View Full Version : The Invisible War And Our Enemies
Warrior-Mentor
08-13-2009, 11:36
The Invisible War And Our Enemies
The Untold Story Of Terrorists And Radical Islamists In Our Own Backyard
HERB DENENBERG, For The Bulletin
August 10, 2009
A worldwide group of terrorists and other enemies of America are dedicated to destroying this nation, our Constitution and our way of life. But because of the biased, dishonest and fraudulent mainstream media, many Americans are unaware of this existential threat. Due to the journalistic malfeasance of the mainstream media our enemies are invisible to us. Of course, the Obama administration’s political correctness is also reinforcing the media’s minimization of the threat of radical Islam.
I can demonstrate the theme of this column with the work of Steven Emerson, one of the world’s leading authorities on terrorism, who heads one of the world’s leading investigators of terrorism, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). Some believe the IPT is actually ahead of the CIA in evaluating the threat of radical Islam and other terrorist groups.
Emerson continues to publish investigations on the dangers we face that should have been front-page news across the country, but were censored out by such publications as the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and other mainstream outlets which seem to be among the best friends of terrorists and other enemies of America. They are eager to publicize any slight misstep of our armed forces, but are reluctant to warn us of the threat coming from radical Islam and terrorists. Like our president, they seem to hate America. Here are some of the details of Emerson’s latest investigations:
The American Library Association On The Side Of Terror
One of the most disturbing developments involves professional associations, colleges, universities and other important institutions that seem to be more sympathetic to the enemies of America than to America.
The latest incident involves the American Library Association, the largest and leading library association in the U.S. The ALA had planned a panel discussion entitled “Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the Stereotyping” at its annual convention. One of the invited speakers was Robert Spencer, author of eight books on Islam and jihad, and along with Emerson, one of the giants in contributing to the understanding of terrorism and radical Islam (or what some call Islamofascism). All of the books of Spencer and Emerson should be must reading for Americans.
But when the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR) spearheaded an attempt to silence Spencer, because it doesn’t like his ideas critical of CAIR, terrorism and Islamofascism, the ALA quickly buckled. CAIR had pressured all the other panelists to withdraw, and Spencer was the only one left standing. But instead of replacing the other panelists or letting Spencer speak by himself, the ALA simply cancelled the panel.
Emerson notes the multiple ironies in this scenario. The ALA holds an annual banned books week to celebrate “the freedom to express one’s opinions even if their opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular.” Nonetheless, ALA cancelled the panel rather than replacing the vacated slot or letting Spencer go on alone. There’s another delicious irony: The CAIR official who complained about Spencer said he offers “grotesque viewpoints that lie well outside the bounds of reason and civilized debate.” But that CAIR official is the one who offers such grotesque viewpoints. He is someone who can’t bring himself to condemn two leading terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah; he minimizes the Holocaust; and he claims the Jews control the media, a classic anti-Semitic ploy.
Emerson notes this is only “the latest in a series of successful efforts to silence viewpoints considered offensive to, or critical of, radical Islam.”
The ALA is in the pathetic and disgraceful position of being unwilling to listen to Spencer, one of the leading authorities on radical Islam, and yields to the views of CAIR, which Emerson describes as follows: “In its frenzy to placate CAIR, the ALA does not seem to have taken any notice of the fact that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, whose operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Several of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR was also involved in the ‘Flying Imams’ intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.”
So here the ALA, which should stand for freedom of speech, has become a symbol of censorship and obedience to America-hating terrorists. Emerson writes, “And so they have set yet another precedent in which a group with numerous ties to terrorists and Islamist organizations determines what Americans will learn about Islam, jihad, and the terror threat. What’s the point of having principles if they are so easily tossed aside in the name of political correctness.” The ALA is obviously unprincipled, and that’s why librarians should drop their ALA membership.
Dem. Congressmen Serve As Puppets Of Radical Islam
If the ALA’s sellout to radical Islam isn’t bad enough, consider another Emerson investigation, which identified seven House Democrats willing to c arry Islamists’ water.
Emerson’s investigation found that the seven Democrats sent a letter to Attorney General Holder that clearly mouths the specific language and complaints of some radical Islamist groups. Emerson found the complaints “include the use of convicted felons as informants in mosques, alleged religious profiling of Somali Muslims in Minnesota and elsewhere and allegations that the FBI is working with foreign governments to question American citizens who are terror suspects.”
The seven Congressmen who signed the letter include four from California: Loretta Sanchez, Adam Schiff, Mike Honda and Lois Capps. There are two from Ohio: Mary Jo Kilroy and Dennis Kucinich, and one from Virginia, James Moran.
Many of the groups the Congressmen want Holder to meet with to resolve the “grievances” have radical histories and agendas. Emerson gives examples: “The Muslim Public Affairs Council argues that Hezbollah should not be a designated terrorist organization.” Another of the groups is CAIR, which Emerson notes was included on a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, considered the nation’s largest terrorism-finance case. Emerson reports FBI case Agent Lara Burns labeled CAIR a front group for Hamas during sworn testimony last fall. Many of the Congressmen signing the letter have a history of supporting CAIR.
Anti-Christian, Anti-Semetic Propaganda On Display At Caliphate Conference In Illinois
In July, a pro-jihadist group met openly in Chicago. It is surprisingly open about its desire to re-establish an Islamic Caliphate. At the meeting, the group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, also had literature showing the group views Christians and Jews as untrustworthy enemies of God.
Consider some of the other views of this pro-jihadist group. It condemns interfaith “outreach initiatives.” One of the publications distributed at the Chicago meeting states, Muslims “are not to sit and talk about common things between Islam and the corrupted teachings of Christianity and Judaism.” It also quotes Koranic verses such as this one: “O Believers, do not take the Jews nor the Christians as your friends.” It believes in the death penalty for Muslims who leave the faith.
Emerson concludes the article on Hizb ut-Tahrir with this warning: “The literature [distributed at the Chicago meeting] shows that Hizb ut-Tahrir envisions a very dark future for anyone — Christian, Jew or Muslim — who fails to adhere to its vision of Islamist dominance.”
Perhaps the message of the meeting and of radical Islam came into focus with this exchange between an imam and a member of the audience:
Audience member: “Would you get rid of the Constitution for Shariah [Muslim law], yes or no?”
Imam: “Over the Muslim world? Yes, it would be gone.”
Audience member: “And so if the Unit ed States was a Muslim world, the Constitution would be gone?’
Imam: “If the United States was in the Muslim world, the Muslims who are here would be calling and happy to see the Shariah applied, yes we would.”
Audience member: “And the Constitution gone. That’s all.”
Imam: Yes, as Muslims they would be long gone.”
When you read the work of Emerson and his organization, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, you realize that radical Islam is out to destroy our way of life, our Constitution, and our national existence. But the mainstream media seems indifferent to the threat. Consequently the threat of radical Islam is almost invisible to most of the media and even the administration. We better wake up, and one way to do that is start spending time on the Web site of Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism: www.investigativeproject.org.
American survival is at stake. And whether America survives depends on whether we listen to people like Emerson and Spencer or to the biased dishonest and fraudulent mainstream media.
Herb Denenberg can be reached at advocate@thebulletin.us.
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/08/10/commentary/op-eds/doc4a8064eb7c390183816661.txt
“American survival is at stake. And whether America survives depends on whether we listen to people like Emerson and Spencer or to the biased dishonest and fraudulent mainstream media.”
Warrior-Mentor,
Sir, I agree with the gist of the Denenburg article you referenced above, but respectfully question the final conclusion. Military history has taught us America has survived far greater challenges in the past, a bloody civil war, the fascists in the 40’s, and the communists during the Cold War. I believe it is actually radical Islam’s survival at stake. Folks here in the past have referenced the relative success of Turkey, a modern secular state, and NATO ally, if not for this example it would simply be “ Islam’s survival at stake”. I believe the fundamental flaw of Islam is inability to answer the question what’s in it for the women? Once again, I cite the value of studying military history as General George S. Patton, made the following observation in a letter to his wife back during the North African campaign,
“It seems to me a certainty that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of the Arab women are the outstanding causes for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have been developing.”
I believe a society’s values and future are most influenced by the hand that rocks the cradle, and that the freedom for all law abiding citizens is the mark of civilization, Even if you believe theirs is an entirely different culture, if half the population has a Hobbesian existence forced upon them, and then gains exposure to the fact women in the western world can remain Muslim, and still go to school, become doctors, own property, whatever, the gig will eventually be up, nature does not tolerate stagnation. Other than brutal coercion I don’t understand what incentive Jihad holds for a female martyr, does she get a free pass to fleet week? Seriously though, UBL’s stated reason for hating America is our trespassing on Saudi soil during Desert Storm, (let’s ignore the fact we were there to protect them from a hostile Muslim state). I believe it was more dangerous for Islam for Saudi women to see the freedoms afforded to coalition service women. I believe this is their Achilles heel. In Pete Blaber’s recent book he mentioned a Taliban chieftain who offered to identify al Qaeda positions in Afghanistan for a number of reasons, one of which was his little girl; he wanted her to go to school. While the Taliban has good reason to fear the martial prowess of an A-Team, it is the coed school left in their wake which will prove fatal to radical Islam. I definitely believe America faces a threat and needs to keep the pressure on, I believe we have overcome greater threats, and will prevail here in time. Radical Islam’s actions are consistent with those of a desperate wounded animal, why else would you provoke a sleeping tiger? Islam’s current manifestation will eventually have to adapt with civilization like any other religion, like the Turk’s example or risk the evolutionary extinction experienced by the pagan religions of old.
The Reaper
08-13-2009, 15:42
akv:
Have you really looked at Turkey lately?
You might want to before making those sweeping generalizations.
TR
Reaper,
It was not my intent to make sweeping generalizations, nor did I mean to imply Turkey was perfect in any way. My experience was limited to Istanbul for 10 days in mid 2007. I have never been to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, so my perceptions there are only what I've read. Though an ancient city, aside from the calls to prayer sounding from the mosques at regular intervals, reminding you of the majority faith, you could easily be in many a European city. There are little boys and girls in school. Young people watching music videos, disco's and bars. Women can vote, drive, wear dresses and shorts and own businesses. I saw ancient Christian churches, and bought a chess set from a nice Jewish store in the Grand Bazaar. The doctor in the adjacent clinic was a woman. As I said before I have never been to Afghanistan, but I do do not believe women there are afforded anywhere near these freedoms. So thus I respectfully do not believe these are sweeping generalizations. I know the Liberal party lost the last election and there has always been a more radical undercurrent present. I believe Turkey has the defining characteristics of a modern secular state, and their example would terrify the Taliban.
I wonder how the Revised Hadith project concluded?
It was big news around Mar 2008 but faded away by Apr 2008.
Not heard much about it since.
Ambush Master
08-13-2009, 18:43
I still say that the "Radical Islamists" are those that WANT to get along with us!!!
Later
Martin
Team Sergeant
08-13-2009, 18:47
I still say that the "Radical Islamists" are those that WANT to get along with us!!!
Later
Martin
I like that, bet we see it used on Fox News soon.....;)
I still say that the "Radical Islamists" are those that WANT to get along with us!!!
Those are the norm around here where I live - I'm surrounded by radicals?!!?? :eek:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-13-2009, 19:17
“American survival is at stake. And whether America survives depends on whether we listen to people like Emerson and Spencer or to the biased dishonest and fraudulent mainstream media.”
The author is absolutely correct. I can’t show the references here [not ready for public disclosure yet], but I’ve seen the legal brief exposing the agenda behind the Society for “Professional” Journalism’s lack of professionalism.
I believe it is actually radical Islam’s survival at stake.
What you believe is irrelevant. “Neville Chamberlain believed he had achieved peace in our time.” It’s what reality is and what they believe that matters.
I believe the fundamental flaw of Islam is inability to answer the question what’s in it for the women?
True, but women in so many islamic societies are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
I believe a society’s values and future are most influenced by the hand that rocks the cradle, and that the freedom for all law abiding citizens is the mark of civilization, Even if you believe theirs is an entirely different culture, if half the population has a Hobbesian existence forced upon them, and then gains exposure to the fact women in the western world can remain Muslim, and still go to school, become doctors, own property, whatever, the gig will eventually be up, nature does not tolerate stagnation.
I’m going to give you a homework assignment here.
Get “Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.”
What does it say about Women working? (Hint read page 569-570, section n9.131)
Other than brutal coercion I don’t understand what incentive Jihad holds for a female martyr?
You don’t need to understand. ;) They do.
This is about what they believe. This isn’t about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
This isn’t about hearts and minds. This is about Souls.
Seriously though, UBL’s stated reason for hating America is our trespassing on Saudi soil during Desert Storm, (let’s ignore the fact we were there to protect them from a hostile Muslim state).
UBL’s stated reason to whom? There’s a BIG difference between what UBL says to Muslims and what he says to Non-Muslims. Get a copy of “The Al-Qaeda Reader.” Read the introduction and the Foreword.
There’s two general types of statements coming out of UBL and Zawahiri:
1. Formal Theology. By MUSLIMS for MUSLIMS. This stuff (with a few exceptions) doesn’t get translated and broadcast by the news. It lists the real reasons WHY they do what they do.
2. Popular Propaganda. By MUSLIMS for NON-MUSLIMS. Sent to the West. This is the stuff that gets translated and sent out on the news channels. This regurgitates bile critiques of the West – much of it from the West itself.
“These texts serve as a wake-up call to
an often naïve and therapeutic West that believes
enemies are to be understood rather than destroyed,
and their threats explained away as empty rhetoric
rather than braced for as bitter truth.”
- The Al Qaeda Reader (page XXXII)
I believe it was more dangerous for Islam for Saudi women to see the freedoms afforded to coalition service women. I believe this is their Achilles heel. In Pete Blaber’s recent book he mentioned a Taliban chieftain who offered to identify al Qaeda positions in Afghanistan for a number of reasons, one of which was his little girl; he wanted her to go to school. While the Taliban has good reason to fear the martial prowess of an A-Team, it is the coed school left in their wake which will prove fatal to radical Islam.
I definitely believe America faces a threat and needs to keep the pressure on, I believe we have overcome greater threats, and will prevail here in time.
We will see. The current strategy isn’t going to get us where we need to be 100 or 1,000 years from now…
Radical Islam’s actions are consistent with those of a desperate wounded animal, why else would you provoke a sleeping tiger?
Their actions are those of someone who has gained confidence with the fall of a super-power.
They are the actions of someone who believes they can win.
Islam’s current manifestation will eventually have to adapt with civilization like any other religion, like the Turk’s example or risk the evolutionary extinction experienced by the pagan religions of old.
There CANNOT be a reformation in islam. Anyone who tells you that there can be is either ignorant of the facts or lying. To reform islam is to admit that there is something wrong with it. Since the Koran is the word of Allah, and Allah cannot be wrong, it can’t change.
Read “Reliance of the Traveller” Section a1.1
and
Section b6.1 “Muslims … are in agreement that we have arrived at all the rulings of sacred law through evidence that is either of unquestionably established transmission (from Allah) or probabilistically established transmission.”
and
Section b7.0 throughb7.3 about Scholarly Consensus. Once “…the ruling agreed upon is an authoritative part of sacred law that is obligatory obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey. Nor can mujtahids (Islamic scholars) of a succeeding era make the thing and object of new itjihad (legal ruling), because the ruling on it, verified by scholarly consensus, is an ABSOLUTE legal ruling which does not admit of being contravened or annulled.”
Warrior-Mentor,
Thank You Sir, I appreciate your insights, and have ordered the books you recommended. ( Amazon.com can be deadly).
Warrior-Mentor
08-13-2009, 20:26
You got it.
It takes time to put together a researched response. Glad you're willing to follow through.
Expanding on the emphasis on target audience:
By MUSLIMS for MUSLIMS. By islamic law, there is information Muslims are REQUIRED to know. ("Reliance of the Traveller," section a4.0 Personally Obligatory Knowledge)
By MUSLIMS for NON-MUSLIMS. By islamic law, there is information you are ALLOWED to know. (r8.1)
This is why islamic countries have worked so hard (and ultimately succeeded) in banning any discussion of islam in the "United Nations."
WATCH HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji-qdC5zYd4
.
There CANNOT be a reformation in islam. Anyone who tells you that there can be is either ignorant of the facts or lying. To reform islam is to admit that there is something wrong with it. Since the Koran is the word of Allah, and Allah cannot be wrong, it can’t change.
Why not?
Didn't the collective writings of the NT reform the original message of the OT?
And isn't it the collective interpolations in the Haddith and Sunnah which reformed the original message of the Koran through their interpretations of what was written and said?
Why couldn't it happen yet again if it was seen as GOD's {Allah's} will? :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-13-2009, 21:20
Why not?
Didn't the collective writings of the NT reform the original message of the OT?
And isn't it the collective interpolations in the Haddith and Sunnah which reformed the original message of the Koran through their interpretations of what was written and said?
Why couldn't it happen yet again if it was seen as GOD's {Allah's} will? :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
You're not even in the right religion here.
Please re-read the sections previously cited.
There's a verse in the Koran:
"This day have I perfected your religion for you,
completed my favour upon you,
and have chosen for you
Islam as your religion."
- (Sura 5:3)
It isn't allowed to change.*
________
* See also "Reliance of the Traveller," Sections x174, x382(a)
It isn't allowed to change.*
But it has - through interpolation over time by learned Islamic scholars - so why not again? Or is that just your learned opinion? :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-13-2009, 21:36
But it has previously through interpolation by scholars - why not now? Or is that just your learned opinion? :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The scholars are not changing the religion. They are making rulings on things that didn't have an exisiting itjihad. And no ruling can abrogate a previous ruling.
This is unlike the verses of the Koran, which can abrogate because of the concept of progressive revelation.
And no more prophets means no more revelations.
Ambush Master
08-13-2009, 21:41
Why not?
Didn't the collective writings of the NT reform the original message of the OT?
And isn't it the collective interpolations in the Haddith and Sunnah which reformed the original message of the Koran through their interpretations of what was written and said?
Why couldn't it happen yet again if it was seen as GOD's {Allah's} will? :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
There's Always the "Example" of the New Testament"!!
The "Old Testament" isn't that far off from the Koran!!!
You need to remember to align your way of thinking with what the "STANDARDS OF THAT TIME WERE"!!!! Hell, they Crucified, Drawed and Quarted, Impaled, Burned at the Stake, etc.!!!!
What Islam has severly failed to do,is to re-align it's Basic Tenets with the current Time/Cultures/Standards of Humanity!!!
Later
Martin
And no more prophets means no more revelations.
And who says there will be no further prophets? Muhammad was the last to date - but can there be others at some point in the future if it is GOD's {allah's} will? :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-13-2009, 21:47
There's Always the "Example" of the New Testament"!!
The "Old Testament isn't that far off from the Koran!!!
Comparing the Koran and the bible is an unfair comparison.
The Koran is on par with the 10 Commandments and Revelations (the direct word of God as relayed to Moses and the Apostle John respectively).
The rest of the Bible is on par with the Hadith (stories recounted by the prophets, apostles, followers, etc)
You need to remember to align your way of thinking with what the "STANDARDS OF THAT TIME WERE"!!!! Hell, they Crucified, Drawed and Quarted, Impaled, Burned at the Stake, etc.!!!!
What Islam has severely failed to do, is to re-align it's Basic Tenets with the current Time/Cultures/Standards of Humanity!!!
It can't. Because the Koran is the word of Allah as relayed through the Arch-Angel Gabriel to the Prophet, it is perfect for all time.
When that's your frame of reference, it creates a new situation...tracking?
Ambush Master
08-13-2009, 22:03
Comparing the Koran and the bible is an unfair comparison.
The Koran is on par with the 10 Commandments and Revelations (the direct word of God as relayed to Moses and the Apostle John respectively).
The rest of the Bible is on par with the Hadith (stories recounted by the prophets, apostles, followers, etc)
It can't. Because the Koran is the word of Allah as relayed through the Arch-Angel Gabriel to the Prophet, it is perfect for all time.
When that's your frame of reference, it creates a new situation...tracking?
That is my point!!
There is a need for a Reformation, like what happened with Christianity, to re-align the "Faith" with the "Norms" of the current Time!!!
Warrior-Mentor
08-13-2009, 22:12
That is my point!!
There is a need for a Reformation, like what happened with Christianity, to re-align the "Faith" with the "Norms" of the current Time!!!
There is a need for something that CAN'T HAPPEN. To do so is to renounce islam.
Which is to become an apostate - banished to death and to burn in hell.
Mainstream theologians are taking notice:
In the Muslim understanding, the Qur’an comes directly from God, unmediated.
Muhammad simply wrote down God’s eternal and immutable words as they were dictated to him by the Archangel Gabriel.
It cannot be changed, and to make the Qur’an the subject of critical analysis and reflection is either
to assert human authority over divine revelation (a blasphemy), or question its divine character.
Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited.
- Cardinal Pell, 2006
Kufr – unbelief
o8.0 Apostasy from Islam (Ridda) – Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.
o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
Acts that Entail Leaving Islam (o8.7) are:
(2) To intend to commit unbelief
(3) to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah,”
(4) to revile Allah or His Messenger
(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or add a verse that does not belong to it
As for Judaism and Christianity:
Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses in the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as is equally attested to by many verses of the Koran.
- Reliance of the Traveller, w4.1(2)
.
Warrior-Mentor
08-13-2009, 23:29
Need to add:
See Reliance of the Traveller, w4.0 - Finality of islam
w4.1(1) "Muhammed (PBUH) is the last prophet and messenger. Anyone claiming to be a prophet or a messenger of Allah after him or to found a new religion is a fraud, misled and misleading."
See Reliance of the Traveller:
o8.7 - Acts that Entail Leaving islam (READ APOSTACY - Punishable by Death)
o8.7(7) "to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it."
o8.7(14) "to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of muslims (ijma', def b7) is part of islam, when it is well know as such..."
THIS IS HUGE! See where this just shut down all the so called "Moderate" Muslims legal authority!
Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited.
- Cardinal Pell, 2006
However - when the Cardinal's statement is viewed in the broader context to the arguments being presented:
All these factors I have outlined are problems, for non-Muslims certainly, but first and foremost for Muslims themselves. In grappling with these problems we have to resist the temptation to reduce a complex and fluid situation to black and white photos. Much of the future remains radically unknown to us. It is hard work to keep the complexity of a particular phenomenon steadily in view and to refuse to accept easy answers, whether of an optimistic or pessimistic kind. Above all else we have to remember that like Christianity, Islam is a living religion, not just a set of theological or legislative propositions. It animates the lives of an estimated one billion people in very different political, social and cultural settings, in a wide range of devotional styles and doctrinal approaches. Human beings have an invincible genius for variation and innovation.
Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited. To stop at this proposition, however, is to neglect the way these facts are mitigated or exacerbated by the human factor. History has more than its share of surprises.
Islam and western Democracies
Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
Legatus Summit, 4 Feb 2006
http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/addresses/2006/200627_681.shtml
And like the good Cardinal - I remain vigilant...yet cautiously optimistic. ;)
MOO - but to claim Islam has not been changed over time is to patently ignore the historical record - and to say it will not continue to do so in the future is to advocate an intellectually unsupportable position. I think the greater questions to be considered are not if but how it will change and how might we affect that change. :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Bordercop
08-14-2009, 09:14
There is a need for something that CAN'T HAPPEN. To do so is to renounce islam.
Which is to become an apostate - banished to death and to burn in hell.
Mainstream theologians are taking notice:
In the Muslim understanding, the Qur’an comes directly from God, unmediated.
Muhammad simply wrote down God’s eternal and immutable words as they were dictated to him by the Archangel Gabriel.
It cannot be changed, and to make the Qur’an the subject of critical analysis and reflection is either
to assert human authority over divine revelation (a blasphemy), or question its divine character.
Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited.
- Cardinal Pell, 2006
Kufr – unbelief
o8.0 Apostasy from Islam (Ridda) – Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.
o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
Acts that Entail Leaving Islam (o8.7) are:
(2) To intend to commit unbelief
(3) to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah,”
(4) to revile Allah or His Messenger
(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or add a verse that does not belong to it
As for Judaism and Christianity:
Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses in the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as is equally attested to by many verses of the Koran.
- Reliance of the Traveller, w4.1(2)
.
Here's the link: http://www.newsmax.com/pamela_geller/rifqa_barry_islam_ohio/2009/08/13/247353.html
Here's the sad truth...
Muslim Girl: Dad Will Kill Me for Converting to Christianity
Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:17 AM
By: Pamela Geller
The good news is that Rifqa Bary is alive. Police had been looking for Rifqa, a teenage girl from central Ohio who vanished three weeks ago. Rifqa, who turned 17 on Monday, converted to Christianity from Islam — bringing upon herself Islam’s death sentence for those who leave Islam.
Why did she flee? In the land of the free, she had to liberate herself.
“I was threatened by my dad,” Rifqa explained. “When my dad found out [about her conversion to Christianity], phone calls from the Muslim community started coming in with e-mails that confronted me. And I had a laptop, and he took that laptop and waved it in the air and he was about to beat me with it, and he said, ‘If you have this Jesus in your heart, you’re dead to me. You’re not my daughter.’ And I refused to speak but he said, ‘I will kill you. Tell me the truth.’ In these words, bad words, cuss words. So I knew that I had to get away.”
Rifqa Bary is alive. She ran to Florida and escaped the fate her father had in mind for her — unlike Amina and Sarah Said, two Muslim teens in Texas who ran away but returned home at the insistence of their mother, Tissie Said, only to be brutally murdered by their father, Yaser Said, on New Year’s Day 2008. Rifqa got away, unlike Aqsa Parvez, a Muslim teen in Canada who stayed with friends only to return home and get murdered by her father for refusing to wear the Islamic headscarf.
But now Rifqa Bary is in court, in a custody battle that could send her to her death. “They want me back home,” she says. “I can’t go back to Ohio, you guys don’t understand. That community, they’re like — I will die within a week. My life is at stake.”
“You guys don’t understand,” Rifqa said. “Islam is very different than you guys think. They have to kill me. My blood is now halal, which means that because I am now a Christian, I’m from a Muslim background, it’s an honor. If they love God more than me, they have to do this. And I’m fighting for my life, you guys don’t understand. You don’t understand.”
Americans don’t understand because the “experts” aren’t telling them. I pray that Rifqa’s defenders bring to the court experts who know about honor killings. Family members who have lost their relatives to honor killings (for less) should be giving testimony. Amina and Sarah Said’s aunt, Gail Gartrell, should speak; Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan (who is forced to live in hiding in the United States because of Islamic death threats), and Robert Spencer should speak; Phyllis Chesler and friends of Aqsa Parvez should speak.
This is the front line — right in Florida. While our finest young Americans engage in hard-fought battles on the front lines of the global jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israel is on the front lines of the global jihad in the Middle East, Muslim women all over the world are on the front lines in the war against Islamic jihad. The battlefield is their homes. They live their lives in abject terror in homemade concentration camps.
The control of women is central to the battle between free men and slaves. The horror of the Islamic subjugation, abuse, and murder of women has made its way to our shores. Our ignorance or worse, silence, is complicity in their deaths. Invariably, the terrible sociological result is a reduction in the status of women in Western society.
Are we in the free world going to stand by silently while Muslims in the West brutalize women and converts from Islam, and treat them as worthless trash? We failed Amina and Sarah Said, Aqsa Parvez, and thousands of other women held captive by the “devout.”
Rifqa Bary knows this: “Amina and Sarah,” she said, “they were forced to go back home. They were killed by their dad! This is not just some threat! This is reality! This is truth! This is reality! How many more cases do you want? There’s case after case. There’s hundreds of them. I am one. I am one of hundreds.”
How many more of these girls will we fail? Rifqa’s testimony is a plea to the free world to stand for its values and its principles. How far we have fallen when a young woman is pleading to be free in the land of the free, home of the brave.
Rifqa Bary’s life hangs in the balance. The West should do everything in its power to save her.
Maybe President Obama will have a chat with "daddy" and make everything better.
From the UN Population Fund:
"Honour" Killings
Throughout the world, perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the "dishonour" of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.
Many forms of communally sanctioned violence against women, such as "honour" killings, are associated with the community's or the family's demand for sexual chastity and virginity. Perpetrators of such wanton acts often receive light sentences or are excused by the courts entirely because defence of the family's honour is treated as a mitigating circumstance.
"Honour" killings are on the rise worldwide, according to Asma Jahangir, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions. Ms. Jahangir is working closely with United Nations special investigators on violence against women and on the independence of judges and lawyers to address the issue.
"The perpetrators of these crimes are mostly male family members of the murdered women, who go unpunished or receive reduced sentences on the justification of having murdered to defend their misconceived notions of 'family honour,'" Jahangir wrote in her 2000 annual report to the Commission on Human Rights.32 Such killings have been reported in Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda and the United Kingdom, according to the report.
On the order of clerics, an 18-year-old woman was flogged to death in Batsail, Bangladesh, for "immoral" behaviour, according to the report. In Egypt, a father paraded his daughter's severed head through the streets shouting, "I avenged my honour."
The report says that "honour" killings tend to be more prevalent in, but are not limited to, countries with a majority Muslim population. It adds, however, that Islamic leaders have condemned the practice and say it has no religious basis.
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english/ch03.html
Strong emotions, publicly and privately circulated misinformation, misogyny, and consistently faulty reasoning seem to be pervasive in all sides of these complex issues - and so it goes - sadly. :(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
.....Such killings have been reported in Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda and the United Kingdom........
This is a dated story/report.
Since it was published a few more countries need to be added to the list, including Canada and the US
Warrior-Mentor
08-14-2009, 13:40
The report says that "honour" killings tend to be more prevalent in, but are not limited to, countries with a majority Muslim population. It adds, however, that Islamic leaders have condemned the practice and say it has no religious basis.[/I]
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english/ch03.html
Strong emotions, publicly and privately circulated misinformation, misogyny, and consistently faulty reasoning seem to be pervasive in all sides of these complex issues - and so it goes - sadly. :(
Islamic leaders have condemned the practice? Who? and to whom?
If MUSLIMS condemned it in Arabic to MUSLIMS, it might be more convincing.
The reality is, MUSLIMS condemn it to NON-MUSLIMS.
Why?
Because they are REQUIRED TO BY LAW. Lying is REQUIRED BY LAW when defending the faith.
So when they tell a NON-MUSLIM it has no religious basis, it's because they are required to lie to protect the faith.
Is this really that difficult?
The religious basis is ISLAMIC LAW. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law:
Book O (the book of "justice") Section 8.0 Apostacy from Islam (ridda)
o8.1 Whoever voluntarily leaves islam is killed
o8.4 no indeminty or expiation for killing him (see how nicely this encourages vigilante justice?)
It's not that complicated. You are allowing yourself to be deceived and in the process you are promulgating their talking points.
frostfire
08-14-2009, 13:59
I have been following this thread with great interest. Thank you Richard for the perpetual "devil's advocate" role as it puts questions in my head that wouldn't otherwise be there, and those questions ensure internal vigilance.
Warrior-Mentor Sir, among One Valley at a Time, the MSM, and your postings, I sincerely believe one is enabled to have a well-informed choice. For that, I thank you.
Oh - I see - the blind men and the elephant parable. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-14-2009, 14:34
Oh - I see - the blind men and the elephant parable. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard - Seems you've grabbed onto the tail and won't let go.
But you know what'll happen if you stay there too long? ;)
Richard - Seems you've grabbed onto the tail and won't let go.
It's entirely possible - but which part have you taken hold of? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
It's entirely possible - but which part have you taken hold of? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Where else but on ps.com can one find such an intellectually stimulating debate intertwined with good zingers? Richard and Warrior-Mentor argue their respective points better than most lawyers I know.
Warrior-Mentor
08-14-2009, 15:02
It's entirely possible - but which part have you taken hold of? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I'm on top...riding this beast. You won't know I'm there until I have to take a leak. :p
Delighted, they all returned to the city. After each one had gone back to his quarter, the people asked: "Did see the elephant?"
Each one answered yes.
They asked: "What does he look like? What kind of shape has he?"
Then the first man in the first quarter replied: "The elephant looks like a shield."
And the second man in the second quarter: "The elephant looks like a club."
The third man in the third quarter: "The elephant looks like a pillar."
And the fourth man in fourth quarter: "The elephant looks like a seat."
And inhabitants of each quarter formed their opinion in accord; with what they had heard.
13th Century CE Persian mystic and philosopher `Aziz ibn-Muhammad-I Nasafi in the context of criticism of exoteric theologians who, according to Nasafi, grasp only a part of the object of their study and claim this part represents the whole.
I'd stock up on those Depends. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-14-2009, 15:22
I've seen what's casting the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave.
I'm trying to get you to stop staring at the wall - to turn around and see what's casting the shadows...
http://caveofplato.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/platoscave-copy.jpg
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html
I've seen what's casting the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave.
Doesn't such resolute conviction support Plato's theses regarding the Cave's allegorical arguments of man's illusory limitations of reality as he - man - sees it? :confused:
Perhaps we need to move back into that allegorical cave and look at those shadows once again - Rorschach-like, they may not be quite what some of us think they are. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-14-2009, 19:41
You hijacked the thread when you knew that you'd been beat.
This has been an interesting digression, but would really like you to get a copy of Reliance of the Traveller, or any other accredited source of islamic jurisprudence
(The Distinguished Jurist's Primer Volume I?)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1859641385/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=304485901&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1873938934&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0A6PM2P85GNRBVDBJ4V1
...and let's go. Show me it doesn't say what I'm telling you.
Have you read "The Al Qaeda Reader"?
Hijack? Beat? Digress? :confused:
Obviously, my experiences, thoughts, and expectations regarding what has been, what is, and what may be in regards to scripture and humans - where words do not always pragmatically equate to deeds - are much different than that of some others.
In our country are evangelists and zealots of many different political, economic and religious persuasions whose fanatical conviction is that all thought is divinely classified into two kinds - that which is their own and that which is false and dangerous.
- Robert H. Jackson
And so it goes...
Richard
Warrior-Mentor
08-15-2009, 03:12
We are having two different conversations.
You are stating your opinion- to which you are entitled.
I am footnoting FACTS.*
You are entitled to your own opinion.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
_____________
*See fact
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact
/fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt]
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
—Idioms
6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.
7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.
8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.
Upon review, the 'facts' misrepresent the assertions.
Fight for your opinions, but do not believe they contain the whole truth, or the only truth.
- Charles A. Dana
However - YMMV.
__
BT
Richard
Warrior-Mentor
08-15-2009, 12:43
Without data, you're just another guy with an opinion.
Such zeal and focus of purpose is admirable - however - the adamant unwillingness to consider any possibility other than what someone has decided to believe without ever considering that it may not be as certain as they so stridently proclaim - especially when the theological historical record shows otherwise - brings to mind the words of Lord Chesterfield: "In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool."
Enjoy the search as much as I do - for there is far for us to go.
Richard
Warrior-Mentor,
I’ll read the suggested books when they arrive. In the interim I accept your assessment of the facts contained therein to be an accurate description of the structures, laws, and punishments set forth in the Islamic books.
Even so, look at the universal nature of human beings, and the historic evolutions of religions. Human beings all have basic needs for survival; they also have wants which I don’t believe can be fully suppressed by adhering to culture. Culture is formidable; the Judeo/Christian West has a hard time understanding the Kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers. Western soldiers may find surrender extremely distasteful, but it isn’t morally reprehensible to the culture once certain conditions are met. If it was there would be a consistent ongoing shortage of Frenchmen. The Bushido code and Jihad however have markedly opposite concepts of the value of a life, and what constitutes acceptable conduct for soldiers. The human nature element however doesn’t change. Soldiers throughout history knowing they would soon face death have sought comfort in alcohol and the arms of women. I don’t consider the 9/11 suicide pilots to be soldiers, they were murderers of innocent civilians, but the tip of the spear for their cause. Can you show me a more motivated Muslim? A good Muslim is not supposed to drink or engage in immoral acts, so why would these highly motivated zealots on the “eve of their martyrdom” knowingly booze it up at strip clubs like many a man knowing his death was imminent? Why pollute yourself with these Devilish Western excesses? Given the rigid bylaws of Islam, arguing extenuating circumstances, interpretations etc, is a slippery slope if this religion is singularly unlike all the others, even if it was will the human followers always blindly adhere? So why wouldn’t Islamic women given exposure to the kind of life Western freedoms provide give in to these wants at the expense of Radical Islam?
Religions have evolved with time as well. Islam is about 1400 years old. Christianity at that age had markedly different characteristics and tolerances as well. The Spanish Inquisition, heretics, burning people at the stake for witchcraft, suppressing art, all of this happened. So while I concede the written laws to be as you describe, I still believe if we play our cards right the human followers of Islam will opt for a better life.
Finally, as an example of there often being more to the whole truth than just the facts I humbly offer up the example of Deion Sanders. Yes Deion Sanders. Growing up a Cowboy’s fan in TX I maintained Sanders was the dominant cornerback of his generation. A statistics minded friend asked me what’s the job of a cornerback. I replied, cover receivers, intercept passes, and help tackling ball carriers. She said so I assume he has the most tackles and interceptions for his position? Actually he rarely tackles, and never once led the league in interceptions. She said his numbers don’t support your argument. Taken alone that is valid, but 9 Pro Bowls and 2 Super Bowls do, and the reason he had so few interceptions was opposing QB’s figured out quickly it was too risky to throw to his entire half of the field, he was too dangerous with the ball in his hands, that rare level of respect signifies dominance and explains the stat deficit. Facts while very important are not the whole truth.
Thank You,
AKV
I'm taking bets here.
What will come first.
That Little Mermaid in Copenhagen has to wear a burka full time (or is destroyed) or a Christian Church is build in Saudi Arabia with the full blessing of the House of Saud.
Any takers?
Warrior-Mentor
08-15-2009, 18:33
I don't purport to know what muslims think (any of them). I'm telling you what their LAWs say. When compared against the actions of their most devoted followers (those willing to kill other human beings and themselves in the process) and the speeches of their leaders eventually you notice a pattern.
Read the al qaeda reader when you get it. Lights will come on.
Peregrino
08-15-2009, 20:37
The threat is real. It is made more immediate by refusing to acknowlege the enemy. For those who insist on denying the goals of the Islamist Jihad (taken from the prophet's own words and expounded upon by centuries of his followers), I wish you the just rewards of your dhimmitude. I for one am not willing to surrender to a religion that seeks to incorporate the entire world into "Dar al Islam" with Kill, Convert, or Enslave the required fate of non-Muslims. If it continues the way Europe looks to be going your daughters will wear head scarves, your granddaughters will wear burkas, and your great-granddaughters will be sold in the market to pay the jizyah. It brings to mind a quote from our first struggles for independance:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! Samuel Adams
I think nobody denies the threat - the arguments are that its form and potential should be open to discussion - and that the conclusions made from such discussions may differ.
IMO denying the validity of the discussion or the perils of making so many negative totalizing comments about Islam (or any such issue) that our ability to interact productively with Muslims (or anyone) is compromised is a BIG mistake.* ;)
This would be akin to the argument that Nazism (as practiced in WW2) is evil (true), Germans were Nazis (partially true), so Germans are evil (which is as true as for any other population).*
Richard's $.02 :munchin
* With appreciation to DPA.
Peregrino
08-15-2009, 22:31
Richard - My personal philosophy isn't quite as rigid as my words might imply. I'll deal with almost anyone to advance the greater good. FWIW - I'm perfectly willing to concede that the majority of the Muslim world is just "along for the ride". Unfortunately, the extremists (the true Islamists by the Koran's literal definition) are driving the train, the moderates are just passengers, and we're (Western Civilization) singing kum-by-ya (sp?) in the middle of the tracks.
To expound on your WWII analogy - first you win the war; then you reach an accommodation with the survivors. This war is a "Hearts and Minds" campaign and we (the West) haven't even been fighting. On the other hand, the Islamists have been waging a sophisticated strategy from our capitols and courts to our very living rooms (WM's point to this entire thread). We (the government) aren't doing anything to counter it. Declaring the GWOT over and publishing a list of prohibited words doesn't mean the enemy is going to set aside their goals of Islamic domination. The Islamists have internal and external communications, why don't we? Where is the WWII style propoganda aimed at the American people by the American Government that mobilized a nation to fight and win? If an American president were to tell the American people that jihad is evil, that Islamo-fascism is real, and that terrorists need killing and persuade the majority to believe it - who cares what those words mean in Dar al Islam? We offered olive branches to the German population in WWII at the same time we were demonizing them here, where is the difference today?
The Army is at war, America is at the mall. We've been saying that since prime time coverage of 9/11 faded away. If the American people don't defend what they have, it is inevitable that they will lose it. If discourses like this one get a few more thinking about the totality of the issue, any minor disagreements will have been to good purpose.
Warrior-Mentor
08-18-2009, 00:08
Richard,
Apologize for the delay - I am traveling right now...
You are making a faulty leap in logic (A+B=C).
I am 100% German [of German descent]. (Interestingly, I have NEVER called myself a German-American).
I love beer, bratwurst and sauerkraut. But I am not proud of what Germany did in the 1930’s and 1940s.
What I am PROUD of, is the fact that my [German] grandfather built the P-40 fighter aircraft that helped win the war.
The key distinction is separating the people from the EVIL ideology.
NAZISM as an ideology is and always will be evil.
NAZIs (the people) can be separated from the ideology. Some can’t. How many Germans were unwillingly coerced into supporting the regime?
How many were victims of Stockholm Syndrome?
Key is recognizing the difference exists and the power within it.
And yet, Islam as a religion is inseparable from Islam as a political ideology – and as a complete way of life – a societal alternative.
Bin laden himself says “And every proposal that can possibly benefit the [secular] governments contradicts the sharia, we know this by examination, experience and trial.” 1
WITH RESPECT TO MODERATE ISLAM:
What does Osama bin Laden say in his essay “Moderate Islam is a prostration of the West”? 2
NOTE: This is written BY MUSLIMS, for MUSLIMS:
“Is the atmosphere for understanding found in this [Saudi] declaration based on the sharia, or are they merely expressing their own points of view in an attempt to create an atmosphere of shared understanding to be upheld by the governments and institutions? …
“As for this atmosphere of shared understandings, what evidence is there for Muslims to strive for this? What did the Prophet, the companions after him, and the righteous forebears do?
“Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? 3
“Or did they send messengers to discover “ shared understandings” between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security and natural relations would spread – in such a satanic manner as this?
“The sharia provides a true and just path, securing Muslims, and providing peace to the world.” 4
________________________
1 Ibraham, Raymond. “The Al Qaeda Reader.” page 31. Broadway (2007)
2 Ibraham, Raymond. “The Al Qaeda Reader.” pages 30-31. Broadway (2007)
3 See the “pact of Omar” which is the treaty of dhimmitude that was made between the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) and the second Caliph, Omar. In order to continue their faith, Jews and Christians had to agree to several social conditions enumerated in the pact that, among other things, were meant to humiliate and debase them in accordance with the Koran 9:29.
FOR EXAMPLE (and by no means is this a complete list):
- They were to rise from their seats if a Muslim wanted it.
- They were forbidden from riding in saddles or bearing any arms.
- They were forbidden from publically showing their crosses, lest Muslim eyes be offended.
- They were forbidden from worshiping too loudly, lest Muslim ears be offended.
- They were forbidden from building new churches or even repairing old ones.
QUESTION: Are you willing to tolerate this?
NOTE: Egypt’s secular government still upholds some of these severe restrictions on Christian churches.
BOTTOMLINE: Dhimmitude is in FACT a basic tenet of Islam and thus should be enforced under sharia law.
From “The al Qaeda Reader” page 288
4 “Peace to the world” as used by bin Laden here refers to when the entire world has converted to Islam, been killed or submitted to dhimitude and been humiliated.
It is clear that there are those who are fixated on holding to a mono-causal, top down, totalizing view of history in respect to the Islamic world - a view of history in which history does not unfold but remains static and, therefore, is not history at all.
This view persists despite their self-proclaimed arguments to the contrary in which they do not "purport to know what [M]uslims think (any of them)" - when they clearly think they do know what Muslims think - that Muslims will interpret Islamic law as dogmatically as they do (while history has shown otherwise) - and that they recognize OBL and other jihadist theorists to be as high a religious authority as they do. Such thinking is very much of the Orientalist type (as posited by Edward Said) and can, therefore, be sadly perpetually myopic and self-limiting in its nature.
I am an American - and I do not purport to know what Americans think - which often confounds me as well as many others (as shown in these and many other forums) - despite knowing what the laws say - and I cannot proclaim with certainy how Americans will act - even though I am aware of what the laws say and what I read or hear. However, I do know that to think I can predict their collective and individual actions with such certainty as some claim to be able to do with Islamic (or any other) society is to deny the ever present dynamism of global social transformation as recorded in History - and will surely limit my reasoning.
As far as logic goes - the Nazi argument (as posited) is a valid line of reasoning for this discussion - unless it is incorrectly interpreted by denying the parenthetical comments which correct the propositions that they follow.
The details in the analogy - as in much of this discussion - make a difference.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard
You are saying what you feel - WM is posting what they are saying.
If they say Islam is the only true religion. If they say all others must die, convert or pay a special tax. If they say they want to make Sharia the law throughout the world.
Me? I'll take them at their word.
I don't see the protests they have here in the States as being all warm and fuzzy "can't we all just get along" events.
What I am saying - some is not all; can is not will; History is not static...and to deny such may be dangerously self-limiting.
The world always has been and always will be a dangerous place - I would like to believe we can make it less so through vigilence and reasoned action - and without resorting to the all or none mentality of the sort which led to the Albigensian Crusades.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Blitzzz (RIP)
08-18-2009, 09:20
What I am saying - some is not all; can is not will; History is not static...and to deny such may be dangerously self-limiting.
The world always has been and always will be a dangerous place - I would like to believe we can make it less so through vigilence and reasoned action - and without resorting to the all or none mentality of the sort which led to the Albigensian Crusades.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Absolutes are pretty Leftist way of argueing a point, and lazy, and fact limited in most cases.
Vigilance is most important, but reasoned action, based of who is acting could be "after the barn door is opened" too late.
I don't know what I'm trying to say except there are no absolutes. A lot of "leaders" like to say they speak for "the people". They don't, they normally were just marginally voted in and only represent half or less of "the people"
The leadership aspect here is a key point. Who are the strong charismatic leaders in the Islamic world that want to integrate with the rest of civilization?
I think history shows us people want to be led, and religions are thus subject to evolution and interpretation. A strong charismatic leader seems to be the difference for good or evil.
On one side of the equation you have men like a Lincoln, Churchill, or Ronald Reagan who led their people through times of great peril. On the flip side Germany and Italy were modern Christian nations in the 1930’s and look what Hitler and Mussolini brought to bear.
I am not an expert on Islamic history. I know Saladin was seen as a chivalrous leader by both Christians and Muslims during the crusades. Anwar Sadat tried to bring about peace, and he was assassinated. Ataturk is probably the best modern example as he was able to shift Turkey into a secular state after WW1, it helped that he had the army behind him, but he was credible enough in their eyes that they chose his vision over the religion.
Islam does seem to have some particularly rigid tenets, these are surfaces, their treatment of women is also a glaring weakness, these are gaps. Unless they develop strong charismatic leaders who want to integrate with civilization we will be in constant conflict with them, and need to be for our own safety. So by my rationale maybe Obama is a bigger threat to America than Islam?
Richard, with all due respect Sir and IMO, it is the "all or nothing" way. We can all be together on defending our country, our values, our constitution, our core religion (the value of which this country was based on), our rights, etc or we can sit by and very complacently shrug out shoulders and allow all of that to slip away. We see it happening all over Europe. Their courts and laws are used against them, adulation of the PC world is used to against them. Those that don't tow the line and give in, are labeled racists and islamophobes.
I am with WM and Peregrino! The extremists are driving the train any so called "moderate" is going to get thrown on that track for commiting a blasphemy against Allah and the prophet. The facts are there, they are not fantastical stories made up to scare children and adults alike. If most muslims are just along for the ride then keeping their mouths shut against the extremists is to their benefit if islam takes over. IMO, I don't believe there are any moderate muslims, for if they speak out against the extremists they are no better than any infidel and do not deserve to live.
Not to long ago, a friend of mine came back from "the box" and while he was home, his interpreter (a very good friend of his) was with him. We all went out to dinner and drinks. His 'terp' considers himself a muslim (more of a jack-muslim than moderate) but not devout anymore because of what he learned in the mosques he has attended in our country. He has forbidden his family, that lives in Tx, to attend as well and told them that if they want to worship, they can do it at home. His words were, 'I really wish Americans really KNEW what they were teaching in the mosques in America....it is scarey! America is in grave danger and they better wake up and do something about it before it gets any worse". He went to explain how the demand for PC is working against us, he talked about creeping sharia into our court system, our government, our education institutions. Do I trust his words, yes! Not because he backed up what I believe is happening, what I see or have read about what is happening but because he is the first muslim I have met that did not deny deny deny deny!! He and my friend have been friends for years and my buddy said that the guy has said the same thing over and over! Yes, his words scare me but the indifference and acceptance of the Western world, scares me even more.
Warrior-Mentor
08-18-2009, 12:31
This view persists despite their self-proclaimed arguments to the contrary in which they do not "purport to know what [M]uslims think (any of them)" - when they clearly think they do know what Muslims think - that Muslims will interpret Islamic law as dogmatically as they do (while history has shown otherwise) - and that they recognize OBL and other jihadist theorists to be as high a religious authority as they do. Such thinking is very much of the Orientalist type (as posited by Edward Said) and can, therefore, be sadly perpetually myopic and self-limiting in its nature.
Edward Said was a racist guilty of intellectual terrorism. His accusations are one of the reasons why academics are not engaged.
Please read "Defending the West" by Ibn Warraq and then tell us what you think of Edward Said's "Orientalism."
You'll find it refreshingly enlightening.
I am an American - and I do not purport to know what Americans think - which often confounds me as well as many others (as shown in these and many other forums) - despite knowing what the laws say - and I cannot proclaim with certainy how Americans will act - even though I am aware of what the laws say and what I read or hear. However, I do know that to think I can predict their collective and individual actions with such certainty as some claim to be able to do with Islamic (or any other) society is to deny the ever present dynamism of global social transformation as recorded in History - and will surely limit my reasoning.
I am not purporting to know what Americans [or Muslims] think. I am citing what their LAW says. As an American you are responsible for knowing American law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
As far as logic goes - the Nazi argument (as posited) is a valid line of reasoning for this discussion - unless it is incorrectly interpreted by denying the parenthetical comments which correct the propositions that they follow.
If you see a doctor and he tells you that you have CANCER,
does your denial of the diagnosis change the fact that there is a malignant force growing in your body?
A smart person would get a second opinion to confirm,
but its still doesn't change [assuming the doctor is competent].
WE are fighting a malignant ideology.
Denying it does not change the fact that we have a CANCER.
The question is, what are we willing to do about it?
Key will be separating the PATIENT from the DISEASE.
The details in the analogy - as in much of this discussion - make a difference.
Agree.
Edward Said was a racist guilty of intellectual terrorism. His accusations are one of the reasons why academics are not engaged.
Please read "Defending the West" by Ibn Warraq and then tell us what you think of Edward Said's "Orientalism."
FWIW - I have read Warraq's "I am not a Muslim" - and it is quite interesting that you would use his writings to question Said's in such a manner. One point I do think Warraq continually makes with which I agree, however, is that of blind dogmatism tending to have shut many (but certainly not all) Muslims off from the intellectually challenging and exhilarating research, debate, and discussion of the last century and a half - something which may be remedied in large part due to the undeniable impact we're seeing of the WWW on the multi-generational shifts occuring within the Muslim world. But if academics are not engaged in this debate as you say, why quote the likes of Ibrahim - who is certainly engaged and whose writings I have read on Professor Victor Davis Hanson's web-site - so often and so decisively?
I am not purporting to know what Americans [or Muslims] think. I am citing what their LAW says.
You should reread your line of reasoning - which has consistently been that because the law says so, you do know that Muslims think it cannot be otherwise. My arguments have been that laws may not always be so rigidly interpolated and that - since it has not been so in the past - we cannot claim with such certainty that it will be so in the future.
WE are fighting a malignant ideology.
OK - I will use your cancer analogy since you fail to grasp the points of those that I've used:
We are fighting a potentially malignant ideology which - in reality - neither exists now nor has ever existed as it is being perceived or portrayed by both sides of this struggle. If it did, the broader Muslim world as we know it today would not exist because - as you so obdurately claim - it cannot possibly exist due to the law's saying it cannot and Muslims must obey Islamic law. If that were true - then why does it exist as it does? :confused:
But to declare it wholly unresponsive to any form of treatment other than its total eradication - an impossibility even with cancer - is to surrender to the malignancy's perceived potential and - thus - to support its continued growth. This is obviously the desired outcome of those who are now selectively using its tenets for their own malevolent designs - which has been the case throughout recorded History.
My question is - if we tell the patient he must die in order to cure his disease, what then becomes his reason for living and how will he react to that diagnosis? I certainly know how I would respond.
Understand that I am not in total disagreement with all that you are trying to say - however - I am in total disagreement with such an unsupported all or nothing approach to such a complex ideological issue.
Key will be separating the PATIENT from the DISEASE.
IMO - key will be to provide support and treatment to the patient in a manner which will eventually force the disease into remission and allow the patient - as well as the rest of us - to be as free of its most life-threatening ills as possible. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-19-2009, 11:05
The leadership aspect here is a key point. Who are the strong charismatic leaders in the Islamic world that want to integrate with the rest of civilization?
I think history shows us people want to be led, and religions are thus subject to evolution and interpretation. A strong charismatic leader seems to be the difference for good or evil.
You bring up a good point about leadership in the Muslim world.
Ask yourself, “Who are the most vocal leaders? Who are the most powerful?”
“And what are they saying publically to MUSLIMS?”
After 9/11, American intellectuals and priests wrote a letter to the Saudis titled “What we’re fighting for.”
The Saudis responded with a letter titled “How we can coexist.”
Both of these letters can be found at www.americanvalues.org
Bin Laden effectively shut down the [moderate] Saudis with his response [written by MUSLIMS for MUSLIMS] with an Islamic legal doctrinal denunciation of the very concept of moderate islam in his essay titled “Moderate Islam is a prostration of the West.”
Bin laden’s argument is that “radical” Islam IS ISLAM – without exception.
In the spirit of debate, the American intellectuals responded to the Saudi’s “How can we coexist” with another letter that praised their willingness to correspond.
It remains unanswered.
Why?
Because bin laden’s response was so powerful in using Islamic law to show the Saudis that they were violating the laws of islam…accusing them of becoming apostates and therefore implying that they will go to hell.
Yet bin laden’s response to the United States [written by MUSLIMS for NON-MUSLIMS] titled “Why we are fighting you” does not mention the Islamic doctrines he delineates to the Saudis – doctrines that intrinsically REQUIRE Muslims to attack non-muslims. “Those who do not meticulously follow the sharia are not Muslims at all and can be killed with impunity.”
For example, when addressing the [MUSLIM] Saudis, bin laden writes:
“There are only 3 choices in Islam, either
- willing submission [conversion to Islam]; or
- payment of the jizya [humiliation tax on non-Muslims]thereby physical, though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam; or
- The SWORD – for it is not right to let an infidel live.”
Yet when speaking to the [NON-MUSLIM] West directly, bin laden portrays islam only as a “religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and persecuted.”
Bin laden himself said:
“Is the atmosphere for understanding found in this [Saudi] declaration based on sharia, or are they merely expressing their own points of view in an attempt to create an atmosphere of shared understandings to be upheld by the governments and institutions?
“Every proposal that can possibly benefit the [secular] governments contradicts the sharia.”
“As for this atmosphere of shared understandings, what EVIDENCE is there for Muslims to strive for this? What did the Prophet, and the righteous forebears do?
“Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission?
“OR did they send messages to discover ’shared understandings’ between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security and natural relations would spread – in such a satanic manner as this?
“The sharia provides a true and just path, securing Muslims and providing peace to the [MUSLIM] world.”
Islam does seem to have some particularly rigid tenets, these are surfaces, their treatment of women is also a glaring weakness, these are gaps. Unless they develop strong charismatic leaders who want to integrate with civilization we will be in constant conflict with them, and need to be for our own safety.
Not exactly. No strong, charismatic leader can overcome the strength of islamic jurisprudence. It CANNOT be reformed. To do so is to deny the divine nature that islam is perfect. As Mohammed said "Today, I have perfected your religion."
Warrior-Mentor
08-19-2009, 11:50
FWIW - I have read Warraq's "I am not a Muslim" - and it is quite interesting that you would use his writings to question Said's in such a manner. One point I do think Warraq continually makes with which I agree, however, is that of blind dogmatism tending to have shut many (but certainly not all) Muslims off from the intellectually challenging and exhilarating research, debate, and discussion of the last century and a half - something which may be remedied in large part due to the undeniable impact we're seeing of the WWW on the multi-generational shifts occuring within the Muslim world.
Spend a couple bucks. You’ll be surprised what you find.
Ibn Warraq’s “Defending the West” is worth the time and the money.
http://www.amazon.com/Defending-West-Critique-Edward-Orientalism/dp/1591024846
But if academics are not engaged in this debate as you say, why quote the likes of Ibrahim - who is certainly engaged and whose writings I have read on Professor Victor Davis Hanson's web-site - so often and so decisively?
This is a quibble, but I’ll answer it anyway.
They are the exception. What’s being taught as a rule of thumb in our universities?
Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations by Michael Sells.
http://www.amazon.com/Approaching-Quran-Revelations-MIchael-Sells/dp/1883991692/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250702016&sr=1-1
Why?
Because all the peaceful Suras are the early ones - "revealed when Muhammed had a small followership and could be as aggressive.
They use this book to deceive and placate the West. The reality is that those early suras (MECCA) have been ABROGATED by the later suras from his later days in MEDINA.
Here’s how you know. Find a copy of the chronological order of the suras of the Koran [must be written by MUSLIMS for MUSLIMS].
Although not ideal, here’s a quick reference:
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Quran
Where is Sura 9 (the Sword Verses) relative to all the others?
You should reread your line of reasoning - which has consistently been that because the law says so, you do know that Muslims think it cannot be otherwise. My arguments have been that laws may not always be so rigidly interpolated and that - since it has not been so in the past - we cannot claim with such certainty that it will be so in the future.
Wrong. My argument is that because this is the law, it is what they are told they are required to think and do. Not everyone follows the law.
Not every Catholic goes to Church every Sunday. Does that change the requirement for them to attend? Clearly no.
OK - I will use your cancer analogy since you fail to grasp the points of those that I've used:
We are fighting a potentially malignant ideology which - in reality - neither exists now nor has ever existed as it is being perceived or portrayed by both sides of this struggle.
There is nothing POTENTIAL about this malignant threat. To imply so is to pretend what I’m telling you doesn’t exist.
It is to pretend that some how, someone can achieve “peace in our time.” It’s to be relegated to the dustbin of history with Neville Chamberlain.
Victor Davis Hansen: “When Hitler wrote ’Mein Kampf’ (which ironically translates into Arabic as ‘My Jihad’),
he did not hesitate to portray his ultimate worldview. Yet though the world was well aware of his book, IT WAS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY
– no doubt because many did not think that Hitler had the means to realize his wild visions of Teutonic domination.
“History proved otherwise, and millions died as a result of the world’s indifference to Hitler’s straight forward words.
The Al Qaeda Reader provides the world with al-Qaeda’s ultimate vision. The same mistake should not be made twice.”
Are you going to ignore what the enemy is telling us?
You don’t even have to look for it. Click here to get your Al Qaeda reader:
http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaeda-Reader-Raymond-Ibrahim/dp/038551655X
If it did, the broader Muslim world as we know it today would not exist because - as you so obdurately claim - it cannot possibly exist due to the law's saying it cannot and Muslims must obey Islamic law. If that were true - then why does it exist as it does? :confused:
I agree. You are confused. Things take time. Read Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones.
Here’s a free link (just add “http://” - there’s no www.)
majalla.org/books/2005/qutb-nilestone.pdf
But to declare it wholly unresponsive to any form of treatment other than its total eradication - an impossibility even with cancer - is to surrender to the malignancy's perceived potential and - thus - to support its continued growth. This is obviously the desired outcome of those who are now selectively using its tenets for their own malevolent designs - which has been the case throughout recorded History.
In many cases, cancer can be completely eradicated. It’s not easy, but it can.
My question is - if we tell the patient he must die in order to cure his disease, what then becomes his reason for living and how will he react to that diagnosis? I certainly know how I would respond.
Who told he patient he must DIE? Glad you’re not my doctor!
First, do no harm.
Stop the spread.
Cut the cancer out.
Chase it with Chemotherapy to prevent recurrence.
Monitor for recurrence.
Repeat as necessary.
This could be the framework for an effective strategy…if only we were willing to do so.
Understand that I am not in total disagreement with all that you are trying to say - however - I am in total disagreement with such an unsupported all or nothing approach to such a complex ideological issue.
You don’t have to believe it. What matters is what our enemies believe.
Back to Sun Tsu…”Know yourself and know your enemy…”
_________________________
“CANCER.”
It’s something you never want to hear your Doctor say.
Yet denial of the diagnosis does not change the prognosis.
Pretending you don’t have CANCER doesn’t change the FACT that you have a malignant growth in your body that MUST BE REMOVED or destroyed or it will kill you.
Unfortunately, this CANCER has already started to metastasize.
It’s the malignant ideology of islam.
The question is, “What are YOU willing to do about it?”
Key to curing the problem is separating the DISEASE from the PATIENT.
First step in most twelve-step recovery programs is to admit you have a problem.
Are you willing to admit we have a problem?
IMO - key will be to provide support and treatment to the patient in a manner which will eventually force the disease into remission and allow the patient - as well as the rest of us - to be as free of its most life-threatening ills as possible.
EXACTLY! Fighting the malignant ideology. Which is what I’ve been trying to get you to understand all along.
IMO - key will be to provide support and treatment to the patient in a manner which will eventually force the disease into remission and allow the patient - as well as the rest of us - to be as free of its most life-threatening ills as possible.
EXACTLY! Fighting the malignant ideology.
And on this I think we can agree. :lifter
Richard's $.02 :munchin
blacksmoke
08-21-2009, 14:40
I reccomend Radical Islam's War Against the West on DVD, and gatesofvienna.blogspot.com to anyone else following what WM is saying.