View Full Version : Does America Have a Muslim Problem?
This is an abridged preview of an article that will appear in the 30 AUG 2010 issue of TIME.
Richard :munchin
Does America Have a Muslim Problem?
Time, TBP 30 Aug 2010
You don't have to be prejudiced against Islam to believe, as many Americans do, that the area around Ground Zero is a sacred place. But sadly, in an election season, such sentiments have been stoked into a political issue. As the debate has grown more heated, Park51, as the proposed Muslim cultural center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is called, has become a litmus test for everything from private-property rights to religious tolerance. But it is plain that many of Park51's opponents are motivated by deep-seated Islamophobia.
The proposed site is close not just to Ground Zero; it's also a stone's throw from strip clubs, liquor stores and other establishments typical of lower Manhattan. Muslims have been praying in the building for nearly a year, a fact that has got lost in the noise of the protests. But since early August, it has been the scene of frequent demonstrations, with signs saying things such as "All I Need to Know About Islam, I Learned on 9/11." The husband-and-wife team behind Park51, Imam Feisal Rauf and Daisy Khan, seem stunned into paralysis: while opponents cast them as extremists sympathetic to al-Qaeda, they have given very few interviews themselves. Pressure is mounting on the couple to move their center to a less polarizing location.
The controversy has also brought new scrutiny to other examples of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim protests, raising much larger questions:
Does America have a problem with Islam?
Have the terrorist attacks of 9/11 — and other attempts since — permanently excluded Muslims from full assimilation into American life?
Although the American strain of Islamophobia lacks some of the traditional elements of religious persecution — there's no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise, for instance — there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that hate speech against Muslims and Islam is growing both more widespread and more heated. Meanwhile, a new TIME-Abt SRBI poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. Only 37% know a Muslim American. Overall, 61% oppose the Park51 project, while just 26% are in favor of it. Just 23% say it would be a symbol of religious tolerance, while 44% say it would be an insult to those who died on 9/11.
Islamophobia in the U.S. doesn't approach levels seen in other countries where Muslims are in a minority. But to be a Muslim in America now is to endure slings and arrows against your faith — not just in the schoolyard and the office but also outside your place of worship and in the public square, where some of the country's most powerful mainstream religious and political leaders unthinkingly (or worse, deliberately) conflate Islam with terrorism and savagery. In France and Britain, politicians from fringe parties say appalling things about Muslims, but there's no one in Europe of the stature of a former House Speaker who would, as Newt Gingrich did, equate Islam with Nazism.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011798,00.html
Don't mean to hi-jack, but I think this is also part of the equation.
Just watch this CNN "news reel" from the UK about UK Muslims and their ambitions to turn Buckingham Palace into a mosque.
Q: What about the Queen??
A: She can convert to Muslim or leave the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mlxMndnlzw
I think the UK may be in an advance stage of assimilation into the Muslim Borg.
This is an abridged preview of an article that will appear in the 30 AUG 2010 issue of TIME.
Richard :munchin
Does America Have a Muslim Problem?
No. Islam has an American problem.
craigepo
08-19-2010, 17:54
No. Islam has an American problem.
concur.
Does America have a Muslim problem? Sure. And does Islam have an American problem? Again, sure.
But not in the sense presented by the article.
The underlying belief systems are different. Look at the various freedoms Americans have, historically, embraced - including the freedom to collect compound interest :cool:. Islam is against all of these.
Freedom of speech? Of religion? Try those in Saudi Arabia. Don't expect to survive the experience.
The very phrases "slave of God" and "God willing" suggest the antithesis of the free will promulgated in the West.
The belief system connected to the religion is the problem - and it will spawn conflicts until the belief systems cease to be in conflict. This may well imply the destruction of at least one of the belief systems...and maybe both.
I think the author has his head up his forth point of contact :D
IMO…IF… every Muslim were a terrorist, then we would have a Muslim problem. Nevertheless, his narrative, the title, and the way he frames the article requires those reading to categorize every Muslim as a terrorist, as opposed to judging people on their individual merits - It successfully puts everyone in a no win situation.
IMHO, we do have an Islam problem, and Islam has a problem with us, there’s no doubt about it, particularly from those who advocate the Medina way. Our Islam problem is that we are at war with Islam because Muhammad declared war on us.
One of our problems is categorizing a Supremacist political ideology as a religion.
The author would have been better served if he were to have framed the article:
“Does America have an Islam Problem”
Just my $00.02 :D
ETA
Those unwilling to criticize the traditions of misogyny, jihad, Jew hatred, racism, bigotry, subjugation, supremacy and pedophilia, etc, the ways of “Mo-Alla” - are the ones who are the problem.
Enough with the concessions. There is something inherently wrong with the prophet of a religion and those who condone “eyes for infant girls”, and “Mufaakhathah”, the practice in which the prophet "placed his [male] member between her thighs and massaged it softly, as the apostle of allah had control of his [male] member not like other believers"
The belief system connected to the religion is the problem - and it will spawn conflicts until the belief systems cease to be in conflict. This may well imply the destruction of at least one of the belief systems...and maybe both.
Some good points so far in this thread, but before we single out religion, our American freedoms and belief systems have historically clashed with ideologies that don't value what we do. Our issue and conflict with the Nazi's had next to nothing to do with religion, and the Soviets were atheists in theory, yet we found their policies, conduct and ideology repugnant. We don't seem to have a problem with Turkey, they are a NATO ally and if we honor our obligations we must defend them if they are attacked, yet Islam is the majority religion there, the difference is though imperfect, we aren't opposed to Turkey's political ideology as a secular democracy.
My question is do we trust Putin and his thugs more than AQ because in theory Russia like America enjoys a Christian majority? Perhaps this is my prejudice, I am always suspicious of the Russian nation, even if they claim democracy/reform...
In my opinion what America has is a problem of is not having any balls anymore. Years ago we would have told them to go pound sand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGSN7JVg1yQ
I'm for helping Tom save America...:D :D
Richard :munchin
Thomas Paine
08-20-2010, 07:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGSN7JVg1yQ
I'm for helping Tom save America...:D :D
Richard :munchin
That's what I'm talking about. American patriotism!
Islam is just The New Kid On The Block or shall we say "The Benjamin "of the World Religions that from it´s inception has been by it´s detractors tried to be thrown down the well to stifle it. But alas THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BROTHER!
Because as The German Poet GOETHE has said:
" Foolish thst everone in his own way
His very own opinion does praise,
If Islam means to submit your will to God´s,
Then we ALL live and die in Islam!"
Goethe and Napoleon were Pro Islam
and Patton called The Koran a very interesting Book
Thomas Carlyle in 'Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,' 1840
"The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man are disgraceful to ourselves only
The Reaper
08-20-2010, 18:18
Patton called The Koran a very interesting Book
So is Playboy, but that doesn't make it right.
You need to take a deep cleansing breath and slow down before posting again.
TR
............"The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only
Well, well Raschil
We'll be looking for some informed input from you in the days to come.
Or your time here may be short.
Pete
Goethe and Napoleon were Pro Islam
and Patton called The Koran a very interesting Book
Hitler had a favorable inclination towards Islam. Didn’t General Alexander Loehr say “Islam was such a desirable creed the Fuehrer longed for it to become the official SS religion.” ?
Wonder why?
Considering the ideological similarities between Nazism and Islam, could someone with a simple world view contend that Nazism was a child of Islam?
Johann Von Leers ardently admired what the Muslims had done to the Jews.
Muhammad ‘Inayat Allah Khan (al-Mashriqi) translated Mein Kampf into Urdu, and when he met da Führer, he realized beforehand, “the success of the Nazi movement, simply by following the shining guidance of the Holy Koran”
Are you a Spade bearer Raschid?
Just curious…
and Patton called The Koran a very interesting Book
Generally citing Nazi's, some rapper you have to identify, a mythical Jedi Knight, combined with short bus spelling, and a rude tone towards a lady aren't the most endearing ways to make your point here or most anyplace of significance. Despite all of this, there are folks here who differentiate between Muslims and terrorists, and respect the rights of all Americans.
If you are referring to General George S. Patton, yes he did find Islam "interesting."
“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.”
-George S. Patton
RE: Post #14 - simply astounding. :eek:
Richard
RE: Post #14
There are unintentional similarities between the two, my sources are here, have at it:
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/10/22/hitler-and-jihad-part-1/
Is Dr. Bostom wrong? :confused:
ETA, If Hitler didn’t find Islam appealing, why did he copy something that he discussed with Muhammad `Inayat Allah Khan in 1926 ?
Well, well Raschil
We'll be looking for some informed input from you in the days to come.
Or your time here may be short.
Pete
thanks i cleaned up the words in parantheses wasnt in original!
alright4u
08-20-2010, 21:59
:mad::mad:.
Some good points so far in this thread, but before we single out religion, our American freedoms and belief systems have historically clashed with ideologies that don't value what we do. Our issue and conflict with the Nazi's had next to nothing to do with religion, and the Soviets were atheists in theory, yet we found their policies, conduct and ideology repugnant. We don't seem to have a problem with Turkey, they are a NATO ally and if we honor our obligations we must defend them if they are attacked, yet Islam is the majority religion there, the difference is though imperfect, we aren't opposed to Turkey's political ideology as a secular democracy.
My question is do we trust Putin and his thugs more than AQ because in theory Russia like America enjoys a Christian majority? Perhaps this is my prejudice, I am always suspicious of the Russian nation, even if they claim democracy/reform...
Now, Hitler claimed he was working with or on a master race. The Ruskies damn sure killed as many or more as all Nazi's. My old man was in the 42 ID. My sister, who lives in his house, has some/a few Signal Corps photos never released.
Islam is no different in my view. The first thing a muslim army or it's financiers/followers do after after a victory is to build a damn mosque on the site. Make no mistake- 9/11 was a victory to them.
There are unintentional similarities between the two, my sources are here, have at it:
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/10/22/hitler-and-jihad-part-1/
Is Dr. Bostom wrong? :confused:
Superficial 'unintentional similarities' abound in History - but what of the greater (and more deeply profound) disimilarities? A deeper study of Nazism shows how Hitler's purported 'admiration' of Islam was extremely superficial (at best) as a political expedient and not something Hitler seriously considered as being truly compatible with either his personal or Nazi ideology.
As for Dr Bostom's writings, there is a readily identifiable cultural bias and slant to them, and images of a Hitler-Islam parallel play strongly amongst that culture - ever consider it? :confused:
Richard :munchin
If they were superficial, why did Hitler establish the spade movement he learned of in 1926 ?
Why was Haj Amin al-Husseini in possession of blueprints of Auschwitz and given a radio station ?
Why intermingle the Aryan race with Muslims?
IMO, admiration and similar ideologies brought them together…but I am not a learned scholar…I just hold a einfache weltanschauung :D
The following is a fascinating link, one of which I plan on researching more:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/auschwitz-blueprints/
ETA, Richard, I’m curious your thoughts, what role “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” played on Hitlers mind and what role it plays in the Muslim world today ?
:munchin
alright4u
08-21-2010, 00:37
Islam is just The New Kid On The Block or shall we say "The Benjamin "of the World Religions that from it´s inception has been by it´s detractors tried to be thrown down the well to stifle it. But alas THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BROTHER!
Because as The German Poet GOETHE has said:
" Foolish thst everone in his own way
His very own opinion does praise,
If Islam means to submit your will to God´s,
Then we ALL live and die in Islam!"
Goethe and Napoleon were Pro Islam
and Patton called The Koran a very interesting Book
Thomas Carlyle in 'Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,' 1840
"The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man are disgraceful to ourselves only
You need help.:mad:
:mad::mad:
The first thing a muslim army or it's financiers/followers do after after a victory is to build a damn mosque on the site. Make no mistake- 9/11 was a victory to them.
The facts back up the above comment...
I feel sorry for the folks who are so emotionally damaged that they cannot see reality as it is, not what they wish it to be.
And yeah, I grew up in New York, went to school on 59th street, and I have Radical Muslim problem...
alright4u
08-21-2010, 03:04
That's what I'm talking about. American patriotism!
This kid needs an education, military, etc.
RE Post #21:
Historically, campaigns in the name of such national political movements as anti-(insert religious or racial belief du jour), anti-bolsehvism, anti-zionism, anti-communism, anti-socialism, etc, have often led to such political expedience and pragmatic necessity, and have made for some strange bedfellows amongst those seeking to carry out their grandiose, hate inspired plans during brief periods of overlapping similarity of purpose.
The Grand Mufti was a stooge whose use by Hitler as a propaganda tool (like Lord HaHa, Axis Sally and others) to enflame the Muslim world against the Jews, Zionists, and bolshevists is well documented.
For anyone familiar with the wide variety of and reasoning behind the Nazi's so-called 'Foreign Legions,' the photos used by the AtlasShrugs blog are of but some of the various ethnic volunteers from the Eastern territories who manned the Russian, Cossack, and Ukrainian volunteer units led by German cadre to fight the communists (bolshevists) on the OstFront - Eastern, yes, but few were actually Muslims. And Germany's long-standing ties with Turkey were a given at the time. Expedient, temporary manpower with an in-grained sense of anti-whateverism was a necessity for the Nazis in their anti-bolshevist (and, as a part of that campaign, anti-zionist) 'crusade' (a term they used frequently and with great nationalistic success) to save the Aryan race. As such, it doesn't take much imagination to understand the implications of where that crusade would have eventually gone if the Axis powers had been successful in their endeavors.
The fez wearing 13th Handschar-Kroatische WSSDiv (Croatians and Bosnian Muslims with German cadre) was formed for a similar reason - their near-term use of the long-standing ethnic hatreds to be found amongst the various Balkans nationalities against their traditional regional enemies for the Nazi cause. What was presented publicly as a united brotherhood of national socialistic membership joined in the common cause of defeating world bolshevism (and zionism) in convoluted Nazi propaganda and what was actually the reality of the situation were two different matters.
As far as a so-called 'spade movement' adopted by the Nazis - such symbolism within the Germanic culture has as much to do with the historical lore of its peasant uprisings (primarily farmers armed with pitchforks, rakes, scythes, shovels) in the 16thC as with anything claimed by a self-aggrandizing Islamic stooge. Such symbolism (visual and historical) was a strong and important part of the Nazi propaganda machine, as well as a way to organize and prepare a nationalized labor force (physically, structurally, mentally) which would later prove itself easily converted to a national military force - drilling with spades and drilling with rifles is an easy transition. In Germany, the myth of the peasant farmer is as powerful a symbol of the common man and his 'salt of the Earth values' as it is here in America (or was in the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, DRVN, etc). As to the value of an organized national labor force, the CCC proved of equal benefit to our needs during the same period of history - although the purpose and goals of our nation's leadership were much different than those of the national socialists.
Auschwitz - much like Dachau and initially very different from the extermination camps located further East along the Bug River - was a show camp and primarily a model for a forced labor/training camp until the war's encroachment began forcing the closure of those singular purpose extermination camps and the Nazi time-line for Die Endlösung being pushed forward. Auschwitz then became the de facto primary (although not sole) organ of systematized mass extermination until it, too, was forced to be abandoned. Giving someone like the Grand Mufti a set of blueprints for Auschwitz, the model of KL efficiency, can mean any number of things depending upon why and how they were presented, and what they contained.
People should read Will Eisner's "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to understand the question you've presented. Remember - there are Christians who still preach the idea of Judaism as being responsible for the crucifiction of their savior.
Superficial similarities, such as the perception of and an admiration for a group's ability to focus itself on a singularity of purpose, sure, but the deeper disimilarities - for the Nazis, deeply rooted in Nordic myth and Christian ideology, history, and culture - which were not given the opportunity to play themselves out (thank gawd) make the arguments being presented an arguably weaker and recklessly dangerous ploy on the part of anyone looking to understand the matter(s) at hand and seeking a reasonable resolution to the current issues we're facing.
The deck of cards used by politicians of any ilk to gain support of their 'visions' - the race card, the religious card, the good old days card, the blame card, the brighter future if only card, the economic disparity card, the patriotic card, the immigrant card, the cultural identity card, etc - seems a universal reality to me no matter one's ideological upbringing.
However, that is MOO and YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Thank you Sir for your well thought out informative reply.
People should read Will Eisner's "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to understand the question you've presented. Remember - there are Christians who still preach the idea of Judaism as being responsible for the crucifiction of their savior.
Still yet, I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around why they do this, I suppose replacement theology holds the key :confused:
I thought “The Lie That Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” by Hadassa Ben-Itto was a good read as well. It seems they just won’t go away…
I’m a Zionist Co-Conspirator :D
NosceHostem
08-23-2010, 15:57
Yes, America has a Muslim problem. So does the Free World. This problem is rooted in the fundamental tenets of the Islamic ideology and its history, jurisprudence, and scholarly consensus. The truth is that all four major schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Hanafi) agree that violent jihad to convert, kill, or subjugate the non-believer is a foundational obligation of the faith. The scholarly consensus (ijma (http://citizensagainstsharia.wordpress.com/tag/ijma/)) of the Islamic community (umma) agrees with this interpretation, and the issue is no longer open for debate (closing of the gates of ijtihad (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/charging-ignorance-to-fool-the-ignorant.html)). The unchallenged principal of abrogation is that the violent Medinan Verses of the Sword override and more conciliatory Meccan verses. So while there are many peaceful Muslims, a minority, of perhaps hundreds of millions of fanatic believers, have the text of the Koran and haddith and therefore Islamic law (the Sharia) on their side.
Additionally, in any totalitarian ideology it is those “extremists” with the capacity for violence that often set the direction of the movement. The average German in WWII didn’t want to butcher millions of innocent people. Neither did the average Russian under Stalin. The moderates were irrelevant. The same is true today in the West where “radical” Islamists, spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood, are waging an organized campaign of civilizational/non-violent/stealth jihad. They have the same goals as the violent terrorist groups, the establishment of a Caliphate and the global supremacy of Islam, but choose to use non-violent means for now. This is not because they believe that non-violent jihad is preferable to violent jihad but because they feel it is tactically wiser at this time to avoid violent methods until they become stronger. This reasoning is in-line with the Islamic concept of taqiyya (http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war).
Furthermore, 80% of the mosques in America are run by the Saudi Wahhabists (see previously linked radio interview of Steve Emerson (http://www.billbennett.com/michaelmedved/player.aspx?g=aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLnRvd25oYWxsLmNvbS90 b3duaGFsbC9iZW5uZXR0L1N0ZXZlRW1lcnNvbjIubXAz) @ 7:33, Sheik Kabbani’s (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/09/dont-apologize-governor-romney.html) 1999 State Department statements, and 21-year CIA veteran Robert Taft (http://www.abledangerblog.com/2007/08/exclusive-interview-with-dr-bruce-tefft.html) also here (http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28646)). Many, if not most, mosques in the U.S. preach virulently anti-American/Christian/Jewish propaganda (see Mapping Sharia in America (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=57141) and Freedom House report: Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/45.pdf)). Intelligence officer Lt. Col Joseph C. Myers calls this effort a “subversive insurgency” and details the threat in a two part video interview here (http://www.archive.org/details/CincinnatusInterviewwithLTCJosephCMyers_Part1of2_) and here (http://www.archive.org/details/CincinnatusInterviewwithLTCJosephCMyers_Part2of2_) . Watch it all. In addition, many books have been written about the demographic crisis and growing Islamist movement in Europe: Eurabia, Londonistan, America Alone, etc, etc.
In conclusion, after several years of study on Islam and jihad, I’ve come to agree with Winston Churchill (http://sioe.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/winston-churchill-on-islam/) and John Adams (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11283) on the fundamental nature of Islam. The Free World is in big trouble.
I found your thoughts most interesting, NosceHostem. I would very much appreciate any views you had about the timing of more aggressive behavior on the part of Islam.
Green Light
08-23-2010, 17:49
RE: Post #14 - simply astounding. :eek:
Richard
Scratching head. Not sure what to say there.
Yes, America has a Muslim problem. So does the Free World. This problem is rooted in the fundamental tenets of the Islamic ideology and its history, jurisprudence, and scholarly consensus. The truth is that all four major schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Hanafi) agree that violent jihad to convert, kill, or subjugate the non-believer is a foundational obligation of the faith. The scholarly consensus (ijma (http://citizensagainstsharia.wordpress.com/tag/ijma/)) of the Islamic community (umma) agrees with this interpretation, and the issue is no longer open for debate (closing of the gates of ijtihad (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/charging-ignorance-to-fool-the-ignorant.html)). The unchallenged principal of abrogation is that the violent Medinan Verses of the Sword override and more conciliatory Meccan verses. So while there are many peaceful Muslims, a minority, of perhaps hundreds of millions of fanatic believers, have the text of the Koran and haddith and therefore Islamic law (the Sharia) on their side.
Additionally, in any totalitarian ideology it is those “extremists” with the capacity for violence that often set the direction of the movement. The average German in WWII didn’t want to butcher millions of innocent people. Neither did the average Russian under Stalin. The moderates were irrelevant. The same is true today in the West where “radical” Islamists, spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood, are waging an organized campaign of civilizational/non-violent/stealth jihad. They have the same goals as the violent terrorist groups, the establishment of a Caliphate and the global supremacy of Islam, but choose to use non-violent means for now. This is not because they believe that non-violent jihad is preferable to violent jihad but because they feel it is tactically wiser at this time to avoid violent methods until they become stronger. This reasoning is in-line with the Islamic concept of taqiyya (http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war).
Furthermore, 80% of the mosques in America are run by the Saudi Wahhabists (see previously linked radio interview of Steve Emerson (http://www.billbennett.com/michaelmedved/player.aspx?g=aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLnRvd25oYWxsLmNvbS90 b3duaGFsbC9iZW5uZXR0L1N0ZXZlRW1lcnNvbjIubXAz) @ 7:33, Sheik Kabbani’s (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/09/dont-apologize-governor-romney.html) 1999 State Department statements, and 21-year CIA veteran Robert Taft (http://www.abledangerblog.com/2007/08/exclusive-interview-with-dr-bruce-tefft.html) also here (http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28646)). Many, if not most, mosques in the U.S. preach virulently anti-American/Christian/Jewish propaganda (see Mapping Sharia in America (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=57141) and Freedom House report: Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/45.pdf)). Intelligence officer Lt. Col Joseph C. Myers calls this effort a “subversive insurgency” and details the threat in a two part video interview here (http://www.archive.org/details/CincinnatusInterviewwithLTCJosephCMyers_Part1of2_) and here (http://www.archive.org/details/CincinnatusInterviewwithLTCJosephCMyers_Part2of2_) . Watch it all. In addition, many books have been written about the demographic crisis and growing Islamist movement in Europe: Eurabia, Londonistan, America Alone, etc, etc.
In conclusion, after several years of study on Islam and jihad, I’ve come to agree with Winston Churchill (http://sioe.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/winston-churchill-on-islam/) and John Adams (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11283) on the fundamental nature of Islam. The Free World is in big trouble.
NH, very interesting and well said! Thank you for sharing that. I concur!
NosceHostem
08-23-2010, 20:39
I found your thoughts most interesting, NosceHostem. I would very much appreciate any views you had about the timing of more aggressive behavior on the part of Islam.
Thank you nmap and Saoirse. My thoughts on the timing of more aggressive action from Islam are as follows: Islamic terrorism in America is undoubtedly on the rise; of the 30 or so attempted attacks since 9/11, one-third occurred in 2009. We’ve seen further arrests in 2010 with an increase in home-grown domestically born plotters. In addition, I’m inclined to believe that the violent Islamists have established extensive networks throughout the West and could therefore conduct tactical strikes against us virtually at will. For instance, Hizballah and al Qaeda teamed up in the 90’s and have been using Latin America to great effect (particularly the Tri-border region and Venezuela) in order to procure cash, arms, and forged travel documents. Jihadis have been marrying into drug cartels as well. Moreover, “Other Than Mexicans” have been caught crossing our border in droves, along with their Qurans and prayer rugs found in the desert. The enemy is here. Again, Lt. Col Joseph Myers details the threat extensively at archive.org here (http://www.archive.org/details/CincinnatusInterviewwithLTCJosephCMyers_Part1of2_) and here (http://www.archive.org/details/CincinnatusInterviewwithLTCJosephCMyers_Part2of2_) .
So a reasonable conclusion is that these jihadis could be blowing up gas stations, shopping malls, trains, preschools, etc. Why haven’t they? My hunch is that rather than escalate the rage of America with smaller strikes and incur our subsequent wrath, they will wait patiently until they have the capacity for a system collapsing attack. They may already have this capability. Such an attack would use chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons to cripple us. Some experts are greatly concerned with the threat of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) to do just that. The fact that Zawahiri called off an NYC subway attack with sarin gas in lieu of “something better” indicates that al Qaeda has adopted this strategy of pursuing a truly crippling attack. There are really only 3 arguments (http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=1015&tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=182&no_cache=1) for a lack of a WMD attack by al Qaeda: disruption, deterrence, and patience. As I discuss below, I seriously doubt the efficacy of deterrence with this adversary. Ominously, Harvard University’s Graham Allison, author of Nuclear Terrorism, expects such an attack in the near future.
Furthermore, there have been reports that Usama bin Laden has enough highly enriched uranium for multiple nuclear weapons. Also, both he and Zawahiri claim (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/25/al_qaedas_pursuit_of_weapons_of_mass_destruction?p age=full)that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons. Clearly, this revelation would not be surprising considering the cash the jihadists have (through the heroin trade and other illicit activities as well as Islamic “charity” [zagat] which is often simply financial support for jihad from individuals and oil rich regimes). In addition, by their very criminal/terrorist natures, jihadis have the connections within the underworld necessary to access the illegal arms market. Procuring HEU is really the only difficult step in making a Hiroshima-style bomb, a design that is simple, reliable, and readily available. Likely, they have the money, the connections, and the will to do so.
Regarding deterrence, the Mutually Assured Destruction which kept nuclear stability/stalemate throughout the Cold War is predicated on the international actors being rational. Arguably, our current foes are not. For example, former CIA head Jim Woolsey, former SecDef William Perry, Princeton University Islamic expert Bernard Lewis, and others believe that the rulers of Iran truly think we are at the end-time approaching the return of the 12th Mahdi. According to Shia eschatology, the Mahdi will return at a time of great suffering for the Muslim world in order to avenge them and vanquish the infidels. Apparently, Ahmadinejad believes it is his role to usher in the Mahdi. His spiritual adviser, Mesbah-Yazdi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad-Taqi_Mesbah-Yazdi), is the leader of an Islamic end-time cult called the Hojjatieh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hojjatieh). Not very comforting. And I’m not persuaded that the Sunni jihadis are any less suicidal.
So…as far as timing goes, I suspect Israel will soon attack the Iranian nuclear program (weeks/months?) and possibly the seats of regime power as well. This is an atrocious option but exponentially better than allowing the Iranian thugs to get nukes, at best sparking a nuclear arms race by the volatile Sunni nations. It would not surprise me in the least if WMDs were used against Israel and/or the U.S. in crippling fashion as “retaliation” for Israel attacking Iran. I sure hope I’m very wrong.
Thank you, NosceHostem. Lots of good material I was not aware of.
Regarding deterrence, the Mutually Assured Destruction which kept nuclear stability/stalemate throughout the Cold War is predicated on the international actors being rational. IMO, this statement is overly broad. If mutually assured destruction was accepted as the norm, then why did both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. pursue increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons technology throughout the Cold War but especially during the Reagan administration?
(MOO, America's pursuit of "escalation dominance" across the spectrum of warfare during the Reagan presidency was a clear rejection of "mutually assured destruction.")
craigepo
08-23-2010, 22:36
(MOO, America's pursuit of "escalation dominance" across the spectrum of warfare during the Reagan presidency was a clear rejection of "mutually assured destruction.")
I understand your train of thought. But was Reagan's strategy a rejection of the M.A.D. principle, or an escalation thereof? Sort of a "standing up to the bully"?
For some time, the US and USSR went back and forth with newer, better M.A.D. weaponry. Then Reagan came along, and basically smothered Russia with technology and spending. Sort of showing U.S. might, not just in weaponry, but also evincing capitalism's economic superiority over communism.
NosceHostem,
I wish you luck on making an ODA. Your knowledge will serve your team and country well.
NosceHostem
08-23-2010, 23:19
IMO, this statement is overly broad. If mutually assured destruction was accepted as the norm, then why did both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. pursue increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons technology throughout the Cold War but especially during the Reagan administration?
(MOO, America's pursuit of "escalation dominance" across the spectrum of warfare during the Reagan presidency was a clear rejection of "mutually assured destruction.")
Reagan rejected not Mutually Assured Destruction but the policy of detente (essentially go along to get along) and chose to confront the USSR militarily/economically as well as morally. MAD, along with a little luck, kept the nukes from flying for almost half a century (although we came close a couple times). But we were still active rivals vigorously competing for ideological dominance on the world scene. By building up military capability, both offensive and defensive, the two great powers were striving to gain an advantage politically rather than to nullify MAD. Regardless of the Russian nuclear advances, the U.S. would always have a second-strike retaliatory capacity through its nuclear subs secretly swimming the seas undetected. Although Reagan's pursuit of the Star Wars missile defense program was technologically unfeasible at the time, it was used to great effect as a bargaining chip with the Soviets who thought it could negate MAD thereby gaining a strategic advantage for the U.S.
Leave it to a Hollywood actor to pull off the big bluff when the nuclear chips were down...Chuck Norris 2012!
NosceHostem
08-23-2010, 23:22
NosceHostem,
I wish you luck on making an ODA. Your knowledge will serve your team and country well.
Thanks a ton badshot.
NosceHostem-entire post
Interesting stuff especially the chilling "OTM" issue and timing thoughts, but why would we not continue selectively targeting this extremist violent Muslim minority with a minority where applicable, just as we targeted the Mafia without needlessly alienating every Italian American? IMHO, the Russian and German extremist minority analogy differs from the current American situation in that the totalitarian violent extremists mentioned were actually the governments in power running the countries as opposed to a radical minority itself with a minority in a secular republic. Now if demographics changed substantially over time, things change.
Either way, best of luck to you, and thank you for signing up to defend our country.
Green Light
08-24-2010, 06:02
Reagan rejected not Mutually Assured Destruction but the policy of detente (essentially go along to get along) and chose to confront the USSR militarily/economically as well as morally. MAD, along with a little luck, kept the nukes from flying for almost half a century (although we came close a couple times). But we were still active rivals vigorously competing for ideological dominance on the world scene. By building up military capability, both offensive and defensive, the two great powers were striving to gain an advantage politically rather than to nullify MAD. Regardless of the Russian nuclear advances, the U.S. would always have a second-strike retaliatory capacity through its nuclear subs secretly swimming the seas undetected. Although Reagan's pursuit of the Star Wars missile defense program was technologically unfeasible at the time, it was used to great effect as a bargaining chip with the Soviets who thought it could negate MAD thereby gaining a strategic advantage for the U.S.
Leave it to a Hollywood actor to pull off the big bluff when the nuclear chips were down...Chuck Norris 2012!
Reagans plan was quite simple but extremely effective:
1. Maintain the balance of nuclear power.
2. Build up alliances as a force multiplier against the Soviets.
3. Seek out and nullify insurgencies where the Soviets were using client states to destablilize areas (Cuba, Grenada, and Nicaragua).
4. Reassert the Monroe Doctrine against the Soviet Empire through it's proxies in (ascending order) El Salvador FMLN, Nicaraguan Sandinistas, and Cuba; nullify and defeat them.
5. Use the US economic might to manuever the USSR to the edge of its capabilities.
6. Use the ruse of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars - that never existed) to nudge it over the side into bankruptcy.
It worked.
Your knowledge will serve your team and country well.
badshot - you can say this with certainty because you've served for how long and on how many ODAs? :confused:
As far as the Muslim problem goes, I was watching CBN last night out of boredom from Glen Beck overload and listened to three self-proclaimed experts - two men and a woman, all sporting hairdo's meriting their own zip codes while seated in gold leaf covered chairs and holding what looked to be blow-dried rats thinly disquised as some sort of lapdogs - telling everyone watching of gawd's plans for dealing with the myriad asymetrical problems associated with the world's current religious schism because they'd read a book and visited the Galapagos, and would be willing to share the plans with anyone who called the telephone number on the bottom of the television screen and voluntarily donated $19.95 + P&H.
Since no three people outside of the DHS or Jihad Watch or New York City can agree on either the exactness of the problem or its solution, I'm thinking of ordering the deluxe 'Gawd's Answers' kit from them for just $24.95 + P&H - the one with the 99 shamwows embossed with Mel Gibson's signature in gold for cleansing yourself of all the spittle produced by the ecstasy you'll experience from reading their materials - so I can recognize all those who are to be shunned in case gawd ever decides to enact that plan of hisn in my lifetime.
Since watching that show, I've been wondering if some prophesized savior ever returned to Earth disguised as Jack Black in Nacho Libre attire and speaking Aramaic or AAVE, would they be shunned, too?
However - YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
dadof18x'er
08-24-2010, 08:54
That's what I'm talking about. American patriotism!
I agree with his heartfelt motive but I cannot/will not drink that beer. :munchin
ZonieDiver
08-24-2010, 09:59
I agree with his heartfelt motive but I cannot/will not drink that beer. :munchin
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm... beer! :D
This thread - along with many others on this board has divided into two camps that will never see eye to eye.
The one camp sees a future problem with a growing Muslim population, it's non-assimilation into our culture and accommodation of it's ways - Sharia - into ours.
The other camp sees no problem - and if there is one it's caused by us. The Muslims are just like the Irish, French, Japanese, Chinese, Scandinavians, etc, etc, etc who came here before and became Americans.
But there is a big difference. All those other groups were ethnic groups - Muslims come as a religion. They are not defined by where they came from but from the religion they believe in.
When talking about hyphenated Americans like Irish-Americans or African-Americans or Japanese-Americans it is a "cultural identity"-American. Islam covers a great portion of the world and includes many different cultures but most refer to themselves as "Muslim" not "Culture"-Americans. This is where the heart of the problem lays.
So just how are things working out in Europe?
dadof18x'er
08-24-2010, 12:11
This thread - along with many others on this board has divided into two camps that will never see eye to eye.
The one camp sees a future problem with a growing Muslim population, it's non-assimilation into our culture and accommodation of it's ways - Sharia - into ours.
The other camp sees no problem - and if there is one it's caused by us. The Muslims are just like the Irish, French, Japanese, Chinese, Scandinavians, etc, etc, etc who came here before and became Americans.
But there is a big difference. All those other groups were ethnic groups - Muslims come as a religion. They are not defined by where they came from but from the religion they believe in.
When talking about hyphenated Americans like Irish-Americans or African-Americans or Japanese-Americans it is a "cultural identity"-American. Islam covers a great portion of the world and includes many different cultures but most refer to themselves as "Muslim" not "Culture"-Americans. This is where the heart of the problem lays.
So just how are things working out in Europe?
Denmark seems to be having a bit of a challenge..http://www.zimbio.com/War+on+Terrorism/articles/619/Salute+Danish+Flag+Symbol+Western+Freedom
This thread - along with many others on this board has divided into two camps that will never see eye to eye...The one camp sees a future problem...The other camp sees no problem...
Actually, I think it is more reasonably described as a case of those whose position is "It will!" and those whose position is "It will?"
A consensus among the various groups appears - IMO - to be one of "It certainly can...if we allow it."
All those other groups were ethnic groups - Muslims come as a religion. They are not defined by where they came from but from the religion they believe in.
I've gotten to know quite a few ME immigrants around here; they tend to describe themselves rather proudly as Americans of Iranian or Lebanese or Syrian or Pakistani or Kurdish or whatever national descent who, if they practice Islam as a religious faith (and not all of them do), describe themselves as Muslim only in reference to their faith, not their nationality. However, many of my non-ME neighbors tend to confuse the issue most often by refering to anyone who appears to be of ME ancestry as being "Muslim."
As my Dad used to say, someone can only drive you crazy if you allow them to have the keys to your car.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Utah Bob
08-24-2010, 14:27
badshot - you can say this with certainty because you've served for how long and on how many ODAs? :confused:
As far as the Muslim problem goes, I was watching CBN last night out of boredom from Glen Beck overload and listened to three self-proclaimed experts - two men and a woman, all sporting hairdo's meriting their own zip codes while seated in gold leaf covered chairs and holding what looked to be blow-dried rats thinly disquised as some sort of lapdogs - telling everyone watching of gawd's plans for dealing with the myriad asymetrical problems associated with the world's current religious schism because they'd read a book and visited the Galapagos, and would be willing to share the plans with anyone who called the telephone number on the bottom of the television screen and voluntarily donated $19.95 + P&H.
Since no three people outside of the DHS or Jihad Watch or New York City can agree on either the exactness of the problem or its solution, I'm thinking of ordering the deluxe 'Gawd's Answers' kit from them for just $24.95 + P&H - the one with the 99 shamwows embossed with Mel Gibson's signature in gold for cleansing yourself of all the spittle produced by the ecstasy you'll experience from reading their materials - so I can recognize all those who are to be shunned in case gawd ever decides to enact that plan of hisn in my lifetime.
Since watching that show, I've been wondering if some prophesized savior ever returned to Earth disguised as Jack Black in Nacho Libre attire and speaking Aramaic or AAVE, would they be shunned, too?
However - YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Order a copy for me. I'll pay ya back.
Got a feeling it's going to be a long winter and I can use all the ecstatic experience I can get.
Can you get extra Shamwows with it? I'm running out of my stockpile of Robert Tilton Seed of Faith prayer cloths. (They aren't as thick as I thought they'd be);)
ZonieDiver
08-24-2010, 18:37
Actually, I think it is more reasonably described as a case of those whose position is "It will!" and those whose position is "It will?"
A consensus among the various groups appears - IMO - to be one of "It certainly can...if we allow it."
I've gotten to know quite a few ME immigrants around here; they tend to describe themselves rather proudly as Americans of Iranian or Lebanese or Syrian or Pakistani or Kurdish or whatever national descent who, if they practice Islam as a religious faith (and not all of them do), describe themselves as Muslim only in reference to their faith, not their nationality. However, many of my non-ME neighbors tend to confuse the issue most often by refering to anyone who appears to be of ME ancestry as being "Muslim."
As my Dad used to say, someone can only drive you crazy if you allow them to have the keys to your car.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Your dad was a wise man! No wonder you so smart! :D
Inventing Moderate Islam
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244545/inventing-moderate-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy
An interesting read.
"...‘Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” The writer was not one of those sulfurous Islamophobes decried by CAIR and the professional Left. Quite the opposite: It was Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family. He made this assertion in his book, How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah, an excerpt of which was published by the Saudi Gazette just a couple of months ago......"
And another part....
"......As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (Qur’an, 2:140) For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy..........."
Folks, I believe them when they say this.
Bordercop
08-25-2010, 11:41
+1
RE: Moderate Islam - I found some interresting arguments here.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/issues/
Richard :munchin
Richard
Name the Muslim run countries that are moving to the left, becoming more liberal, more open in relations with non-Muslims - what ever you want to call it.
How many can you name?
As had been covered before Turkey used to be one of those countries we all held up as a modern nation that could balance the secular and the religious. But that county is voting itself tighter into the grip of Islam and Sharia.
Talks cheap, everyone wants a group hug, lets all play nice.
But Islam is not out to play nice with others.
So name the Islamic country where others are on an equal footing.
I would think some people might be interested in what some notable Islamic scholars are openly saying to the world on those very topics.
Some pretty interesting news items here, too.
Middle East Desk - a joint project of the Middle East Research and Information Project and the Kevorkian Center at New York University.
http://middleeastdesk.org/
Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP) - informative website on Middle East politics, culture and society since 1971.
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero.html
Richard :munchin
Bordercop
08-25-2010, 14:24
The link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/excusing_islam_for_the_fort_ho.html
Excusing Islam for the Fort Hood Massacre
By Lance Fairchok
"The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil." Cicero
On 5 November 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a US Army Psychiatrist and devout Muslim, opened fire on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, TX, killing thirteen and wounding 32. As he fired, he shouted "Allahu Akbar," which means "God is Great," an Islamic declaration of faith.
On 10 August 2010, the Department of Defense (DoD) released 23-pages of recommendations from an independent review of the Fort Hood massacre. It is not as pure a whitewash as the first Fort Hood report, called "Protecting the Force". It actually has some relevant recommendations. However, it so assiduously avoids the central issue that it becomes a masterpiece of political correctness.
There is not a single mention of Islam, Islamic Radicalization, Jihad, Jihadists, Religious Extremism in the entire document. Nor is there any other word or phrase that would indicate to the reader that Hasan was anything other than a mentally disturbed murderer. The writers describe "self radicalization" and "religious practices" in the vaguest way under recommendation 2.7:
"The independent Review found that DoD policy regarding religious accommodation lacks the clarity necessary to help commanders distinguish appropriate religious practices from those that might indicate a potential for violence and self radicalization."
So Hasan was "self-radicalized." Certainly murdering your fellow soldiers could be considered an inappropriate "religious practice".
In a slick sleight of hand, the DoD absolves the belief system that spawned the violence of any responsibility. For those who have the courage to embrace it, the truth of Islamic belligerence is frightening, not only for what it is, but for what it means if we fail to confront it.
Islam inevitably brings violence because Jihad is its soul. The evidence is clear, compelling and overwhelming. If we hope to meet the ever-growing threat from Islam, we must acknowledge that truth. As more Islamic countries become nuclear powers, it is just a matter of time until they flex that nuclear muscle. Inside a decade, we may well be fighting for our very existence against a totalitarian ideology so controlling and so rigid that it makes communism look benign.
Major Hasan was a dedicated adherent to that ideology. He felt justified in his actions, even righteous, but then his instructions were very clear:
Qur'an 8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"
Hasan followed those words.
Words like these abound in the Quran. Our soldiers were butchered by one of their own officers, murdered in cold blood. They were unarmed, helpless, but not sinless according to Islam. They were unbelievers, sub-human.
Anwar Al-Awlaki, who preached to Major Hasan and his family at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, VA has nothing but praise for him.
"Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people," Awlaki wrote. "This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn't exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a U.S. soldier." Al-Awlaki goes on to say Muslim soldiers in the US Military should follow Hasan's example.
America has learned much about Islam during the last bloody decade. The horrors of 9-11-2001 delighted a large majority of the Muslim world. They still inspire hundreds of millions whose central religious motivation, as clearly commanded in the Quran, is religious conquest. If not by the sword, then by subterfuge, the quest for absolute dominion underlines everything. All treaties and agreements are temporary. All tolerance of non-Muslims is an unpleasant necessity, a means by which to achieve the holy purpose of an Islamic world. Dialogue is a tactic, disinformation about Islamic dogma a tool, to fool the credulous and establish Islamic preeminence, to get a foot in the door, to take root in the national dialogue, to establish legitimacy.
We are told endlessly that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. After a decade of the violent reality of Islam, the claim is so absurd it becomes a parody of delusional political correctness. It borders on collective insanity. The proposed mosque and "Islamic Center" near Ground Zero is a case in point. Parroting the White House backdoor talking points, leftist publications from Slate to the New York Times tell us that opposing the Ground Zero mosque is racist and bigoted. It is a version of the same tired rhetoric used to promote racial exceptionalism and "social justice." Americans are mightily sick of it.
What evidence makes us wary of Islamic promises of dialogue? Perhaps 15,000 terror attacks since 9-11 against Muslims and non-Muslims alike, vicious, indiscriminate, brutal attacks meant to terrify and horrify. No other religious faith is guilty of so many atrocities against so many innocents in so many disparate lands.
For the faithful, denying Jihad is apostasy. The commands of the Quran are not metaphors. Muslims take them very seriously. Take the time to read their holy book. This is what they believe.
Quran 8:39 So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.
Qu'ran 5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is one of them. Lo Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
Qur'an 8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"
Qur'an 8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."
Ishaq:369 - From the Hadeeth (oral tradition)
"Thereupon Mas'ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim's brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in your belly from his charity.' Mas'ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.' Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!'"
Major Hasan acted on what he read in the Quran and the teachings he absorbed in his mosque. For the Department of Defense to pretend otherwise is an act of politically correct delusion.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not require that we ignore the mores of our civilization to appease Islam. We do not have to accept a religious system that has within it the justification for misogyny, violence and murder. Nothing short of national conversion will appease Islam or spare us the conflict that is coming. If we ignore the evils that Islam brings, how then can we ensure our freedoms remain alive for our children?
Of course YMMV...
Pete,
Sir, I read through the provided McCarthy piece on Mr. Al Qaradawi. I started with Mr. McCarthy's assertions, and tried to get more insight into the Sheikh's background. Mr. Al Qaradawi is 85 years old, highly educated and a published author. He is also banned from entry into the US or Great Britain, his son is a poet and his daughter interestingly enough is a nuclear scientist. Interesting since the Sheikh tends to go back and forth over every issue, he preaches against violence (except against Israel which he condones) and for Islamic women one day, and then goes on record "light beatings" are ok " as is "female circumcision". He will preach tolerance, and then say killing Israeli women is allowed since they serve in the military. He was originally against the tearing down of the Buddhist statues, but reversed his position after a meeting with the Taliban. McCarthy cites the Sheikh's views on Islamic incompatibility with secularism, I believe he said those things, but he says a lot of things, he also said,
Muslim world needs democracy, says Qaradawi
08-07-2006
DOHA, The Peninsula: Noted Islamic scholar Dr Yousuf Al Qaradawi has said the Muslim world needs democracy.
The scholar, who is in Istanbul, Turkey to attend a conference, said: "The Muslim world needs democracy. It wants democracy. But it should be real democracy and not just democracy by name only."
He added: "Democracy has done some good things. It has saved humanity from despots and dictators who act like gods. The details should be left to the people. Let them decide for themselves."
He, however, added that democracy in the Muslim world would be different from what it is in Western countries. "This is because in Islam there are some fixed principles that cannot be changed. But there are some things where the people can call for change, depending on the time and place," he said.
Perhaps statements like the above led Mr. McCarthy to label him a moderate, by my read, just further evidence of the Sheikh's slippery MO. He knows what side his bread is buttered on. Most third world countries are despotic dictatorships in practice, the Saudis are no exception, arabs who are wealthy by no efforts or industry of their own, save the fact there are oil deposits in their soil, that the West chose to pay them for instead of simply taking. If Sheikh Al Qaradawi is esteemed by the Saudis, who like most despots are rightfully paranoid about reform which might threaten their power base, it would make sense they would wheel the old guy out to say, but actually now this is just the way it is. At some point someone like Martin Luther comes around and says BS you aren't my link to god. Most despots think reformation is a precursor to revolution. We need Ataturk 2.0.
IMHO, Mr. McCarthy's argument would hold more water if the Sheikh was a moderate, which he doesn't seem to be. Finally perhaps the greatest importance isn't what you, myself or Mr. McCarthy think, but what the Muslim world thinks of him. The following excerpt from an Australian reporters column is actually posted on the Muslim Brotherhood's own english website.
If you doubt me when I say that Qaradawi is a right-wing extremist, remember this. In October 2004, a petition signed by 2,500 of the world"s leading Muslim intellectuals from 23 countries was delivered to the United Nations. It condemned Islamic theologians who promote fundamentalism, intolerance and violence, including Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Listing him as one of the "sheikhs of death", the petition signatories accused him of "providing a religious cover for terrorism".
Mr.McCarthy this is an interesting way for the Muslim Brotherhood to portray their spiritual leader, no? The Arab news also seperately(link provided) reinforces this view.
So Sir, net net IMHO the Sheikh is simply an opportunistic hypocrite, not the voice of Islam, on the contrary 2500 educated Muslims see through his act specifically labeling him a "sheikh of death." I am also left questioning Mr. McCarthy's professionalism at best.
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=11311 (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?
article=11311[/url])[/URL]
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=15874
http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=53683&d=30&m=10&y=2004
net net IMHO the Sheikh is simply an opportunistic hypocrite
In our view he’s a hypocrite, nevertheless, Islam defies logic and is profoundly dualistic, both things are true but one is better.
Bill Warner explains: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/10397/sec_id/10397
NosceHostem
08-25-2010, 17:43
“There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” - Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, August 2007
He’s right, and it ain’t pretty.
In Islam, the Quran is the literal word of God. It is perfect, totally sufficient, and unchangeable for all time. Islamic law, the Sharia, is based on the Quran and other religious texts detailing the life of the tribal warlord Muhammad. Note that he is not Jesus with a prayer rug. Islamic law and jurisprudence are further edified by the scholarly consensus of the Islamic community which formally closed debate on doctrinal issues of Sharia several hundred years ago. In Sunni Islam (80+% of the world's Muslims) you have four schools to pick from. But jihad is jihad, and it is obligatory according to all mainstream/authoritative Islamic doctrines. Therefore the deck is stacked very heavily against those who truly want to reform Islam from an aggressive, expansionist, totalitarian political ideology into a private personal faith. To paraphrase Robert Spencer, Islam is unique among the world's religions in that it has a developed doctrine, jurisprudence, and history obliging its adherents to convert, conquer, or kill the non-believer. Islam is NOT Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. "Islam is Islam."
Re post #54
McCarthy never himself labels Qaradawi a moderate. McCarthy argues that Georgetown and Harvard claim him to be a moderate and that he is, as Feisal Rauf says, “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” McCarthy’s point is that Qaradawi is NOT a moderate but an Islamist fundamentalist. He is saying that the fact that those in Western academia or the Islamic world would think of Qaradawi as moderate and mainstream demonstrates that there is truly no mainstream moderate Islam in the world today. Basically, if that is the best guy the Islamist apologists can come up with as an example of moderation, we're in trouble.
In fact, I attended a talk by Sumbul Ali-Karamali, the author of The Muslim Next Door, and she cited Qaradawi and Tariq Ramadan (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/09/tariq-ramadan-exposed) as shining stars of Muslim moderation. When I called her out on some of Qaradawi's radical positions she basically said to give him a break because he was from Egypt and a product of his environment. She was clearly an apologist for if not an advocate of the creeping Sharia project of the Muslim Brotherhood. Not surprisingly, she was bragging about how the FBI had bought hundreds of copies of her book to educate their agents on Islam.
As far as McCarthy's professionalism is concerned, I’ve had the chance both to watch him present and to speak with him, and Mr. McCarthy is definitely a pro in the fight against Islamic jihad.
To paraphrase Robert Spencer, Islam is unique among the world's religions in that it has a developed doctrine, jurisprudence, and history obliging its adherents to convert, conquer, or kill the non-believer. Islam is NOT Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. "Islam is Islam."
The more things change...excerpt...
"In the seventh century A.D., the religion known as Islam arose in the Arabian peninsula. Like Christianity, Islam officially condemned forced conversions. But unlike Christianity, Islam instructed its followers to ensure that the world was under the political control of the Faithful. Hence Islam's political domination could be, and was, spread by the sword."
Source:
http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/religion/crusades/crusade_back.html
ORB Online Encyclopedia
Crusades
Political and Military Background
Paul Crawford
To begin to answer the question, "What were the Crusades?" one must first consider the history of Europe and the Middle East in the millenium before 1095.
Beginning in the first century A.D., the religion known as Christianity arose in Palestine and spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire. By the end of the fourth century, the Roman Empire had become officially and primarily Christian, as a result of peaceful missionary activity from within society (later church, or canon, law in fact forbade forced conversions). Jerusalem, Palestine and Syria, all within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, became predominantly Christian (the Jewish population of Jerusalem had been largely dispersed by pagan Roman authorities following the Jewish anti-Roman revolts of A.D. 66-70 and 132-135, and few Jews remained in the area).
In the seventh century A.D., the religion known as Islam arose in the Arabian peninsula. Like Christianity, Islam officially condemned forced conversions. But unlike Christianity, Islam instructed its followers to ensure that the world was under the political control of the Faithful. Hence Islam's political domination could be, and was, spread by the sword.
Carried on the backs of Arab cavalry, Islam burst out of Arabia and quickly took control of the Middle East. Byzantium and Persia, the two powers in the area, were exhausted by prolonged conflict with each other. Persia was completely defeated and absorbed into the Islamic world. The Middle Eastern armies of the Christian Byzantine Empire were defeated and annihilated in 636, and Jerusalem fell in 638. Through the rest of the seventh century, Arab armies advanced inexorably northwards and westwards.
By the early eighth century Arab forces had reached the Straits of Gibraltar, and in 711 they crossed into European Spain and shattered the armies of the Christian Visigoths. By 712 they had reached the center of the Iberian Peninsula, and by the 730s they were raiding deep into the heart of France, where Charles Martel met and defeated their most ambitious raid near Tours around 732. This was to prove their high water mark in the West.
For the next 300 years Christians and Muslims engaged in a protracted struggle, including the siege of Constantinople by the Arabs in 717-18, and the seizure of Sicily and other Mediterranean islands in the ninth century by the Muslims. In the tenth century the Byzantines made some limited gains along the periphery of the now-shrunken Empire, but did not retake Jerusalem.
In the middle of the eleventh century the Arabs were displaced as leaders of Islam by the Turks, who converted to Islam even as they conquered the Arabs. The Turks disrupted the area's political and social structures and created considerable hardships for Western pilgrims. Up till now most Arab rulers of the area had been fairly tolerant of Christian interest in the Holy Places (one notable exception was the "Mad" Caliph Hakim at the beginning of the eleventh century, who destroyed churches and persecuted Jews and Christians). By the second half of the eleventh century, most pilgrims were going to the Holy Land only in large, armed bands, groups who look in retrospect very like crusade rehearsals.
The Turks also posed a new threat to the Byzantines. In 1071 the Turks met and crushed the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert, near Armenia. As a result the entire heartland of the Empire, in Asia Minor, lay open and defenseless, and the Turks soon established themselves as far west as Nicaea, just across the Bosphorus from Constantinople. In the same year the Normans in southern Italy, led by Robert Guiscard, defeated the Byzantines at Bari and drove them off the Italian mainland.
The Imperial Byzantine crown was briefly contested following Manzikert and Bari; the successful claimant was Alexius Comnenus, a capable soldier and a clever diplomat. Perceiving that the Empire was deprived of its primary recruiting grounds and breadbasket, he sent out desperate calls for help to the West, particularly to the pope. Gregory VII briefly considered leading an expedition eastwards himself in support of the Byzantines. However, he was too preoccupied both by the Investiture Controversy with the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, and by the growth of Norman power under Robert Guiscard in southern Italy, to respond in any meaningful way.
Alexius continued to appeal to the West, however, and in the spring of 1095 Pope Urban II allowed Byzantine delegates to address the Council of Piacenza, and he gave his sanction to those nobles who were inclined to respond. He then proceeded into France, attending to various church business. By November he was in Clermont, and it was here that he gave a speech which caught the imagination of the West.
It is hard to know exactly what Urban had in mind when he called for expeditions to the East. We have various texts of his speech; none agree exactly, but it seems unlikely that Urban envisaged waves of Frankish peasants travelling to Jerusalem. Alexius had called for large contingents of mercenaries, particularly Normans, to come and take service in the Byzantine Army. Urban probably had something a little more elaborate than that in mind--among other things, he probably hoped that an expedition to the East, carried out under papal leadership and comprised of noblemen from across western Europe, would boost his position in the ongoing Investiture Controversy with the Holy Roman Empire.
1. Introduction
2. Military and Political Background
3. The First Crusade
4. Crusades and the Counter-Crusades
5. The Later Crusades
6. Additional Background
7. Crusading Vows & Privileges
8. Legacy
Copyright (C) 1997, Paul Crawford. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents,including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.
Noscehosetm-entire post
If we Mr. McCarthy included, are all in fact agreed Qaradawi is in fact an extremist nut, why do we care about his views on the incompatibility of Islam and secularism? It would be like in a poll of evil dictators surveyed 9 out of 10 felt democracy was a bad idea. I would have liked to see McCarthy interview a dozen of the 2500 educated Muslims world wide who went on the record against the Sheikh.
The argument would be much more credible, if say the second individual you cited, Prime Minister Erdogan of the secular Republic of Turkey said something similar, or took actions inline, that would definitely merit attention.
QP Pete mentioned two camps, the disconnect I have is the assumption Islam, and specifically a fundamentalist interpretation automatically supersedes every other self identity for those of that faith. If you take a man, say he is father, a husband, a Muslim, a soldier, a Kurd, and a Turk. What is the default hierarchy of his identity? How could it not vary from individual to individual? Are they men, or bugs from a Heinlein novel? I would guess a father would choose his child first, then his family but it varies by individual and culture. If Turkey begins massacring Kurds, where is his first loyalty? If there was a civil war with his unit leading the coup, does he stay loyal to his brothers in his unit, or the Republic he swore to defend. If Turkey is attacked by another Islamic state who does he side with? He may be Muslim in name only, thinking the Mullahs are all manipulative nuts, eating pork, drinking and never going to the mosque, or he might be more religious. Even if he was the religious type, as folks pointed out here in the past, if some Mullah or one of his officers ordered him to kill innocent kids who are no threat, he might do it, or be the kind of man who calls BS and disobeys the order. If his greatest identity is fundamental violent Islam, from our perspective he's got to go no argument, but the notion these people are limited to either mindless drones once exposed to Islam or apologists is too absolute and simple an argument for the real world. Radical Islam kills more Muslims than anything else, how does this endear them to the population as a whole?
Even in times of war or conflict the hierarchy of identities surface, General Adolf Galland of the Luftwaffe had his squadrons directly disobey a Nazi order to machine gun RAF pilots who had bailed out during the Battle of Britain. General von Choltitz refused Hitler's order to destroy Paris before letting the Allies liberate her. Whatever motivated these career soldiers, it was clear something superceded their loyalty to their superiors. On the flipside there were plenty of folks who bought lock stock and barrel into Nazi ideology and committed the infamous atrocities associated with the Third Reich.
I have never met Mr. McCarthy, he seems as you describe a bright fellow, but I disagree with his blanket statement regarding an absence of moderate Muslims, a study of human nature tends to discount such simple absolutes, and plays into dangerous stereotypes.
NosceHostem
08-26-2010, 00:29
If we Mr. McCarthy included, are all in fact agreed Qaradawi is in fact an extremist nut, why do we care about his views on the incompatibility of Islam and secularism? It would be like in a poll of evil dictators surveyed 9 out of 10 felt democracy was a bad idea. I would have liked to see McCarthy interview a dozen of the 2500 educated Muslims world wide who went on the record against the Sheikh.
...
I have never met Mr. McCarthy, he seems as you describe a bright fellow, but I disagree with his blanket statement regarding an absence of moderate Muslims, a study of human nature tends to discount such simple absolutes, and plays into dangerous stereotypes.
The reason Qaradawi's view is important is because he is held up by many apologists/useful idiots as a moderate, and he is the most well-known legal authority in the Muslim world. I agree that some of those 2500 truly moderate Muslim intellectuals should be highlighted. The West needs to engage and support them immediately in an effort to wrest control of global (Sunni) Islam from the Saudi Wahhabis. They've spent tens of billions to spread their virulent ideology and have become the dominant strain of Islam in the West. We need to get serious about empowering their opposition, first in America, then the rest of the West, then globally.
Finally, it is crucial to note that McCarthy said nothing of the non-existence of moderate Muslims. He said there is no moderate ISLAM. As you indicate, reason holds that many, if not most, Muslims are not fanatics. Many are illiterate, or don't speak/read Arabic, and thereby largely inoculated from the political ideology within the doctrines of pure Islam. Many others don't take their faith all that seriously or consider themselves to be Muslims culturally rather than religiously. More still don't give a damn what the religious schools or leaders say, they just want to live their lives and provide for their children. So moderate Muslims, yes, moderate (mainstream) Islam, no.
Regarding deterrence, the Mutually Assured Destruction which kept nuclear stability/stalemate throughout the Cold War is Your understanding of the Cold War is inaccurate for several reasons.
Chief among these reasons is the fact that the Reagan administration, through its pursuit of 'escalation dominance' across the spectrum of warfare, rejected mutually assured destruction in favor of a national security strategy that emphasized strategic defense and second strike assets (chiefly through plans to arm Ohio-class boats with Trident D5 missiles throwing MIRV-ed W88 warheads) with first-strike capabilities (chiefly through reduced CEPs).
When matched with AirLand Battle and SEAPLAN 2000 (the Maritime Strategy)--to say nothing of a secret presidential directive that established an acceptable level of loss of life in case of a nuclear war--the Reagan administration's emphasis on escalation dominance underscored the belated point of the White House's previous inhabitant: Détente is over.*
________________________________________________
* The omission of the USAF's focus on "deep battle" is not by accident.
Chief among these reasons is the fact that the Reagan administration, through its pursuit of 'escalation dominance' across the spectrum of warfare, rejected mutually assured destruction in favor of a national security strategy that emphasized strategic defense and second strike assets (chiefly through plans to arm Ohio-class boats with Trident D5 missiles throwing MIRV-ed W88 warheads) with first-strike capabilities (chiefly through reduced CEPs).
Sorta brings a nostalgic tear, during the transitional phase in Jaw Juh, while ushering in the era of Ohio's, and watching the 640's slowly laid to rest. The trips to Cocoa beach and Lauderdale were teh awesome :D
Détente is over.*
The misguided one ruined it... The Siege of Mecca comes to mind...
NosceHostem
08-26-2010, 09:38
Your understanding of the Cold War is inaccurate for several reasons.
Chief among these reasons is the fact that the Reagan administration, through its pursuit of 'escalation dominance' across the spectrum of warfare, rejected mutually assured destruction in favor of a national security strategy that emphasized strategic defense and second strike assets (chiefly through plans to arm Ohio-class boats with Trident D5 missiles throwing MIRV-ed W88 warheads) with first-strike capabilities (chiefly through reduced CEPs).
When matched with AirLand Battle and SEAPLAN 2000 (the Maritime Strategy)--to say nothing of a secret presidential directive that established an acceptable level of loss of life in case of a nuclear war--the Reagan administration's emphasis on escalation dominance underscored the belated point of the White House's previous inhabitant: Détente is over.*
I studied the Cold War under arguably the world's top expert on the subject, John Lewis Gaddis. But, according to this book review in the NY Times, it seems I should have paid closer attention:
Reagan was another saboteur. He strove to shatter the East-West stalemate "by exploiting Soviet weaknesses and asserting Western strengths." Few - even among his supporters - glimpsed Reagan's genuine passion to abolish nuclear arsenals, which he considered immoral. Many American academics decried Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative of 1983 as a warmongering effort to extend the cold war into the heavens. But while conceding the risks (the Soviets feared a first-strike attack), Gaddis praises Reagan's strategy of using the threat to build an antimissile shield that the Soviets could not soon match. "If the U.S.S.R. was crumbling," Gaddis asks, "what could justify . . . continuing to hold Americans hostage to the . . . odious concept of mutual assured destruction? Why not hasten the disintegration?" LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15beschloss.html)
Beyond the nuances of Cold War strategy, my point in bringing up M.A.D. was to argue that deterrence may not work with death-loving Islamists the way it did with life-loving Soviets.
I studied the Cold War under arguably the world's top expert on the subject, John Lewis Gaddis.FWIW, I would have agreed with this assessment until the mid 1990s. Since then, Professor Gaddis has not quite kept the pace he had set for himself in the 1970s and 1980s. Now, I would rank him behind Melvyn Leffler and Michael J. Hogan among Americanists and well behind "international" diplomatic historians who have the language skills to do multi-archival research. (Gaddis switched from Russian history to American history because he had problems learning Russian.*)
Second, Gaddis's efforts to cross pollinate the fields of history and political science never quite took hold. (Gaddis has always been a little too preoccupied with 'relevance' for my tastes. History is a humanity, not a social science.)
Moreover, Professor Gaddis has changed his views towards history, the historiography of the Cold War, as well the relationship between domestic politics and international affairs in ways that are jarring. So much so that he (at least in my opinion) needs to do a better job at explaining the transition--which he, at least in my experience, treats as seamless. For example, the way Gaddis wrote/spoke about nuclear war changed dramatically during the mid 1990s. Why? Did Gaddis tire of the incredible push back he received from academics and students? (Believe me, it was intense.) Or did his views towards nuclear war change?
This is not to say a scholar should not grow or change from this master's thesis to his dissertation to the time he pens a broad overview of an immensely important topic. But rather, one does need to square the circle if one goes from having a viewpoint a lot like Henry Kissinger's in the 1950s to one a lot like Bush the Younger's in the 2000s.**But, according to this book review in the NY Times, it seems I should have paid closer attentionMOO, Beschloss was absolutely the wrong person to write that review and the New York Times's editorial staff did Beschloss no favors. Sycophancy is a poor substitute for probing analysis and critical engagement. (The review should have fallen to Anders Stephanson.;))
Did Professor Gaddis assign his own Strategies of Containment or did he walk you through the historiography of the Cold War and/or American foreign relations since 1945 (specifically "Eisenhower Revisionism")? Either one of these options would have given you a preview of the current trend of crediting Reagan for ending the Cold War. (And Strategies of Containment definitely would have challenged the notion that MAD was a permanent fixture of the Cold War.)
Reagan was another saboteur. He strove to shatter the East-West stalemate "by exploiting Soviet weaknesses and asserting Western strengths." Few - even among his supporters - glimpsed Reagan's genuine passion to abolish nuclear arsenals, which he considered immoral. Many American academics decried Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative of 1983 as a warmongering effort to extend the cold war into the heavens. But while conceding the risks (the Soviets feared a first-strike attack), Gaddis praises Reagan's strategy of using the threat to build an antimissile shield that the Soviets could not soon match. "If the U.S.S.R. was crumbling," Gaddis asks, "what could justify . . . continuing to hold Americans hostage to the . . . odious concept of mutual assured destruction? Why not hasten the disintegration?" Here, I strongly disagree with both Gaddis and Beschloss. IMO, our understanding of the Cold War will remain incomplete as long as diplomatic historians fail to take the military/naval history of the U.S. Soviet rivalry seriously.
Beyond the nuances of Cold War strategy, my point in bringing up M.A.D. was to argue that deterrence may not work with death-loving Islamists the way it did with life-loving Soviets.Were the Soviet's any more life loving or rational than the Islamicists? Could "containment" work today?
/end thread hijack
__________________________________________
* Interview with Robert A. Divine, 22 April 1992.
** It might be argued that Bush the Younger's conduct of GWOT was in line with the type of decision making Gaddis advocated in his master's thesis, “Railroads and Russian Expansion in the Far East, 1890-1905” (1963) due to Bush the Younger's consistent disregard for domestic political opinion. However, given the fact that Bush the Younger frequently defined America's strategic interests in ideological terms, the degree of Gaddis's support for Bush the Younger (as well as Reagan) is surprising. YMMV.
This thread - along with many others on this board has divided into two camps that will never see eye to eye.
The one camp sees a future problem with a growing Muslim population, it's non-assimilation into our culture and accommodation of it's ways - Sharia - into ours.
The other camp sees no problem - and if there is one it's caused by us. The Muslims are just like the Irish, French, Japanese, Chinese, Scandinavians, etc, etc, etc who came here before and became Americans.QP Pete--
With respect, by my count there are not two camps in the debates over Muslims and Islam but seven or eight. (FWIW/IMO, a year ago, the count was five or six.)
IMO, five central questions are useful in delineating the differences among these camps.
At its heart, what is the nature of Islam?
How much influence does Islam have on the everyday lives of Muslims?
What is the West's appropriate response to the Muslim world?
Are answers to the first three questions fixed or might they change over time?
Is American civilization in decline?
My $0.02.