previous administrations were doing the right thing, so they continue the effort. one would think that an administration premised on *changing* things would be willing to take a closer look to see *why* previous such efforts failed. and in basic issues like this, one would think that they would commission people from *outside* the State apparatus to do the legwork.
i think i’m going to stop holding my breath.
Jim says
Yes, traci94, you have asked the proper question. How can they not see? This website has the most wonderful, learned, articulate articles and commentators! I am in awe of their knowledge and ability! My comments are not mine, but come from my reading the bible. I believe in God the father and his son, Jesus. We were told(warned) by Paul-Ephesians 6:12. Read 2 Thessalonians 2:11, ‘the delusion’, and to prove the complete evil of moham and islam -1 John 2:22-that the one who denies Jesus is Christ is the antichrist. There is much more proof in the real word of God! I wish my friends who are so much more able than me would use their talents to gather all the verses of the bible that show the people of the world the truth, so that all those who can be will be saved! That is our commission! And God’s desire.
Pat Bishop says
The questions to ask Muslims are as follows: If Muhammad was better than Jesus, then why does the Quran say Jesus is the “WORD OF GOD?” And is the word created or creator? Why does the Quran call Jesus the “SPIRIT”of God? Why does the Quran call Jesus the “MESSIAH” when, even though you deny it, means SON OF GOD?
Why is it that if Allah is the one true God and hates Israel so much, why are they unable to defeat tiny Israel, no matter how big of an army they have? Because the REAL GOD said that Israel would not lose.
I have yet to have one single Muslim even attempt to answer those questions. They just go away and don’t say anything. I wrote an article comparing Bible verses of the description of Satan with Quran verses of Allah which proves they are one and the same. ALLAH IS SATAN. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/allah-really-satan-patrick-bishop-seo-expert-
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi says
The fact that Islam can be described by one person as a religion of violence and by another as a religion of peace can be attributed to the fact that all Abrahamic religions have both elements in them, so it is not true to say that Islam is only a religion of peace (as apologists insist), and nor would it be entirely true to say that it is only a religion of violence.
However, as compared to other religions, Islam is excessively violent — meaning that the pro-violence parts of the tradition are are taken literally and acted upon frequently by a sizable contingent of the faithful. Because it is so large in terms of numbers of adherents, and because it lacks a self-reflexive element, it has become the most violent religion worldwide, and represents a global threat as a result.
For those wishing to understand this split within religious traditions (including Islam) I recommend viewing a lecture by sociologist R. Scott Appleby, “The Ambivalence of the Sacred” (based on a book of the same name by him — see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlPOLq7eedU).
Appleby sheds light on religious violence. One of the important things he states is that to reduce a religion to only that which we wish to see in it (e.g. its peaceful, benign elements) is a common mistake, one often made by politicians (such as Obama or Blair). Apologetics ignore the violent side of religion. Jihadists are definitely acting from religious motivations. A religious tradition can multiple and opposing elements within it.
The conclusion that we may draw from this is that 1) it’s necessary to acknowledge the violence of religious traditions, including Islam, when it occurs and not dismiss it, and 2) it’s necessary for Islam to reform itself, to rid itself of violence, and if that means a rejection of all parts of the Qu’ran and hadith that call for violence, then that is what must happen. This must be done by Muslims themselves, ideally, to lend the effort credibility.
If you study the sociology of religion you realize that religious violence occurs as the result of several elements: 1) a strong sense of community and belief that the community is under siege and the need to defend it with violence; 2) belief in the value of martyrdom and sacrifice towards that end; 3) literal interpretations of scriptures, which play into a sense of a “cosmic war” between good and evil; 4) the necessity for symbolic acts of violence to purge or cleanse the world of supposed evil and usher in a new and better age. Islamism has all these elements.
Apologizing for or denying the violence of this tradition does not help reform it. To reform it requires acknowledging the truth of what is happening and working to change it by rejecting violence in the name of faith and rejecting parts of the tradition that call for violence.
Wellington says
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi:
“…all Abrahamic religions have both elements,” blah, blah, blah.
First of all, Islam is a rip-off of the two legitimate Abrahamic religions. Islam is a bastard result of the two religions, Judaism and Christianity, which have far more wisdom in them and which are no threat to liberty as Islam is. One knows this or should know it. It is quite apparent you don’t.
Second, your moral equivalency thinking is showing most glaringly by your bogus assumption that while Islam is violence-prone, gee, so are many other religions. Right, over 31,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks just since 9/11, never mind that Islam is the only religion which in its theological blueprint calls for war to be made upon unbelievers, versus all other major religions which have almost no terrorist attacks occurring in the name of religion since 9/11 (or long, long before 9/11) and which in their respective theological blueprints have NOTHING calling for war to be made upon unbelievers to spread their respective religion, just shows that all religions are equally problematical respecting a tendency towards violence. Uh-huh. Again, you have failed miserably.
Third, Islam cannot possibly be reformed. It was born rotten (no other major religion was) and is totalitarian to its core. It is an eternal enemy of liberty and one knows this or should know it. And its wretched holy book, the Koran, is beyond disgusting (as is its reputed founder, Mohammed, who reveals many characteristics of a lethal psychopath, contra ALL other major religious and ethical founders). On almost every page it oozes hatred towards the unbeliever. It is also horribly repetitive and stupid. It is the worst major religious work of all time. Easily so. Again, you’re clueless.
Fourth, sociology in general is a bogus, made-up area of study. It is pseudo-stuff par excellence and so the sociology of religion you referred to is just a subset of a particular kind of “bogusness.” It’s one of many intellectual voodoos for the over-educated. Like you.
This is enough for now. After all, the nonsense and gobbledygook you spouted needs little refutation and I have provided a sufficient amount for the time being. But should you desire more, you would probably find me in an obliging mood. Give it a shot if you’re so inclined. Actually, I dare you. Besides, ripping apart the worst religion of all time is a sport for me and so I’d enjoy a second round here.
Your turn if you care.
Pajaro says
Thank you Wellington.
rich says
Superb reply, Wellington.
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi says
Your reply appears to be based on having read the first few words of a few paragraphs that I wrote and not having read beyond that. If you had read further you would have seen that I do not promote the moral equivalency of religion. On the contrary, I say that ” as compared to other religions, Islam is excessively violent.” So what I said was the exactly the opposite of what you claim that I said.
In my original statement, I affirm that the motivation of Islamists is religious in order to refute statement by apologists for Islamic terror that Islamism is not the “real” Islam (e.g., Obama’s statement that Islam is a religion of peace, or the statement by the beauty queen to that effect).
Yes, I am implying that other Abrahamic religions have both violent and non-violent elements in them, and anyone even vaguely familiar with history will know that to be true, but stating that basic truth is not the same as saying that all religions are morally equal. In fact what I wrote make the opposite case. I urge you to re-read what I wrote above a bit more carefully.
You accuse me of “gobbldygook.” That’s rather funny, because I am actually an opponent of violent Islam, which is why I subscribe to Jihadwatch and why I wrote what I wrote, above. Perhaps what “triggered” your negative response to my comment (despite the fact that my comment is actually critical of Islamic terrorism) is my screen name? In fact, I am a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant American. The name I was using is that of a famous medieval Islamic scholar, and I used it in jest, but also to make a subtle point: ibn Zakariya al-Razi was from a time when Islam was self-reflexive and very learned and added much to theology, philosophy, medicine, art, mathematics, and science — so much so that Europeans learned from Muslims at that point in history (carrying back this learning from the Crusades), and this helped Europe grow into the superpower that it became centuries later, and in part gave us the Western intellectual and scientific traditions. Unfortunately Islam declined after that period because of the rise of religious fundamentalism, and it is still stuck in that quagmire. And that is why a reform is needed. Muslims need to purge the violent element of the tradition.
You may dismiss Islam as un-reformable, but in doing so you dismiss the only real and lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism. This is because when Islamists are fought with conventional warfare weapons and tactics it only seems to encourage the rise of jihadism: it is like throwing gasoline on a fire. For every jihadists the drone strikes took out, several more were created in response to them. I am not against counterrorism of this kind where necessary (obviously it’s necessary), but a more lasting solution, as I noted above, is to acknowledge Islam’s violence and to reject it (i.e., not be an apologist), and to encourage those parts of the tradition that are non-violent. Many people who are fighting terrorism will tell you the same thing.
Did you know, for example, that the very right-wing Gatestone Institute supports Muslim reformers who are jailed in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia? Here is an article calling for reforms, including human rights, secular governance, and counterterrorism: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7009/muslim-reform-movement
While it is true that these courageous reformers are isolated and marginalized to a great degree and the apologists seem to get much more attention, that can and should change. It’s rather sad that critics of Islam such as yourself would reject a natural ally in the fight against violent Islam. I will chalk that up to you just not knowing about them. And no, they are not examples of “taqiya” (deceit). Apologetics are perhaps, but serious reforms acknowledge Islamic violence and call for an end to it — and apologists never really do that.
I said that Islam’s violence is due to scriptural literalism and is non-reflexive and is thus in need or reform.The serious Muslim reformers are routinely killed or silenced or go into exile. They are heroic. They are the best remedy for Islamic terror in the long run.
As for sociology, your comment about it is so anti-intellectual it made me laugh. You know who else is anti-intellectual? Islamists. There is not one major university in the Islam world for a reason: the search for truth through reason is a threat to the political power of the pro-violence imams. Western universities are being undermined by a similar threat: anti-Western cultural Marxism. As you may know, they have formed an unholy alliance with radical Islam. But this does not include all social scientists. Sure, there are many sociologists who advance a political ideology (e.g., Marxism, feminist) that you might disagree with (I would disagree with them too), but that does not invalidate the entire field. Not all sociologists are ideologically motivated; some are legitimately trying to understand complex social phenomena through empirical and rational methods with as much objectivity as possible. The sociology of religion actually provides great insights why and how religions form and operate.
For example, read Mark Juergensmeyer’s Terror in the Mind of God if you want to understand more about Islamic and other forms of religious terrorism. That book alone gives great insights into Islamism. To dismiss an entire field of scholarship out of hand — especially when the insights from it can help us better understand Islamic violence — that doesn’t help our common cause of opposing Islamic terrorism. You are throwing away the baby with the bathwater by doing that.
I understand that you are angry about Islamic violence. I am too. That is why I have tried to understand it better, including an understanding of how it works and how it can be remedied. We are on the same side, whether you believe it or not. I am not your opponent.
CogitoErgoSum says
al-Razi, just how are you going to go about reforming a religion that defines itself as being the “perfection” of all religion? If the Quran is the perfect word of the Muslim god, Allah, changing what is in the Quran would be the same as admitting that the Quran is NOT perfect and, therefore, not from the mind of a perfect god (or from a competent messenger). This basic and key premise that Islam is “perfect” makes reform of Islam impossible. That leaves reformation out of the equation and what remains as the unavoidable solution is the complete and total invalidation and obliteration of Islam. To borrow a phrase, tis a consummation devoutly to be wished …. but good luck with that. Of course, there is always the chance of a miracle, I suppose. You can always pray for that ….. but again, that would involve religion, wouldn’t it?
rich says
Your whole point to Wellington is that you and he are not opponents of each other because you both detest Islamic terrorism. And you further argue that he should not jettison your idea of reforming Islam because that is the only lasting solution to the problem. But I can show, quite succinctly, that your premise (that Islam is, in fact, capable of reform) is entirely false. And here’s how.
All Muslims consider the Qur’an to be the literal “word of Allah” that was dictated verbatim by Allah directly to Muhammad, the founder of Islam. Moreover, the period of “interpretation” of the Qur’an [such as it was] ended centuries ago and there is no longer permitted ANY interpretation that would contradict Islamic theology as enshrined now in the Shari’a, and specifically as encoded in the teachings of the four principal schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafii, Maliki).
So: the Qur’an cannot change and the interpretation of the Qur’an cannot change. These are the first reasons why any meaningful “reform” of Islam is an unrealistic fantasy, a delusion.
Second, Muhammad is considered by all Muslims to be “al-insan al-kamil” (the “ideal man” ). As such, in Islam, Muhammad’s words and actions are considered beyond reproach and may not be criticized in any way. Nor may his person be criticized. And this is, in fact, one of the most explosive ‘triggers’ [no pun intended] for Islamic violence. When anyone criticizes Muhammad (e.g. Charlie Hebdo) this is usually something that itself triggers Muslims to acts of extreme violence.
But the point is that Muhammad’s words and actions and manner of life (everything contained in the sunnah (ahadith and Sira) down to the tiniest details) CANNOT be criticized. It is absolutely impermissible in Islam to criticize ANYTHING Muhammad did or said. And the problem is: he did MANY of the EXACT same things the “terrorists” are doing today. He robbed people; modern jihadists rob people. Can’t say that’s wrong…because Muhammad did it. Muhammad murdered people and beheaded people; modern jihadists murder and behead people. Again: can’t say that’s wrong…because Muhammad did it. Rape: Muhammad raped female captives of war; modern jihadists rape female captives of war. Can’t say it’s wrong…because Muhammad did it. Ditto for child marriage, too, of course, and the examples could continue. You get the point. Muhammad was a violent jihadist; that much is a fact attested to by the most authoritative Islamic ahadith collections, from Bukhari and Muslim on down. So it is nearly impossible to find solid ground upon which to “reform” Islam because Muhammad himself already did all the things these modern jihadists are doing and his example is normative for all Muslims.
The third reason why Islam can never be reformed is that every time someone tries to “reform” Islam, they wind up very dead. Simple historical fact. Owing to the first two reasons stated above, anytime someone tries to reform Islam, they are branded an “infidel” or “kuffar” or “hypocrite” and their life is thereby forfeit. Anyone can kill them at any time. And typically that is exactly what happens: someone kills the reformer. And, needless to say, this discourages the next guy from even THINKING about trying to reform Islam. Because he knows that by doing so he is almost certainly risking his life.
For these three reasons, then, I maintain that any meaningful reform of Islam is impossible. The Qur’an and its authoritative interpretations are beyond criticism. The founder of Islam, Muhammad’s, every word and every action are considered beyond criticism. And anyone who dares to TRY to reform Islam is immediately labeled an “infidel” and assassinated. Unfortunately, therefore, your entire premise is false. It is a delusion to think that Islam can be “reformed” because there are structures in place to make sure that it never can be.
Wellington says
I read you first comment in its entirety so you are wrong to assume that I did not. And I detected a fair amount of moral equivalency even though you may dispute this. Don’t forget that there is nothing in the Christian theological blueprint which calls for violence and the violence found in the Old Testament was merely descriptive, for one time and place, unlike the Koran where the violence touted is prescriptive, for all time and all places. Huge difference.
Moreover, when Christians used violence in the name of their creed to spread it, they were violating the tenets of their faith. Contra big time with Islam and thus your comparisons of violence between these two religions (and others) is flawed from the get-go. You stumbled into the truth when you noted that Islam is excessively violent compared to other religions but you don’t seem to know why this is the case. I just helped to lay out part of the reason why.
I absolutely believe that Islam is not capable of reform. Might as well try and reform Nazism or Marxism. Islam is not just another religion whose theological blueprint has been distorted. The blueprint itself is a distortion of much which a religion should stand for, including a true Golden Rule for all (Islam does not have this), a mandate to use violence to spread the religion across the earth (no other religion has this) and a religious legal system that is meant for everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim, this being unlike any other religious legal system (e.g., Roman Catholic canon law) which is just meant for believers. Moreover, the founder of Islam was a damn psychopath, narcissist and pedophile. As John Quincy Adams said of Mohammed, “The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust—–to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of mankind.” Nothing like this can be said of Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Zoroaster, et al. There is so much rot in Islam and its founder is so disturbing that to reform it you’d have to gut it like a fish.
Let me put matters another way: There is absolutely nothing good in Islam which can’t be found elsewhere and yet there is much bad in Islam that is difficult to find anywhere else. So what’s the damn point of trying to keep any of it around? Yeah, answer this question. And perhaps you should also reflect upon what Bertrand Russell noted in his The Practice and Theory of Bolzhevism, that being that Islam is the only major religion which is totalitarian in structure and ideology and this is why Russell compared Islam to Marxism and fascism. As I already was trying to convey to you when I brought up Nazism and Marxism, there is no reforming a totalitarian belief system. Islam is a totalitarian belief system and no other major faith is.
As for sociology being a legitimate field of study, I am reminded what the finest history professor I ever had (his specialty was 17th-century France) said and that is you major in sociology if you secretly hate society and you major in psychology if you secretly hate yourself. Something like 98% of sociological essays and tomes have not advanced the human condition in any way whatsoever. Indeed, many times they have harmed matters. If you want to think sociology is a legitimate discipline, that is your business, but then you think Islam can be reformed so perhaps these two unrealistic assessments of yours are tied together. And one does not have to be anti-intellectual to come to this conclusion about sociology or many other bogus disciplines like the Studies programs (Gender Studies, African-American Studies, Latin American Studies, Women Studies, et al.) which all come with an agenda and which are not really interested in dispassionate exploration of where the truth lies. And then there is that master piece of gobbledygook, psychology. Spare me already.
In any case, Islam is clearly incapable of reform and it is a fool’s errand to think it can be. Can’t reform rot. Can’t be done. Oh, for the record, I am not religious in the least but if every Muslim woke up tomorrow a devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Hindu, the world would be infinitely better off. I wonder if you would dispute even this and if you would not then once again I would have to ask you what’s the damn point of trying to keep any of Islam around?
patriotliz says
All you need to know about Islam is to know about its crazy founder. The only solution to the problems w/ Islam is that Muslims need renounce Islam en masse and in toto.
https://youtu.be/U0cEfOlxMu8
Read “The People vs. Muhammad:”
https://youtu.be/306NMgH31nw
Screeminmeeme says
“You may dismiss Islam as un-reformable, but in doing so you dismiss the only real and lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism.”
Wrong. Allah says his word is perfect and prohibits any alterations to it. A ‘good’ Muslim wouldn’t even attempt doing such a thing.
In truth, the ‘only real and lasting solution’ is to ban Islam from every continent. It’s a scourge on mankind and its eradication is the only remedy.
“To dismiss an entire field of scholarship out of hand — especially when the insights from it can help us better understand Islamic violence — that doesn’t help our common cause of opposing Islamic terrorism”
The Quran says “Kill”. ‘Good’ Quran compliant Muslims kill.
You don’t need any other ‘insight’ to ‘better understand Islamic violence’.
Don Foss says
There have been hundreds of reformers in Islam. Two of them escaped death or exile for fitna: Mohammed bin Wahhab and Ayatollah Khomeini. Good luck with “reforming” Islam.
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi says
This is a reply to rich, Wellington, and everyone else here who says that Islam cannot be reformed.
As we all know, there is a type of militant Islam that sets itself as the opponent of Western civilization, but rather than try to eradicate Islam altogether — which cannot be done (think about it, you cannot convince 1.6 billion Muslims to abandon their sense of cultural and religious identity just by hating on them) — it is far more pragmatic to encourage it to be westernized, to come into line with Enlightenment values. The work for this has been done. It is called “progressive Islam.”
See links to 15 websites by “progressive Muslims” that illustrate this idea:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/quranalyzeit/2014/11/01/15-progressive-islamic-facebook-pages-that-you-should-really-check-out/
Or, for example, look at the work of Australian cleric Imam Mohammad Tawhidi, who denounces ISIS and terrorism. He is for gender equality, an end to killing “apostates”, gay rights, etc. See http://www.tawhidi.com/?page_id=2 We should support his efforts, not ignore or dismiss them. There are thousands more like him doing the same. Some were killed, tortured, jailed, silenced. Shouldn’t we applaud their efforts and work to spread their message, rather then dismiss them?
If we compare this to Judaism, there are some militant ultra-Orthodox sects that even believe in acts of terrorism (e.g. Meir Kahane’s group), but there are also many Reform Jews, such as rabbi Daniel Cohn-Sherbok who are clearly against violence and are for gender equality, human rights, etc. They have done the work of bringing Judaism in line with Enlightenment values.
Or take the example of ultra-right pro-violence Christianity such as Paul Hill who killed abortion doctors, and compare that with pacifist Christians, such as Quakers. Here are two extremely different types of Christianity, both still Christians, but one is pro-violence and the other non-violent. Likewise there are pro-violent and non-violent Muslims in the world.
It is true that Islam has far more pro-violence practitioners than either Judaism or Christianity, and overall it is just a more violent religion, but that does not mean it cannot be reformed. The progressive Muslim reformers represent a branch of Islam that is very promising. Don’t dismiss it so easily.
Islam must lose its militancy, its extremism and violence, and its oppression of women and gay people and “apostates” and become a privatized and tolerant form faith within a secular society, like other faiths. I believe this is not only possible, but inevitable and has already taken place for many Muslims.
Reformed Islam must absolutely reject sharia law. Not all Muslims agree with sharia law. Some oppose it. As Tarek Fatah says of those who opposed it in Ontario in 2012: “that is my type of Muslim.”
Religions are not set in stone. They are not even reducible to beliefs (which is a common misimpression of them). They are dynamic and evolving cultural entities, often set against themselves internally. Author R. Scott Appleby calls this internal contest within religions “the ambivalence of the sacred.” It is a matter of exploiting this internal division and strengthening the efforts to change it for the better.
Religions are are diverse and complex, and they can change. Look at the history of Christianity: it has taken on many forms over time, based on different and conflicting interpretations of scriptures, different practices, different cultural influences.
Not all practitioners of religions are rigid scriptural literalists who inerrantly follow and obey what is written in the Quran, Bible, Torah, Upanishads, Ramayana, etc. Only atheists and fundamentalist believe that literalism is the only type of interpretation. The history of religions proves them both wrong.
Yes, it is true that there are many Quranic literalists wh follow and obey nearly every word that is written (Jihad Watch records a lot of this), and it’s also true that the words in the Quran were those of a warlord within a culture in which violence was the norm. No one can reasonably dispute this. However, it is by no means the case that all 1.6 billion Muslims are scriptural literalists or pro-violence because of that. How could anyone reasonably think that? That is far too simplistic a view of what is in fact very complex. When you have 1.6 billion there is no way that all of them will believe the same thing. Islam has no central authority, which means there is no one set interpretation of what it means to be a Muslim.
Human beings are endowed with reason and morality, independent of religious traditions, and they can see what is right or wrong in many cases. For example, if you watch the film Behind Enemy Lines, based on a true story, an Afghan Muslim invites an American soldier into his home thereby saving the soldier from the Taliban who are hunting him. The real man’s name is Mohammad Gulab. This happened. It shows us clearly that Muslims — and all human beings endowed with free will — can choose good as well as evil. This is just one small example.
It is true that Islam seems to be the most violent of the world religions at this time, but I do not believe it it has to be that way forever. I also acknowledge that the influence of the reformers is not as dominant as the militant brand of Islam, but that can change. It’s an uphill battle.
How can it change? Through interpretations of the tradition that are different from those of the militants. There is a wide variety of interpretations, including those that emphasize reformation efforts, to bring Islam in line with Enlightenment values, such as human rights, egalitarianism, and separation of church and state. Why grant that the militants have the only correct interpretation? This gives them too much credit.
I gave you an example through a link in the original comment above. There are many others. For example, there is a book titled ‘Progressive Muslims’, edited by Omar Safi. This is a description of the basic idea from a review:
“Progressive Islam is not about reforming or altering the Quran itself, but rather reforming our interpretations of it, and getting rid of the extra baggage of organized religion.
“Progressive Muslims believe that the current Muslim community, by and large, has adopted bad theology due to a lack of self-study and introspection, replacing it with blindly following the opinions of scholars and the cultural norms prevalent in “Islamic societies” by automatically equating them with Islam.
“. . . the Quran, which constantly urges Muslims to think independently, and reminds them that the truth is only sought by, and possessed by a minority (Quran, 6:116). Thus, the argument that the views of mainstream Muslims must all be correct since they represent the majority holds no water … Hence, Progressive Muslims advocate the use of Ijtihad (Independent reasoning) and oppose Taqlid (blind following/imitation), especially in matters of faith due to the power dynamics involved.”
. . . a central focus of the progressive Muslim’s theology is based on safeguarding human rights … progressive Muslims don’t believe that Islam advocates anti-blasphemy law, anti-apostasy law, stoning to death, genital mutilation, etc. Support for such laws is to be found nowhere in the Quran, and are thus deemed un-Islamic.
“Lastly, Progressive Muslims believe that Islam is primarily concerned with developing ethics and values . . . Thus, a “good Muslim” should be known for his or her ethical values, instead of how active they are in performing Islamic rituals.”
So while it is true that reformers have been killed, exiled and silenced for their efforts, that is not a sufficient reason to dismiss those efforts. Christian reformers were killed as well. Christianity had its Reformation. So did Judaism (i.e. Christianity). So did Hinduism (i.e. Buddhism).
It’s true that Islam has an even bloodier history than Christianity, but that does not mean it cannot be reformed. Such efforts are necessary in a world of 1.6 billion Muslims. Most Muslims are not bad people. They abhor this violence and don’t want any part of it but they are often pulled into tacit acceptance of it by militants, sometimes against their will, out of fear.
If you accept the jihadists’ version of Islam as the only real version, then you are giving the militants what they want, and denying a way out for those in those societies who want no part of the violence.
As Tarek Fatah says, you don’t defeat the jihadism by saying that Mohamed was a pedophile and burning the Quran, because doing those things actually helps the jihadists by turning Muslims away from the West and into the hands of the militant imams. Burning the Quran helps the Taliban grow. De-fanging it by discrediting the religious authority of the imams is a better tactic.
The majority of Muslims are not supporters of radical militant versions of the faith, and they can turn either way. You are definitely not going to convince them to convert to Christianity or become atheists, so reformation is the only logical answer, however improbable it may sound. I think a reformation will occur. It’s just a matter of time. There are too many Muslims exposed to Western values for it not to happen.
It’s true that many who become migrants try to change the host country, and they don’t assimilate, which is a problem, but there are others who do, and in them lies the promise of change. The work has been done by progressive Muslims to interpret the tradition in a more socially benign way, in ways that are consistent with Enlightenment values.
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi says
A small correction: in my previous comment I misstated the name of the film as Behind Enemy Lines. It is in fact Lone Survivor.
Wellington says
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi: You are either extremely naive or conventionally deceptive in a Muslim way. Whichever, your “prescriptions” and “advice” are of no account. None whatsoever. No need to add more since you have obviously learned nothing from those opposing your views on this thread.
Done here.
AzB says
Not sure i agree with this kind of active “reformation” effort at present time as it’s probably one of the factors which drive the hard right further in their argument that they are losing a grip on centuries old traditions.
There was a version of islam that stabilised for most places for a long time. that would be the safest option. Pre-saudi ideology spreading. Pre-novel and variant radicalism. And pre-human rights. Certainly on the question of preserving “cultural variety ” it is a much safer bet than some of the hardline alternatives which are being spread these days. Which are extremely prescriptive and political.
So the revolution in islam seems to me to result in a high degree of instability. A tug forward for how many would like it but that creates many “liberalisms” that are unwanted by a significant body of other muslims and allows support for terror to grow.
I gather islamic law can take on a different character and get amended one step at a time through parliaments and the like, depending on the country consitution. Maybe that’s the best way to go for now.
Full scale “reform” seems to add more sparks to the fire at the moment. Like a sleeping beast waking up and becoming much more savage. From the western point of view i prefer how islam looked 40-50 year ago. In most places anyway. I know the first generation of immigrants to britain from pakistan was very tolerant and practices less of the deobandi illiberal tradition. So they did not form gangs like we start to see in the 90s and since.
The gangs which now create more gangs in prison. And so on. Where will it lead to and what kinds of crackdowns in the end i have no idea.
I just know it was better before all the saudi propoganda spread around the world. simply getting things back on track to nomal would be good. And then a slow process, relying on the education of the community to grow and make progressively more solid legal decisions.
gravenimage says
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi wrote:
For example, there is a book titled ‘Progressive Muslims’, edited by Omar Safi.
……………………….
“Progressive Muslims” was edited by Omid Safi.
Here’s more on that disturbing figure:
“Meet the Radical Professor at the Center of the Controversy for Islamic Prayers at Duke University”
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/16/meet-the-radical-professor-at-the-center-of-the-controversy-for-islamic-prayers-at-duke-university/
The horrifying Omid Sadi excused the massacre at Charlie Hebdo Magazine and called the murderous Jihadists “victims of political grievances”. He has become enraged when asked why members of other faiths do not react murderously over satire.
He is a fan of the Jihad terror group Hamas, and has said they are guilty of no wrongdoing in attacking Jewish civilians. He has used pictures of Jewish victims of the Holocaust and claimed that they were “Palestinian” victims of Israelis.
I can only hope that you are not aware of the above.
Safi, is, though, the *perfect* example of a “reformer” who turns out to be anything but.
Leon says
Spot on, no further comment.
dibatag says
Well said WELLIGTON
gravenimage says
Fine posts, Wellington.
Westman says
Excellent, Muhammad. A very astute treatise with only one premise that seems unlikely without draconian pressure – reform.
My view is that a near-extinction event would be necessary to reform Islam; an event on a scale that puts the existence of Allah in doubt. This is what it was required to send Japan on a new course, away from conquest.
“…There Is No Moderate Islam; Islam Is Islam” – Turkey’s Erdogan. When I look out on the world, I see many differing flavors of Islam; so many that it is absurd to think Islamic countries can get along among themselves without wasting energy on any possible acceptance of infidels.
Islam is an authoritarian success and a social/economic disaster. Without oil, that even the owners are not competent to produce, much of today’s jihad would remain in the ME. Some of the current flow of “refugees” has as much to do with interrupted redistribution of moneys and zakat as it does with ISIS. Islam needs subsidy as the last form of economic communism and is on economic life support. The “refugees” streaming to the West are nothing like the brilliant “brain drain”, immigration based on merit, that came in the 1960-90s for opportunity to escape the economic world of Islam.
JW_Reader says
Excellent discussion. That is why I can not sleep without my daily dose of Jihad Watch. I learned so much about different aspects of Islam. I do worry about what holds for the future. But, as long as we have this website along with others that explains/exposes true nature of Islam, we should be fine. It is a war between good and evil. Good will win for sure. Evil needs to be exposed for everyone to see and judge for themselves. I think, even lot of liberal/democrats are coming around and realizing what a monster Islam is.
dumbledoresarmy says
Don’t assume Jihadwatch will always be here, though. (Though to help keep it here, as many of us as can possibly afford to, should put something in Mr Spencer’s tip jar as regularly as we can, and buy his books and circulate them).
In addition to reading/ posting here, and sharing the stories around, as opportunity arises, I would also encourage ‘regulars’ here to find ways of networking with other members of the Resistance in their own locations and countries, face to face.
E.g., American jihadwatchers ought to join their local chapter of ACT for America, and engage in the ceaseless vigilance that is the price of freedom. Opposing mosques; challenging the islamisation of school curricula and text books; opposing the Islamopuffery and Islamoprop that saturates our media these days; and putting intelligent pressure on politicians.. and on our various non-Muslim religious leaders.
In other countries there are other options – in Australia, there is Q Society, there are nascent political parties. There are even a few politicians of various stripes, starting to put their heads above the paraprets.. they need to be encouraged and further educated. Buy Mark Durie’s excellent books on Islam – “Which God?” and “The Third Choice” – and share them around.
In Britain there is Gavin Boby’s “Law and Freedom Foundation’, there is Paul Weston’s Liberty GB, there is Tommy Robinson with PEGIDA UK holding protest rallies and marches, there are individual politicians – whether in the House of Peers or in the Commons – who evince signs of intelligence and could be pushed further in the direction of resistance to Islam. Find those religious leaders – eg Gavin Ashenden, formerly one of the Queens’ chaplains – who are prepared to publicly criticise Islam, and support them. There is the British Pakistani Christian Association, who have been soldering on with protest after protest – outside Pakistani high commissions and consulates, and outside No 10 Downing St – on behalf of Asia Bibi, Pakistani Christian woman on death row for ‘blasphemy’ in Pakistan; British jihadwatchers can keep an eye on the BPCA website and resolve to attend *every* BPCA demo, in force.
We have to figure out what we can do – even if it’s just writing letters to politicians and *keeping on writing*, even when they don’t reply or reply with bland evasions — and then do it.
It’s good to swap ideas, and build solidarity across our various nations; but we also have to step away from the internet and look at the people around us, where we are – family, workplace, campus, classroom, our fellow worshippers (if we are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, etc) – and try to find ways to wake up those who haven’t yet worked out that Islam – and that means the Ummah, the Mohammedan Mob – is a mortal threat to everything we have and everything we are.
gravenimage says
True–we would be foolish to take Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch for granted.
rich says
Look, Muhammad Ibn Zakariya al-Razi:
All Muslims (not just “terrorists”) believe that Muhammad is the “perfect man”, a good example for all others to follow. But Muhammad was a horrible monster of a man, cruel and merciless to many. So I have no respect at all for any Muslim. If THAT is what you call a “perfect man”, I have nothing to say to you because Muhammad was a monster morally speaking, committing the worst crimes of rape and murder and robbery. Your own most authoritative hadith collection, Bukhari, admits openly that Muhammad beheaded at least 600 Jews of the Banu Quraiza. That is a monstrous act on its own. Then throw in the fact (also recorded in your authoritative hadiths) that Muhammad led more than twenty “razias” (raids) on passing caravans to rob them of their goods, kill their men, and enslave their women and children. Then throw in the facts that he allowed (and himself participated in) the rape of women taken captive in battle and that he “married” a six-year-old girl (Aisha) and raped her when she was nine years old.
THAT is your “perfect man”?? Are you absolutely insane? Seriously.
No, you devil. Muhammad was a horrible monster, a sociopath and criminal of the worst kind.
And yet ALL Muslims proclaim him to be their “prophet”?? It absolutely beggars belief.
So, Muhammad Ibn Zakariya al-Razi, just GO AWAY. You worship the false moon god, “Allah”, and serve his rapist, murderer, pedophile thief of a “prophet” (heck, you personally have even taken his name). So you have nothing to say that any decent person would want to hear. A curse on you and on every Muslim for promoting the diabolical death cult of Islam, founded by the demon-infested sociopath, Muhammad.
Did I miss anything? Have I made myself perfectly clear? How can you possibly reply to this comment? The fact is you can’t and you know it. Because everything I have stated here is true and you know it. So don’t even bother trying to reply.
Wellington says
Seconded, rich. Yes indeed, destroy Mohammed and you destroy Islam. You did your part here.
gravenimage says
+1
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
You’re trying to hide the vileness of Mohammadism by grouping it together with two other religions that have nothing to do with it. This is pure sophistry (or is it taqquiya? only you know for sure). The spirit of both Christianity and Judaism are in diametric opposition to Mohammadism. The fact that Mohammadism pretends to recognize certain key individuals and repeats tales from the other two religions does not make it a part of the club. You should know better: the violence found in Judaic and Christian texts are histories and not instructions or directives as they are in Mohammadan texts.
In fact, Mohammadism is in a class of its own. I can think of no other “religion” (other than Satanism and Thuggee-ism) where lying is allowed and often mandated. I can think of no other religion (in its mainstream form) where killing someone outside your religious group and being killed is the number one way of getting to heaven!
To find a similar set of mores one has to go looking among the extreme forms of socialist ideologies like Stalinism and the underhanded Fabian Socialism (whose first emblem was the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing).
Your missive regurgitates the worse misinformation spread by apologists and enthusiasts from Oxford’s nineteenth century “Islamists” to the modern day American pseudo-academics who owe their appointments to Saudi money.
An example from you: “[It] added much to theology, philosophy, medicine, art, mathematics, and science — so much so that Europeans learned from Muslims at that point in history (carrying back this learning from the Crusades), and this helped Europe grow into the superpower that it became centuries later, and in part gave us the Western intellectual and scientific traditions.”
What pure Wahabist propaganda! The Oxford hobbyists naively swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. How can an ideology/religion that consistently produces illiteracy rates of over 97% ever be the cultivators or conduits of culture, knowledge and science? (The only cultivators of knowledge in these societies were the miniscule number of surviving dhimmi captives!)
If you are so knowledgeable about the topic then you should know that reform is impossible; discussing it is haram and a capital offense. The middle east is littered with numerous religions that started their lives as attempts at reform. I don’t think the world needs another Mohammadan spinoff.
If I were you, I would have done a little more reading of the contra side of your argument before wrapping myself in the name “Mohammad.” Of course you may be little more than a well-read troll; one never knows these days.
LaVerne Keller says
An excellent comment, most of the alleged scientific, engineering, and other intellectual achievements that the Islamic world claim to have developed. All were in fact developed either by previous cultures like the classical Greek societies, and Roman culture, or stolen from other cultures like the development of gun powder stolen from China. The only thing that Islam and it’s followers ever bring to the world is destruction, and desecration from the days of the prophet to present day. Just as examples of current desecration just look and the Taliban’s destruction of the giant stone Buddha statues in Afghanistan, to the destruction by ISIS Palmyra in Syria and other historic sites in Syria and Iraq.I mean just look at every place that moslems have settled from Lebanon that up until the mid seventies was majority Christian(Maronite sect) and was once referred to as the Paris of the Meditteranian and others on and on they turned into little more than deserts and are mere shadows of the majestic lands they once were. From Timbucktoo to Beirut Lebanon and on and on the list goes they’ve become little better than wastelands once the moslem’s got control.
Add to that the likelihood of any possibility of reform being an utter impossibility due to the control the Sheiks, Emirs, Ayotollah’s, and various Imams who claim expertise of Quranic teachings have over their flocks. These so called ‘holy’ men remind me of the Christian Church prior to the reformation period and renaissance era before the ability to read was limited to a few highly placed personages like the clergy, and royalty. They were able to keep the average citizens under their thumbs and maintain the serfdoms due to the people not being able to read and interpret and learn knowledge for themselves. These ‘holy’ men like the priests of pre-Reformation Christianity and pre renaissance Europe and the advent of the printing press, use the peoples lack of ability to actually read the Quran and interpret it’s words and Sura for themselves to keep their control and power over the average Arab, or other moslem adherents. If the average moslem were to actually take the time to read the Sura’s and the Hadith’s and realize how sick their so called perfect prophet really was; I believe if he were to be examined by modern psychiatrists the diagnoses would be something along the lines of Schizo-disaffective disorder with paranoid tendencies and delusions of grandeur along with halucinations of actual contact with supernatural beings(the angel). Add to that the fact that Allah claims to hate and fear the one known as the King of Kings, and the eternal light which is how Jesus has been referred to often in the scriptures makes me think that if it was a supernatural being he spoke to, than it wasn’t an angel but rather one of Lucifeer’s many demonic minions, The only being who would fear and hate the messiah would be Lucifer himself don’t you agree from a theological standpoint? So in conclusion Islam and it’s prophet are little more than a totalitarian political, and military doctrine with minor tones of religion to give Mohammad and his teachings a small amount of religious legitimacy, but not enough to make it worthy of being included with either of the two Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Christianity as they’re totally and utterly diametrically opposed to Islam which should not even be allowed the recognition as a ‘religion’ but rather as another political and totalitarian ideology no different from National Socialism, or Bolschevic Communism and as such belongs in the trash bin of history with those two ism’s and their failed experiments at control of society,
Michael Copeland says
To round off your excellent rebuttal, Islam does not, in fact, recognise Christianity and Judaism as religions: they are just “remnant cults”.
“It is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions such as Christianity and Judaism are acceptable…”
Reliance of the Traveller, w4.
gravenimage says
Good posts.
Jack Diamond says
Obligations imposed by Allah (such as jihad, qital) are not mere “pro-violent parts of the tradition”. They are not even open for discussion, or ijtihad “independent reasoning”, even if such a thing existed again in Islam. They are Rights of Allah.
The non-literal Qur’an is like the non-Shari’a Islam, it is a Fata Morgana, a tantalizing mirage that will only seem real to non-Muslims, but not in dar al-Islam, which knows better. Real Muslims know that Islam means submission, not thinking for yourself. It means unquestioning submission to what Allah and Muhammad have ordered:
Qur’an 33:36 “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.” 2:85 “Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts?”
What did they decree? For one, “fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know.” (Q. 2:216).
Allah and Muhammad know, you do not know, you would-be reformer who has been ordained to fight but would rather not. Or worse for us, who knows the truth and attempts to deceive the disbelievers by denying it is the truth (because deceit is as much a part of jihad as is violence).
Islam has never been “reformed” (other than to return to its bloody roots) and there’s no reason to believe it ever will. It has, however, been caged.
gravenimage says
Fine comments, Jack.
Peggy says
for Islam to reform itself, to rid itself of violence, and if that means a rejection of all parts of the Qu’ran and hadith that call for violence, then that is what must happen. This must be done by Muslims themselves, ideally, to lend the effort credibilit
=================
If you did that, then it wouldn’t be Islam any longer.
Ted Tyler says
Thanks for the post, ibn Zak, Yes; the Bible and the Koran both contain violent and peaceful passages. Most Christians and Jews simply do not recognize the violence or simply relegate it to the past. Too many Muslims do not relegate the violence to the past and want to return to the 7th century.
gravenimage says
Where does the New Testament teach violence? How is Jesus anything like the vicious warlord Muhammed?
Michael Copeland says
The Koran – all of it – forms part of Islamic law.
One who denies any verse is to be killed. The killing can be done vigilante-style by anyone: there is no penalty “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (Reliance o8.4).
The Bible does not form part of Western law. One who denies any verse will not be killed.
For an argument, like needs to be compared with like.
b.a. freeman says
i’m sorry, i’m a born-again christian, and i seem to have missed the parts of the bible in which God commanded believers to kill all people of a class as a matter of doctrine (in other words, for all time). could U point those passages out for me, please?
islam, OTOH, has *lots* of passages in its “holy” literature commanding muslims to kill and terrorize kufr. there was no specific time to which the command was limited; instead, it is a doctrine to be followed for all time. there is also the little matter of abrogation, in which allah can change his mind; it is the later command that must be obeyed, not the earlier. funny thing is, all the peaceful passages came first, when there weren’t very many muslims, and muhammed still had to fear retribution from those whom he attacked. later on, when his band of killers (excuse me, pious muslims) was larger, and he was successfully attacking unarmed farmers and caravans, raping the widows he created, and selling the people he kidnapped as slaves, that the violent passages abrogating the earlier peaceful ones were “revealed” (i.e., made up by muhammed).
thus, judaism and christianity cannot honestly be included with islam as being the same type of religion, any more than nazism can be included with government by republic as a legitimate form of self-governance. equating violence by judeo-christian mobs who “defend” their religion by criminal acts that violate the tenets of the faith they claim with the doctrinal violence prescribed by the monstrous god of islam for muslims is either a mistake at best, or lie by a practitioner of same.
gravenimage says
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi wrote:
The fact that Islam can be described by one person as a religion of violence and by another as a religion of peace can be attributed to the fact that all Abrahamic religions have both elements in them, so it is not true to say that Islam is only a religion of peace (as apologists insist), and nor would it be entirely true to say that it is only a religion of violence.
………………………
The whole “Abrahamic religions” thing is an ahistorical Muslim canard.
And Islam does not teach peace–there are just some Muslims who are not actively engaged in violent Jihad at any one time. There is even a tenet of Islam that explains this: most of the time, Jihad is “Fard Kalifa”, rather than “Fard Ayn”–meaning that as long as some of the Ummah are engaged in waging violent Jihad that things are covered. This does *not* mean that many Muslims reject Jihad–just the opposite.
As for the idea that Islam is a “religion of peace”, this was ginned up by a Muslim in India in 1930, in a book intended for Infidel consumption. No pious Muslim considers Islam to be a “religion of peace”, nor is the term found previous to the above reference.
But Judaism and Christianity do not teach violence–this is silly false moral equivalence.
More:
However, as compared to other religions, Islam is excessively violent — meaning that the pro-violence parts of the tradition are are taken literally and acted upon frequently by a sizable contingent of the faithful.
……………………..
This is *certainly* true. I suppose you chose your username due to quotes like this attributed to to this scholar:
“If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries.”
More:
Because it is so large in terms of numbers of adherents, and because it lacks a self-reflexive element, it has become the most violent religion worldwide, and represents a global threat as a result.
……………………..
Christianity is much larger–odd that it does not present the same sort of global threat. sarc/off
More:
For those wishing to understand this split within religious traditions (including Islam) I recommend viewing a lecture by sociologist R. Scott Appleby, “The Ambivalence of the Sacred” (based on a book of the same name by him — see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlPOLq7eedU).
……………………..
There is no real split in Islam. The Qur’an, the Hadith, and the example of the vicious “Prophet” Muhammed–the model man for all Muslims–all confirm that violence can be used against Infidels to spread Islam, and against anyone to prevent criticism or even just questioning of Islam. That it is, in fact, the primary tactic to be used.
More:
Appleby sheds light on religious violence. One of the important things he states is that to reduce a religion to only that which we wish to see in it (e.g. its peaceful, benign elements) is a common mistake, one often made by politicians (such as Obama or Blair). Apologetics ignore the violent side of religion. Jihadists are definitely acting from religious motivations. A religious tradition can multiple and opposing elements within it.
……………………..
Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists are not slaughtering people in the name of their faiths, nor on the model of their holy figures.
Would that one could say the same about Islam.
More:
The conclusion that we may draw from this is that 1) it’s necessary to acknowledge the violence of religious traditions, including Islam, when it occurs and not dismiss it, and 2) it’s necessary for Islam to reform itself, to rid itself of violence, and if that means a rejection of all parts of the Qu’ran and hadith that call for violence, then that is what must happen. This must be done by Muslims themselves, ideally, to lend the effort credibility.
……………………..
Why “must this happen”? Because “filthy Infidels” such as ourselves would like to see it? Pious Muslims regularly and quite violently reject this idea, because it would rip the core out of Islam.
How many Muslim reformers are there–especially given that a closer look at many considered “moderates” show them to be anything but? Damned few–and they don’t have much of a following. In fact the few who exist are generally under death threats from their more pious coreligionists.
More:
If you study the sociology of religion you realize that religious violence occurs as the result of several elements: 1) a strong sense of community and belief that the community is under siege and the need to defend it with violence; 2) belief in the value of martyrdom and sacrifice towards that end; 3) literal interpretations of scriptures, which play into a sense of a “cosmic war” between good and evil; 4) the necessity for symbolic acts of violence to purge or cleanse the world of supposed evil and usher in a new and better age. Islamism has all these elements.
……………………..
There is no “Islamism”. This is mainstream Islam, and it has been like this since the days of the “Prophet”.
More:
Apologizing for or denying the violence of this tradition does not help reform it. To reform it requires acknowledging the truth of what is happening and working to change it by rejecting violence in the name of faith and rejecting parts of the tradition that call for violence.
……………………..
That would mean rejecting most of Islam. What indication do you have that Muslims have any intention of doing this?
More, in reply to Wellington:
Your reply appears to be based on having read the first few words of a few paragraphs that I wrote and not having read beyond that. If you had read further you would have seen that I do not promote the moral equivalency of religion. On the contrary, I say that ” as compared to other religions, Islam is excessively violent.” So what I said was the exactly the opposite of what you claim that I said.
……………………..
Actually, Wellington does indeed address your entire post.
More:
In my original statement, I affirm that the motivation of Islamists is religious in order to refute statement by apologists for Islamic terror that Islamism is not the “real” Islam (e.g., Obama’s statement that Islam is a religion of peace, or the statement by the beauty queen to that effect).
Yes, I am implying that other Abrahamic religions have both violent and non-violent elements in them, and anyone even vaguely familiar with history will know that to be true, but stating that basic truth is not the same as saying that all religions are morally equal. In fact what I wrote make the opposite case. I urge you to re-read what I wrote above a bit more carefully.
……………………..
It is one thing to say that all faiths have had violent members at various times–that is very different from the faith itself teaching violence. You appear to have confused these two things. Christianity does not teach violence; again, Islam does.
And Judaism and Christianity are in no way threats today–whereas, Islam most certainly is. Pious Muslims are committing violence in the name of their creed all over the world.
More:
You accuse me of “gobbldygook.” That’s rather funny, because I am actually an opponent of violent Islam, which is why I subscribe to Jihadwatch and why I wrote what I wrote, above. Perhaps what “triggered” your negative response to my comment (despite the fact that my comment is actually critical of Islamic terrorism) is my screen name? In fact, I am a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant American. The name I was using is that of a famous medieval Islamic scholar, and I used it in jest, but also to make a subtle point: ibn Zakariya al-Razi was from a time when Islam was self-reflexive and very learned and added much to theology, philosophy, medicine, art, mathematics, and science — so much so that Europeans learned from Muslims at that point in history (carrying back this learning from the Crusades), and this helped Europe grow into the superpower that it became centuries later, and in part gave us the Western intellectual and scientific traditions. Unfortunately Islam declined after that period because of the rise of religious fundamentalism, and it is still stuck in that quagmire. And that is why a reform is needed. Muslims need to purge the violent element of the tradition.
……………………..
Where to start? Actually, ibn Zakariya al-Raz *himself* makes it quite clear that far from the enlightened faith you claim, that Islam was irrational, intolerant, and violent.
He lived during a period when Muslims were violently invading and conquering a good swatch of the known world. Persia during his period was still limping along–this was not a “Muslim Golden Age”–it was the death throes of the conquered civilization.
Want another “Islamic Golden Age”? Just allow Islam to conquer the West–it would be able to live off the corpse of the free West for several centuries before being able to extinguish her greatness completely.
And odd that you laud Islam for Europe’s greatness–yet are unable to explain if this is so why Dar-al-Islam is not itself great.
Again, you assert that Islam must shed its violence–but Islam would not have been able to overrun the Middle East, the Magreb, the Levant, Persia, and India without it. Every pious Muslim knows this, and wants to destroy Europe in just the same manner.
con’t
gravenimage says
con’t
You may dismiss Islam as un-reformable, but in doing so you dismiss the only real and lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism. This is because when Islamists are fought with conventional warfare weapons and tactics it only seems to encourage the rise of jihadism: it is like throwing gasoline on a fire. For every jihadists the drone strikes took out, several more were created in response to them. I am not against counterrorism of this kind where necessary (obviously it’s necessary), but a more lasting solution, as I noted above, is to acknowledge Islam’s violence and to reject it (i.e., not be an apologist), and to encourage those parts of the tradition that are non-violent. Many people who are fighting terrorism will tell you the same thing.
……………………..
Actually, the West fought back against Islam for many years, and we had largely successfully isolated Dar-al-Islam from about two hundred years ago until just a few years ago.
Our mistake was in forgetting the threat Islam presents to us, and foolishly letting in hordes of Mohammedans. If we did not have Muslims here in the West, there would be no real danger to us. Your idea that things have always been like this is *quite* mistaken.
Can’t you remember back before 9/11–just a little over fifteen years ago? Apart from the occasional hijacking, there *was no Jihad threat*. Go back a decade or two before that, and the threat did not exist at all.
More:
Did you know, for example, that the very right-wing Gatestone Institute supports Muslim reformers who are jailed in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia? Here is an article calling for reforms, including human rights, secular governance, and counterterrorism: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7009/muslim-reform-movement
……………………..
Well, that’s lovely. The problem is that a: there are very few of them. b: many of them do not turn out to be all reform minded when actually tasked. c: they are often in jail in Dar-al-Islam and have virtually no following.
More:
While it is true that these courageous reformers are isolated and marginalized to a great degree and the apologists seem to get much more attention, that can and should change.
……………………..
Again–why? Because the “filthy Infidels” would like it too? Certainly, most Muslims don’t want it to.
More:
It’s rather sad that critics of Islam such as yourself would reject a natural ally in the fight against violent Islam. I will chalk that up to you just not knowing about them.
……………………..
What rot. We have all followed “Islamic reform” here. Such reformers, as I have noted, often have no following at all. For instance, Zuhdi Jasser is such an outcast that he was thrown out of his last Mosque and has not been able to find any Mosque that will allow him and his family to worship. Note: not a Mosque that agrees with all of his ideas, but just one that will allow him to set foot in it.
But he is all over Western media, and treated as though he is a mainstream figure.
Then, there are several “reformers” who turn out to be anything but.
More:
And no, they are not examples of “taqiya” (deceit). Apologetics are perhaps, but serious reforms acknowledge Islamic violence and call for an end to it — and apologists never really do that.
……………………..
Actually, there are many who pose as “moderates”, then turn out to be nothing of the sort. Here is just one story of a great many:
“Imam praised as moderate by New York Times arrested for Islamic State ties”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/05/imam-praised-as-moderate-by-new-york-times-arrested-for-islamic-state-ties
More:
I said that Islam’s violence is due to scriptural literalism and is non-reflexive and is thus in need or reform.The serious Muslim reformers are routinely killed or silenced or go into exile. They are heroic. They are the best remedy for Islamic terror in the long run.
……………………..
Why would you think this? Islam has *never* had a peaceful reform, and all pious Muslims reject the very notion of such a reform. It would mean rejecting the “Holy” Qur’an and the actions of the “perfect man”, the “Prophet” Muhammed.
More:
As for sociology, your comment about it is so anti-intellectual it made me laugh. You know who else is anti-intellectual? Islamists.
……………………..
Ah–we’ve heard *this* before. If you dare to point out that Islam is violent at its core, then you are just like the “Islamists”. This is like saying that Winston Churchill was just like the Nazis because he noticed that Fascism was violent.
More:
There is not one major university in the Islam world for a reason: the search for truth through reason is a threat to the political power of the pro-violence imams. Western universities are being undermined by a similar threat: anti-Western cultural Marxism. As you may know, they have formed an unholy alliance with radical Islam. But this does not include all social scientists. Sure, there are many sociologists who advance a political ideology (e.g., Marxism, feminist) that you might disagree with (I would disagree with them too), but that does not invalidate the entire field. Not all sociologists are ideologically motivated; some are legitimately trying to understand complex social phenomena through empirical and rational methods with as much objectivity as possible. The sociology of religion actually provides great insights why and how religions form and operate.
……………………..
And none of this material, if looked at objectively, suggests that Islam can be peacefully reformed.
More:
For example, read Mark Juergensmeyer’s Terror in the Mind of God if you want to understand more about Islamic and other forms of religious terrorism. That book alone gives great insights into Islamism. To dismiss an entire field of scholarship out of hand — especially when the insights from it can help us better understand Islamic violence — that doesn’t help our common cause of opposing Islamic terrorism. You are throwing away the baby with the bathwater by doing that.
……………………..
I’ve read some of his work–it is, largely, just more false moral equivalence. The idea that the killing of a single abortion doctor, which is not taught by Christianity, or the actions of an obscure cult in Japan are pretty much the same as the pervasive culture of Jihad in Islam is fairly ridiculous.
More:
I understand that you are angry about Islamic violence. I am too. That is why I have tried to understand it better, including an understanding of how it works and how it can be remedied. We are on the same side, whether you believe it or not. I am not your opponent.
……………………..
That’s nice–but believing in a phantom “reformation” of Islam–something that has not happened in 1400 years–is probably not terribly useful or realistic.
Wellington says
Excellent rebuttal, gravenimage. You took apart his “arguments” brick by brick.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Wellington.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
+1
Jack Diamond says
“the West fought back against Islam for many years, and we had largely successfully isolated Dar-al-Islam from about two hundred years ago until just a few years ago.”
That’s what I mean by reforming (re-forming) Islam.
Applaud your patience and fortitude with these wind bags.
Ted Tyler says
Excellent discussion, Graven. Most of the time I can’t simply read your responses – I have to study them!
Chand says
Wow! Gripping discussions here. I’m getting hooked to Jihadwatch!
Both Muhammad Ibn Zakariya al-Razi and his/her critics are right. That’s it. BOTH!! Apart from trying to reform it, the only other response to Islam is necessarily military. And trying to stop migration from Muslim countries, of course.
So what is the solution? Both reform and the military defeat of this enemy? But reform will take time. Or it is not possible. I predict that the military solution will also take time. Four generations, say. But that is possible. Jihadi terrorist groups, cells and sponsors might be totally and thoroughly eliminated in time.
But an extreme military solution is also being espoused here by some……..THE FINAL SOLUTION. Exterminate them all if they do not surrender and renounce their false faith. Drop a nuke or two on a Muslim nation, like done to the Japs, to make them see the utter futility of resistance. Gas chambers, concentration camps, chemical or biological annihilation of all Muslims following that…. Visit hell fire on them! Surely that could work……………
We are already in the third world war against Jihadism. Shouldn’t we now take it one level higher to nuclear Armageddon? Isn’t it time?
Well, I don’t think most Muslims will convert to other religions. Neither will they acknowledge their prophet’s rotten character. At least not to non-Muslims.They could become atheists though. Not much chance of that either with most of them. So DROP THE BOMB!
I don’t think that’ll happen either. If any nation tries that it will surely lead to a very hot World War right away, with nukes going off everywhere.
The powerful nations do not even have the guts and the political will to do even a simple, tiny thing………censuring Saudi Arabia for officially spreading Salafi Wahabbism and trying to stop it.
Can anyone go to any major non-Muslim city (maybe apart from some Polish, Czech or Hungarian ones), stand on a street with a megaphone and yell out all the true things being written here about Muhammad, Koran and Islam. “Ladies and Gentlemen, brothers and sisters, Muslims and non-Muslims, did you know that the founder of the religion of Islam, who is called Prophet Muhammad, the author of the Koran, was in fact a caravan raider, warlord, rapist, Jihadi, mass murderer, paedophile and crazy? Please do not follow that vile man in any way. Do not follow the religion of Islam or read or teach the Koran. It is a fake religion”, etc, etc.
I’m guessing that the one with the megaphone would be stopped or arrested by cops even before an offended, violent Muslim present there will attack him.
Good luck with eliminating Islam!
I have always dreaded the rise of another Hitler-like figure as a response to this violent Islamo-fascism. Might happen yet if large scale terrorist attacks happen again and again in the developed world. Don’t think Trump is the one, though. Will the enlightened world revert back to Fascism in the process of defeating this Islamic Fascism? You know, demonizing an entire population and trying to eliminate them?
gravenimage says
The appalling and dishonest Chand wrote:
But an extreme military solution is also being espoused here by some……..THE FINAL SOLUTION. Exterminate them all if they do not surrender and renounce their false faith. Drop a nuke or two on a Muslim nation, like done to the Japs, to make them see the utter futility of resistance. Gas chambers, concentration camps, chemical or biological annihilation of all Muslims following that…. Visit hell fire on them! Surely that could work……………
……………….
What *absolute crap*. The idea that pointing out the violence of Islam means that Anti-Jihadists are Nazis bent on the “Final Solution” is grotesque and false.
I have been here almost eleven years and have not seen a *single* poster ranting about putting Muslims in gas chambers.
Robert Spencer does not preach violence, nor does any other contributor here.
Calls for violence are quite rare, and are deleted if caught.
This is nothing but projection–that warning about violence from Muslims–we have had over 31,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11–is somehow a call for violence *against* Muslims is just calumny.
gravenimage says
Jack and Ted, thank you–that means a lot to me coming from posters of your caliber.
Chand says
gravenimage says: “I have been here almost eleven years and have not seen a *single* poster ranting about putting Muslims in gas chambers.”
Apart from the ‘gas chambers and concentration camps’ bit, which I added just for dramatic effect, these ideas of TOTAL WAR on Muslims were read by me on another post on Jihadwatch just recently.
No, I did not make this up.
So, gravenimage please check out:
“TRUMP ENDS PROGRAM TO ARM ANTI-ASSAD JIHADIS IN SYRIA”. by ROBERT SPENCER, July 20, 2017.
Daniel Triplett says
July 20, 2017 at 12:13 pm
“Unless the American People develop the stomach and Will to Fight, at any cost, we’re doomed to lose this war.
My strategy in a nutshell:
1. Form alliances and objectives with Kaffir nuke states
2. To send an overwhelming show of force to the Ummah, and to prevent a catastrophic first strike against us, we vape Raqqa, the Iranian nuke production facilities and existing arsenal, the Pak arsenal, and the N Korean arsenal, all on Day One.
3. Criminalize the practice or promotion of Islam in Kaffir states, with a Worldwide propaganda/education campaign about why we’re doing it.
4. Offer surrender terms to all Dar al-Islam states, which go something like this: Within 72 hours, agree to immediately criminalize the practice and promotion of Islam, as we’ve done in Dar al-Harb, and in return, you will be unharmed, and you’ll keep your power, territory, and resources. If we must force your surrender to our terms, you will face violence on an unprecedented scale, and you will lose your power, territory, and resources.
5. For those Dar al-Islam states who resist the initial Allied terms, we randomly strike 1 Dar al-Islam target every 72 hours until they no longer resist, at which point we reapportion their state through a combination of redrawing territorial boundaries, installing governments of our choice, annexing some or all of their territory to neighboring Apostate states whom didn’t require our force, and using their natural resources for ourselves as spoils of war.
The above strategy is the fastest, least expensive, and safest way to win the war. In fact, it’s the ONLY way to win this war. If you have a better plan, now is the time to articulate it in detail for all Kaffirs to hear.
How specifically do you propose we break 1.7 Billion Muslims’ “Will to Fight?” That, by definition, is when we’ll achieve victory in this war.”
Of course, all anti-Jihadis aren’t Nazis but some do harbor these tendencies, I think.
And I never blamed Robert Spencer for anything. You are slipping up and making false accusations against me, gravenimage. Do your homework first.
Chand says
P.S.
Daniel Triplett went on to say :” Words won’t change the hearts and minds of the Ummah. Nuclear ordnance will.”
I’ve read similar things on elsewhere this website. The only good Muslim is a dead one, kill ’em all, nuke them all, etc.
gravenimage, you seem to be clueless about the minds of some non-Muslims in today’s world when you accuse me of being ‘dishonest’, in spite of your vast knowledge of the Muslim mind and Islam.
Brendan Cleary says
Well written, Hugh. What the woman knows about Islam is likely to somewhat less than I do, having been raised a Catholic, but that will not stop her celebrating her ignorance. Her desire to travel to the “land of smiles”, a country which is 95% Buddhist (something I truly doubt she knows), is truly hilarious especially given that the south of that country has been in constant fear of her murderous brothers, who have been killing school teachers, children, and innocent Buddhist families, in the name of her faith, for almost 70 years, with thousands killed and maimed by these murderous, Muslim mongrels. She is as empty headed as she is dangerous.
Leon says
So true, these ignorant people are extremely dangerous. The question I ask is “Who actually benefits from Islam”? Certainly there isn’t much, if anything in it for women, why they want any part of it is beyond me. The whole “reward” system in this “paradise place” appears to be continuous sexual gratification for stupid bloody Arab males. From my studies of Islam it appears to be a violent, sex based belief system. Would you agree?
b.a. freeman says
absolutely, and there’s a reason it’s based on “booty” and sex. muhammed wanted soldiers who would die for him, so he made up allah and all his bulls**t revelations, all of which were payoff to the thugs so that he didn’t have to pay them. better yet, once things got going good, the monster muhammed made sure that his fake god told the boys to fork over 20% of all the booty (and all the best babes) to him.
simpleton1 says
The teachings, actions, of Mohammad are only revealed to where they can enhance islam to the best effect.
An ok form of self deception, that in this case is used to beguile Westerners in this case. Sort of another form of abrogation.
So with the skill of imams etc. the teachings guided, hidden, or shown and it is only when one reads the full chronologically koran, with understanding of abrogation.
The hadiths are important in guiding a Mohammedan but can be put off, for another another time with excuses, but then can be revealed when the time is right, for a more devout life.
Monty says
If there was a crime of “criminal stupidity” many of the world’s leaders would be in prison by now. There is a conspiracy to placate Islam in much the same way as Hitler was allowed to rise to power in the 1930’s. He employed violent intimidation and murder to achieve his ends. Europe sat back and did nothing. A number of European nations did not bother to rearm after WW1, “The war to end all wars”. Like the “New World Order” of Mr Bush Snr, it was rubbish. Human nature does not change. We learn nothing from history, that also has not changed. As the western world has deserted Christianity, Islam has filled the vacuum. Jesus warned His followers that this would happen. Hitler was defeated but at an astounding cost in lives, suffering and money. Islam will be defeated also, but there will be much suffering in the battle to come. As a Christian I have no fear of the future. If I was not a Christian, I’d be extremely worried.
Moshe says
This is just one man’s opinion, Mr. Fitzgerald, but I was deeply moved by Ms. Voloder’s remarks. She seems so sincere, and her vision of Islam may inspire a broad-based Reformation in fulfillment of the Pope’s earnest hopes for world peace. Someday Ms. Voloder’s insightful voice and multicultural perspective may be as influential as that of John Lennon in his transcendent song, “Imagine,” as sung so poignantly at the conclusion of the London Olympics as an encapsulation of a world without borders.
Esma may in the fullness of time be the first Miss World to receive the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize, building on the rich legacy of Nobel Laureate and former President Obama.
Barry says
Utter rubbish. “…I was deeply moved”…. yeah I too was “deeply moved” by her b.s….moved to a big bowel movement….very apprapos….
Phil Copson says
Barry – I think Moshe was just having a laugh ??? Keep up….
Dapto says
Moshe a Hamas plant ?
Leon says
I would be surprised if the current pope even know what day it is. The doddering old fool.
Pim says
I wonder if you really listened to the lyrics of Lennon’s song:
Imagine (…)
And no religion, too
No religion! How many muslims are singing this song with you?
Ted Tyler says
Yes, Moshe, we can truly believe:
1. With Faith, all things are possible.
2. Wishing will make it so.
3. They couldn’t print it if it wasn’t true.
4. Good will always triumph over Evil.
5. Just believe in ___ (you fill in your particular deity) and you will have everlasting life.
gravenimage says
Moshe, I assume this is meant sarcastically.
Baucent says
That would be my guess.
gravenimage says
🙂
tgusa says
She put her fantasy speech together by copying and pasting from the leftist interwebs. I have a question for her. Are you smarter than a five year old? Oh never mind, I already know the answer.
mohamonator says
Did I miss something? Where is her hijab? Her abaya? Her niqab? Will she go on haj in her Miss World gown? The world breathlessly awaits.
Westman says
Exactly, the true test of Islam’s character is in the fruits it produces when forbidding that which it thinks is wrong. If missy can’t be herself, in western dress in 50+ Muslim countries, then calling Islam peaceful and tolerant is false whether by ignorance or deception.
When does the Miss World Australia world tour of Muslim countries begin?
Lynn says
Miss Volodor may not be safe in Australia. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, compared immodestly-dressed women who do not wear the Islamic dress with meat that is left uncovered in the street and is then eaten by cats. Australia has had quite a few sexual assaults on uncovered women.
Ren says
Miss World Australia: “I believe Islam is about peace, unity, prosperity and inclusion”. Let her be dumb!
JawsV says
Yes, just look at the Muslim countries and you’ll see all those wonderful qualities!
dumbledoresarmy says
Nota bene – her parents were Bosniak Muslims. That means that her Orthodox Christian Slav forebears, rather than endure the crushing burden of Dhimmitude under the Ottoman Muslim boot and scimitar, converted to Islam. Islam did not produce peace or prosperity or unity in the Balkans; it produced ruin and desolation. This woman’s parents fled from the Balkans to escape a war that arose at least in part because Muslims were not prepared to live on equal terms with non-Muslims.
But there is something else. If you know the least bit about Islamspeak and how it works, its ‘code’ terms, then that warbled sentence from our pretty Muslimah begins to sound downright sinister. – ““I believe Islam is about peace, unity, prosperity and inclusion”.
The special Islamic definition of peace = a global sharia despotism, with all non-Muslims either converted (and that includes ‘conversions’ at the sword’s edge, or by being kidnapped, raped, terrorised and beaten into submission, like Coptic or HIndu or Pakistani Christian girls suffer right now, today, in the 21st century), or subjugated as near-slave dhimmis (humiliated, exploited, robbed blind, degraded and in constant physical peril – for more on the hideous dhimma system, read Mark Durie’s “The Third Choice” – the dhimma is *intended* as ‘a system of soul-killing’), or.. DEAD. If that’s the definition of ‘peace’ that our pretty little Muslimah is keeping in mind, while she warbles the empty word that she knows we silly non-muslims will invest with *our* quite different definitions…. she’s as false as Hell.
And then there’s ‘unity’. THERE’S a key mohammedan code-word, right there. Tawheed. The ‘oneness’ of ‘allah’ – the ultimate despot – that is mirrored by the total and totalitarian collective of the Ummah. The only way to have ‘unity’ with that is by total submission… Muslims and dhimmis are ‘one’ in the same way as the master and the slave are ‘one’.
However: the world is not yet ‘one’, ‘the blob’ that is Islam has not yet devoured everything; right now that ‘unity’ is thwarted by the fact that there is not only dar al Islam, where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, but.. dar al harb, the Zone of War. Where kuffar live, unsubmitted to ‘allah’, by their own rules. They are an affront to that goal of Unity. They have to be forced into submission, so that all can be ‘one’.
As for ‘prosperity’…. She could be asked, sweetly, why there is a whole chapter of the Quran devoted to ‘booty’. Or why Mohammed talks about making his living by the sword — and why the Hadiths contain openly expressed contempt for any other means of livelihood other than robbing others of their stuff, by attacking them, killing them, or battening upon them by means of the system of extortion, the protection racket, that is the dhimma.
And ‘inclusion’ = subjugation. Non-Muslims are ‘included’ – that is, ‘absorbed’ into the Islamic system – when they convert to Islam, or when they are forced – or, these days, ‘groomed’, conditioned – into Dhimmitude, de jure or de facto.
For some idea of the way Islamspeak works, see here: “Islamic Dictionary for Infidels”.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/islamic-dictionary-for-infidels
gravenimage says
All true, DDA.
somehistory says
Where is her scarf? Where is her complete covering from crown of head to sole of foot? Her photograph has been taken without them. Did she model a swimsuit in the competition? What talent does she possess?
These things are nonsense anyway, but this one is beyond that.
No Fear says
Australia becomes Islamic:
2017 Contest won by Islamic girl, she walks along the street with her crown and gown. No one bats an eye.
2047 Contest won by Islamic girl. She walks along the street and she is stoned under the Sharia.
2057 Contest organisers stoned under Sharia. Contest never held again.
2077 Those who earlier stoned the contest organisers are themselves stoned because they are not Islamic enough.
dumbledoresarmy says
Defeatist.
Are you doing anything at all to try to PREVENT the conclusion that you seem to think is foregone?
Anything at all to oppose Islamisation?
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
Wellington says
This young woman is beyond dumb. She is destructively dumb.
dumbledoresarmy says
But what if she isn’t dumb?
What if she knows that she is, basically, the pretty Goodcop to the violent jihadist Badcop? That she’s being allowed to act in a way that we would superficially think of as unislamic, in order to produce cognitive dissonance in the targeted kuffar victims? Remember muruna? The permission to blend in, to act entirely unislamically in order, long term, to advance the cause of Islam. Huma Abedin didn’t wear hijab, either, and married an (ethnic) Jew… but that didn’t matter, because what mattered was having a conduit to the corridors of Infidel power; having influence, for Islam. The 9/11 hijackers drank alcohol and went to strip joints.
The function of females like this – who are far more dangerous than the niqabettes, the burka babes, the hijabettes – is to ‘human shield’ the Jihad, which is the ‘struggle’ to cause Islam to prevail.
She’s quite well aware that her job is to do PR. How many silly kuffar girls might end up converting to Islam, how many Aussie kuffar are being lulled into dangerous inaction and complacency, because of this oh-so-pretty and disarmingly-unbehijabbed sweetly-sinister Muslimah?
This woman – who will end up in Women’s Weekly and on tabloid TV, doing her bit to promote a dangerously false (and, therefore, deadly) misconception about Islam among the gullible kuffar – is far, far more dangerous than the openly-sinister burka babe all in black from head to toe strutting the streets of the supermarket in downtown Australia.
Wellington says
It’s possible, dda, that this young woman is very knowledgeable about her religion and, if so, then she is cleverer than I suspect she is (engaging in muruna and all that), but my strong hunch is that she is like so many from a multitude of religions, i.e., not very well informed about what their own religion says. As an example, I have to wonder how many professing Christians have read all four Gospels in their entirety——-or even one. I don’t think it would be a very high percentage at all, perhaps no more than 10%
But you could be right about her and thus it is best to not dismiss the possibility you raise. Be prepared and all that. In any case, whether this young woman is ignorant of her own faith or quite informed about it, the effect will essentially be the same, i.e., putting a happy face on Islam and thus allowing for the continuance of its exculpation. So, she needs to be countered whatever the degree of her knowledge of Islam.
Hope you are doing well. Take care.
gravenimage says
She is dangerous either way.
utis says
If she goes to Malaysia or Indonesia, I give her less than 12 hours to remain able-bodied. I feel really sorry for this kid, kool-aid poisoned from birth (google Jonestown).
Moses the Black says
As long as she sticks to the big cities (Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur) or the kaffir majority cities (Penang, Johor Bahru, Manado) she would be just fine.
HugoHackenbush says
What do you think would happen if she gave the same speech (live) in Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia? Speech aside, just going to those countries period given her competition in the contest (which, I suspect, had her engage in somewhat un-Islamic things)
HugoHackenbush says
If she does I hope she brings a HUGE supply of Mylanta (double strength) as she is likely to run into an acid problem (unrelated to the local cuisine).
jewdog says
This may sound a bit condescending, but beauty queens should maybe just stick to talking about whirled peas.
HugoHackenbush says
What do you mean. See the following link for an articulate rebuttal to your proposition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgDUwjyE3po
jewdog says
Okay, but Woody Allen has a lousy figure!
Tom says
Why is it that so many see peace and love in the Koran? Is it because it is a book that has a Jekyll and Hyde component to its content?
The Jekyll side is pounced upon by evil people who are Islamic, who, according to most estimates number over 300,000,000 (Three Hundred Million) worldwide.
The Hyde component is comprised of those who only want to see the good in the Koranic verses
( otherwise known as hippies or Liberals or Antifa to us in the west).
The trouble is that the Jekyll in Islam seems to be a far greater and stronger influence on the youth and converts to Islam than the Hyde component. Probably because those who are the religious scholars and leaders are of the evil Jekyll and are determined to overwhelm the Hyde in Islam.
So far it is working very well and those like this Miss World Australia are a dying breed of naive muslims that will be dealt the same apostate punishment as infidels.
Barrett Kalellis says
You’ve got the Stevenson characters backwards. Dr. Henry Jekyll was the nice guy, as contrasted to the evil Edward Hyde. Of course, this interpretation doesn’t do justice to the practice of abrogation.
gravenimage says
Exactly.
Tom says
Oops you are right. Thanks for the correction.
Joeyn says
Very good article by the great Hugh Fitzgerald. The Left purposely chose a Muslim to be Miss World so that she can help sell Islam to the world the same way they get Hollywood and the media to sell their disgusting and evil ideology.
Ted Tyler says
Or perhaps it was actually a beauty contest and she won because of her beauty and “talent”.
MELANIE says
OMG , it’s a beauty contest not an academic professorship! Calm the f#ck down?
Charles R.L. Power says
I just left a more longwinded message which says the same thing.
gravenimage says
Muslims are infiltrating the West at all levels.
Yes–it is “just” Halal meat, or “just” the Niqab, or “just” the Sharia’ah police, or “just” a few thousand Jihad terror attacks…
Joe says
Great article, Mr. Fitzgerald. I will bookmark this as a resource for red-pilling people about Islam. It’s a nice, concentrated, red pill.
Richard says
Esma Voloder “I believe Islam is about peace, unity, prosperity and inclusion.”
Funny that nowhere where there is Islam is there peace, unity, prosperity or inclusion.
Eur says
This poor girl will be used and then killed for “being a whore”
Benedict says
What can you expect from a talking machine with makeup? “Mundus vult decepi” – the world wants to be deceived and this is Miss World herself “speaking words of wisdom”.
If you’d ever get the opportunity to ask her questions, you should think twice lest you join the foolishness contest.
Baucent says
Hugh, don’t pick on the poor girl! She’s in a beauty contest! and like most contestants who stray into talks of “world peace and wanting to work in an orphanage”….she clearly knows even less about her claimed religion.
What sort of muslim girl enters a beauty contest without her hijab? Did she model swim wear? All this clearly show she knows very little about Islam and doubtful if she has read much of the Koran. As for Shariah Law; she probably thinks that’s the name of a pop star. This is one very nominal muslim girl who most muslims would disown as an infidel.
Save the scorn for more worthy targets.
Jack Diamond says
See dumbledoresarmy’s reply above. The fact that she brought up Islam in her acceptance speech at all and attempted to whitewash it might speak to an agenda. At the very least she has terrific propaganda potential (which may outweigh the haram element in her participation) as the face of a harmless, anodyne Islam of smiles and hugs that is not only not a threat, it is even alluring. Whether she herself is a silly airhead or something more insidious. You can see her value, she is pretty, you yourself want to protect her from bad old Hugh.
Lots of Muslim women in the West dress fully Western (for the time being) for variety of reasons, yes some are nominal Muslims, but others are intentionally blending in as “concealment.” Even Yusuf Islam gets to be Cat Stevens again (but not Steve Georgiou again) and sing his old songs again and make money off the kuffar for the Muslim Brotherhood (publicly for the “refugees”), not because he has fallen into apostasy but because it serves the larger purpose of Islamization for him to do so (note, he still rubs shoulders with Sheikh Qaradawi and his ilk, he is not shunned by them).
gravenimage says
Spot on, Jack.
Baucent says
Lighten up Jack, as I said, Save the scorn for more worthy targets.
Irene Brekelmans says
Another show of how the Muslims are loved. Of course it had to be a muslim who wins this stupid contest.
And then, what she wrote, it was so bad< I wonder. Bu how can it be that this kind of contest is all of a sudden ok with “Muslims, as they have to show bathing suits?
And to anybody who still believe you can reform Islam, YOU CAN NOT, not now, may be never..
There will be the peaceful and loving Christ, who will eventually step in and will give everybody the choice,
And then Muslims will know what the love of Christ is.
It is not going to work for muslims to take over the world, because we have reached the time that all religions and people have to work together and the earth will not be ruled by the New World order, which consists out of muslims and the so called "rich elite, kings and queens and ego politicians.
Something totally different will happen, you never thought could happen, all of a sudden.
The comments were great! thank you
Leon says
*And then Muslims will know what the love of Christ is.*
They certainly will, if you belive what the “good book” says, he will kill them for not having faith and believing in him, but in a *loving way* I guess.
CogitoErgoSum says
Can you quote me the verse from the Bible that says Christ will kill those who do not believe in Him? I remember something about His granting eternal life to those who believe in Him but I seem to have forgotten the part where He promises to kill unbelievers. Also, is “death” of the soul the same as death of the body? I have the impression that the soul is immortal and it has the free will to decide whether it wants to spend eternity living in God’s love or to reject that love and suffer the torment of an everlasting existence “dead” to God’s love and devoid of all hope of ever regaining it.
ME says
I am sure that she genuinely believe what she says. Many Muslims have no idea of what’s written in the Qur’an, just as many Catholics have no idea of what’s written in the Bible.
Ted Tyler says
ME, you wrote:
“I am sure that she genuinely believe what she says. Many Muslims have no idea of what’s written in the Qur’an, just as many Catholics have no idea of what’s written in the Bible.”
I would not go that far and I suspect that there may be some Orwellian doublethink going on with her. She probably knows very little about Islam -but has been schooled well to project Islam as a peaceful, wonderful religion. As far as knowledge of ones particular sacred text, a catholic I spoke with defined God as pure Love. I asked her if she had read the Old Testament. Her answer was a simple “No”.
AzB says
I suspect actually she is just really clueless or wouldn’t be in the competition in the first place.
Like those westeners who join things like the Kabbala because its trendy.
Ren says
@Ted Tyler
You mean muslims are being brainwashed.
patriotliz says
She’s living proof that you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig.
dumbledoresarmy says
She’s the lipstick. Islam is .. not a pig, because that’s an insult to pigs, but .. something horrible from the darkest depths of the human psyche at its most depraved.
Charles R.L. Power says
Really, a sledgehammer to swat a fly. She’s not supposed to be a writer or a speechmaker, she’s a beauty pageant contestant. There was nothing wrong with her thanking her sponsors and supporters. As for her remarks about Islam, they seem to be ripped out of context, but yes, they show that she probably hasn’t devoted much study to the faith. Who cares? Waste of space, sorry.
gravenimage says
Yes–everything about Islam is “taken out of context”…
Phil Copson says
62 comments so far and no one has yet picked up on what her job is ? Quote: “… her work as a criminal profiler. ” !!! This is brilliant stuff and beyond parody – a criminal profiler who can’t spot that Mohammed and Islam are stuffed to the gills with violent criminal traits……
Whatever next ? “Bondi Beach “Lifeguard Of The Year” award-winner admits “I can’t swim” “?
“Out-back explorer suffers from agorophobia” ?
Eur says
No one who declares himself a pacifist can be a Muslim. Islam begins with battles, continues wars and conquests and ends with submission.
Jack Diamond says
You must have missed mine at 3:15 am. Good times ahead for criminals in Australia.
gravenimage says
Thanks for pointing out that salient point, Phil. I fear for Australians…
Phil Copson says
“……. I fear for Australians…”
Thank you GI – my sister and I exchange messages from time-to-time about what is going on there – and I shall be able to compare notes in person with both her and my Australian brother-in-law when they visit England after a brief interval of only 43 years…….
Sarah says
A lot of us fear for ourselves too, Graven. Thanks for thinking of us! 🙂
Its funny, we have had very few terror attacks. We’ve had all the problems that the Western world sees when it takes in this lot – the sharia creep, the self-made martyrdom of Muslims moaning about Islamaphobia, sexual assaults and gang rapes committed by Muslims, the welfare, housing, healthcare and family entitlements rorting and abusing and the enclaving, to mention just a few elements.
But right now, they make up 2% of the population. We actually have, very few of them here – especially given our population is around 24 million. That’s not to say its a good thing having 2% – because despite that, we still see horrors being committed in the name of festering Islam all the time – but its going to take the Australian contingent of Muslims a hell of a long time to breed themselves into a powerful force, like they’re doing in Europe.
We have a couple of things on our side, though. We don’t accept so-called refugees by boat. Since we’re an island, the only want to get here on the sly without paperwork and without a trail to show who you were in your home nation, coming by boat is the only way. We have some very very very tough rules on that – and the rest of the West (the Lefties in the rest of the West) who have screamed at us for years for having this policy, can go eff themselves. Its kept us safe and its discouraged millions from attempting to come here.
We also have that cultural assumption that ‘the whole of Australia is racist’. Its a load of waffle, what we are, is intolerant to other culture’s who bring elements of their own culture here that affects us all negatively. And we don’t like enclaving. We expect immigrants to work hard, assimilate and integrate. Not enclave, not abuse welfare and not bring their problems with them and expect us to accept them.
Because of that, it makes it hard for the Lefties to get any big demonstrations or changes off the ground. When the refugee activists start going nuts because of the treatment of refugees and start demanding we open borders – the entire country tends to ignore them. When Antifa come to town, we do not pay them regard. We do not have a culture that has been warped to the point of ruination by political correctness. Not like the UK and most of Western Europe.
Think of our general attitude as much like the American attitude towards Islam. One side is all for Islam and Muslims. The other side (and becoming the growing majority) is intensely worried. Its just that our anti-Islam side comes without a huge chunk of us holding a gun lol, or praying to Jesus. We’re more secularized in a political and cultural sense than America.
Its going to get worse here, before it gets better – that I am sure of. But I do feel confident that we will not follow the path of Europe. We are watching Europe and all the problems Muslims represent. The Politicians are too scared to even change the ‘boat people’ laws, because they know they will absolutely, without a doubt, lose in a suicidal whitewash at the next election. Trying to implement any of the laws and legislation that Europe is invoking currently – our Pollie’s are too terrified to do so, no matter what political agenda they serve.
There’s something to be said for overpaying politician’s to the extent that we do. Its infuriating to see them with their snouts in the trough constantly, on our hard earned money. But it makes them weak and greedy – and they will absolutely fall into populism to keep that gravy train going. They do it all the time. They know now, that we just start voting for people like Pauline Hanson when they ignore us. They want that sweet sweet cash too much. Their self-serving greed is a very useful weapon to use against them.
AzB says
It jumped from 2.% to 5% in UK in a decade, and is expected to double again in 30 years, but that’s almost certainly wrong. More like 15-20 years. They always get this stuff wrong.
gravenimage says
Sarah, Phil, and AzB, good posts. I have a friend and relatives in Australia, but even if I did not, I would be concerned about things there as a part of the civilized West. We are all under increasing threat from Islam.
Mise says
Given the constant leftish push, or, in Deutchland, is that putsch, (given her east europe origin, in the interest of world globalism, to which all our liberal (for which please read ‘neo-liberal’) are all signed up, though they do not all have the tee shirt, were we to, next year, have Miss World in a muslim country.
Yes, my preference would be Saudi, beautiful women in swimsuits, strolling along past where, previously, some goat herding warlord (who also raped children) has some, mis-located, shrine, would, surely, be the epitome of the very new world order agenda they promote, and attempt to prevent the majority, from being in any objection to.see below
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1471_en.htm
the most important point in the above link being, ‘Next steps’, or, the technocrat reference to the ‘third estate’.
However, at least this lassie is not wearing a rag on her head, yet, and when we finally get fed the fuck up of A’ rab’s, can we please get rid of the salafists whom are actually to blame?
John A. Marre says
This airhead was chosen because she is Muslim. No other reason. Beauty contests are nothing but trash, parading shallow mental midgets before complete idiots.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
The Islam that I know, that is in the (Holy Ko-Ran), I don’t associate that with any acts that are occurring around the world.
That this is in the Holy Ko-Ran. What does that mean, does he admit to Islam’s inherent threat?
People tend to blame religion for the atrocities that are happening, but if we do that we take responsibility away from the individuals.
Two religions are blamed for many things, usually on shaky facts: Judaism and Christianity. Meanwhile, it’s becoming painfully obvious even to liberals that the Western elites, including academe and the media, abandon the facts and keep Islam blame free. This includes Fox RINO.
A lot of things have been misconstrued about Islam.
And on purpose.
mortimer says
Esma Voloder SPONTANEOUSLY and INSTANTLY knows more about Islam than PhD’s from Islam’s top universities. She knows more than those who have studied Islam every day of the week for DECADES and who have read 300 or 400 Islamic sources texts and commentaries and fatwas. These scholars may have written many fatwas themselves.
But NO! Esma Voloder ‘knows’ more than Islam’s BEST, TOP SCHOLARS.
How, you ask? She simply looks up the word ‘Islam’ IN HER GUT and whatever pops into her head first becomes ‘THE TRUTH’…
However, it is not true truth. It is ‘TRUTHY’ truth.
TRUTHINESS is defined by Stephen Colbert as: “Truthiness is ‘What I say is right, and nothing anyone else says could possibly be true.’ It’s not only that I ‘feel’ it to be true, but that ‘I’ feel it to be true. There’s not only an emotional quality, but there’s a SELFISH quality.”
AzB says
Indeed. Nearly all roads of the destruction of everything lead to salafism. It’s the uncomfortable reality. Just as puritans were often the worst in other times and other religions, they prove to be the same here. there’s a reason the early islam was not based on condemning everyone but yourself to be a heretic. Those that did ti were quickly identified as spreading nothing but civil war. And actually there were a few handy quotes from muhammad to back up the reason why they should be “detached” from the rest as “not following the consensus of the muslims”.
I think some kind of global ideological offensive could be launched by huge numbers of muslims to confront the charge that they have been in a slumber for 800 years until these guys came along. Would Allah really allow 8 centuries of slumber to pass? And who is now resisting the most for the muslims to become scientific nations etc? The salafists. So did not Allah know what was wisest?
the puritans are numerical minority and spreading chaos and hardly anyone in the muslim world wants their country to turn into saudi arabia so it shouldn’t honestly be such a hard task to achieve that conensus. And thus restore the more diplomatic relations of previous centuries.
AzB says
Well, when i say hardly anyone, i actually mean “there are hardly any countries where that is the majority opinion”. Mainly it polls around 20-30% at most. They like their balance with the local customs better. they don’t want to all kneel at the feet of the saudi practices til time immorial.
If it could only be portrayed that salafism is in fact saudi imperialism?
If the west will stop pestering the muslim world on human rights stuff for a while that might emerge more clearly. Not all muslims wants to eat with 3 fingers, they think its ridiculous. The behavior of Erdogan in putting jihad in front of maths and science will turn off huge waves of people.
If the west can only manage to be “quiet enough” for a little while it might work… because its still a fact salafism is a tiny percentage of islam (salafi hardcore jihad is about 1% total beliefs), and is responsible for the vast majority of the carnage in the world, and bringing entire religion into disrepute.
Jack Diamond says
My God, the Tiny Minority of Extremists are ruining it for the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims who just want to Co-Exist!
You know what? All true Muslims believe in Allah’s laws. Shari’a. Not just Saudis. All true Muslims believe in jihad. And a percentage of their zakat supports those Muslims fighting it.
You know what else? When Muslims get the “upper hand” vis a vis the kuffar, you will find out the awful truth. And that has always been the case. And it is becoming the case in much of Western Europe now. No matter how many “bad” nominal secular Muslims there may actually be, as opposed to LIARS (lying to infidels a holy thing in Islam), they don’t matter. When push comes to shove, if they remain Muslims and don’t apostatize, they won’t be on your side. Ever. And the reawakening of true Islam has to do with getting that upper hand, $10 trillion dollars in transferred oil wealth to begin with and the ability to afford global jihad….
along with the suicidal lack of belief of the West in itself anymore coupled with a limitless gullibility regarding Muslims.
Islam is “peaceful” only when it is dominated, weak, divided, and “feels itself subdued.” See a strategy there?
AzB says
I don’t plan on letting them “get the upper hand”…. muslim countries are for visiting. britain is not a muslim country.
I’m removing some of the easier refuted statements though such as a picture that all muslims follow this very same jihad code. they don’t . if they did they would all be practicing salafism or similar doctrine. Most of them consult the traditional jurisprudence and it is based on more than the qu’ran and haddiths. It took them centuries to write it all together. And within that context jihad has particular and very specific roles. It can’t just be launched whenever you want it and for whatever reasons against unbelievers.
they found a better balance of all the contradictory verses than that. cand with some flexibility. that’s why there can be christian and woman leaders of muslim countries from time to time. that’s why some have a parliament. That’s why some are more liberal than others. There’s a degree of variety about it.
To find out what the “mainstream” believes by jihad you cannot look at the qu’ran – you can only look at the jurisprudence collections (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali)., that is the authoratative collections of sources to guide to actual legal systems recommended…but even there, they often don’t bother to implement it all, especially if the country has a mixture of ethnicities in.
They often left things be for hundreds of years without bothering.
Saudi Arabia “flipped” to wahhabi’sm in early 19th century, which represent the first “big break” in modern times (from the consensus); After that, the salafists. And then the saudis spread the salafism through oil cash propoganda £2 billion/year. That’s shaken up all the rules. Because it is training a new generation of muslims to have much more “offensive jihad” based puritanical views. And to reject entirely the modern world – instead of making a compromise. More stress on the duty to actively spread islam by all the means necessary (though still within certain limits, at least in theory).
In salafism there is absolutely no escaping such practises as child marriages; whereas in other jurisprudence systems you can escape it, and it is banned in most muslim countries for that reason. but wherever salafism goes, the spread of stuff like child marriages will follow. So you see, it really is very important. they will destroy everything from books to sculptures to temples aswell. Just like boko-haram tried to destroy teh ancient libraries of timbuktu. collections of 1000s of books held by families in Mali for 1000 years. the muslims there never tried to destroy them before. Only now. Its all happening NOW.
My point is if all muslims stick to (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali). there WILL NEVER BE a conflict with muslims in this day and age. Not unless u invade their countries. but since they now have a new kid on teh block – salafism – and all the increasingly radical and destructive offshoots of that – and no one knows how to contain it yet – it has created a global terror threat. That threat DID NOT EXIST 40 years ago.
Its a genie that jumped out the bottle and attempt to create a world just as bad as jihadwatch says it could be. We aren’t there yet. If enough muslim countries have governments supporting (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali) then it will put a stop to saudi expansion … but the more states which flip, the more “real” the “global united jihad” may become. The biggest concern is definitely Turkey and migration from North Africa.
Im not attempting to downplay the significance of jihad, in various forms, i think its the most important political thing happening today. but i do have to say that pictures need to match with many peoples experiences of “freely travelling ” around muslim world on business and holidays and so on, and they can see in this age of internet it is not so clear cut that every muslim is commanded to “fight”. (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali) is why. Salafi to some exten deobandi and various other offshoots change the game. to something far more dangerous with never ending guerrilla tactics against modernity and effectively everything.
how you go about stopping that one is tricky. but putting the salafi+offshoots genie back in the box would represent a very significant advance…. for which (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali) will need shoring up, or being “Proven ” to be “the right system” in the eyes of most muslims. We know from those texts what jihad means then and we know it becomes political advocacy or self-defense military matters. Not really a worry if so.
AzB says
(Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali) laws aren’t some kind of 800 year long conspiracy preparing for this exact moment in history.
Its the traditions and those traditions are now under threat from new variations which look to recreate the very origins of islam in some glorious martyr form that by and large most of islamic history rejected.
that doesn’t make it any less dangerous to present world of course. it doesn’t take many radicals to change world events. World War I started with one person getting shot for example.
AzB says
I’m totally opposed to more multiculturalism from islam unless it is to “dilute” hardline forms – in order to force muslim groups to take into account more variety of cultural backgrounds among themselves (like having more malaysian muslims here).
I’m opposed to the west attempting to “spread democracy”, “remove leaders” or bully and lecture the islamic world about “human rights”>
I’m in favour of surgical strikes against all radical terrorists.
I’m in favour of ID card systems to actually measure and allow stop and search to be more effective. I’m in favour of shutting down organisations banned in other countries, such as salafi organisations banned ANYWHERE should be banned EVERYWHERE (like, germany banned some, which UK still kept – why???).
Even Egypt bans more stuff than we do. Its ridiculous.
I’m in favour of religion being regulated more – for example it should be completely illegal to advocate for “punishments for apostasy” in UK – because that’s coersion. its building a cult. And cults are illegal. So it seems very clear cut to me.
UK was similarly soft on scientology by the way – while the german government refuse to call it a religion and regards it as a money scamming brainwashing cultist operation. UK instead give it religion status and arrest a 15 year old kid for holding up the sign “scientoogy is a cult”>
We have to debate just what kinds of so-called “religious organisation” we are willing to accept. I do not accept “anything goes”. I think there shuold be age restrictions on some content too due to otherwise it may be like child abuse to indoctrinate people in a “too hardline religion” very young. It should be more obligatory to participate in a “shared” and “intelligent” cultural eduation throughout school years. After which person free to make up own mind.
I realise some others such as orthodox jews and a few catholics might not like that either but tough. this is too important we need to go back to the drawing board with what we mean by “freedom of religion” in the west. We cannot have proliferating cultist organisations or cover operations ” almost – but – not – quite ” inciting to attack “kuffars” or the overthrow of democracy.
If we can prosecute people for a defamatory “winky face” on twitter, i am sure we can work a lot harder to expose the islamic preacher equivalent of “winky face” to contempt for the mainstream of britain – or “winky face” to actually attack it .
So yeah i’m serious about tackling jihad. really just forming a few arguments after the summer events. Be time to pressurize various groups MPs etc soon won’t it….do we not have a right to demand that they honour their contract to “protect the public” when sufficiently well informed?
gravenimage says
AzB, I’m afraid your belief that the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence are somehow “moderate”–unlike the Qur’an–is much mistaken.
The Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat as-Salik)–that classic manual of fiqh rulings based on Shafi”i School of jurisprudence–includes such horrors as stoning women to death.
Jack Diamond says
and ‘Umdat al-Salik calls for the death penalty for apostasy, what the poster calls “cult” behavior… in fact, all these mainstream schools call for just that. Because Muhammad called for it. It sanctions slavery. Islamic law is the codified understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah, what Muhammad said and did. Who finds comfort in those “traditions”?
I think the poster is confusing the later syncretism in the Muslim world, the dilution of Islam in recent centuries, the domination of Western powers demanding things he attributes to Muslim legal tradition (like the end of institutional slavery, the end of the jizya and dhimmi system) with the teachings of Traditional Islam.
Does he really think these schools teach an alternate Islam to that of the “salafist” understanding of the place of women, child marriages, slavery, the status of non-Muslims, al wala wal al baraa, apostasy, blasphemy, the right to spoils (“war booty”) of kaffirs, or jihad itself (of which there are many varieties besides just armed combat).
And the distinctions between offensive and defensive jihad (the first requiring a caliph) become absurd when one understands how Muslims define defensive fighting, what they mean by “war against Islam” or “persecution of Muslims” or “corruption in the land” which obligate Muslim violence. Just as the Qur’an tells them this “fitna” is worse than a slaughter. Meaning killing is better than permitting what offends Allah and Muhammad.
AzB says
@Jack/gravenimage. Many thanks for the replies.
” I’m afraid your belief that the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence are somehow “moderate”–unlike the Qur’an–is much mistaken.”
No, certainly regard them as moderate, it’s a very conservative religion whichever way you look at it. IN all its legal principles and punishments. And it preserve all kinds of social inequalities of the type that were commonplace in european societies until WWII. And especially in relation to women, it is in fact worse. But Two world wars and a holocaust paved the way for a “new deal” of liberal values in Europe and America. No such history for the muslim world ….
But then we must wonder how long that will last here as all our social liberal changes caused a rapid decline in families, communities, and birth rates. Its not sustainable . it left the leaders of the coutnries with no option but to fall back on mass migration. That poses a dilemma for freedom loving westeners doesn’t it. Accept the need for positive reinforcement of family building (if not from religion, then from what – patriotism?). Alternatively continue with the freedom but then we have an age declining population pyramid and cannot afford our pensions or health care for elderly. Its a conundrum….
Islamic imported FGM and honour killing practices not the only strange practices to arrive on shores as of late. We have children declared to be witches by zealous christian parents from west africa. And many other things of this nature. It appears to be “the future” of big western cities, unless there is an alternative way to build a sustainable society. But what.
we’re in this weird situation of getting angry about people with more conservative values coming into society which only needed to invite them precisely because we lost quite a lot of our own conservative values. OR at any rate it lost some of the drivers and bolsters to having stable families. I wonder is the gap in the legal system between a “slightly more conservative west” and, say, malaysia, really so great?
Is it so great its actually unbridgeable in terms of cultural relationships and the avoidance of complete mutual suspicion. I wonder. I doubt that very much.
On the other hand i firmly agree that i do not want a large number of people to begin fencing off their commities in parts of london paris and elsewhere and laying down religious laws from books like “companion of the traveller” and forming their own little enforcement squads and gangs . The correct approach to that, in my view, is a patrician attitude to religions, by a state which is tolerant of people’s faith, but not of their particular rules. And which specifically “plans” migration and settlement to some extent to prevent any group ever reaching enough of a population to start doing things like that.
Basically pro-actively diluting it as we go along. According to what kinds of visas we hand out…
Muslims are expected to obey the laws of a land where they reside, so in theory, there should be no major problem .. but it all depends on the demographics and the ability and resoluteness of the government to put in place safeguards against excessive religiosity or isolationism. So that’s why i’m more bothered about salafists, compared to recent migrants from countries which experienced a “dilution in recent centuries”. Salafists wish to reverse all that dilution. And they want to actively push all other muslims to hold to that exacting standard. They want to condemn. The political ones would be the very first to argue the fitna justifies the violence. They aren’t pragmatic.
We need pragmatic people, not those kinds of people. The government is not wise to this yet but they need to wise up don’t they.
Its a bit like if there were suddenly gangs of orthodox jews going around harrassing the rest of the jews with old testament laws. there are actually some orthodox jews like that, but the difference is they are neither numerous nor in any way paid attention to . Whereas groups like salafists have the blessing of a variety of arab regimes – while being largely rejected by many other muslim cultures. Some Egyptians in islamic university there go as far as to call them “deviants”.
And i’m pretty sure they don’t do that in total ignorance of the rest of islamic practice/interpretation.
So basically we have multiculturalism, that’s a fact, we need a more “social planning ” aspect similar to china to avoid the problems, and we need some means to incentivise family building more, or else its arguing for no reason against the inevitable (bankruptcy or “total multiculturalising”, which i suspect, will result in the eventual wipeout of the liberal values and the rationalism. At least, in the european spirit and sense of that.
Put simply religiosity will increase on all sides and eventually the culture will be dominantly religious again. And then indeed, blasphemers will be getting lynched on street corners. I do believe the state has the right and should have the right to define what mixes of cultures it is intent on getting . If we can make that breakthrough then ok. No real reason to get so stressed about islam is there…
AzB says
@Jack. ah annoying “NO, certainly DON’T regard them as moderate.” Typo – apologies.
AzB says
@Jack. As regards apostasy, YES, my point exactly – it would make it a cult. And this is a key point.
This violates freedom of religion.
Therefore i believe all qu’ran commentaries and other literature should need to link to the apologetics on that which cites those muslim authorities who disagree it means death (now). Or that it would and could only ever mean it under a theoretical society which is never going to exist; so therefore its up to Allah so therefore, its totally up to the person’s conscience. Attach the said commentary.
For that matter require all religious institutions to provide “moderate” commentaries to all their books. So don’t ban harder traditional stuff. But do ensure that children are provided with a guide more in line with modern apologetics. (Most of them will probably mentally choose the more moderate option, especially growing up in this kind of modern country).
Make it a crime to stigmatise any person in any way on the basis of leaving their religion.
I’m more interest in exactly what the state can do to reform “human rights” in order to keep the later 20th C european values in place indefinitely on stable basis, compared to any such thing as declaring islam in its entirety is incompatible. there’s already several million muslims in the UK. Most were born here. Many just simply are getting on with work and not much engaged in theoretic or politics or anything else.
So yeah need a response to the “sharia threat” (so we never do arrive in a situation of blasphemers being lynched and its too far gone for the police to even try to stop it or whatever – or they are overwhelmed in their jobs) but i believe it should be proportionate to what is really going on.
That stuff abotu family building is just as important no point arguing to the end of time about sharia law if no actual plan to change the culture of europeans themselves in such a way they can be bothered to have kids and keep their own heritage going. Wouldn’t you say?
AzB says
PS about offensive/defensive jihad: Terrorists CLEARLY are employing a type of illegal (by sharia) “offensive jihad”. This point is rarely cited but it is very relevant in terms of assessing the attitudes of the rest of the muslim community towards terrorists.
Some might have loyalty sympathies due to politics or religion or ethnicity or family, etc.
Some might fully assist.
But many will genuinely take one look at the events and say “no, sorry, that is totally invalid actions – and we’re not even going to bury that person with religious rites”.
On these kinds of forums the perception might be that the community is engaged in some kind of giant taqiyya deception about islamic laws. Well that’s actually not true. So when i’m talking about traditional islamic laws, especially jihad, that’s what i mean.
Recent jihads have become increasingly radical to the point where eg 2% of muslims in lebanon approves of ISIL. And the percentages aren’t much higher in any other country in the muslim world.
So we gotta draw the line somewhere. Can’t say 98% were practising taqiyya. Does that mean there aren’t muslims practising taqiyaa. Of course not. There are some damn sneaky basterds but i regard that all as more like an ongoing chess game … tends to be played with some of the smarter individuals. The odd oxford academic preaching moderation but in reality has other turns of phrase in arabic…you know the type. Clearly we shouldn’t be mugs.
Doesn’t mean we have to adopt a false premise that “ISIL is a valid jihad”. its valid for radicals and revolutaionies but otherwise, its totally against the laws . They have to stretch it so far to make it work. Its a creative act designed purely to justify chaotic violence. And if there’s one thing muslim sholars don’t like, its chaos….
I think we have to regard the terrorist issue as a separate matter to political islamist strategy, though those might overlap, and political islamist strategy as separate to salafi youth gangs attempting to enforce sharia in their hood, or simply having wives who contribute zilch to the economy etc, and that again as different from traditional islam of the more pragmatic style, and not just get it all mixed up into one thing .
Our aims and our language should be clear and honest. In order that we can be strong and to the point in terms of whatever legal and cultural changes need developing to feel confident and happy about the future of our countries. In terms of keeping that space in the world for the free thinker, and so on…
teh various leftist and human right-ist hysterics are currently getting in the way to that. Best way to meet the challenge is probably with the utmost reasonableness… innit.
Guy Macher says
No Muslima is permitted to say such things unless her owner, a Muslim barrow, allows it. If she did not seek permission, this girl is already dead.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: Miss World’s Very Own Islam
…………………
Fantasy Islam. Who knows if this twit believes this, or if it is Taqiyya?
That Miss World Australia is Muslim is grotesque to begin with.
SK says
“takes responsibility away from the perpetrators”?
Modern anti-Islamophobia discourse, to my eye, is in no sense concerned with blaming an individual for their own actions. It is immensely interested in portraying Muslims who want to engage in ISIL-like behavior as having no choice due to situational factors that they have no control over.
If she thinks that people shouldn’t take “responsibility away from the perpetrators”, then there are multiple things that anti-Islamophobia proponents should decrease their blaming of.
Lioness says
Would the “real, misunderstood” Islam allow her to parade on stage in a skimpy bikini swim suit competition?
AzB says
This might have some unintended benefits. the more idiot westeners adopt completely crazy versions of Islam, the more there could be a backlash against the 19th-20th century revival of “itjihad” (independent thinking) instead of just following centuries of jurisprudence (which are fairly mild by comparison, and mixed with local cultures, more kind of “iran prior to 1979” or “malaysia” etc).
Trouble with “independent thinking” is it produce not only Miss Australia but also it produce Osama Bin-Laden. And it produced Wahhabism and later on Salafism the “wahhabi in a text book” export of western world which was supposed to improve purity but because 10 years of praying is a long time for your average muslim youth seeking to emulate Muhammad, as often as not, produces a street gang who not only think they are better than all the unbelievers but their own parents and everyone else you might reasonably expect to provide a “reasonably good influence” on young muslims.
And so criminality and terrorism is soaring…under the heading of “itjihad!” Some aren’t even happy with the saudi export version so go off on wild tangents of their own and produce youtube fatwas calling for random people they don’t much like to get beheaded etc.
So yep you can have Miss Australia islam with enough Itjihad, but you also get Al-Shabaab into the bargain. No wonder the mainstream muslims are not too happy with Saudi Arabia.
Egypt banned salafi texts completely. That’s why. Until the whole world decides to do the same, and possibly tell this idiotic woman that she isn’t a muslim either, then unfortunately we will have spiralling chaos because the genie of itjihad is out the bottle and the modern world is not going to stop at this point.
Besides which salafi are all insincere because they should be abandoning modern technologies (all of them since 8th century) and should be living in desert citadels only. They seemt o enjoy using mobile phones and other innovations while somehow still trying to create perfect replica of original islam conditions. And since they banned using any reasoning, you can’t explain it much to them either. !
AzB says
Actually we can’t do it by that means. Can only do it by refutation. Or else i guess it will actually catch the exposition on sites like jihadwatch aswell. Which follows the exact same logic to the salafis. But whereas this can be valid criticism of the religion, so must be free speech, it can also be followed literally as a “guide to life”. It should be accompanied by refutations really.
(But only at such a stage as western nations have a handle on the actual salafism and associated trends themselves; until then there is too much danger of inaction).
Longer term however it will be necessary to put the genie back into the bottle. Or else we’ll never have peace. We need the muslim world for oil for at least 40 years even on a generous estimate for alternative energy building. So the two will be intertwined until that time at least. No giant walls are possible. and would meet with a vast network of social resistance in any case.
It is ironic that robert spencer was banned from the UK for espousing essentially the doctrines of salafism, which is legal here. I think we could go point through point through his analysis and it would be provably almost identical.
Guess you didn’t sell the British government enough oil Robert.
Phil Copson says
I’m sure that it will come as a tremendous surprise to JW readers – and even more to Robert Spencer himself – to learn that “robert spencer was banned from the UK for espousing… the doctrines of salafism”.
I think you mean “exposing”…….
AzB says
hahah – point taken.
eduardo odraude says
AzB,
When you suggest that the main problem is salafism, not Islam, you make a huge error. The problem is Muhammad as described in the earliest Muslim biographies of the man, and as described in the canonical hadith collections. The problem is Muhammad, whom the Qur’an says numerous times is to be obeyed and imitated as the most exemplary of men. In the core Islamic sources, Muhammad is described as someone who said there was to be no punishment for murdering someone who insulted him. He also repeatedly said apostates were to be killed. And he did much else that is quite horrifying. See http://www.quotingislam.blogspot.com for quotes of the core texts of Islam with links to those texts themselves. Then you will see that the problem is not salafism. That makes as much sense as saying that the problem of Nazism was not Nazism itself, rather it was, say, Hermann Goering’s interpretation of Nazism. The problem is Islam itself, and Islam’s prime exemplar, who made no distinction between religion and state — Islamic law is based on the actions and statements of Muhammad, and that law is intended simultaneously as religious law and the law of the state, law that is highly discriminatory against non-Muslims.
gravenimage says
I’m afraid that neither Jihad nor Taqiyya represent “independent thinking” in Islam–both are *quite* mainstream.
AzB says
yeah…kind of. Jihad evolved to be a kind of realpolitik within the maddhab – the four main legal schools of islam. IN practice this resulted in lots of the “special circumstances” you hear about from muslim apologists over the centuries. Such as forming treaties with neighbours. And quelling unbelievers during initial fighting but then evolving it to be jirzya or some other more informal co-existence.
There was a mix of systems of governments in any case there still is , under the traditional schools, this is possible – hence why you can occasionally get christian president/prime minister in some country. the relationship between the government and the people is not completely nailed down in the islamic traditions.
Its why a place like malaysia was happy to keep its british style parliament ever since the days of empire, and it seems to work for them. Tradiational islam It’s more kind of pragmatic and casual. Because they accept consensus and reason building and discussion . These salafists don’t accept any of that. they regard it all as pure corruption.
At certain times jihad concept underwent revision in response to historical situations. For example til about 15th C (i think) it was “not a valid jihad” to overthrow a government composed of a majority of muslims or any other such ruler. But with invasion of Tartars a jihad revolution took place to make a new rule you could overthrow your government. This became the basis of the Wahhabi revolution a few Centuries later which create Saudi Arabia.
19th Century they started to dream up more jihads under the “iftihad” principle . Including the necessity to model it more in the stages of muhammads life, as robert spells out. that was at the time just a sect of puritanical islam and not very influential. It gained a lot more adherents in 2nd half 20th century as a response to modernity “polluting” islamic world and “the minds of all muslims”> Some theorist like sayyid qutb basically started to claim that not just a few muslims were in a stupor, but virtually ALL of them. And that became the basis for all these modern radicals to start rejecting the maddhab.
Salafism got a further expansion from Saudi propoganda program on the oil boom ever since. And has been quite influential in disturbing many countries settled jurisprudence to resemble more like the jihad on jihadwatch. this strict literal order. In theory its still supposed to be a puritanical thing but the amount of justificatinos for “offensive jihad” is just growing and growing.
at first it was “when your government allows it” then it was “take it into your own hands if you are not impressed with the morals in your country” then it was “and even fight the ‘far enemy'”…so for example, if you see that USA is behind Israel, and Israel oppress palestinians, then it becomes legitimate to target the ‘far enemy’ of USA – or its citizens. And from that terrorism evolve.
its still totally way off the majjhad but on the other hand that represent the existing “power” of islam from 10 centuries doing it a certain way. Who is to say there will not be shocking revolutions like the revolution of communism sweeping through the world. We know the young are more radical than their parents. We know saudi propoganda continues everywhere. We know there are violent groups in numerous countries and attempting to seize and sharia’ize numerous places. So its all playing out very vivdly now, sadly.
People from countries like Ghana look at this situation very sadly as they remember perhaps 30-40 years ago people were co-existing; and now there are incessant attacks on churches there. Saudi is the source of nearly all of it to be honest.
The idea of jihad as “inner struggle” only is completely deceptive however, and becoming more so considering how many people int he world claim it to mean aggressive proselytizing , or the overthorwal of governments to make sharia, or even terrorism, it has never meant just that. that is just a gloss. Indeed, the “Inner struggle” part is downplayed to a large degree by salafists. It’s theorised the “inner struggle ” jihad period of the first couple of centuries was its most productive in terms of ideas “golden age” because of the emphasis on meditation systems. Which were very diverse at the time. Salafists don’t care about any of that, they’re more interested in smashing up idols and shrines, and feasting with 3 fingers because muhammad feasted with three fingers.
So if a muslim today talk about “inner struggle ” ask them their thoughts on the role of sufism in islam and whether they believe it is being corrupted and destroyed by salafists. On the other hand, some salafists have used “inner reflection” to dream up things like the “far enemy” jihad – claiming it as a kind of personal revalation insight. I guess president erdogan is now hoping lots of young turks dream in these terms and become very animated about the way in which all the worlds events maybe connected in a pattern which allows to build an army of some kind. A religious army.
Jihad these days can take on a grand scale such as fighting “zionism” which according to conspiracy theories can basically be everything – the whole of capitalism.
So yeah.
Its getting a bit crazy.
Time to get building wall, EU. I’m sure they’re familiar with how world war 2 began by taking a small chunk of a neighbouring country (cyprus?). etc.
I’ve got a theory the early decades of islam were so bloody and violent that it became unsustainable and they had to evolve to a more pragmatic version. Which while not strictly litearlly in line qu’ran nevertheless stopped a total bloodbath. And they just kind of settled onto that because anything else was civil war. And now all these salafi offshoots are trying to “revive” the very same kind of stuff..and it will have the very same results, only its in a much more complex world today.
Probably be a good time to stop encouraging broad readings of jihad eh. And try to steer muslims back to that received wisdom of their legal schools, if at all possible…
AzB says
If they stick to their traditional schools, the chances are the people will “slowly modernise” things as they will “slowly argue the case”. It won’t be as fast as in the west or anything like that but it is at least conceivable.
Whereas if its a salafists and anarchists and revolutionaries world for the next generations then it will be an almight conflagration across every continent.
that’s a cheery thought innit.
AzB says
I think they are preparing an invasion of Europe. A military one. A proper one. Ever since 9/11 they’ve spread as much as possible the idea that’s zionists – “jews hiding behind everything” – and global warming is the new one. Erdogan loves that. Its just another way that capitalism created a “great evil” – all the gleaming skyscrapers of the “satan worshippers”. Ruthlessly exploiting the world’s resources. Causing hardships i mean as the flooding in places like bangladesh increase and the temperature of nigeria is rising expect this rhetoric to grow very greatly.
Thus the eventual battle lines are going to be the mediterrean sea plus the land border with Turkey. It will not be hard to whip the muslim world up into an excitable state having changed as many education systems as possible over to medievalist jihad systems. And of course because of mutliculturalism they have quite large populations already slumbering in all the european capital cities.
the “advance armies” as people like Ghaddafi regarded them.
The only option for europe would seem to be (1) fix global warming and fast (2) introduce more of a police state (3) support all governments resisting the salafization of school curricula or politics (4) reverse the saudi brainwashing wherever possible.
Traditional islam will cater much better to all the young radical liberals in the muslim world, and they are a “great ally” in all of this… they are the natural inheritors of the more “casual” kinds of societies they might draw from their parents generation.
The west should take strong action against all forms of salafism. De-radicalise. Perhpas even ban such texts, as Egypt has. At least, not without commentaries on why this is all intellectual nonsense to read things that way. there are serious arguments against it. We need more smart islam scholars and we need them to travel around mosques setting kids on the right path.
Frankly i do blame political correctness for all of this because of the idiocy of “all religions are equal” yielding such a wafer thin grasp on the make up and politics of all these sects and schisms. Not possible to debate if your school curriculum mainly just says; “Lets be nice to each other”. Embarrassing.
Also its caused by internet era data propagation networks – undermining the ability of regimes to keep their populations docile – both liberal and violent become more radical in the process. That’s why arab springs broke down of course. And bush war for that matter. On top to that there are so many conspiracy theories floating around and an increasing and alarming tendency on all sides to link up ALL THE DOTS into one GIANT picture and then just roll with that and stoke it up some more and stoke it some more and so on. It’s not a process anyone can necessarily stop now.
I will however be doing my best lol
gravenimage says
AzB, you have lauded the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence before as “moderate” and “modernizing”, but these include such horrors as condoning “Honor Killing” and stoning those guilty of “Zina” to death. This is orthodox Islam–nothing “modern” about it.
AzB says
No, i’m not lauding them…. I am saying that when combined with a reasonably stable system of government, it results in a large drop to the radical terror threat. I’m not much bothered if i am honest what systems of government people have in their own parts of the world.
I’m bothered about such things as creeping sh’aria, islamization of the west, radicalism, radical terrorism, puritanism, street gangs. Here.
I’m not a human rights extremist that is expecting to ever “modernize” the entire world. Its like poking a hornets nest . But what i AM saying is that given the amount of scientific information in the modern world, and the lack of appetite for actually enforcing “stoning” (how many countries in muslim world ACTUALLY DOES IT?! Not many). Who is doing it.
There are still witch burnings by christians. So if going to get so angry about the incidents of things like this then it should be Richard Dawkins style – all religions are evil. etc
I personally take what i think is a more pragmatic approach. I know for sure that 40-50 years ago the relations between christians and muslims in places like Ghana was much better. It’s deteriorated and deteriorating and the most likely explanation for that is the spread of Saudi influence. As it turn people minds more to see very hard lines between themselves and other groups. It leads to more hate preaching. Instead of more moderate preaching.
Obviously i don’t agree with such laws as a woman’s evidence is worth half of a man’s in a court. Totally unscientific and illogical. And all kinds of other stuff like that. I’m sure it harms their economies and increases the chances of dictatorship regimes and bad governments.
NOT MY PROBLEM THOUGH,.
My concern is how to reduce the likelihood of radical splinter groups breaking off and setting bombs in western countries…and for that, i think the salafists and various others on the internet are playing a massive role in all this. More so than the 4 schools of law.
It was particularly as common 50 years ago for a muslim to make a special effort to come to Britain or France to blow stuff up. they could have done it but they didn’t. NO, it was leftwing communist groups then wasn’t it. Maybe a few on behalf of palestine.
But nothing like now.
All this stuff about attacking the basic sharia, i think its a mistake, because….i think once you attack it, it causes the liberals in islam to start kicking up a fuss demanding more changes, but when they do it (like in tunisiua libya egypt etc ) then the hardliners start kicking up a fuss TOO and then it just turns into a chaos.
we knowin salafism there is NO SCOPE for consensus judicial reading. NONE.
That is not the case in all the various traditional shura assemblies and parliaments aroudn muslim world. So as things stand, with or without authoratarian regimes, it is BETTER, than an islam which suddenly goes for hard attacking on the “basic” sharia.
And evidently basic sharia is not actually carrying out that many stonings in the world. Is it. It’s doing a lot of bad stuff to women’s rights and gays and its preventing freedom of speech and its blocking economic development. yes its doing all that for sure.
But the incidents of stonings are not very frequent. I believe the evidence bar for that is something ridiculous and it makes no sense. So normally they just put people in prison instead…. or probably take a bribe, you know how these countries work righjt.
AzB says
Oh yeah as example, you mention “condoning honour killing”.
Well pakistan just banned that, made it illegal
You might think it’s taken them a long time to do it.
But, they have done it.
So the parliament level law can often adapt what the jurisprudence says. Its because of consensus and some degree of using reasoning into the bargain.
that’s what i mean about “slowly modernize” (but through existing institutions).
Rather than expecting a sudden radical break with the past. Because you get the wrong kinds of radicals. And they’re the violent dangerous scary ones…
that’s just my analysis for how and why various arab springs have failed.
Jack Diamond says
Ijtihad is a legal term referring to a process in Islamic jurisprudence which does not currently exist. Even if the “gates of ijtihad” were thrown wide open again it would not impact Islamic doctrines of most concern to infidels, such as jihad (which also has a legal definition in Islam). Jihad is an obligation from Allah to man, a Right of Allah in their legal parlance (in Hanafi law, a hukm shari) which no man-made reasoning can ever overrule. Salafis are not doing independent reasoning, nor are the “salafi texts” divergent from what is already contained in the Qur’an and Sunnah. They are not innovating anything.
As for using western technology as a weapon against it (from jet airplanes on 9/11 to cell phones to communicate or set off bombs) there is no contradiction, the Qur’an says to make use of all the steeds of war. That would include the nuclear bomb and the television both. The rest might just qualify as “booty.” In any case, the tech-savvy salafi (an engineer like bin Laden) may well want an ultimate return to the 7th century, but they want it for you too, not just them.
AzB says
Salafi is not divergent from qu’ran and sunnah , on the contracy, its very very strictly adherent to those (and within the parameters of the first three generations of muslims).
It is, however, divergent from all other schools of islamic jurisprudence. It rejects – analogies – consensus – “following the law without reading the texts carefully yourself” – and innovations (relative to texts). The role of reasoning is greatly reduced in favour of literal adherence to texts. Which in practice leads to calls for extremely harsh penal codes, just like in saudi arabia. Its supposed to be exact and perfect.
There’s a contradiction in trying to match exactly the lifestyle and customs of muhammad and companions and followers though. there’s a contradiction in rejecting modernity as a corruption of the natural world but nevertheless using it when it suits you. To “recreate” the perfect “sunnah” would require to become some kind of reclusive community and to only fight those who encroached upon that community. Muhammad’s example is confined to small region of arabia.
They just conveniently generalise it to a global challenge across multi-dimensional space of modern technology. In the process and by their own standards corrupting themselves, in fact.
they may wish to make up arguments to avoid this awkward conclusion but that is what they are doing.
Jack Diamond says
{To “recreate” the perfect “sunnah” would require to become some kind of reclusive community and to only fight those who encroached upon that community. Muhammad’s example is confined to small region of arabia.}
On the contrary, it is Muhammad who launched the jihad wars, and they were hardly defensive in nature. Re-read surah 9:29. It declares war against people solely because of what they believe or don’t believe concerning Allah and Muhammad.
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”
Q 2:193 “fight them until there is no more fitna (disbelief, worship of others beside Allah) and worship (all and every kind) is for Allah alone.”
Sahih Muslim 4294: “Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah… invite them to accept Islam… if they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya, if they refuse to pay the tax seek Allah’s help and fight them.”
Why do you think the Muslim armies left Arabia in the first place to conquer and subjugate the outside world? Who is Caliph Umar imitating if not Muhammad when invading Iraq: “summon the people to God (Allah), those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness, if they refuse this it is the sword without leniency”?
Ibn Hisham “Biography of the Apostle”: “Muhammad sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him ‘Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them..if they refuse fight them.’ They entered Islam by force. He (Khalid) brought them to Muhammad who said, ‘had you not accepted (Islam) I would have cast your heads under your feet’.”
And so the Encyclopedia of Islam can say, “the duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. “Until the day of the resurrection”, and “until the end of the world” say the maxims. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.”
What does any of this have to do with becoming a reclusive community in a small region of Arabia who only fights when encroached upon?
All of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence and the consensus of scholars agree on all of this by the way. The idea they go off in different directions on the prime matters of life and death concern for infidels is false. Anymore than the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood are different from the al Qaeda/ISIS jihadists and all the other rivals for the caliphate.
As for reasoning for yourself, try to get around how the Qur’an defines a Muslim:
Qur’an 4:65 “they can have no faith until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.”
Or the fact that Muhammad himself called the Salafi the best of the Muslims. Those first 3 generations of Muslims (Sahih Muslim b31 n6159). The worst, from our point of view.
Can Egypt ban Muhammad along with the “salafi texts”? Has this ban improved life in Egypt for Coptic Christians? Why not? Could it have something to do with the “hate and enmity” for Jews & Christians ordered up by the Qur’an?
AzB says
@Jack . I can’t reply on your post unfortunately.
IN an army, can a random soldier do what they like? No, they have to follow chain of command. That’s how jihad works. or at any rate, before all this “deviating from the mainstream”, that’s how it used to work.
A particular muslim people have a leader, and the decision to engage in jihad works at the level of nations, adn the decision comes from the leader, and then that army would fight.
OK so why did muslim countries not simply launch wars constantly for hundreds of years. The reason they did not do this is because the leader is only permitted to “declare war” on unbeliever nation if their army is at least 50% as strong (i think, it may vary on the traditions).
But throughout the entire period European countries had more power. So it was a lost cause. In present world, military budget of USA is 10 times the military budget of the entire middle east combined. So even if they were one government, instead of many governments in disagreement, they still can’t launch the war.
They DID try. With the “jihads” against ISrael. But they lost all the wars.
So that just leaves the other kinds of striving which CAN include the islamist groups “showing one friendly face” in the west, while in reality, seeking positions of influence and to exploit western laws and sensibilities for hte benefit of protecting and advancing islam. that’s obviously going on. All the time. And anytime a muslim is arrested he or she will have a whole “team” ready willing to chip in some cash or professional support, etc. Its a bit like the Free Masons in that respect (the islamists).
But yeah in any case in THEORY with the traditional jihad rules, its only possible if the LEADER of a muslim nation in a position to wage it and deems that they can win the fight. it’s not something where an INDIVIDUAL can pick up a sword and declare their own nation . That’s one reason ISIL had to make their own caliphate – a totally new state – to launch jihad; but they are regarded as fools by the remainder of muslims not only for bringing so much negative attention onto Islam, but for their actual lack of understanding of islamic texts, and also, for massively overestimating their own strength in this “battle” (as can be seen from the fact they lost the land).
The group will go down in islamic IGNOMY not as a “PERFECT EXAMPLE”.
On the other hand, and more problematic, there are numerous offshoots which are interpreted jihad in whole new and increasingly radical ways. Al-qaeda of course. They basically REJECT the old conventions of treaties between entire nations. they decide “they are their own leader” and can take action and that it is duty ON A PERSONAL LEVEL (no need to talk to any imam, no need to get permission of your leader, you can just do it).
Their argument? That all the muslim governments are fake anyway. So having discredited all their governments they then conclude: SO therfore there is no possible source of the jihad command, but Allah. And then they decide to go into action themselves. It’s like a MILITIA instead of a solider in an army. Which is exactly what they look like right.
Boko-haram and Al-shabaab are actually following the rules though. And so did the janjaweed in north sudan, against south.
Theres nowhere i can think of right now where muslims would achieve this majority. Not only that – they actually need the GOVERNMENT to give the command to purge society or whatever of unbelievers. The ones which don’t are technically a criminal. This is how the balance works in places like India, in spite of mixign constantly between msulims and polytheists. Its why there isn’t just constant fighting in the streets.
So yeah kind of right. but jihad doesn’t make sense in the traditional schools without the warfare part coming from the appointed general of the land; which is the ruler’ nation. And they can only declare war if they are confident of victory.
Obviously the west is very much mightier so there’s no way right now to declare war on the west as a whole; only those muslims who rejected all their countries leaders and became renegades can do it. The problem is if too many muslims reject their own coutnries leaders and traditions and just start making it up as they go along almost like anarchy.
That’s what happened in the 1st century too. Various groups like the kharaji .
Most of these terrorists will tell you that the reason they are “entitled” to wage a jihad themselves is because most of their own governments are “corrupted” and “polluted” by western money and “zionists” etc so of no value. Both bin-laden and sayyid qutb were prevented from teaching islam the way they wanted by their governments; so they then declared the governments invalid; and that opened the way for “personal jihads” by terror groups.
make sense yeah
AzB says
@Jack. Because in the example of qu’ran and sunnah,. all orders for battle are clearly decided by muhammad ie the leader of the first muslims. So according to that example, it requires a leader, which is whatever government there is in place.
Obviously you don’t want to be the weaker neighbour to a muslim country (especially not if your country is polytheistic). Hence why the buddhists are so wary of the muslims and frequently quell them…
It only breaks down if there are a lot of people running around believing that none of the governments in the world are sufficiently islamic. Or all corrupted by satanic capitalism, or whatever they believe.
Which is exactly what is happening. EXACTLY.
16th Century innovation allowed popular revolt against your government – wasn’t permitted before. 19th century began to define “modernity” or “corrupting forces” in general as a valid reason to overthrow your government. Not for any more concrete reasons.
And then it just mutated more and more in 20th century the more was learnt about the world, the more arguments they had to declare governments invalid. they could borrow all kinds of arguments from capitalism, environmentalism, and conspiracy theories about how jews are behind everything in order to destroy the world or whatever. Possibly its christians who want to bring on the end times. they believe all this kind of stuff.
The internet has been a mixed blessing indeed.
AzB says
Foreign policy adds to their arguments, but it’s not like they didn’t have plenty already.
Iraq war is often cited but they have a list of 20 “crimes of british empire” already so there’s no getting the UK off the hook. UK is the enemy for sure.
And France and Spain due to their own empires.
Italian empire pre-dated the muslims which could be an explanation for why Italy has not had any terrorist attacks at all. its deemed to be catholic and not part of the zionist conspiracy.
So yeah…i agree with your text quotes, but there’s a bit more to “jihad” than meets the eye. Which is why it must be watched so carefully….lol
gravenimage says
AzB wrote:
OK so why did muslim countries not simply launch wars constantly for hundreds of years.
……………..
AzB, the West largely isolated Islam after having technologically outstripped Dar-al-Islam for the past two hundred years.
It is only when we forgot the threat of Islam and began letting in hordes of Muslims that we have seen the resurgence of Jihad.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Jack.
AzB says
@Graven.
yeah…i actually completely agree with you. We’re in a new phase where much of the politics in Islam reflect them turning their minds to a “new golden opportunity” to expand islam. They see the West in terms of colony and long term game plans. Without a doubt.
People in the west have tended to ignore this because of basking in the relative military might we currently possess, and in effect, they took their eye off the ball big time. They probably just laughed about people like Ghaddafi saying “Women , you will deliver us Europe without the need for bombs”. People have a hard time visualising 50-100 years into the future.
So they assume the islamic “investment in multiculturalism” is a genuine “investment in progressive culture” and a “future without barriers”.
nothing could be further from the truth. It’s kind of like a situation where there is a chess game going on, a 50-100 year long chess game, but one of the players isn’t aware of it, and keeps on voiding their opportunities to move. Or making excuses for why the other players moves were hostile.
That’s the reality, i am well aware of that.
But, the “muslims” as a whole, its a little like the structure of an army, where much of the basic level “recruits” is not at all focused on matters of strategy and just spends time off playing cards chatting drinking watching TV etc.
however you woulnd’t say because of that that the army as a whole was powerless. Not at all. Because it has organisation. Structure. Hierarchy. Objectives. Rules.
And when conceived of in that level, then YES, islam is clearly a threat to the west. Trouble is most westeners (1) have a 5 minute attention span – and this is a 50-100 year chess match (2) assume that because they are friendly on the sociable level (the chat and TV and work mates etc) that there is no “greater structure” – no army – think “footie match between germans and english on christmas day in WWI”. People, normal people, can fraternise, even when they are different sides, even in a genuine war, never mind in a time of peace. Normal people are pretty sociable on the whole. The politicians and the generals with the objectives are the ones who are “most at war”. (3) Westeners are lazy and don’t do much research. They might get anxious about islam because of the terrorist attacks. OK, they go online, they find out qu’ran. they read some scary verses first time. get briefly alarmed. But then they dig around some more and someone says” no no its ok, that’s historicla context, its not intended for today” or “jihad is a mental struggle, its about practising faith” or “taqqiya is only for when you are being persecuted”. And that’s it. That’s the COMPLETE extent of their research into islam. Its more comforting to find the good, its more comforting to avoid any sense of a conspiracy theory, or conflagration, or the possibility of needing to formulate a plan, or seek guidance, the mind works pretty hard to shut it all out. Imagine tearing up a society because of some error . Or lies someone was spreading. So there’s this big wall of resistance.
OK so what should be done. Well..it’s pretty obvious the qu’ran verse reading is not enough to sway the argument. there’s too many plausible counterarguments. If it was a jury trial, no one would convict. the christian bible has a lot of bad and crazy stuff in it. even the new testament occasionally says something like “I come with the sword”. etc. And hten there’s the crusades, and US foreign policy , and the KKK, and burnign heretics in the middle ages. Its not a big leap to imagine Islam is now at the stage where it is “joining us in fellowship for the modern time” when “everyone will be at peace and there will only be progressive people working together – different, but together” – how lovely.
How very postWar UN! lol.
Problem though. The 50-100 year chess match is happening. Just as much as global warming is happening. They are both real! lol. Other conspiracies, no, some of them are NOT real. And all of these issues are very hard for people to understand. So they go on instincts. I think this is why leaders eventually resort to lying and alarmism, because its the only way to shake up a population and get them to “see things the way you want them too”. So they resort to propoganda in the end and savaging their opponents, in the hopes of shocking people awake.
I don’t think a population will accept the best processes without having the best information. we shouldn’t just use propogranda style. Many will reject it because many do not want to be led into how country shapes up on basis lies. Lies took us astray too many times already.
but we know people aren’t going to be able to understand the 50-100 year match based on a few qu’ran verses. it’s not enough. They won’t trust bizarre crap discovered in haddiths either. What they MIGHT trust is a long exposition of all the genuine islamic sources – the legal systems, the opinions of scholars on jihad through the ages etc – and revealing the degree to which curent arabic politics genuinely talks in those terms, and conceive of islamic politics as a type of expansion game to last a century.
I think they’ll take necessary precautions then. But its quite a long process of research to understand it and get the balance right. I wonder if even one MP in parliament today – 650 of them – has so much as picked up a single authoratative source on islamic law and read right through it. Doubt it.
Another bias: People think all this medieval style writing is actually a thing in the past. They mentally put it on the same developmental time line as if it was european “history” and so assume, if it seems like medieval style, then “clearly” not many in the muslim world actually genuinely has that world view today. they don’t seem to understand, even though there is so much evidence, that the medievalism is still alive and well . Its been preserved through centuries of preventing change in the societies. Passed on like torch one generation to the next unchanging.
They therefore convince themselves that when islam says it wants to join in the “progressive culture ” of today, that it means it. THey don’t realise that progressive culture is deemed merely a space to colonise – by the generals of islam – slowly, and over many decades. To colonise – and then to slowly change. To come to fit more and more the medieval picture they have in mind. “The truth” – to them.
They’ve been quite successful in portraying this picture as a type of “islamophobia” – its on the list of “key characteristics of islamophobia”. They actually managed to portray a true thing as a type of phobia. And lots of our fellow europeans and americans believe this. They believe falsehood. So yeah. Its been quite a succesful strategy so far.
My feeling is the balance of strategy in islam is not actually that great though because they have a hard time reigning in the arrogance and the violence around the periphery. And it is for this reason that other cultures eventualy become defensive towards islam and reject it and kick it out of their societies and fight it. the same as the jews do, the same as the buddhists in burma do. Not realy much choice when the religion insist on attempting to grow itself using these kinds of tactics. !
but yeah, hopefully can avoid any future massive wars over it. Hopefully can develop the intelligence of westeners more in the meantime. get them to think and to read. The parliamanetary process will ensure changes to the law and changes to rights frameworks then. Which will halt this advance.
AzB says
@Graven. Actually that final para sounds a little weak. I think its simply a case of activism. The genie is out the bottle for sure.
Just way too many attacks round Europe. Trump elected. Hungary and Poland kicking off. Brexit.
And the expansion barely started
Poor self-control will be the undoing of the islamic plan in my opinion. If you write so much incitement to violence in some of your most respected sacred texts and commentaries, don’t be surprised when disaffected youths pay no attention to the nice imam and decide its better to “advance to paradise”…
AzB says
@Graven.
The biggest apologetics lie..that all islamic laws can be explained away as “culture”. I actually chatted to a girl not so long ago who explained to me that all of saudis harsh practices were “cultural” not “religious”
Typical western student viewpoint.
They also like to say that all terrorism is “Political” and not “religious”
This protection of religion is so naive. I guess they just never considered a religion which was also a strategy tactics and military conquest manual. Such is the degree of ignorance!
So the reza aslam piece actually is a great taqiyya i think…. when he says “religion fits into its cultures”. This is true to a degree. As usual, it has elements of truth. Saudi partly IS cultural. Its a royal family dynasty. but its overwhelmingly islamic. terrorism parlty IS political. It certainly is in palestine. But it has a very great deal to do with religion – both sanctioned and radical. Its giving life to parts of war manuals that are theological. Its a theology of war, more than a theology of peace. The “religion of peace” label is one of the greatest taqiyyas. And reza’s statement yes again it has some truth in it. islam does “fit different “in into malaysia compared to morocco. Berbers and Malaysians are a different kind of people. With a different kind of temperament and different kinds of tribal structures. So islam does shape around culture . that’s why most of them don’t want saudi propoganda.
But that doesn’t mean its infinitely flexible. It doesn’t mean it isn’t actively engaged in colonizing. Maybe the strategy of colonization has to differ according to cultures, maybe that is what Reza meant to say…
AzB says
If you say that the “correct” way to eat is 3 fingers, then the “correct” way to fight is with the sword. Or else if one can adapt, so can the other.
There’s no need to accept their interpretations as making any sense. I’d say that would be a huge mistake actually.
AzB says
Concept of jihad certainly has changed and is disputed.
Else you cannot explain why the salafist party in egypt wish to prevent women and christians from being members of parliament.
but the muslim brotherhood and other parties reject the interpretation.
this split is very clear actually. You can see the hallmarks everywhere in nearly all the troubles (idol smashing for example – why now, why after 1400 years are buddhist temples “suddenly” impurities).
its this new puritanism and its spreading chaotically and yes it is a very offensive jihad. but you don’t see a country like malaysia even remotely blowing up ancient temples .
Its because they aren’t salafist puritans. Not yet, anyway.
gravenimage says
AzB, the Muslim Brotherhood wants to establish Islam as the only allowable creed–just read books like “Milestones” by Sayyid Qutb.
Your idea that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate and open to equality between Muslims and Infidels is much mistaken.
AzB says
@Graven. I’m not stating the muslim brotherhood is moderate.
When i state that a particular muslim movement is not as extreme as salafism, that doesn’t imply that the movement is as a result “moderate”.
There is no such thing as “moderate islam” – except that which is heretical at the liberal end of the spectrum. It’s a total misnomer.
But on the other hand adherence to traditional fiqh , while it does nothing for women’s rights in islam, does leave ambiguities about how governments may be comprised. For which reason you have women MPs in places like Pakistan – but not in Saudi Arabia.
There are “even worse islams” if you like, and want to put it in those terms. And there is still time to reverse the trends of the previous 40 years and restore more like the traditional balance – which it is my belief will slowly “modernise” through the process of parliamentary consensus. But it needs the “even worse islam” of salafism to be identified as such. That involves a disruption to the understanding of the relationship between muslims and the state for one thing. Reject all “non shariah” governments is closely linked to it.
Its partly what empowers a certain kind of preacher to declare, while living in the west, that no government here, not the police, no one in authority, should be respected. That’s not how Muhammad put it. Muslims were supposed to be obedient to ruler because “Allah decided who would rule”. They regard it as a part of “destiny” which king of sultan of governmetn is in charge. And they traditionally regard it as up to Allah to pick rulers. Not up to revolution. NOt up to terrorism.
But the salafist worldview is changing all that. Along with the popular uprisings assocated with the muslim brotherhood . the problem is the popular uprisings have proven unstable and resulted in brutal violence. And unfortunatley western liberal governments have encouraged them.
I’m very glad Trump was elected and will stop playing those games. its a western delusion. The muslim world needs a dose of opium to go back to sleep and accept the “destiny of allah” regards leaders. Not revolutions. Its the only way there will be any kind of stability in muslim majority countries.
The strategy in the west is another matter. But i have a lot of ideas how to de-escalate the alarming trends there too. It will be tricky and it will take decades to bring it all about but yeah it’s possible. Major cultural and legal resets are needed though.
AzB says
The muslim brotherhood is bad for all kinds of reasons. Provoking revolution. Uniting muslims across national borders – which would then fuse and create caliphate – their idea is get “muslim brotherhood parties” in power in loads of muslim countries and then link them all up. That’s bad for everyone else.
Clearly they won’t stop at their current “modest prescriptions” including stuff like government positions for christians and women at such a stage. It would just go backwards. Same as Erdogan. They’d turn it into one giant authoratarian state.
So yeah i very much do not want them to achieve any electoral successes.
From the western point of view in immediate future the muslim brotherhood main contribution will be funding a vast network of “islamists” here in the west. With strategic aims. Besides advocacy agencies like CAIR and Muslim Council of Britain i don’t believe the West has really got to grips with this political activism dimension – both overt and covert.
It probably is one of the factors explaining the simultaneous move towards hate crime legislation in many western countries though. The lobbying from many people in this kind of alliance network. Cross border strategy.
It should be treated the same way as communism was. Unfortunately because of dumb laws its protected by “freedom of religion” though. As no one considered that a religion might also be a manual of strategies and alliances and a certain worldview to conquer other societies. Obviously it needs to be controlled.
In some of the west countries are , it seems, actually losing that battle now. Because they simply aren’t aware it is taking place.
AzB says
Advocacy on behalf of a particular group is i guess quite normal. Groups will represent their interests. It becomes more subversive if it is a form of political lobbying but without declaration, and if the information channels include misinformation and euphemisms which are swaying elected officials to make decisions that favour a group. Because the chain of information is being interfered with at many levels, and being co-ordinated at many levels.
It also becomes subversive if it is allied strongly with other groups – like salafists – who are busy preaching an end to democracy.
I don’t believe “pluralist democracy” should be making much of an allowance for these kinds of coordinated activities and organisations under umbrella of “religion”. There’s no other religion doing it to same extent . They might have certain “business nepotism” in their own communities – as jews and hindus and chinese and everyone else probably does – but business nepotism is not the same as coordinated political activism to reshape the terms of democracy.
Freedom of expression is a clear example of the terms of democracy being reshaped. Its the canary in the coal mine.
We’ll have to get beyond the “fear of offending people” pretty soon. Trump smashing his way into whitehouse after offending everyone reflects that this is still possible. It will be required to systematically audit and to be honest about the activities of the networks within muslim community, and their coordination to one another. It requires a kind of audit actually. To detail the strategies which are known about.
It would be worth a few years of handing intelligence service a huge budget to examine it discreetly. And build up very detailed reports. And to attempt to measure concrete impacts on democracy which already took place.
And after that, it will be necessary to restrict what “religion” means and to distinguish some of the islamic religion apart from “mere faith” and more akin to “subversion”. Political muslims should be treated like political communists in my opinion. If they were working in government and are linked into certian networks, they should be expelled from positions, simple as that.
AzB says
Some of the westeners are almost literally puppets on a string at the moment.
Either because of cash from overseas, or embarrassment or ignorance. Some of these idiot police commissionars and mayors and politicians – all smiles – but are getting totally used.
They’ve been “buttered up” and appear not to suspect the community entreaties are with 2 faces, one for them, and one behind closed doors hours later among fellow muslims.
The degree to which muslims talk with 2 faces is not known but it is definitely way more than more “naive westeners in positions of authority” suspects. And they have no mechanism to report it or analyse it even if they did suspect it.
So they remain like puppets on a string, helping islamists without even reaslising it. For now, anyhow.
AzB says
It’ll be a difficult one because it’s kind of the same thing the muslim brotherhood believes in , but in reverse.
I mean, if we did not allow muslims – even “non political ones” – to be political – then that’s the same in reverse to the MB banning christians from government, if they did.
There’s a danger to overshoot too extreme; and otherwise it’s very hard to clarify which networks it becomes a problem for people to be tied into, compared to others which are innocuous.
But i guess we’re already doing this when for example the governmetn “cuts ties with” CAIR. That’s the same sort of thing. Too much networks –> Ties cut.
I think it will have to be like that but more systematic and more people caught in the net, that’s all. Until its appreciated by the MB and others that its essentially impossible to make major dents into democracy. Because there are too many barriers in place.
Complex stuff though. Multiculturalists are idiots.
AzB says
More dense intelligence vetting for all officials is one way. So for all MPs and civil servants, etc.
Very thorough MI5/6 cross analysis.
That would be a significant deterrent for “respectable people” with dubious connections. If the gates of power requires to walk through a proper systematic intelligence grilling.
AzB says
Pretty hard to do that without the current government being suspected of blocking MPs on the other side though. Or other Nixon-esque stitch ups.
Requires a very fine balance indeed to work out such a thing.
AzB says
maybe no vetting for MPs
just for the unelected officials then. enhanced vetting as standard for all (so its not linked to political party affiliation)
And more info in public domain on dubious networks – release lists – to empower journalists to do the rest as regards suspect MPs.
Journalists are pretty good at this stuff
AzB says
THe momentum with islam overall is exactly as the website states, though.
All these forces are punching through as you can see with Erdogan , the separation of Acer in Indonesia, and so on, will practically everywhere if we are honest (it’s mostly at best 1 step forwards 2 steps back..). The momentum is with the hardline not with the liberal.
So i am guessing more states will “flip” because modernity is the greatest challenge that has ever existed to the morals of those within the religion of Islam. IRaq, Afgan etc will probably revert to pre-western involvement systems minus iraqi dictator. Pakistan is developing more puritanism.
At least unless there is a movement at least as well funded and intellectually compelling as salafism to be spread around world. Pragmatism won’t be enough probably. In actual fact it might turn into what it was in the past – authoratarian regimes propped up by western governments to ensure a relatively stable islam and basically just let them get on with crushing terrorist groups (along with, unfortunately , democracy campaigners into the bargain, etc) and turn blind eye to it.
There’ll never be worldwide human rights, just give up on that already. Was a nice idea but it’s not happening. Sorry snowflakes…
Lucia Bartoli says
So she has her body showing, no hijab nor burqa, and she’s all about the most superficial nonsense ever.! The Islamic nation of her roots would stone her for about 1/5th of her nonsense. Yank that crown, shoes, and other products and see where hergratitude goes. She simply is whoring herself out to the highest bidder. Psssst Somebody! Quick! Tell this mindless twit she’s not like a REAL queen. Her crown represents noting except perhaps sweatshop workers. There is no monarchy except the one in her head. How very pathetic!
Guest says
Beauty pageants are against women, they make them think that looking pretty is the only good thing, and most of the contestants only say ‘I want world peace,’ to win. This Islam comment is only the same.
gravenimage says
I’m a woman and I don’t really have a problem with beauty contests–although they are rather silly. Few women–especially these days–think that beauty contests have any real meaning in the world, or that a woman has no worth if she is unlikely to win one. In fact, I’m not sure they ever had that kind of influence, even at the height of their popularity.
On the other hand, I *very much* have a problem with creeping Shari’ah.
The irony, of course, is that if Islam ever comes to power here, beauty pageants with be one of the first things to go.
Lydia says
For the TRUTH, just add the negation of each comment in her speech, as below:
“The Islam that I know, that is in the Qur’an, I don’t associate that with any acts that are occurring around the world. People tend to blame religion for the atrocities that are happening, but if we do that we take responsibility away from the individuals.”
HOW CAN ONE NOT ASSOCIATE IT, WHEN IT IS THAT VERY RELIGION THAT MANDATES IT?!
OF COURSE THE INDIVIDUALS ARE RESPONSIBLE TOO, AND PART OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS IN FOLLOWING A FALSE AND VIOLENT RELIGION THAT IS TO BLAME. BOTH ARE TO BLAME, THE RELIGION AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO CARRY OUT ITS MANDATES.
“A lot of things have been misconstrued about Islam. I feel that a category has been created that is not really what the Qur’an actually promotes. I believe Islam is about peace, unity, prosperity and inclusion.”
YES, THINGS HAVE BEEN MISCONSTRUED, BECAUSE THE BLIND HAVE BEEN CALLING IT A RELIGION OF ‘PEACE.’ TOTALLY MISCONSTRUED! AND THAT CATEGORY THAT WAS CREATED WAS CREATED EXPLICITLY BY ISLAM, THE FICTIONAL CATEGORY THAT WAS CREATED ABOUT ISLAM IS THE ONE THAT SAYS IT IS ‘GOOD AND PEACEFUL’ AND ANYTHING POSITIVE. ISLAM ABOUT PEACE? ISLAM IS ABOUT VIOLENCE, SUBJECTION, BLOODBATHS, AND MURDERING THOSE WHO DON’T AGREE! UNITY? IT IS AS INTOLERANT AS CAN BE, DEMANDING THOSE WHO ARE NOT PART OF IT TO BE EXECUTED, IN THE SENSE THAT MUSLIMS AGREE TO PERSECUTE ANYONE ELSE, SURE, IN THIS THEY HAVE UNITY. THERE IS NOTHING INCLUSIVE ABOUT IT, THEY JUST WANT TO KILL YOU IF YOU DISAGREE, THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THEIR ‘INCLUSION’ AND ‘UNITY.’ IF YOU DON’T UNITE WITH THEM, THEY WILL KILL YOU. AND PROSPERITY? BY PLUNDERING THE POSSESSIONS OF OTHERS, THAT IS ALSO MANDATED IN THEIR ‘QURAN.’
THIS IS A BRAINLESS FEMALE PUPPET OF A MOUTHPIECE FOR THE GLOBALIST AGENDA. WITH HER IT’S LIKE: GAG ME AND GET A CLUE!
lauren says
the perfect message sent by the perfect messenger & still misunderstood over 1400 years later,a distracted god,perhaps or a not so perfect message
Aussie Infidel says
So our new Miss World Australia, Esma Voloder, is a Muslim! Wonders will never cease!
Did Ms Voloder ask permission of her imam to enter the contest? Does she understand that activities such as beauty contests are in defiance of Islamic ideology? Did she get the OK to parade in un-Islamic attire in front of an audience of lecherous male infidels?
How could Ms Voloder misunderstand the command for a strict Islamic dress code in Quran 33:59? It states, “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” This verse is often quoted by Muslims demanding that women wear the hijab – and the implication is that if they do not wear this ‘rag-prison’, they WILL be abused.
Has Ms Voloder ever wondered why she (a European) is a Muslim? Could it be that her ancestors were forceably converted to Islam, when the Ottoman Turks waged jihad against the Balkans centuries ago. She herself is a victim of Islam! And now as a decendant of those conquered people, having been brought up in the Islamic faith, she can only repeat the lie that it is a ‘religion of peace’.
Ms Voloder claimed, “A lot of things have been misconstrued about Islam. I feel that a category has been created that is not really what the Qur’an actually promotes … I don’t associate that with any acts that are occurring around the world.” Really? How does she interpret Quran 2:193, 4:74, 8:24, 8:39, 9:5, 9:14-15, 9:29 and 9:123? As examples of “peace, unity, prosperity and inclusion”? How does she explain away section O9.0 – 9.8, on Jihad in the ‘Reliance of the Traveller’, a manual of sacred Islamic law, which defines jihad as “warfare to establish the religion”?
Does Ms Voloder imagine that she would be allowed to display herself in this manner in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia (the birthplace of Islam) or Iran (the principle Shia state), or Pakistan (the land of the pure), or back home in Bosnia? She would be deemed to be an apostate and probably be killed.
Ms Voloder speaks highly of Thailand; but will she apologise to the Thais for the insurgency by Muslim Malays in their southern border provences, which has killed thousands of Thais?
Who were the useful idiots on the selection panel who promoted this young woman? Did she win purely on her merits, or because she was a Muslim – and it would be another win for ‘diversity’. We have had a history of Muslims being promoted to influential positions in politics, the bureaucracy, education and the media. So why not a beauty contest too?
Miss Voloder says she not only wants to represent Australia, but be “an ambassador for Islam.” No Muslim could possibly represent the values and culture of the Australia in which I grew up. Islam is the antithesis of Western culture. It would be an oxymoron. It would also be an insult to our forbears who fought and died to keep this country free of the totalitarian theocratic ideology that she represents.
Perhaps like many Christians, Ms Voloder simply has not read her own holy scriptures? Or is she using the Muslims’ ‘doctrine of muruna’ which allows them to violate the Sharia or sacred Islamic law, to fool Westermers – in which case, she is as dangerous as a snake in the grass.
https://pjmedia.com/blog/muruna-violating-sharia-to-fool-the-west/
Apparently, Ms Voloder is also a criminal profiler. Has she ever produced a profile for her holy Prophet Muhammad? Since Muhammad murdered so many people who disagreed with him, that would surely place him in the category of a criminal.
LR says
“I know, Islam is a peaceful religion.”
Well, it must be because I heard that radio announcer white guy on the radio say so.
Just like this pretty, young Muslima lady, thinks so.
It must be peaceful, that is why we have no problem with our free speech rights, with cartoonists being able to publish Mohammed cartoons without fear of death threats.
Why do certain people always say how peaceful Islam is to the ‘western audiences’, but never say, ‘Yo, Saudi Arabia, Iran, ISIS, Al Queda, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, cut out your murderous, barbaric, decrepit sh*t, you have no idea what REAL Islam is.”
Chand says
Wow! Gripping discussions here. I’m getting hooked to Jihadwatch!
Both Muhammad Ibn Zakariya al-Razi and his/her critics are right. That’s it. BOTH!! Apart from trying to reform it, the only other response to Islam is necessarily military. And trying to stop migration from Muslim countries, of course.
So what is the solution? Both reform and the military defeat of this enemy? But reform will take time. Or it is not possible. I predict that the military solution will also take time. Four generations, say. But that is possible. Jihadi terrorist groups, cells and sponsors might be totally and thoroughly eliminated in time.
But an extreme military solution is also being espoused here by some……..THE FINAL SOLUTION. Exterminate them all if they do not surrender and renounce their false faith. Drop a nuke or two on a Muslim nation, like done to the Japs, to make them see the utter futility of resistance. Gas chambers, concentration camps, chemical or biological annihilation of all Muslims following that…. Visit hell fire on them! Surely that could work……………
We are already in the third world war against Jihadism. Shouldn’t we now take it one level higher to nuclear Armageddon? Isn’t it time?
Well, I don’t think most Muslims will convert to other religions. Neither will they acknowledge their prophet’s rotten character. At least not to non-Muslims.They could become atheists though. Not much chance of that either with most of them. So DROP THE BOMB!
I don’t think that’ll happen either. If any nation tries that it will surely lead to a very hot World War right away, with nukes going off everywhere.
The powerful nations do not even have the guts and the political will to do even a simple, tiny thing………censuring Saudi Arabia for officially spreading Salafi Wahabbism and trying to stop it.
Can anyone go to any major non-Muslim city (maybe apart from some Polish, Czech or Hungarian ones), stand on a street with a megaphone and yell out all the true things being written here about Muhammad, Koran and Islam. “Ladies and Gentlemen, brothers and sisters, Muslims and non-Muslims, did you know that the founder of the religion of Islam, who is called Prophet Muhammad, the author of the Koran, was in fact a caravan raider, warlord, rapist, Jihadi, mass murderer, paedophile and crazy? Please do not follow that vile man in any way. Do not follow the religion of Islam or read or teach the Koran. It is a fake religion”, etc, etc.
I’m guessing that the one with the megaphone would be stopped or arrested by cops even before an offended, violent Muslim present there will attack him.
Good luck with eliminating Islam!
I have always dreaded the rise of another Hitler-like figure as a response to this violent Islamo-fascism. Might happen yet if large scale terrorist attacks happen again and again in the developed world. Don’t think Trump is the one, though. Will the enlightened world revert back to Fascism in the process of defeating this Islamic Fascism? You know, demonizing an entire population and trying to eliminate them?