Military class suspended for view on Islam [Archive]

JJ_BPK

05-11-2012, 05:28

I think someone should buy Lt Col Dooley a beer..

And help him find a new job...

WASHINGTON – A course for U.S. military officers has been teaching that America's enemy is Islam in general, not just terrorists, and suggesting that the country might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, following World War II precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima or the allied firebombing of Dresden.

The Pentagon suspended the course in late April when a student objected to the material. The FBI also changed some agent training last year after discovering that it, too, was critical of Islam.

The teaching in the military course was counter to repeated assertions by U.S. officials over the last decade that the U.S. is at war against Islamic extremists — not the religion.

"They hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit," the instructor, Army. Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, said in a presentation last July for the course at Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va. The college, for professional military members, teaches midlevel officers and government civilians on subjects related to planning and executing war.

Dooley also presumed, for the purposes of his theoretical war plan, that the Geneva Conventions that set standards of armed conflict, are "no longer relevant."

He adds: "This would leave open the option once again of taking war to a civilian population wherever necessary (the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki being applicable...)."

His war plan suggests possible outcomes such as "Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation ... Islam reduced to cult status," and the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia "destroyed."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/10/military-class-suspended-for-its-view-on-islam/#ixzz1uYeJXYtD

continued:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/10/military-class-suspended-for-its-view-on-islam/

Here is Lt Col Dooley's presentation in PDF format..

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf

cbtengr

05-11-2012, 07:40

"theoretical war plan"

I think thats the key phrase here, and I agree someone should buy him a beer. I guess he missed the lecture about getting them to like us.

JimP

05-11-2012, 07:55

Our new Army Chief of Staff - General Dempsey himself - canked this class and initiated the review of purging anti-Islamic materials from our professional development courses. Where do we get these guys...?? Is there some sort of "refresher-lobotomy" required when you achieve a certain 'status"?? Has he not been aware of the fight we've been in the last 33 years??

But I guess he fits right in with the current administration - with thinking like this, we are doomed as a Nation.

Streck-Fu

05-11-2012, 08:08

Islam has been at war with every other religion since the they razed northern Africa and southern Europe in the 7th Century.

afchic

05-11-2012, 09:02

airbornediver

05-11-2012, 16:20

Is America's enemy really Islam though, or just radical Islam/Islamic extremists? The Islamic extremists commit so much of the violence, that they give the whole religion a bad name which can make people skeptical about the idea of a large number of peaceful Muslims out there, but what if those really exist? I think the U.S. should always distinguish between the radicals of a religion and the peaceful portions of it. This can be tricky as I've heard of some polls conducted where they found that many peaceful Muslims approve of the actions of the radicals, meaning there is a difference between "peaceful" Muslims who simply do not commit violent acts, but otherwise are okay with them, versus I guess what you could call "liberal Muslims" (in the classical sense) who respect human rights and freedoms and other religions. For example, in Michael Durant's book "In the Company of Heroes," he writes about how the guy who took care of him was a Muslim, and read the Koran, but gave him a Bible and respected him for his religion.

Could someone claim to be offended by the Koran?:munchin

I also found this link on the side of the articles linked to hilarious: Developer Plans 200-Foot Tall Cross in Missouri (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/11/developer-plans-200-foot-tall-cross-in-missouri/?intcmp=trending)

A very logical and rational statement, and I concur. Fundamentalists of any religion give that religion a bad name. It is up to the moderates of those religions to marginalize the effectiveness and overshadow the message(s) of the fundamentalists. This is something that moderate Muslims have failed to do in epic fashion but that isn't an excuse to bash the whole religion.

The Reaper

05-11-2012, 16:35

I thought we were encouraging people to think outside the box?

Were the German people accountable for the sins of the Nazis?

Did we force them to pay for the Nazis, regardless of whether they were or not?

TR

mark46th

05-11-2012, 16:46

Col Cooley sounds like he studied under General Curtis LeMay. Everyone should...

PRB

05-11-2012, 17:48

Actually we are at war with Islam....not 'Radical Islam'.
If you study the religion it is a warlike theopolitcal system that does not tolerate other religions or political systems unless they are subjugated in a Dhimmi status.
The terrorists are practicing true Islam as it is written and as Muhammed demonstrated thru out his life.
Muhammed is the most perfect example of a human being (as any Muslim will tell you) and is to be emulated...not in some abstract manner but 'as he lived'...as 'he spread the word' etc.
Radical Islamists are practicing true Islam as it is written.
All Muslims must either take up the sword, or if unable, to support those that do...with money, refuge, subterfuge (CAIR) ......most choose the later but if pushed, will almost always side with a Muslim against the Kafir....it is haram not to do so.
The defunct 'class' had it right.

Ambush Master

05-11-2012, 19:20

Dusty

05-11-2012, 19:24

I have been saying, for a very long time and in here, that the "True Radical Islamists" are those that are willing/want to live in Harmony and Peace with the rest of the World!!!

Later
Martin

You aren't alone in that belief.

PRB

05-11-2012, 20:36

You aren't alone in that belief.

I agree.
Basically 3 types of Muslims.
1.Those that follow the Quran's unabrogated tenets and the 'Life of Muhammed' and take up the sword (BTW, the only written Quranic way of positive induction to heaven is to die a Martyr) everything else is 'iffy'.
2. Those afraid to do so, for family, or their way of life but they support violent Jihad thru donations and organized programs that spread the faith thru subterfuge (Saudi Royal Family who for free builds million dollar mosques in Dearborn staffed with extremist Wahabbi Imams)...smile, take the oil money, send the enemy into your own ranks.
3. Those that 'cherry pick' Quranic verses (many officially abrogated and nonsense to an Islamic scholar) and ignore a great deal of the Quran as 'out of context'....these are your supposed 'mainstream non radical Muslims'....like the disenfranchised out of culture Euro's/Americans that take up Islam like it's a cool hobby and a great deal of ME and Indonesian well meaning folks.

SRT31B

05-11-2012, 21:50

PRB: you're right on.

Anyone who has ever actually read the Koran or studied Islam at all knows this PC nonsense is a load of crap.

Besides, how in the world could I take the moderate Muslim at their word when their religion specifically advocates lying if it serves Islam's purposes and advances the spread of their faith?

I think "Islamic extremist" is a misnomer in that if you understand the true purpose and ideology of Islam you know that those we classify as "extremist" are simply strict followers of the religion as opposed to the more "secular" (or back-slidden if you're from the south) Muslim's who simply choose to ignore the Suras which address jihad and the like. Also, through the process of abrogation, all the "kind hearted" verses that Islamic apologists so often quote have been canceled and replaced with the more violent calls to action (i.e. Sura 9:5 as one example)

Just as Islam is really more of a totalitarian system of control for an entire society which stifles all thought and opposing views, so is political correctness in our society. The people that are actually "offended" by this course I would almost bet never actually read a single verse in a Koran.

Shame on our leadership for pulling this course.

Just my .02 anyway.

Take Care.

Sigaba

05-12-2012, 00:42

Just as Islam is really more of a totalitarian system of control for an entire society which stifles all thought and opposing views, so is political correctness in our society..I think you're conflating authoritarianism with totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is generally regarded as possible only under a modern state in which the government expands a political philosophy--not religious beliefs--to cover every aspect of everyday life. As Islamicists are avowedly antimodern and want religion--not politics--to drive everyday life, their doomed quest for a global caliphate cannot, by definition, be regarded as totalitarian in nature.

Also, is your characterization of the impact "political correctness" on American society historically sustainable? Even during those intervals when the pressure for "political correctness" reached a peak, dissenting thoughts and opposing views actually flourished. For example, following the Compromise of 1850, notwithstanding a wide spread effort among Americans to present the package of legislation as a "final settlement" of the debate over the extension of slavery, the debates over America's peculiar institution began anew with little delay.*

Furthermore, your implicit comparison between Islam and American liberalism may be slightly hyperbolic. The News Corporation, not the left, pulled the plug on Glenn Beck. Despite calls for his job, Rush Limbaugh continues to do his thing. And Fox News remains Fox News. Meanwhile, people comment relentlessly about the president, his incompetence, and his misguided policies on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and on BBs like PS.COM. If, as you suggest, liberals are as determined as Islamicists to silence debate, what accounts for the persistence of these many avenues of dissent?

As for LTC Dooley, one does not need to have an opinion one way or another on the fundamental nature of Islam to have concerns with his instuction. IIRC, a fundamental premise of modern war is that military operations are an instrument of policy. By suggesting a strategy that would result in a global war against 1.6 billion people in approximately 200 countries, the wholesale slaughter of civilians, and the destruction of historically significant places, he seeks to turn the relationship between national security policy and war on its ear. (He specifically changes this relationship on slide seven.)

As you are a person who has an interest in "reading about US history," can you point to any example of a state taking that approach to warfare and coming out on the other side saying "We won"?

Finally, given your studied view of Islam and Muslims, would a war of "all against all" that pits non-Islamic nation states against Muslims world wide strengthen or weaken the Westphalian system that the Islamicists want to overthrow?

_________________________________________
* On this point, see David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis: America Before The Civil War, 1848-1861, comp. and ed. by Don E. Fehrenbacher (1976; reprint, New York: Harper Perennial, 2011), 121-124. Other examples include the persistence of dissent throughout the Second Anglo-American War, following America's entry into the Great War, and the response of many Americans to the Second Red Scare.

Richard

05-12-2012, 04:57

I understand such "brainstorming" and its necessity as it was a constant for us, too. However, I'd be curious to know why/how this "brainstorming" session came about, who signed off on its inclusion as a constant in the JFC curriculum, and what - if anything - has occurred in regards to the school's chain-of-command which had to have approved it all. :confused:

Oh...and remember...GEN Dempsey was the former CG, Training and Doctrine Command and known for his exceptionally fine-tuned 'word-smithing' abilities. ;)

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

SRT31B

05-12-2012, 08:04

Sigaba: I am not a scholar or a historian and, though I do enjoy listening to Glenn Beck, was not referencing him in part or whole. At least at the basic level of the definition of the words, totalitarianism and authoritarianism are roughly the same. Perhaps incorrectly I was referencing the fact that, in perspective, Islam strives to govern every facet of a society and subjugate everyone to Islamic law, whether you are a Muslim or not. Essentially, in those areas where Islam is most strictly adhered to, governments are theocratic and the supreme law of the land is Sharia. There is no room for dissent, modernization, or secularism. For non Muslims to even be allowed to exist in this society they must make one of three choices: convert to Islam, be subjugated to dhimmi status, or die. I agree that this system is not "political" in the way we view politics and government, but it does have a politico-religious (if that's a word) element in that the supreme authority is vested in the senior religious leader of the culture. Recently, there was a news story on TV (I think it was 20/20, Dateline or something) covering the outcome of the trial for the Almaleki "honor killings" in Arizona which discussed police contact with the family at the home wherein Mr. Almaleki described to police that his family law (that is, Islamic/religious law) was more important and took precedence over US/Arizona law. Mr. Almaleki displayed a complete disregard for the rule of law in our country and his state in favor of adhering to Islamic teaching, even when such teaching violated our legislation. It is my opinion that this is the prevailing thought process of those who practice a "strict" interpretation of Islam, and the ultimate end state for those under its teaching; that is, Islam/sharia is supreme.

I would like to believe with regard to the issue of political correctness in our society that no, it is not sustainable. Contrary to what the media tells us, I believe the bleeding heart, do nothing, PC whiners are a minority that simply has the loudest voice right now. Eventually, I believe the majority of Americans will feel the pinch of political correctness so much that it will be unsustainable and we will see the pendulum swing in the opposite direction with a return to where we were 20 to 30 years ago (referencing individual treatment/liberty/expression, etc.). My point comparing the "totalitarian" concepts of Islam and political correctness was to identify the similarities in that, though I have First Amendment protections, everything I say is subject to PC police if I offend someone. The opinions I express may hurt someone's feelings and I may take a heat round for it. Johnny doesn't get A's and B's anymore because we don't want to make the other students that get C's and D's to feel bad, so we'll just give everyone "S's" cause we're all "successful" here. My kids don't take "participation" trophies, and 2nd place is the first loser (and no, I don't mean that in a demeaning way but rather that we strive for excellence in all we do). In America, more and more we have become slaves to the PC police which, though we have the freedom to do as we wish, dictate more and more what we can't do. This is by no means the strongest connection between the two concepts, but I think this illuminates the original point better. I attribute the continued avenues of dissent to the American people and our way of life/upbringing. We have been taught from birth that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. This is contrary to teachings of Islam and shows the cultural divide of our two societies.

While military policy is an extension of the political machine, war is not waged by politicians but generals, and to inject or allow political decision making at the tactical level is to act contrary to the very nature of warfare. I like Von Clausewits' example of two wrestlers trying to pin each other on the mat (not a sexual reference!), in that this describes the maximum use of force to compel the opponent to submit to the will of the other. The combatant that goes to extremes the fastest without fear of repercussion in order to exert their will on the other is the one that will win by submission, or, in an extreme case, by destruction of the opposing side. The tactics used in this struggle cannot be constrained by political pressure in the sense that our political aim sets the end state, and our military strategy determines how we arrive there. Politicians don't (or at least shouldn't) run our military conflicts.

As a Bible believing Christian, it is my opinion that at some unknown point in the future we will see an eventual armed conflict that pits Islam against not only the west, but any non Muslim culture. I'm not a biblical scholar or theologian, nor do have an extensive background in world history, but it remains my personal belief that when speaking of the battle of Armageddon, at least today, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see that fight being between Islamists and other religions/theologies. I believe this is true based not on my opinions, but rather on the stated goal of Muslim practitioners around the world, and in particular the middle east. One need only examine the mission statement of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot organizations to see the signs. In short, I think if/when it gets to that point we won't see a strengthening or weakening of the Westphalian system because that will correspond with the biblical end times. I would suppose that someone who does not share or agree with my personal religious beliefs would also disagree on the larger points as well.

The one point I would bring up from Beck, as I believe it holds true: It really doesn't matter what I believe in the scheme of things, it only matters what they believe. I take them at their word.

Thanks for the exchange. It is nice to engage in polite discourse of these points.

Dozer523

05-12-2012, 08:55

The Stategic Corporal got a promotion.
E-4 and O-5 are like teen years in their respective career tracks.
They got it "ALL figured out" . . . Dangerous times . .

abc_123

05-12-2012, 09:29

The Stategic Corporal got a promotion.
E-4 and O-5 are like teen years in their respective career tracks.
They got it "ALL figured out" . . . Dangerous times . . .

I am not following you here. Are you saying that an officer must have 2 or 3 stars, and an NCO be a CSM before being able to think strategically and come out with ideas worthy of debate/discussion... (by others of the same rank, of course)?

The Reaper

05-12-2012, 11:18

The Stategic Corporal got a promotion.
E-4 and O-5 are like teen years in their respective career tracks.
They got it "ALL figured out" . . . Dangerous times . . .

So you are equating a soldier with less than three years of service to one with 18 or more?

TR

T-Rock

05-12-2012, 19:09

The Islamic extremists commit so much of the violence, that they give the whole religion a bad name which can make people skeptical about the idea of a large number of peaceful Muslims out there, but what if those really exist?

How can the extremists be giving the religion of Islam a bad name if they are simply adhering to the tenets of their faith?

Edited to add...

By suggesting a strategy that would result in a global war against 1.6 billion people in approximately 200 countries...

Just because Lt. Col. Dooley is accurately teaching what Islam entails, and what we are up against, doesn't necessarily mean an all out war with 1.6 billion people, not even close.... Fear of the implications of a fact is not a legitimate reason to avoid talking about a fact...

Whenever these type discussions come up, Lt. Col. West comes to mind...., IMO he is spot-on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k

PRB

05-12-2012, 20:39

How can the extremists be giving the religion of Islam a bad name if they are simply adhering to the tenets of their faith?

What ties all of the extremists together...Chechins, Muslims born and raised in the US, American converts, priviledged ME young men, Somali imigrants and their offspring......how do they all come to the same conclusion with very little outside persuasion....
They study the Quran and read the life of Muhammed. It is in black/white in direct verse and examples written by 'the Companions'...It is validated by Al Azar University in Cairo..the Gold Standard of Islamic Jurispridence.
We (the West) are trampling upon sacred ground and defiling the tenets of Islam by our very existance....we are an affront to the word of Muhammed and the primary obstacle to Islamic dominance in the world thru our culture and all that it entails.
Thru the power that our culture exerts in monetary and military venues....those are the venues that Muhammed sought to dominate to spread Islam...it was not only the power of thought but the power of every day life, money, politics and control of wealth and how it is distributed.
We are the enemy, whatever Western power is at the pinicle is the enemy.
It happens to be us presently.
Tag, we are it.
That is what this Col. who understands the underlying momentum of Islamic thought, was attempting to impart.
Way to controversial for our PC soft society, way to 7th century to believe because mankind is so enlightened today....unless you watch Mr.Pearl slowly get beheaded while they scream god is great. That of course was an abberation...unless you read the life of Muhammed....
It does not matter if the majority of Muslims are actually peaceful.
The majority of peaceful Muslims will stand silently while you have your neck severed and go about their own peaceful business and sit and pray next to the one that slaughtered you.
And they will call him a warrior of Islam, and a Shaheed if he is killed.
Do our Afghan allies take down the green flags where Shaheeds were killed in Astan........no, because, even in their own minds, their enemy died fighting the kafir...us, the kafir...that is why they hesitate, that is why they are not 'all in' because they are allied with the Kafir against a Muslim foe.
Figure it out please.

ZonieDiver

05-12-2012, 20:45

So you are equating a soldier with less than three years of service to one with 18 or more?

TR

I think, perhaps, only when the 'O' with said years of service exhibits the SA of the 'EM'' with less than three.

T-Rock

05-12-2012, 20:46

What ties all of the extremists together...Chechins, Muslims born and raised in the US, American converts, priviledged ME young men, Somali imigrants and their offspring......how do they all come to the same conclusion with very little outside persuasion....
They study the Quran and read the life of Muhammed. It is in black/white in direct verse and examples written by 'the Companions'...It is validated by Al Azar University in Cairo..the Gold Standard of Islamic Jurispridence.
We (the West) are trampling upon sacred ground and defiling the tenets of Islam by our very existance....we are an affront to the word of Muhammed and the primary obstacle to Islamic dominance in the world thru our culture and all that it entails.
Thru the power that our culture exerts in monetary and military venues....those are the venues that Muhammed sought to dominate to spread Islam...it was not only the power of thought but the power of every day life, money, politics and control of wealth and how it is distributed.
We are the enemy, whatever Western power is at the pinicle is the enemy.
It happens to be us presently.
Tag, we are it.
That is what this Col. who understands the underlying momentum of Islamic thought, was attempting to impart.
Way to controversial for our PC soft society, way to 7th century to believe because mankind is so enlightened today....unless you watch Mr.Pearl slowly get beheaded while they scream god is great. That of course was an abberation...unless you read the life of Muhammed....
It does not matter if the majority of Muslims are actually peaceful.
The majority of peaceful Muslims will stand silently while you have your neck severed and go about their own peaceful business and sit and pray next to the one that slaughtered you.
And they will call him a warrior of Islam, and a Shaheed if he is killed.
Do our Afghan allies take down the green flags where Shaheeds were killed in Astan........no, because, even in their own minds, their enemy died fighting the kafir...us, the kafir...that is why they hesitate, that is why they are not 'all in' because they are allied with the Kafir against a Muslim foe.
Figure it out please.

Concur 100% Sir :D ...Wholeheartedly! The point I was trying to make is that the tenets of Islam show that the extremists/Islamists are right…, and that they are simply following the fundamentals of Islam, the tenets of their faith.., taken from the Qur’an and Hadith, as well as the example of their prophet (Sira)…

I have a hard time understanding how some folks try and jump through mental hoops as if somehow the extremists are simply warping Islam and giving the religion of Islam a bad name…, when it is in fact, the fascist ideology of Islam., that is responsible for over 120 million Africans…, 60 million Christians…, 80 million Hindus…, 10 million Buddhists, and 270 million Jews.., slaughtered by jihad in the name of the so called peaceful religion.
http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/

Dozer523

05-14-2012, 09:06

The Stategic Corporal got a promotion.
E-4 and O-5 are like teen years in their respective career tracks.
They got it "ALL figured out" . . . Dangerous times . .I am not following you here. Are you saying that an officer must have 2 or 3 stars, and an NCO be a CSM before being able to think strategically and come out with ideas worthy of debate/discussion... (by others of the same rank, of course)?
What I'm saying is LTC Dooley's ideas are not worthy of presentation at a military school-house. Personally, I don't they they merit debate, either. Furthermore I'm saying he grossly abused both his rank and his post as an instructor at a military institute by using it as a forum for his personal opinions. Opinions that do not seem to shared by the Military. And have been deemed worthy of review by a Major General. So you are equating a soldier with less than three years of service to one with 18 or more?TR
Of course not. I am equating this particular LTC (with 18 years or more service) to a three year time in service / one year time in grade / first duty station / NBNW-NDN / got-it-all-figured-out-Sarge / the Board F-ed me / punk Specialist.
Luckily, there are few E-4s and O-5s that fit that description but, they sure can do some damage.
The only difference PSGs and 1SG clean up a SPCs mess. A MG gets to tidy up after LTC Dooley.

Let's wait to see how that turns out.

JimP

05-14-2012, 10:13

Before one can debate tactics...one must identify the enemy. If you are unwilling to ID the enemy (as we in today's society refuse to do) then you may as well go turn on American Idol or follow Snookie on Twitter.

If we stifle debate in our professional education, we are doomed. We will be relegated to automatons spouting forth nothing but government-approved drivel. Sorry....not on my watch.

Dempsey has proven himself nothing more than a lap-dog for the politically expedient. I mean - hey, this approach has worked just freakin' great for the last 11 years hasn't it? :(

PRB

05-14-2012, 11:03

The Col's extrapolation about specific future events is his own interpretation. Who knows.
His definition of the Islamic threat is correct as I see it.

Prototype

05-17-2012, 11:48

PRB

05-17-2012, 22:40

I am deeply offended by the LTC and his statements, I think that the PC card can only be pulled so many times before it becomes a simple cover for making offensive and otherwise demeaning statements towards a group of people.

Allow me to explain why I am so offended. I have three cousins who have all served in the US Military. One is a Desert Storm veteran from the Army, the other is a US Marine who has spent 12 years in the military, a significant portion of it fighting in the current Gulf War and an Airman who has served during the current war as well.

The US Army veteran was injured after falling about 10 feet onto his back while in full combat load during what I presume were combat operations. The US Marine Veteran has almost been paralyzed when an IED was planted on his route and went off behind him.

What ties these 3 vets together with this article? They were all religious Muslims who answered the call to serve.

The LTC's comments demeans their sacrifice to our nation by calling them the enemy. They weren't SF or SOF but they still fought the same war that many people here on these boards fought and put their lives on the line because they thought it was what a good American or Muslim should do.

They weren't an exception to the rule either, I'm sure that there are many other Muslims who have served in every part of the military and some have given their lives as a result. To call them the enemy shows deep disregard for their sacrifices.

In response to LTC West, he mispronounced hadith so, while he may have read them, I am highly doubtful.

In response to those that say that Islam requires all Muslims to kill the non-believers:

"…To you your religion, to me my religion…" - Sura 109:6

Naturally born Muslims or converts........No one says Islam requires all Muslims to kill non believers.
It commands you to spread the faith and subjigate non believers...if they will not submit then they must pay the tax and be second class citizens in Dhimmi status.
In Islam there are two places......the 'place of believers' and 'and the place of war' where non believers thrive.
A quick question for you...."Is Muhammed, as an individual, relevant in today's world"...Is he 'The perfect example of Manhood'.
What is the only guaranteed way to Islamic heaven?
What school of thought do you follow?
What are the commonly (by Islamic jurisprudence) abrogated verses?
I'd love to have this discussion with you and go over many of the various episodes in the life of Muhammed as written by his companions.....Gold Standard only.

Prototype

05-18-2012, 01:14

Naturally born Muslims or converts........No one says Islam requires all Muslims to kill non believers.
It commands you to spread the faith and subjigate non believers...if they will not submit then they must pay the tax and be second class citizens in Dhimmi status.
In Islam there are two places......the 'place of believers' and 'and the place of war' where non believers thrive.
A quick question for you...."Is Muhammed, as an individual, relevant in today's world"...Is he 'The perfect example of Manhood'.
What is the only guaranteed way to Islamic heaven?
What school of thought do you follow?
What are the commonly (by Islamic jurisprudence) abrogated verses?
I'd love to have this discussion with you and go over many of the various episodes in the life of Muhammed as written by his companions.....Gold Standard only.

Islam is a missionary religion that tells its followers to spread their faith not to dissimilar from Christian missionaries.

Now here’s thing, a believer is not necessarily a Muslim. “The People of the Book” as they are called in the Quran (followers of other Abrahamic religions) are believers. Non believers are anyone else that is not a Muslim.

“The People of the Book” are spoken of quite well in most of the Quran, non-believers not so much, but both are to be treated with kindness and tolerance.

“…ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them…” Sura 60:8

Dhimmis in the past were taxed and it was certainly a form of oppression, I will not disagree with that as most Muslim rulers used it to simply have Non-Muslims acknowledge their government.

It is important to note that they were to be protected as part of the Dhimmi contract and failure to do so was a sin.

They were allowed to practice their own religion and laws (Halakha), even if it offended Muslims and were given the same rights as Muslim citizens.

In modern times, countries vary quite widely on this but I do not know of a country that actively taxes Non-Muslims anymore. Dimmis are generally able to get along fine although they may be persecuted by Muslim citizens despite the fact that they are not allowed to in Islam, as Dimmis have to be treated with the same kindness and respect shown to Muslims. It’s an unfortunate situation for them and I certainly sympathize.

Naturally born Muslims or converts

They are natural-born Muslims.

A quick question for you...."Is Muhammed, as an individual, relevant in today's world"...Is he 'The perfect example of Manhood'.

I think Muhammad is relevant for Muslims in the sense that he is viewed as being an the perfect example of a Muslim and so we are supposed to imitate him.

There are some things he did that I would not but I wouldn't do things that Abraham did either (almost killing his son).

It's similar to how Christians will view Jesus, they try to do good things just as he is told to have done.

In terms of society, no he is not relevant in politics and other aspects not actually relating to Islam.

What is the only guaranteed way to Islamic heaven?

The only guaranteed way is to become a martyr. The catch here is that suicide is not allowed.
If you become a martyr while fighting a war, the war should be justifiable and you must have followed the rules of war outlines in the Quran
The rules are what you would expect: Civilians are not targets, surrendering combatants cannot be executed, etc.

As far as anyone else, it’s a sin to say that a person will go to heaven or won’t.

Terrorists do not count because they obviously don't do anything right.

What school of thought do you follow?
I’m a Sunni Muslim.

What are the commonly (by Islamic jurisprudence) abrogated verses?

No verses in the Quran are removed or altered.

The hadith are different, people have invented their own hadith and so Muslim scholars have tried to find and remove the ones that are false.
It’s claimed that most of the fake ones have been removed but care should be taken by someone studying Islam as there are still quite a few that have yet to be found.

Pete

05-18-2012, 04:07

What are the commonly (by Islamic jurisprudence) abrogated verses?

No verses in the Quran are removed or altered.

The answer was not to the question. Even we know that abrogation does not deal with removing or altering verses.

How are the Coptic's doing these days in Egypt?

PRB

05-18-2012, 14:23

Islam is a missionary religion that tells its followers to spread their faith not to dissimilar from Christian missionaries.

True, but expecting a dif result.

Now here’s thing, a believer is not necessarily a Muslim. “The People of the Book” as they are called in the Quran (followers of other Abrahamic religions) are believers. Non believers are anyone else that is not a Muslim.

“The People of the Book” are spoken of quite well in most of the Quran, non-believers not so much, but both are to be treated with kindness and tolerance.

“…ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them…” Sura 60:8

This is untrue as it relates to believers/non believers. In Muhammeds early Meccan days he was concilitory towards Christians/Jews as he thought they would convert. He also feared for his life as he had few followers and no 'strength of Arms'...this is when he wrote the 'we can all get along' verses.
In his later Madina period, when he was a warlord and powerful, he wrote very aggressive verses commanding Jew/Christians to convert.
The obvious total contradictions (God changed his mind?) have been explained away by Islamic jurisprudence (AL Azar University and others) thru 'abrogation' or simply ' in any contradictory Quranic verses (there are many) the later verse overrides (abrogates) the earlier.
The vers you quoted has been abrogated.

5:51 "Take not the Jews and Christians as Auliya (friends/protectors), they are but Auliya of each other. And if any amongst you (Muslims) takes them, then surely he is one of them (Kafir)

8:And fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief in anything but Allah) and the religion will be for Allah alone. But if they cease (other Religions), then certainly, Allah is all seer of what they do.

4:47 O you who have been given the Scripture (Jews/Christians)! Believe in what We have revealed confirming what is with you, before we efface faces (making them without nose/mouth/eyes) and turn them hindwards, or curse them We cursed the Sabbath Breakers.
And the Commandment of Allah is always executed

PRB

05-18-2012, 14:40

Dhimmis in the past were taxed and it was certainly a form of oppression, I will not disagree with that as most Muslim rulers used it to simply have Non-Muslims acknowledge their government.

It is important to note that they were to be protected as part of the Dhimmi contract and failure to do so was a sin.

They were allowed to practice their own religion and laws (Halakha), even if it offended Muslims and were given the same rights as Muslim citizens.

This is untrue. They were not given the same rights and are still not. Look at the slaughter of Christians in Egypt today....if Muslims burn a church it cannot be rebuilt unless they petition the Govt.
A Dhimmi has no standing in court, the word of a Muslim, by law, weighs more. I refer you to the laws of Saudi Arabia as an example...check their 'blood debt' laws where one will pay 1/2 the penalty for accidental death of a Kafir over a Muslim.

Naturally born Muslims or converts

They are natural-born Muslims.

A quick question for you...."Is Muhammed, as an individual, relevant in today's world"...Is he 'The perfect example of Manhood'.

I think Muhammad is relevant for Muslims in the sense that he is viewed as being an the perfect example of a Muslim and so we are supposed to imitate him.

This is one of the primary problems....Muhammed took slaves raped them as they were property, executed bound prisoners etc...all fun and games in that day and age yet Islamic scholars call him 'the perfect man' as you said to be emulated...he sent spies to murder his enemies, and allowed them to lie to protect themselves....all of the things Al Q points too as following his example......sadly, you will not find a prominent main stream Imam that will condemn anything Muhammed did.

There are some things he did that I would not but I wouldn't do things that Abraham did either (almost killing his son).

Another Quranic issue is dates and times......as you point out, in the Old Testiment, there is violence when God ordered the Jews to slay whomever....however, it was designated at a time and place....The God of Abraham did not say "Slay all Philistines forever" There was a start and an end

This does not exist in the Quran.....it says

8:67 It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he made a great slaughter in the land

8:59-60 Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better: they will never frustrate them.
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom you may not know but whom Allah does.

That is the most open ended verse for violence that I know of....you need to slaughter those that you might not even know, but Allah does? There is no time limit on this, It is not 'Old Testiment' but used today by every violent Muslim...just following not only the Quran but Muhammeds example.

It's similar to how Christians will view Jesus, they try to do good things just as he is told to have done.

Comparing Christs acts to those of a Warlord practicing a theopolitical conquest beggers the imagination.

PRB

05-18-2012, 15:24

BTW, you never answered my question.
What is the only, defined as written, way to guarantee a free pass to the highest level of Islamic heaven?
One where all sins (murder, rape, whatever) will be forgiven upon the act?

PRB

05-18-2012, 15:46

I've studied Muhammed for about 15 years now and I find him rather peculiar for the 'most perfect man'.
Interestingly, all of Allah's wishes/tenets also benefited Muhammed in some way.
In my opinion Muhammed was a sexual sociopath. You may think dif but hear me out from simply an example viewpoint.
Muhammed was not a do as I do guy, he was a do as I say guy.
A Muslim may have 4 wives...how many wives did Muhammed have? Because the Prophet was 'special'...who said so...the prophet.
Now Muhammed, and all at war Muslims, could take as many slave concubines as 'their right hand' could gather but occasionally a guy just wants a local gal so Allah told Muhammed he was special.
Even for that day/age the Companions noted unusual sexual things Muhammed would do...like open mouth/tongue kiss pre pubecent girls not of his family. But, he was the Prophte so 'who knows the ways of Allahs mouthpiece'.
Then there is the flip side.
Muhammed basically said that women were also an evil breed. When he took his trip to 'hell' and saw the suffering there he noted that they were predominatly women.
Women entice you, they must be covered up, under the authority of men...
He displays the classic glut/famine of sexual predators. He is very sexually active in even a strange way for that time and place and then often blames women for that activity.
Reminds me of a sexually frustrated Catholic Priest that abuses young boys then rails agains homosexuality in the pulpit.
How has this great 'example' been interpreted in Muslim culture....honor killings, property, blamed for their own rape because 'they entice'....
Unusual, and recent, fatwahs where you can work with (workplace) an unrelated woman if you suckle at her breasts like a child...then you are 'related' ...There are verses where women 'shine' in the Quran but then there are totally contradictory verses where they have an inherent evil within.
Muhammed wrestled with his sexual deviation thru out his life and passed this to his folowers thru his word and actions.
We see this sanctioned deviancy thruout Islamic culture.

PRB

05-18-2012, 20:37

If you want to debate verse for verse I'll go along with you.

However, you may be a fine young man sincere in his 'beliefs' as are many Muslims. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims (thankfully) cherry pick their religion and emulate the good and ignore the dark side of the faith.
You are (as the man said) allowed your own opinion but not your own facts.
I only repeat the Quran, the words of the Companions or decisions by Ilamic jurists.
I also refer to how Islam has impacted cultural development.
Nothing more.
A sincere terrorist would tell you you are not practicing Islam and could point to verse after verse to support his thesis. He could point to Muhammeds example. He could point to recent Imams supporting warfare on that level as valid.
I would also say that some of your comments are very scriptually naive from a jurisprudence point of view, I hope that is from lack of study only.
Most non Muslims are ignorant of your religion so can be diverted easily with a few abrogated verses or out right misinterpretation (the New Qurans from Saudi Arabia that have been 'toned down' to be more palatable to westerners where you don't 'beat your wife' but 'strike her lightly' etc.)
I have no more patience with being politically correct with this anymore.
Islam is a threat to the West.
Those that dress it up in a cute outfit further that threat even if they don't understand it themsleves..... they are furthering the threat.

T-Rock

05-18-2012, 21:32

No verses in the Quran are removed or altered.

Muslim activists deliberately hide (taqiyya - rooted in taysir) a major Islamic doctrine called "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (the Abrogator and the Abrogated, aka Mecca vs. Medina)..., and when Mohammed began to contradict himself..., and his followers noticed the contradictions..., this is what "Mo" had to say:

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We
substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath
power over all things?" Surah 2: 106

"When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what
He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them
understand not." Surah 16:101

"God abrogates and confirms what He pleases. His is the Decree Eternal." Surah 13:39

"If We pleased We could take away that which We have revealed to you:.." Surah 17:86

"Never have we sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose
wishes Satan did not tamper. But God abrogates the interjections of Satan
and confirms His own revelations." Surah 22:52

The Reliance of the Traveller, Pgs 625 - 626 address the doctrine of Abrogation:

o22.1 ( I )
(9) those (nasikh) which supersede previously revealed Koranic verses;
(10) and those (mansukh) which are superseded by later verses.

Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside mainstream schools of Islamic Jurisprudence...

http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Abrogation_(Naskh)

Surah 109:6,...To you be your Way, and to me mine....

....is abrogated by Surah 9:5, "But when the forbidden months are past,
then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them,
beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but
if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity,
then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Islam is a missionary religion that tells its followers to spread their
faith not to dissimilar from Christian missionaries

The difference between the missions are like night and day according to Islamic Jurisprudence....

The following is from the "Reliance of the Traveller"

The Objectives of Jihad*

*o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived
from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform
it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

o9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile
non-Muslims without the Caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no
Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.
(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 599-609)
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728

Neither Christian scripture, nor any other religions employ such perpetual, open-ended commandments for "War" as does Islam on its mission fields...

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends;
they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a
friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the
unjust people." (5:51), therefore, "...Fight those who do not believe in
Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given
the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they
are in a state of subjection. (9:29) also,..."The Day of Judgement will not
come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew
will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims,
O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad
tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews"
(al-Bukhari)

MR2

06-20-2012, 13:51

Military instructor suspended over Islam course (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-usa-defense-islam-idUSBRE85J0XJ20120620)

WASHINGTON | Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:58am EDT

(Reuters) - The instructor of a college course that taught top military officers the United States was at war with Islam has been relieved of teaching duties and the course ordered redesigned to reflect U.S. policy, a military spokesman said on Wednesday.

SF-TX

06-20-2012, 13:55

We are once again admonished that Al Qaeda and Jihadists have a 'warped view of the Islamic faith.' CPT Kirby, perhaps you could explain where they have strayed from the proper view of Islam and how so many others seem to follow this 'warped view' of Islam. What is the proper view of Islam? Does it differ from that of Al Azhar University?

The instructor of a college course that taught top military officers the United States was at war with Islam has been relieved of teaching duties and the course ordered redesigned to reflect U.S. policy, a military spokesman said on Wednesday.

The elective course at the National Defense University's Joint Forces Staff College included a slide that asserted "the United States is at war with Islam and we ought to just recognize that we are war with Islam," Pentagon officials said in April as they launched a review of the course...

...Navy Captain John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said in April that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was deeply concerned about some of the materials being taught in the course, such as the slide suggesting the United States was at war with Islam.

"That's not at all what we believe to be the case. We're at war against terrorism, specifically al Qaeda, who has a warped view of the Islamic faith," Kirby said.

Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-usa-defense-islam-idUSBRE85J0XJ20120620)

T-Rock

06-20-2012, 14:08

"That's not at all what we believe to be the case. We're at war against terrorism, specifically al Qaeda, who has a warped view of the Islamic faith," Kirby said.

I would like for someone to explain in detail, utilizing the Qur’an, the Hadith, and Shariah, how AQ has warped the Islamic Faith?

:munchin

Streck-Fu

06-20-2012, 20:05

And this is how we keep losing conflicts.

Our entire military command needs a Sun Tzu refresher....

T-Rock

10-05-2012, 22:58

"The final bastion of America's defense against Islamic jihad and sharia, the Pentagon, fell to the enemy in April 2012, with the issuance of a letter from General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, re-issuing his earlier order that all Department of Defense (DoD) course content be scrubbed to ensure no lingering remnant of disrespect to Islam." ~Claire M. Lopez~

It appears CAIR has infiltrated the highest levels of the White House and the Pentagon :(

http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/default/files/files/Letter_to_John_Brennan_19_OCT_2011%20(3).pdf

Muslim Letter that Prompted the Pentagon to Purge Military Instruction “Offensive to Islam”
September 26, 2012

A letter dated October 19, 2011 signed by 57 Muslim organizations, was sent to the White House with copies to other federal officials responsible for national security, including Secretary of the Department of Defense, Leon Panetta. The letter demanded that all training materials that they judge to be offensive to Islam be "purged" and instructors "are effectively disciplined."

Because many reporters and citizens have asked for a copy of the letter, TMLC is linking to the 7-page letter here, and attaching it to this press release as well. You may also view it by going to the TMLC website at: www.thomasmore.org. Note the highlighted areas on page 5 of the letter.

> http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/default/files/files/Letter_to_John_Brennan_19_OCT_2011%20(3).pdf

This letter was referred to in a previous Thomas More Law Center press release. Click here.
Following that letter, in April 2012, Army Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Matthew Dooley, a highly decorated combat veteran, was publically condemned by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and relieved of his teaching assignment at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC). The reason: the negative way Islam was portrayed in his elective course entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.

On May 10, 2012, during a Pentagon press conference with Defense Secretary Panetta seated next to him, General Martin Dempsey expressed negative opinions regarding the Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism course, characterizing it as "totally objectionable" and "against our values." General Dempsey personally committed to removing any similar curriculum from military professional education within the JFSC and elsewhere.

The Thomas More Law Center now represents LTC Dooley, a 1994 Graduate of the U. S. Military Academy at West Point.

Click here to support TMLC's defense of LTC Dooley.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, observed, "In order to appease Muslims and the White House, General Dempsey and the Department of Defense rushed to punish LTC Dooley. In the process, they violated not only our Nation's core principles of free speech and academic freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, but also, a number of the military's own regulations dealing with academic freedom and non-attribution policies of the National Defense University (NDU) to which LTC Dooley was assigned. They violated the right to due process of law and even by-passed the University's Provost, who under NDU's own rules has primary responsibility for adjudication of this matter."

Click here for a Summary of NDU regulations on Free Speech and Academic Freedom

Source: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/muslim-letter-that-prompted-the-pentagon-to-purge-military-instruction-offensive-to-islam?f=news

Dreadnought

10-06-2012, 20:40

abc_123

10-06-2012, 21:01

I think some people in here need to read "A World Without Islam." Most of what I see in here is circular, immature hate.

Why do some people need to read that book?

Which posts to you categorize as circular hate? Why?

PRB

10-06-2012, 21:10

I think some people in here need to read "A World Without Islam." Most of what I see in here is circular, immature hate.

Heaven forbid you can be good at your job and at warfighting without hating Islam.

I don't 'hate' Islam I just understand it. All we've done is provide Islamic verse that supports violent Jihad....Muhammed was not successful at spreading Islam until he adopted violence/war against non believers.
If you have an opinion that we have presented non Quranic verse or Hadith then please...enlighten us.
There is no radical Islam....just Islam.

Dreadnought

10-06-2012, 21:10

Why do some people need to read that book?

Which posts to you categorize as circular hate? Why?

The ones blaming an entire religion, Islam in this case, for the actions and interpretations of the few, simultaneously ignoring equivalent violence and ignorance in both the Old and New Testaments.

"A World Without Islam" describes the extremism, as well as the overall stagnation of the majority of the Middle East/South Central Asia, as a function of history and circumstances, not as a function of religion. Islam brings nothing significantly different to the table from Christianity or Judaism. In fact, all three of the Abrahamic religions are nearly mirrored.

The fact that as an overall populace Christians and Jews have "evolved" past their antiquated, violent interpretations of their religious texts is further a function of other factors, not solely of the religion. Had American and European civilizations been predominately Muslim and Middle Eastern civilizations been predominately Christian and history remained the same, there exists no doubt in my mind that the end result today would be no different.

If you see ridiculousness and violence in Islamic holy texts and not in Christian and Jewish texts, then you are a fool who is either willfully or blindly ignorant. The end result is the same.

The enemy of America is not Islam. The enemy of America is the mindset that believes the previous statement. With that being said, I work with others who share my opinion as well as those who absolutely hate and want to kill everyone who is a Muslim. I've noticed neither has an effect on their ability to do their job.

Dreadnought

10-06-2012, 21:16

T-Rock

10-06-2012, 21:40

Most of what I see in here is circular, immature hate.

Heaven forbid you can be good at your job and at warfighting without hating Islam.

Islam already hates the Kafir… :rolleyes:

Why should I be in love with or respect a fascist ideology that asserts, a simple Kafir like me, can be:

Killed:

If they do not keep away from you or offer you peace or withdraw their hostilities, then seize them and kill them wherever they are. We give you complete authority over them. (Sura 4:91)

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim
(pgs. 580-590 / Reliance of the Traveller)

o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(pgs 588-595 / Reliance of the Traveller)

Hated:

They who dispute the signs of Allah [kafirs] without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart. and despised by Allah. (Sura 40:35)

Beheaded:

When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thor-oughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly. (Sura 47:4)

Crucified:

The only reward for those who war against Allah and His messengers and strive to com-mitt mischief on the earth is that they will be slain or crucified, have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished from the land. This will be their disgrace in this world, and a great torment shall be theirs in the next except those who repent before you overpower them. Know that Allah is forgiving and merciful. (Sura 5:33)

Terrorized:

Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the kafirs' hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fin-gers!" (Sura 8:12)

Cursed:

They [kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and mur-dered. It was Allah's same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah's ways. (Sura 33:60-61)

Annihilated:

So the kafirs were annihilated. All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. (Sura 6:45)

Punished:

Say to the kafirs: My Lord does not care for you or your prayers. You have rejected the truth, so sooner or later, a punishment will come. (Sura 25:77)

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil. Why tolerate intolerance?

:munchin

Dreadnought

10-06-2012, 21:45

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil. Why tolerate intolerance?

:munchin

Then I assume you have equal intolerance of both Christianity and Judaism? Or, more in line with this thread, I should say Christians and Jews. Also, the sentence I have quoted is a deep, dark irony and alludes to the circular hate that I mentioned earlier.

Peregrino

10-06-2012, 21:48

T-Rock

10-06-2012, 21:50

The ones blaming an entire religion, Islam in this case, for the actions and interpretations of the few, simultaneously ignoring equivalent violence and ignorance in both the Old and New Testaments.

Christianity doesn't have any theological legal imperative ( like Sharia) commanding Christians to go out and do violence on Christianities behalf, whereas Islam does. Islam is unique in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system (SHARIA) that mandates warfare against unbelievers..

The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran

One of the most frequently used arguments heard in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran. The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument is that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but this analogy is very popular, since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. “See, Islam is like Christianity, Christians are just as violent as Muslims.” If this is true, then you don’t have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine.

However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on the in the marketplace of ideas.

Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Bible? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.

The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of either Islam or Christianity or Judaism is what they do to the “other”, political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note, however, a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions to be violent, but it is not violence against them.

The next item is to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called “fighting in Allah’s cause”, or jihad.
We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira and Hadith, the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is Mohammed’s biography. The Hadith are his traditions—what he did and said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behavior.

The Koran is the smallest of the three books, the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text . This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam’s sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.
It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:

It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful. Here is a chart of the growth of Islam.

Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year. All of the details of how to wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad—world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic manual and the Hadith is a tactical manual of jihad.

Now let’s go to the Hebrew Bible. When we count all of the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament.

The real problem goes far beyond the quantitative measurement of ten times as much violent material; there is the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way. Beyond the one-god doctrine, Islam is unique unto itself.

Another measurement of the difference between the violence found in the Judeo/Christian texts as opposed to that of Islam is found in the use of fear of violence against artists, critics and intellectuals. What artist, critic or intellectual ever feels a twinge of fear if condemning anything Christian or Jewish? However, look at the examples of the violent political threats and murders of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, Kurt Westergaard of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and many others. What artist, critic or intellectual has not had a twinge of fear about Islam when it comes to free expression? The political difference in the response to the two different doctrines is enormous. The political fruit from the two trees is as different as night and day.

It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

Source: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-political-violence-of-the-bible-and-the-koran/

Dreadnought

10-06-2012, 21:59

Dreadnought - Maybe you should try looking at Islam as a political system. It might help you see beyond your apparent antipathy to religion in general. As to your other argument, the greatest violence done in the name of Christianity was at the height of the Catholic Church's power - when it functioned as a de facto government. I'm not aware of any exhortations in the New Testament to violence in the name of Christ. According to Christian doctrine, the Old Testament which does call for violence was explicitely set aside with the creation of the New Testament (approximately 2000 years ago). Unlike the Quran which (in the later surahs) advocates "convert, enslave, or kill unbelievers".

I think it is worth noting that in a similar way to how you propose that "Christian doctrine" sets aside the Old Testament (which is interesting, considering the widespread if not total inclusion of the Old Testament in almost every service of nearly all practices of Christianity), the vast majority of educated, Western Muslims cast aside and interpret differently the violence in the verses that you are referring to and which are prevalent in this thread. Willful exclusion by those of more moderate temperament of violent verses is not unique to Christianity.

There is also the issue of the extreme liberalness taken with the English interpretations of many of these verses, but I think that that is more appropriately a discussion for a different topic since I am specifically discussing the acceptance of some aspects of a text/religion and the denying of other, more antiquated aspects. The Quran is as illogical and backpedaling as the Bible.

BTW - You might want to expand your reading to include studying Sun Tzu - especially the "know your enemy" part. Your "transliteration" fails miserably. Though it does show you don't have the faintest idea what Islam is about.

I have read Sun Tzu, and I know exactly who my enemy is; I continue to meet him on a nearly daily basis. Fortunately, I have the wherewithal to distinguish between them and those who simply share the same religious faith.

My transliteration is valid if you understand the point that I am making. However, if one is so set in their prejudice then I imagine that it could easily be an offensive and "incorrect" redirection of logic.

I still strongly believe in its appropriateness; however, I also strongly believe in the inability to budge of those to whom it is aimed.

Dreadnought

10-06-2012, 22:01

Christianity doesn't have any theological legal imperative ( like Sharia) commanding Christians to go out and do violence on Christianities behalf, whereas Islam does. Islam is unique in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system (SHARIA) that mandates warfare against unbelievers..

Source: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-political-violence-of-the-bible-and-the-koran/

I think that that is a fantastic piece of reasoning of fault within those texts. The mental gap that I don't believe in crossing is using this distaste for those texts as justification for a hate against all Muslims or as a reason to call Islam/Muslims "America's enemy."

EDIT: However, that article is extremely (and fairly obviously) biased. Many oft-quoted verses of violence on the Koran are indeed situationally and politically grounded as opposed to "eternal and universal."

Dreadnought

10-06-2012, 22:10

A religious scholar that I am acquainted once made some good points to me:

Dunno if you've seen it before but this is a famous letter written during the era known as the 'Golden Age of Islam' by 'al-Hashimi' who was a cousin of Caliph (head of state) 'al-Ma'mun' and it pronounces the Islamic sentiment of religious freedom quite nicely.

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empary of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be upon you and the blessings of God!"

But obviously even the stupidest person can see how much of a contradiction being violent towards someone, for basicaly no other reason than them not being a Muslim, is against the Qur'anic quotes of;
* "There is no compulsion in religion"
* “If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?”
* “That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.” (the Islamic version of the Golden Rule)

Those who interpret "defensive justification" as something that allowes Muslims to attack anyone outside of Islam are obviously going against their own religion. That can only be for one (or both) of two reasons, either they really are completely stupid and follow a religion without actualy reading that religion's scripture or they are more motivated by their own politics than they are by their religion.

a reasonable person reading those in their full and correct context would understand that they are talking about times of war, when they are being attacked and their existence is put in threat from outside agencies. It talks about 'disbelievers' because it assumes that no Islamic community would attack another Islamic community, therefore the only people who would attack Muslims are people from outside of Islam.

There are many quotes from the Qur'an like these that are available online that have been edited in a way to make it look like Islam promotes open warfare against non-Muslims, but when we actualy go and read them in their correct context, they are invariably only talking about defensive fighting.
They are also supposed to meet force with equal force, if someone verbally criticises Islam, they are supposed to 'verbally' defend it, if someone physically attacks Muslims, then the Muslims are allowed to physically defend themselves, if someone is trying to kill Muslims, then Muslims are allowed to kill them in self defence or in the defence of others. Which is pretty much the same as what us westerners are allowed to do by law.

The bolded part is especially noteworthy, and I hold the same opinion. The rest of the text merely stands to provide context for the often quoted violent verses.

T-Rock

10-06-2012, 22:12

I think that that is a fantastic piece of reasoning of fault within those texts. The mental gap that I don't believe in crossing is using this distaste for those texts as justification for a hate against all Muslims or as a reason to call Islam/Muslims "America's enemy."

Exposing Islam for what it is and having distaste for its ideology doesn’t insinuate hating all Muslims…

Peregrino

10-06-2012, 22:17

If you honestly believe Islam is "enlightened", I invite you to build a Christian Cathedral in Saudi Arabia. (BTW - I'm a secular humanist. I have no need to defend Christianity or Judaism. The Islamists would cheerfully lop my head off because I'm not one of the "children of the book" and hence am denied any choice except conversion, slavery, or death. No dhimitude for the likes of me. Part of the reason I have a real grudge with Islam or anyone else who wants to say "my religion is the only true religion, the rest of you are going to hell. I got a "B" in the mandatory Old Testament class when I was working on my BS. The instructor had a difficult time reconciling my refusal to accept "articles of faith" as gospel and my fairly extensive knowlege of the actual history and the bloody politics that went into deciding what would become the dogma of the Catholic Church [everybody else calling themselves "Christian" is a schismatic Catholic - fact - by definition - not opinion].)

Dreadnought

10-06-2012, 22:26

If you honestly believe Islam is "enlightened"

Not at all, nor have I said so nor meant to imply so.

As regards your statement towards "political Islam", I would like to bring to your attention the documented (and for the time rare) unusually just conquering of Jerusalem by the Islamic Saladin and subsequent treatment of peoples of various religions under his rule.

I use this as example of the fact that, like all religions and their factions, factions of Islam change and vary based upon the time, interpretations, and context.

T-Rock

10-07-2012, 00:08

A religious scholar that I am acquainted once made some good points to me:

…"There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256)…

If he practiced Islam my guess would be he was practicing Taqiyya… It’s one of the most widely used verses in the Qur’an to appease the ears of the Kafiroon. The average western Kafir are oblivious to the doctrine of nasikh wal mansukh. The verse of the sword, Sura 9:5 abrogates Sura 2:256..., as evidenced by Ibn Kathir:

Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam, because it is clear and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force...hence Allah revealed this verse. But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of "fighting...Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih, the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise
(Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 253 to 286, Surah Al-Imran, ayat 1 to 92, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa‘i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 1999: First Edition], Part 3, pp. 37-38)

Islam's core texts, the Qur‘an, Hadith, and scholarly [ulema] consensus hasn’t changed much in 1400 years.. Shariah doesn’t change.

In fact, the Qur’an, as well as the Shariah makes clear the purpose of Islam:

Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Sura 9:29)

Islam and The Objectives of Jihad

o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

o9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the Caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.
(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 599-609)

w4.0 THE FINALITY OF THE PROPHET’S MESSAGE

(1) Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the last prophet and messenger. Anyone claiming to be a prophet or messenger of Allah after him or to found a new religion is a fraud, misled and misleading.

(2) 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 equally attested to by many verses of the Koran. Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation, or that it is unbelief (KUFR - Kafiroon) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world (dis: o8.7(20).
(Reliance of the Traveller)

The penalty for Kufr = DEATH

c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law-giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment, while one who refrains from it out of obedience to the command of Allah is rewarded.

(3) and unbelief (Kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and necessitate stating the Testification of Faith (Shahada)…

f1.3 Someone (who knows Islamic Jurisprudence) or denies something…which there is scholarly consensus…is executed for his unbelief…

O4.17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim…

O8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is either disciplined (def17) (O: for arrogating the caliph’s prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).

(A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.

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;

(2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future…

(3) to speak words that imply unbelief…

(14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma’, def: b7) is part of Islam…

(19) To be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

(20) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24)

(Reliance of the Traveller - A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)

BKKMAN

10-07-2012, 07:25

I don't 'hate' Islam I just understand it. All we've done is provide Islamic verse that supports violent Jihad....Muhammed was not successful at spreading Islam until he adopted violence/war against non believers.
If you have an opinion that we have presented non Quranic verse or Hadith then please...enlighten us.
There is no radical Islam....just Islam.

"I don't 'hate' blacks I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving blacks that support their violence.... There is no violent black... just blacks."

I hope that this transliteration makes a point.

Nope.

I don't hate babies, I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving babies that support their violence...There are no violent babies...just babies.

I don't hate women, I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving women that support their violence...There are no violent women...just women.

If one starts with a faulty premise, one can arrive at any conclusion that suits their argument or POV.

In this case, for your "transliteration" (you may want to look up the definition of that word...a more apt word would be "substitution"), you assume the following: A=B---------> Islam = blacks; violent jihad = blacks

That makes as much sense as me assuming: A=B ----------> Islam = babies; violent jihad = babies

Substituting words for other words or reforming sentences may yield grammatically correct sentences, but that doesn't negate the logical fallacies that you are building your argument on...

...My transliteration is valid if you understand the point that I am making..

No, it doesn't. Just because you want something, doesn't make it so. And positing that [argument validity = audience understanding] doesn't support your position in the least.

...However, if one is so set in their prejudice then I imagine that it could easily be an offensive and "incorrect" redirection of logic.

A "redirection of logic"? Is that new code for faulty logic or creating a logical fallacy?

...I still strongly believe in its appropriateness; however, I also strongly believe in the inability to budge of those to whom it is aimed.

Just because you believe strongly in your argument, doesn't make it any less illogical than if you didn't believe in it at all...

T-Rock

10-07-2012, 08:17

http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/default/files/files/Letter_to_John_Brennan_19_OCT_2011%20(3).pdf

In regards to Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley - If CAIR and various Muslim organizations can impede our military leadership from teaching the truth about Islam and intimidate truth tellers about the true nature of Islam, then, for all practical purposes, they control our military….

Dozer523

10-07-2012, 09:30

I don't hate women, I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving women that support their violence...There are no violent women...just women... so I was reading your post and tracking ... Then I got to the highlighted part and I know you don't have a clue :D NOBODY understands women.

Nice try, though.

BKKMAN

10-07-2012, 11:27

so I was reading your post and tracking ... Then I got to the highlighted part and I know you don't have a clue :D NOBODY understands women.

Nice try, though.

Touche...:cool:

PRB

10-07-2012, 12:55

The ones blaming an entire religion, Islam in this case, for the actions and interpretations of the few, simultaneously ignoring equivalent violence and ignorance in both the Old and New Testaments.

"A World Without Islam" describes the extremism, as well as the overall stagnation of the majority of the Middle East/South Central Asia, as a function of history and circumstances, not as a function of religion. Islam brings nothing significantly different to the table from Christianity or Judaism. In fact, all three of the Abrahamic religions are nearly mirrored.

The fact that as an overall populace Christians and Jews have "evolved" past their antiquated, violent interpretations of their religious texts is further a function of other factors, not solely of the religion. Had American and European civilizations been predominately Muslim and Middle Eastern civilizations been predominately Christian and history remained the same, there exists no doubt in my mind that the end result today would be no different.

If you see ridiculousness and violence in Islamic holy texts and not in Christian and Jewish texts, then you are a fool who is either willfully or blindly ignorant. The end result is the same.

The enemy of America is not Islam. The enemy of America is the mindset that believes the previous statement. With that being said, I work with others who share my opinion as well as those who absolutely hate and want to kill everyone who is a Muslim. I've noticed neither has an effect on their ability to do their job.

Hey, I didn't mention Muslims at all in that note......I said ISLAM.......I understand ISLAM because I'vs studied its written words...period.
Islam is a political religious construct that has its basic roots in violent juhad. Islam is not only the Quran...it is the sira and Hadith......in the Sira and Hadith violence is practiced regularly and exhorted by the prophet...both by his word and his deeds.

PRB

10-07-2012, 12:59

"I don't 'hate' blacks I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving blacks that support their violence.... There is no violent black... just blacks."

I hope that this transliteration makes a point.

Again, a stupid and naive response.
Blacks are a race....ISLAM is based upon writings...I can read those documents and understand Islam. Not my interpretation of ISLAM but the interpretation of the majority of fiqhs based upon the SA gold standard of the supported Hadith.
You sound like a very young and emotional young man.

PRB

10-07-2012, 13:25

"I don't 'hate' blacks I just understand them. All we've done is provide examples of situations involving blacks that support their violence.... There is no violent black... just blacks."

I hope that this transliteration makes a point.

Try it with another political construct as your emotional race baiting is inane.

I don't hate Communists I understand them.
I don't hate Socialists I understand them.

Islam is a religious political construct under which no free western style Govt can survive...it is not a co existance construct.
The truths that we find 'self evident' in out Constitution are not self evident at all under Shariah......and if a practicing Muslim says that Shariah is not a part of Islam then he does not understand his own religion or is practicing taqqiya.
I'd advise you to read the Quran WITH the Sira and Hadith...the bio of Muhammed and the traditions outlined by his companions (Muhameds actions) before you go all emo again.

PRB

10-07-2012, 18:13

For DreadN....Islam is all about Allah and the Prophet...actually more about Muhamed in everyday Islamic life....here is an example....yesterday I heard a great comparison....Mr.Warner said Christians often say "What would Jesus do?"
Muslims say "What DID Muhamed do?" as he was the perfect example of Man...ergo this idiotic Dr. telling folks to drink Camel piss because Muhamed prescribed it.
You will note that some Muslims think this is stupid....like I said before...I'm not saying all Muslims think this is smart....but all Islamists do. They must...it is written by Muhammed and to deny what he wrote is haram.

"A recent Egyptian TV program
On September 16, popular TV persona Wael El-Ibrashi hosted Dr. Zaghlul al-Naggar, a prominent Islamic thinker and Chairman of Egypt's Committee of Scientific Notions in the Quran, on the topic of medical science and Islam. Inevitably the idea of drinking camel urine as a form of therapy—first proposed in the 7th century by Muslim prophet Muhammad—came up.

Not only did Dr. Naggar promote this practice, but he made the staggering announcement that right now in Egypt a medical center in Marsa Matrouh actually specializes in treating people with camel urine, all in accord with the prophet's advice.

Other Egyptian thinkers joined the show via satellite, including Khaled Montaser (who earlier exposed the Islamic world's "inferiority complex"). At one point, while delineating how science and medicine work, Montaser reminded that urine is where all the body's toxins are carried out, asking "so, shall we drink it for health?" Naggar simply responded with arrogance: "I am older than you and more learned than you: you are not going to teach me; I will teach generations of people like you."

Staunch secularist Sayyid al-Qemany—whose strong support for rationalistic thinking and the separation of religion and state caused Egypt's Islamic establishment to pronounce him an apostate infidel—also joined the show via phone, deploring the very idea that drinking camel urine could heal people.

Referring to Naggar's announcement that there is a clinic specializing in treating people with camel urine as a "catastrophe" that only indicates how far Egypt has sunk, Qemany called on Egyptian health officials to verify if such a medical center truly exists, saying this is a serious issue involving the health of Egypt's citizenry.

Naggar tried to defend the "salutary benefits" of camel urine by arguing that European pharmacies produce a medicine that contains female urine (possibly a reference to HCG). Qemany replied that such medicines are not based on drinking crude urine but are synthetic, exclaiming, "does this mean I should go drink my wife's urine?!"

An exasperated Qemany concluded by offering a compromise. He suggested that Nagger, whose PhD is in geology, should lead an expedition to Mecca and Medina and somehow try to extrapolate the urine of Muslim prophet Muhammad, and use that to heal people instead of camel urine, sarcastically adding, "surely the urine of the prophet—peace and blessings upon him—is better than camel urine?"

Dr. Naggar simply shook his head, saying such talk was inappropriate.

In fact, both ideas—drinking camel urine and drinking Muhammad's urine—are traced to the prophet's own words, and, accordingly, are aspects of "Sharia-medicine." In a canonical tradition, Muhammad once told some men who were sick "to drink the milk and urine of camels, and they recovered and grew fat," that is, they were healed (more information on this practice can be found in a modern-day fatwa in the English language aptly titled "The Benefits of Drinking Camel Urine.")

Likewise, Egypt's Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, once wrote that drinking Muhammad's urine was considered "a great blessing.

All of this sheds light on the totalitarian nature of Sharia law, which treats, not just the Quran, but canonical hadiths, or traditions and sayings of Muhammad—which is where both urine-drinking ideas appear—as sacred and not to be questioned. Saudi Arabia's highest Islamic authority until he died in 1999, Sheikh Bin Baz, held that the earth was flat and that all scientific evidence otherwise was a "Western conspiracy," simply because Quran 18:86 claims the sun sets in a pool of mud, suggesting that the earth is flat.

The greater lesson for non-Muslims is that, if Islam's most prominent thinkers—the many ulema, muftis, sheikhs, and "Islamic thinkers" like Naggar himself—tenaciously cling to Islam's teachings even when they defy objective science (not to mention grossly defame Islam), surely they must cling to those other ironclad teachings that deal with "subjective" matters, from freedom of religion and freedom of speech, to hostility, jihad, and subjugation for the infidel.

At one point in the debate, Qemany made this connection when he likened the mentality that would give sick people camel urine to drink, to the mentality that attacked U.S. embassies and killed people. In both cases, blind obedience and/or fanaticism is at work—and all to Muhammad's words, which advocated drinking camel urine for health no less than they banned mockery of the prophet

Dreadnought

10-07-2012, 22:02

Dreadnought

10-07-2012, 22:04

before you go all emo again.

Professional, eh?

Paragrouper

10-08-2012, 05:38

Professional, eh?

I thought you were done?

Dozer523

10-08-2012, 06:09

Okay, you go on doing as you do. I'm politely telling you all that I'm backing out of this discussion because I think the disagreement comes from a very deep difference in morality or values, and I don't have the time, energy, or care to dedicate towards an attempt at reconciling the differences. My previous posts have shown my opinion as simply as I can state it and so have some of yours, and from this I made the conclusion of where the disagreement lies. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

I think that I agree with the sentiments of "The Reaper" and "airbornediver" on the first page. My my. . . That isn't polite,
a few points for you to ponder

This doesn't have that much to do with 'morality and values' as it does with you lack of a good arguement. Tell yourself whatever makes you feel good about yourself but. . . you got your ass kicked.
Your time, energy, or dedication don't really count for that much.
Your previous posts have shown that you are opinionated and not particularly open to the POVs of others
Happy to see you'll accept disagreements cuz we have other remedies. you can submit your 4187 anytime.

34 posts, . . . some advice read more post less for a while

PRB

10-08-2012, 10:54

Professional, eh?

payback for the racial callout....if somone goes "Racist" for no reason you are either intellectually deficient or emo.
I gave you a break.

orion5

10-08-2012, 13:05

Professional, eh?

Dreadnought, you're 22. If you click on the profiles of the people giving you detailed answers, they are more than twice your age. It's great to be sure of yourself and not be swayed easily by others, yet in this case you could open your mind a bit. Isn't it possible that gentlemen with more years experience with Islam than you've been alive actually know things you do not? Isn't it possible they came to these conclusions from hard, hands-on experience that you do not have? Isn't it possible?

Meanwhile, to PRB, T-Rock, SF-TX, MrBox, Warrior Mentor and the others on this board that have taken the time to describe the truths of Islam, I thank you. I'm glad some of these young bucks ask questions (or confront you :rolleyes:) as it has helped me learn much. Thank you all.

Pete

10-08-2012, 13:30

Okay, you go on doing as you do. I'm politely telling you all that I'm backing out of this discussion because I think the disagreement comes from a very deep difference in morality or values, and I don't have the time, energy, or care to dedicate towards an attempt at reconciling the differences. My previous posts have shown my opinion as simply as I can state it and so have some of yours, and from this I made the conclusion of where the disagreement lies. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

I think that I agree with the sentiments of "The Reaper" and "airbornediver" on the first page.

Dreadnought - your problem is you are arguing based on your opinion, what you feel and how you think things should be.

The problem for you is the folks you are arguing with are relating the facts of Islam, the Koran and it's related writings.

You can wish all you want but for every peaceful verse from the Quran you put out one of the folks here will post the violent verse that abrogates it.

Sigaba

10-08-2012, 14:01

MOO, the turn this thread has taken represents a current trend among relative newcomers to this BB of not availing themselves to opportunities to use the search button or to visit the PS.COM archives.

Such an exercise IRT the ongoing conversation would have produced ample evidence that participants in the debate go beyond "yes" and "no" in responding to the central questions "Are we at war with Islam or is Islam at war with us?" By my count, since this conversation began in 2004, there are nine different responses falling into two groups. (To be clear, I'm offering an accounting of what has been argued as opposed to who has offered the arguments--there are more than nine members participating in this sprawling debate.) By my reading, these varying positions often defy casual categorization. As an example, Richard may disagree with Peregrino IRT the nature of Islamic belief, but their respective positions are actually closer than Peregrino's and PRB's when it comes to views on religion in general.

This exploration would also reveal that of these nine POVs, eight positions have profited from the give-and-take of spirited debate, and that many of the participants have clearly gone back, reconsidered, and refined their arguments, if only slightly, in response to dissenting views.

To me, the willingness that many have to participate in this complex debate is evidence that claims of a very "deep difference in morality and values" is, ultimately, unsustainable and merits reconsideration.

YMMV.

Dreadnought

10-08-2012, 14:47

My my. . . That isn't polite,

Dang, I'm gonna be "that guy" who says he's done but who really isn't haha. Allow me to attempt to clarify a few things in this post.

No offense meant with the "no time, energy, or care to continue" comment. I was trying to be literal. I'm wrapping up my current deployment while still continuing with the optempo, and I have a lot of things to focus on. Since this discussion has gotten me frustrated at times, much of which I feel is from miscommunication on both sides of the conversation (perhaps I have not made my stance clear), it's something that I chose not to pursue in it's current vein because I have enough problems at the moment.

Let me state it clearly: I do not like Islam. However, I do not inherently dislike Muslims. I do not believe the enemy of America is Islam nor Muslims. I believe it is the extremists who actively embody all of the worst attributes of Islam and of humanity.

With that being said, I will absolutely argue emotionally to a man who tells me that the enemy of America is Islam and, by association, Muslims. I will argue this until I die. I have not worked with a 22 year old Afghani special ops. squad leader, who was indeed Muslim, but who believed in the sanctity of his country and the equality that he believed his people should have just to see his face blown off by the real enemy that we continue to fight every day.

I will not allow it. If a man does not get emotional over such things, then I do not know what some of you expect. Perhaps some of you have been out of it for too long, or cannot relate on a personal level to what is going. I will not casually tolerate someone attempting to tell me that that man is the enemy of America simply because of his choice of religion.

Islam is faulted. I know this. My intent is not and was not to disassociate it from its inherent flaws. My intent is to separate that admittedly academic endeavor, because there have definitely been informed posts as regards Islamic scripture, from the wholesale labeling of the followers of a religion.

As an American, it is my opinion that I am going against my deepest personal values, which I also believe are inherently American, by condemning all of the followers of Islam or by classing the entire religion as the enemy of America. This is the conflict of values that I mentioned earlier, and it is what I believe to be irreconcilable. I simply will not do it, and I will get emotional about it, because that is what a man who has convictions in his morality and values will do.

I will not apologize for believing in these things so strongly, since it is currently what defines my entire existence and the purpose of what I do on a day to day basis. However, if I have been personally offensive from misunderstanding someone's point or opinion, then I apologize. What I said above still stands, however. I would appreciate if the strawman arguments against me were also to stop at this point, as I think that I have shown that my age is irrelevant to the values that I hold. I do not want to go down that obviously flawed conversational route.

Pete

10-08-2012, 15:31

........As an American, it is my opinion that I am going against my deepest personal values, which I also believe are inherently American, by condemning all of the followers of Islam or by classing the entire religion as the enemy of America................

You live in America and are able to have various opinions on the world's religions.

Some places you would have a harder time trying to have a contrary opinion to the state's view of it's religion.

The Quran that I have on my desk that I read from time to time was given to me by a Pakistani officer who was a Muslim. When he gave it to me he said he hoped I would read it - and I do like to read it so I know what it says.

Jersey Dirtbag

10-08-2012, 15:36

With that being said, I will absolutely argue emotionally to a man who tells me that the enemy of America is Islam and, by association, Muslims. I will argue this until I die. I have not worked with a 22 year old Afghani special ops. squad leader, who was indeed Muslim, but who believed in the sanctity of his country and the equality that he believed his people should have just to see his face blown off by the real enemy that we continue to fight every day.

I will not allow it. If a man does not get emotional over such things, then I do not know what some of you expect. Perhaps some of you have been out of it for too long, or cannot relate on a personal level to what is going. I will not casually tolerate someone attempting to tell me that that man is the enemy of America simply because of his choice of religion.

The statement that "Islam is a threat to America" does not imply a judgment of every single person who identifies himself as a Muslim. Taken at face value, it simply means that the ideology of Islam and its propagation threatens the continued existence of a distinct Western civilization. It says nothing about the merits or intentions of individual Muslims, to include the squad leader to whom you referred.

This is a very important point. When it comes to foreign policy (to include immigration policy), we cannot bind ourselves to judging every single individual on his or her merits. We have to take a common sense approach to these problems, and this approach will necessarily be based on generalizations about certain populations. Such approaches are taboo because they implicitly reject the popular notion that "fairness" with regard to individuals must be the highest priority. Rather, they are based on the prioritization of maintaining our national security and identity.

Dreadnought

10-08-2012, 15:45

Such approaches are taboo because they implicitly reject the popular notion that "fairness" with regard to individuals must be the highest priority. Rather, they are based on the prioritization of maintaining our national security and identity.

Yes, I agree with the general premise of the second sentence

Sigaba

10-08-2012, 15:50

When it comes to foreign policy (to include immigration policy), we cannot bind ourselves to judging every single individual on his or her merits. We have to take a common sense approach to these problems, and this approach will necessarily be based on generalizations about certain populations. Such approaches are taboo because they implicitly reject the popular notion that "fairness" with regard to individuals must be the highest priority. Rather, they are based on the prioritization of maintaining our national security and identity.You are presenting a model of international relations that rejects the Westphalian system, that largely ignores the thrust of American diplomatic history, and that accepts as "common sense" a POV embraced by Western civilization's greatest enemies.

Jersey Dirtbag

10-08-2012, 16:04

You are presenting a model of international relations that rejects the Westphalian system

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty), the principles of Westphalian sovereignty are:

1) The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
2) The principle of legal equality between states
3) The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

Which of those principles does my approach reject?

, that largely ignores the thrust of American diplomatic history,

I don't see how this is valid criticism.

and that accepts as "common sense" a POV embraced by Western civilization's greatest enemies.

Incidentally, during the Cold War, both the US and Russia recognized the strategic importance of nuclear weapons.

Are they are our enemies because they recognize the value in maintaining their distinct cultural identity?

Peregrino

10-08-2012, 16:17

You are presenting a model of international relations that rejects the Westphalian system, that largely ignores the thrust of American diplomatic history, and that accepts as "common sense" a POV embraced by Western civilization's greatest enemies.

Sigaba - Sorry, You're going to have to defend that one. My understanding of the Wesphalian model has plenty of room for a nation state making decisions WRT defending against threats to sovereignty and self-determination - including the use of stereotypes to discriminate against members of a nation/culture whose base philosophy is inimical to the preservation of our own way of life.

As a practical point, respect for "the thrust of American diplomatic history" should not equate to shackling us to a "suicide pact" wherein we adjudge all cultures equally meritorious. Times and threats change; the wise person adapts to meet the new challenges. If that means re-looking previous practices, so be it. I'm confident that route (in today's America) does not lead to National Socialism.

The Reaper

10-08-2012, 16:39

I think there are a couple of issues here.

First, can we freely criticize any religion, other than Christianity?

Can we even have a discussion of Islam and its problems, or is the mere fact that we are discussing it insensitive to the delicate sensibilities of Muslims?

Second, we (SF) are the most culturally attuned force in any military, and probably the only one that actually has a curriculum that addresses it. We accept and work with other cultures.

At the same time, a culture that violates certain cultural mores has to be examined without limitations. A religion that accepts and condones pedophilia, slavery, bestiality, genital mutilation, required violence against other cultures and religions, incest, violence against women, religious persecution, both homosexual and homophobic conduct, and genocide must be critically examined.

I have worked with military forces on every continent but Africa and Antarctica. Many of these forces were culturally challenging with issues like corruption, human rights, etc. All of them added together did not represent the assault on our cultural values that Muslims have.

In my personal opinion, a more backward, racist, ethnocentric, violent, misogynistic collection of haters would be difficult to imagine. These people make the Klan look positively open-minded and tolerant.

Having said that, there are 1,600,000,000 of them on this planet, or about five for every American. Ignoring them will not cause them to go away.

The prudent thing to do would seem to me to find a way to work with the more moderate Muslims, seek to benefit them over their more violent, fundamentalist believers, and look for ways to perhaps introduce them to an Islamic reformation and modernization.

At the same time, if they cannot moderate their more violent, racist beliefs, we may have to target those individuals and groups planning against us, and educating people on the threat would not seem to be unrealistic.

The PC aspect of this issue is particularly troubling to me as an SF soldier, and as an American. Denial and failure to evaluate and prepare for likely threats is a sure route to defeat.

IMHO, LTC Dooley is the victim of a witch hunt initiated by those who ultimately would like to see the downfall of the US and its establishment as a part of a global caliphate.

Again, I believe that the moderate Muslims are the extremists, and a large portion of them would love nothing more than to see us fail (or be defeated) as a nation.

The real question is how do we change that.

TR

Sigaba

10-08-2012, 16:54

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty), the principles of Westphalian sovereignty are:

1) The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
2) The principle of legal equality between states
3) The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

Which of those principles does my approach reject?Your own "source" answers your question. You wrote that American foreign policy should take into account the POVs of populations i.e. nations. The points from your "source" emphasize states. (Have noticed that Wikipedia is rarely used as a source on this BB?)
I don't see how this is valid criticism.Then I respectfully suggest that you might profit from expanding your study of history.

American foreign policy is driven by a shifting calibration of ideology and interests. While American statesmen have generally held to the notion of universal notions of freedom and, at times, they have directed their efforts and comments to foreign populations, the policies they've crafted are, in the main, directed at states (i.e. foreign governments), not nations. This approach has two benefits. First, it places the onus of change on the shoulders of foreign nationals. If, for example, the people of a country suffer from sanctions, they can pressure their government to change its policies, or they can put in place a new government altogether.

Second, it allows the United States to make peace as well as war rather than to be caught in a cycle of endless conflict. An example that is immediately relevant to this thread is Bush the Younger's approach to GWOT. While he affirmed the belief that freedom is a normative desire of human beings across the world, he was even more firm in stating that states, not nations, are the legitimate entities for international relations. By contrast, the "enemy" resorts to terrorism as a strategy (and not just a tactic, regardless of what the Democratic Party says) because it seeks to engulf the world in a war that will overthrow the Westphalian system.

That is, Bush's grand strategy for GWOT focused on the behavior of states rather than the beliefs of populations. (His comment "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." was directed at foreign governments that would harbor terrorists or facilitate the proliferation of WMDs.)

Your formulation would turn this sensibility on its head. Even if rogue states were to disavow terrorism, give international arms inspectors full access to nuclear facilities, control the migration of their citizens, and to start on the path to becoming solid citizens in international politics, America would still be compelled to act as if they posed an existential threat to our way of life because of their beliefs or other intrinsic traits/characteristics.

By my reading of American diplomatic history, three states took this path during the twentieth century. America participated in a global war against two of them and a "Cold War" against a third. In each case, America prevailed because it was flexible enough to use its beliefs as a guide, and not to allow ideology to become a loadstone.Incidentally, during the Cold War, both the US and Russia recognized the strategic importance of nuclear weapons.Thank you very much for this observation. I was--up until you brought it to my attention--completely unaware of the role nuclear nuclear weapons played in the Cold War at any level.
Are they are our enemies because they recognize the value in maintaining their distinct cultural identity?To the extent I can make sense of this question, you are contradicting yourself. The Communists defined the world in terms of the intrinsic nature of population through the lens of class. While some Americans sought to define the Soviets in equally stark terms (i.e. a communist is a communist is a communist), American statesmen took a much more nuanced approach and kept the Cold War as a contest between states in which interests and ideology were considered in tandem.

Jersey Dirtbag

10-08-2012, 17:20

Your own "source" answers your question. You wrote that American foreign policy should take into account the POVs of populations i.e. nations. The points from your "source" emphasize states. (Have noticed that Wikipedia is rarely used as a source on this BB?)

No. I wrote nothing about the "POVs of populations;" I said that the characteristics of populations should be taken into account when formulating foreign and immigration policy. What does this have to do with any of the three principles in the link I provided? Specifically, which ones does it violate?

As an aside, no, I have not noticed anything with regard to the frequency at which wikipedia is cited on PS.com. How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

Your formulation would turn this sensibility on its head. Even if rogue states were to disavow terrorism, give international arms inspectors full access to nuclear facilities, control the migration of their citizens, and to start on the path to becoming solid citizens in international politics, America would still be compelled to act as if they posed an existential threat to our way of life because of their beliefs or other intrinsic traits/characteristics.

I have no idea where this is coming from. I said nothing that would suggest we are "compelled" to do anything, least of all treat cooperative nations in any particular way. There is a difference between me saying that we must declare holy war on all Muslim nations, and me saying that there are intractable cultural incompatibilities between Islam and the West. It is completely possible for us to recognize the aforementioned cultural differences while simultaneously maintaining friendly diplomatic relations; we've been doing it for a long time. That doesn't mean we need to allow completely unfettered immigration from those countries.

To the extent I can make sense of this question, you are contradicting yourself. The Communists defined the world in terms of the intrinsic nature of population through the lens of class. While some Americans sought to define the Soviets in equally stark terms (i.e. a communist is a communist is a communist), American statesmen took a much more nuanced approach and kept the Cold War as a contest between states in which interests and ideology were considered in tandem.

This does not answer my question. I asked you if the reason they were our enemies was the fact that they enacted the policies I suggested (assuming that they did, indeed, enact those policies). I was implying (as I was with my sarcastic nuclear weapons comment) that just because an enemy does one particular thing does not mean it is an irrational policy or that our adoption of it would compromise any of our principles.

In response to all three of my questions you replied with a straw man argument. You (very obviously) transformed statements that I made into highly polarized positions that were easy for you to counter or obfuscate with references to irrelevant details. You are obviously very well read and intelligent, but this sort of behavior is insulting and unproductive. If this is the disposition you always take while debating others, then I'm not willing to carry on this conversation with you any further.

Sigaba

10-08-2012, 18:38

Sigaba - Sorry, You're going to have to defend that one. My understanding of the Wesphalian model has plenty of room for a nation state making decisions WRT defending against threats to sovereignty and self-determination - including the use of stereotypes to discriminate against members of a nation/culture whose base philosophy is inimical to the preservation of our own way of life.

As a practical point, respect for "the thrust of American diplomatic history" should not equate to shackling us to a "suicide pact" wherein we adjudge all cultures equally meritorious. Times and threats change; the wise person adapts to meet the new challenges. If that means re-looking previous practices, so be it. I'm confident that route (in today's America) does not lead to National Socialism.Peregrino--

My perception of the Westphalian model is much like my understanding of the "original intent' of the founders. That is, affairs of the state are best conducted by disinterested parties. To be clear, I am not arguing that the dividing point of elite and mass is determined by socio-economic factors, political ideology, gender identity, or cultural practices. I am suggesting that those who seek to participate in this discourse should strive towards a sensibility in which passion tempers knowledge but emotions do not overwhelm the ability to think about the consequences of one's choices. In short, I am arguing that in matters of peace and of war, Athena should, at all times, trump Ares.

IRT your observation of American diplomatic history and the present day, I offer the following comments as IMO/MOO/YMMV.

Our own history is filled with examples in which America's interests have led to statesmen picking stability over opportunities to empower populations to achieve the freedoms we espouse--both at home and abroad. IMO "revisionist" diplomatic historians go way overboard in turning these arguments into a broader indictment of American civilization. However, I think they've marshaled enough historical evidence to show that American foreign policy has worked at cross purposes with both our most cherished values and the very interests we sought to protect in the first place.

Similarly, on those occasions when our ideological views have overshadowed our perceptions of self interest, we've also put into place policies that ultimately worked against our long term interests. Two examples from U.S.-Soviet relations illustrate this point. America's participation in the allied intervention in the Russian civil war stemmed in part from President Wilson's hostility towards communism and his belief that Russians weren't civilized enough for democracy. The failed intervention helped Bolsheviks to argue that the capitalist world was permanently committed to preventing any and all aspects of the Marxist political agenda from coming to fruition. In turn, this position emboldened subsequent purges (executions) of those Communists who argued for some form of accommodation with the west and an ensuing climate of political terror that limited the USSR's range of acceptable options until the 1980s.

During the 1980s, Republican rhetoric about Islamic freedom fighters as allies in a global struggle against Communism undermined unintentionally serious discussions among naval strategists about the link between Islamic radicalism and terrorism. Notwithstanding this concern, Mahanian navalists were not going to allow nuance get in the way of any chance to build bigger ships designed for warfare in the open ocean even though there were articulate calls for ships to handle the lower end of the spectrum of conflict.

These two examples are not merely reflections of the hindsight of history. Both choices reflected decisions that were debated contemporaneously. While these debates did not forecast decades' long struggles against vastly different ideologies, they did provide opportunities to develop alternatives that went unexplored.

Consequently, I believe that the United States is better off when it takes an approach to foreign relations that balances a "reasoned" approach to its geostrategic interests and its ideas. To me, a crucial component of this unending quest for balance is that we consistently put forth our best effort to avoid frames of mind that reflect rage ("Kill them all") or despair ("Fortress America") or misguided paternalistic sympathy ("They're simply victims of Western industrialization and colonialism").

In some cases, the approach that I have in mind is going to result in questions that are difficult to understand, much less answer. As TR points out, there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If, as some suggest, only a small percentage (say 10%) of this total accepts uncritically a literal interpretation of the Koran, that's still 160 million people to worry about.

Finally, IRT your evaluation of contemporary America not being at risk for plunging into darkness in a way similar to Germany, I hope you're right.

Sigaba

10-08-2012, 20:08

Entire post.You are saying that I've made a mistake by assuming that you're articulate enough to say what you mean. How about that. Well, this is what you said.

When it comes to foreign policy (to include immigration policy), we cannot bind ourselves to judging every single individual on his or her merits. We have to take a common sense approach to these problems, and this approach will necessarily be based on generalizations about certain populations. Such approaches are taboo because they implicitly reject the popular notion that "fairness" with regard to individuals must be the highest priority. Rather, they are based on the prioritization of maintaining our national security and identity.First, by discounting "popular notions" of "fairness", you are advocating an approach to foreign policy that privileges security over America's core values.

And before you attempt to go there. The difference between your position and mine is I express a preference for an elite discourse that reflects a certain way of thinking. You would impose ("we have to") your POV on your fellow citizens.

Second, your approach is "necessarily" based upon "generalizations about certain populations." Going by what you wrote--or does quoting you directly constitute a twisting of your words--you do not mention states, you don't mention governments, you don't mention polities, you mention "populations." Moreover, make a distinction about "certain" populations--as opposed to all population groups.

That is, you're willing to generalize--strike that--you're insisting on generalizing about populations that practice one religion, but those who practice other religions get evaluated by a different standard. So, if it is okay to apply different standards to different groups when it comes to a category like religion, when/where does it stop? Muslims today--who tomorrow? Or will the steadying hand of you and like minded American citizens, firmly guided by the construct of constructs ("common sense") be able to impose a revised set of generalizations before the "popular notion" of "fairness" comes into play? (And before you go there and align yourself with the POVs of other members of this BB, there's a monumental difference between a concern over the impact of "political correctness" upon the topic under discussion and a position that insists upon what "we have to" do and what "necessarily" must follow. If you don't agree, I refer you to my last point in this post.)

Third, by linking national security with "identity" you would thrust America towards a totalizing war of all against all. If, for example, it was decided (by you and like minded citizens guided by the magnetic north of "common sense") that "we have to" adopt a national identity that embraces a specific vision (rather than our current identity that embraces pluralism, diversity, and tolerance), every other identity--at home and abroad-- that challenges our self image is a potential threat to our "national security." But then I'm probably overstating a marginal concern--such a thing has never happened before in history.

Fourth, IRT my point about Wikipedia, <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/search.php)>>.

Mr Furious

10-08-2012, 20:27

It appears CAIR has infiltrated the highest levels of the White House and the Pentagon :(

In all the back and forth on the merits and demerits of Islam, I’m not sure if everyone caught the above post. Thanks T-Rock. In case you didn’t read the letter it’s attached.

IMHO, LTC Dooley is the victim of a witch hunt initiated by those who ultimately would like to see the downfall of the US and its establishment as a part of a global caliphate.

TR, I couldn’t agree more.

I think many are quick to forget that a progressive PAC called “votevets.org” combined with efforts from CAIR were successful in stopping LTG(R) Boykin from speaking at West Point’s National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year. http://bit.ly/PQNnj5

Let’s not forget this CAIR Executive Director taking aim at Rep. Allen West only to get called on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CVK4c2qu3M

Not sure, but there might be a common denominator or central organization here? We’ll keep looking till we figure this mystery out.

Jersey Dirtbag

10-08-2012, 20:36

First, by discounting "popular notions" of "fairness", you are advocating an approach to foreign policy that privileges security over America's core values.

No. I am advocating an approach to foreign policy that privileges security over, possibly, your core values.

And before you attempt to go there. The difference between your position and mine is I express a preference for an elite discourse that reflects a certain way of thinking. You would impose ("we have to") your POV on your fellow citizens.

That sounds great, but it's not clear how your "elite discourse" differs from my approach. I have my opinion and you have yours. Giving yours an empowering label and mine a degrading one doesn't change the nature of this conversation.

Second, your approach is "necessarily" based upon "generalizations about certain populations." Going by what you wrote--or does quoting you directly constitute a twisting of your words--you do not mention states, you don't mention governments, you don't mention polities, you mention "populations." Moreover, make a distinction about "certain" populations--as opposed to all population groups.

Allow me to generalize. What I meant was that we should recognize trends in a general sense; that is, regardless of which variable (nationality, religion, etc) they correlate most strongly with. If that wasn't clear, I apologize.

That is, you're willing to generalize--strike that--you're insisting on generalizing about populations that practice one religion, but those who practice other religions get evaluated by a different standard. So, if it is okay to apply different standards to different groups when it comes to a category like religion, when/where does it stop? Muslims today--who tomorrow? Or will the steadying hand of you and like minded American citizens, firmly guided by the construct of constructs ("common sense") be able to impose a revised set of generalizations before the "popular notion" of "fairness" comes into play? (And before you go there and align yourself with the POVs of other members of this BB, there's a monumental difference between a concern over the impact of "political correctness" upon the topic under discussion and a position that insists upon what "we have to" do and what "necessarily" must follow. If you don't agree, I refer you to my last point in this post.)

See above; I'm not limiting this approach to just Islam. If a trend exists, it should be considered from a foreign policy and immigration standpoint.

I am not attempting to align myself with anyone.

Third, by linking national security with "identity" you would thrust America towards a totalizing war of all against all. If, for example, it was decided (by you and like minded citizens guided by the magnetic north of "common sense") that "we have to" adopt a national identity that embraces a specific vision (rather than our current identity that embraces pluralism, diversity, and tolerance), every other identity--at home and abroad-- that challenges our self image is a potential threat to our "national security." But then I'm probably overstating a marginal concern--such a thing has never happened before in history.

Actually, I didn't really intend to link them (nor I do I believe I did). But they are both potentially put at risk by some of the same threats.

Also, terms like "diversity" and "tolerance" are so politically charged and have so many implications associated with them that to say our national identity is based on them is, well...somewhat nebulous. Furthermore, to suggest that "pluralism, diversity, and tolerance" encompass the totality of our national identity is preposterous.

Fourth, IRT my point about Wikipedia, <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/search.php)>>.

I'm aware of the search feature and use it regularly. The relevance of how frequently Wikipedia is cited on PS.com is still unclear to me.

BKKMAN

10-08-2012, 21:07

...I'm aware of the search feature and use it regularly. The relevance of how frequently Wikipedia is cited on PS.com is still unclear to me.

Documents on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, thus calling into question the accuracy, veracity, and credibility of the entries contained there.

Although one might use Wikipedia for general information, a peer reviewed journal, primary source, etc. would be far more trustworthy and authoritative when searching for or providing data/evidence/facts to support one's arguments.

Jersey Dirtbag

10-08-2012, 21:10

Documents on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, thus calling into question the accuracy, veracity, and credibility of the entries contained there.

Although one might use Wikipedia for quick, general information, a peer reviewed journal, primary source, etc. would be far more trustworthy and authoritative when searching for data/evidence/facts to support one's arguments.

Roger that. On most of the boards I frequent, "major"/established Wikipedia documents are typically considered valid. Since that's not the convention here I'll utilize other sources in the future.

Peregrino

10-08-2012, 22:00

Sigaba – Reading through your recent responses it occurred to me that I had confused the classical Westphalian state oriented premise of your position with the post-Westphalian national/cultural aspects of the current international realities in the more “tempestuous” regions. Our DOS pretends that “states” have control of the “nations” that comprise them despite the fact that the “nations”, particularly in poorly governed regions, neither recognize the states nominally over them, nor their respective borders. (Facts that are particularly useful to practitioners of unconventional warfare and equally troublesome to people who insist that the world fit in their little boxes.)

I think I probably need to move Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire a little further up on my list of reading requirements. Though I wonder what a current revision might look like given that it’s 12 years old. Unfortunately US Foreign Policy is a minefield of lost/wasted opportunities; IMHO largely because the State Department is neither Ares nor Athena (NTM - your statement appears to overlook Athena’s dual nature). Their policies have been heavily weighted for stability and against change from the beginning (stagnant). Very “striped pants“/Westphalian in their approach to international relations. To borrow your phrase “a preference for an elite discourse”. I much favor an approach that encourages native populations to seek self-determination; a far messier and uncertain course yet one with the potential of reaping commensurately greater rewards (provided we stay the course, support the right people, and don’t piss away opportunities like Libya and Syria). DOS has always been too willing to negotiate, treating it as if it were a game and its only purpose the negotiations themselves. Everything is negotiable seems to me self-defeating and not a little immoral.

Unfortunately, I don’t foresee a balanced/reasoned approach to US foreign policy without a change of administration and fresh blood at every level in DOS. Current policy is an abject failure; the “anointed one” (with what I perceive to be a Marxist, anti-colonialist agenda) has demonstrated impotence, confusion, and a lack of vision/leadership while Madame Secretary has nothing to show for her tenure but passport stamps.

As TR pointed out 1.6B is a lot; as you reinforced, 160M hostiles is worrisome. What DN and other “can’t we all just get along” people fail to understand is that your 160M are “fish in the sea” of the 1.6B. They don’t survive/thrive or even exist without the support they receive from the greater population. That makes it really hard for me to accept that America’s core values should be applied equally to all groups. Islam has declared jihad on non-Islamics. To the best of my knowledge, no other religion/culture/whatever has done anything similar in recent history. I’m not willing to extend wholesale tolerance to a polity that demands the subjugation/destruction of everything I believe in. Supporting America’s “core values” doesn’t have to include “embracing the viper to your breast“. I don’t believe in suicide pacts and I’m not interested in “submitting” (Islam = to submit). It’s time to stop treating Islam as a religion and recognize that it is a polity. Were it anything other than a religion, we would have already acted to end the threat it represents.

I hope I’m right too. Personally, I think the fact that we can have a lively discourse and agree or not without repercussions speaks positively for the future.

Dreadnought

10-08-2012, 22:23

As TR pointed out 1.6B is a lot; as you reinforced, 160M hostiles is worrisome. What DN and other “can’t we all just get along” people

This is patently false. Obviously, you misunderstand me. Was my last post not clear enough?

Pete

10-09-2012, 03:58

This is patently false. Obviously, you misunderstand me. Was my last post not clear enough?

What was the voting stats from the Egyptian elections? Based on them I would say 160M is way low.

The latest Muslim Parade in NYC was full of Love & lets get along.

Some light reading to go with the morning coffee.

Radicalism Prompts Warnings in France

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/world/europe/in-france-jews-and-muslims-warn-of-anti-semitism.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1&

"PARIS — Jewish and Muslim leaders here warned on Monday of rising anti-Semitism among young Muslims, two days after the police arrested 11 men and fatally shot one in raids in a handful of cities aimed at young radical French Muslims. ............."

sinjefe

10-09-2012, 06:16

This is patently false. Obviously, you misunderstand me. Was my last post not clear enough?

What happened to "I'm backing out of this discussion?"

MR2

10-09-2012, 07:49

What happened to "I'm backing out of this discussion?"

It is pretty hard to back out of anything when one keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

Dreadnought

10-09-2012, 11:46

What happened to "I'm backing out of this discussion?"

The discussion of Islam is what I have backed out of :p Defending my manhood against ridiculous claims though... can't back away from that one.

"PARIS — Jewish and Muslim leaders here warned on Monday of rising anti-Semitism among young Muslims, two days after the police arrested 11 men and fatally shot one in raids in a handful of cities aimed at young radical French Muslims. ............."

Buncha assholes

1stindoor

10-09-2012, 11:59

Buncha assholes

Would that be the Jewish and Muslim leaders, the young Muslims, or the cops?

Dreadnought

10-09-2012, 12:11

Would that be the Jewish and Muslim leaders, the young Muslims, or the cops?

Directed towards the anti-Semites and ones traveling abroad to training camps. Good on France, and as far as I know they've been pretty "progressive" when it comes to passing legislation regarding some of the extreme aspects of Islam and Islamists.

It was them who banned public wearing of the burqa, wasn't it?

Pete

10-09-2012, 12:15

Directed towards the anti-Semites and ones traveling abroad to training camps. Good on France, and as far as I know they've been pretty "progressive" when it comes to passing legislation regarding some of the extreme aspects of Islam and Islamists.

It was them who banned public wearing of the burqa, wasn't it?

I had asked for your views on the speakers at this years Muslim parade in NYC. So far you have not addressed it.

Lets put it this way, the anti-American retoric was so bad a liberal elected official got up and walked off stage.

"Death to all Juice" - an oldie but a goodie.

Some say fake - others say was original then copied - some like looking at the wording and script - and some Jews even claim to be the perps.

Dreadnought

10-09-2012, 12:21

I had asked for your views on the speakers at this years Muslim parade in NYC. So far you have not addressed it.

Lets put it this way, the anti-American retoric was so bad a liberal elected official got up and walked off stage.

"Death to the Juice" - an oldie but a goodie.

Ah, I thought it was a statement and didn't know that you wanted my input. I'm not familiar with the speakers at the NYC Muslim parade nor what they said. Let me look it up real quick.

EDIT: Do you have a specific transcript you want me to look at? What I've found so far is an Imam from Coney Island (which is itself hilarious) who basically wants to ban free speech because it could be used to offend Islam and Mohammed. Of course, he's a moron.

sabasarge

10-09-2012, 12:24

Pete

10-09-2012, 12:31

Ah, I thought it was a statement and didn't know that you wanted my input. I'm not familiar with the speakers at the NYC Muslim parade nor what they said. Let me look it up real quick.

EDIT: Do you have a specific transcript you want me to look at? What I've found so far is an Imam from Coney Island (which is itself hilarious) who basically wants to ban free speech because it could be used to offend Islam and Mohammed. Of course, he's a moron.

There is a you.tube clip of the three speakers just before the Dem pol walks out. When the camera guy asks the pol why he walked out he gets the huff n gruff answer. The prego Jihadette has got the fire in her belly, budding Homicide Bomber for sure.

Dreadnought

10-09-2012, 12:36

There is a you.tube clip of the three speakers just before the Dem pol walks out. When the camera guy asks the pol why he walked out he gets the huff n gruff answer. The prego Jihadette has got the fire in her belly, budding Homicide Bomber for sure.

Ah ok, then yes that's the same video that I just watched. I don't have sound, but there was captioning at the bottom of what was being said.

I'm not sure if the captioning was poor or if her English was that bad. Anyways, whatever it is that she intended to say was stupid and was delivered even more stupidly.

Pete

10-09-2012, 12:46

A little longer clip with a little more on the black flag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjFSi1AZTq8

As for me, I don't have to make stuff up - I believe what they say - they mean it.

tonyz

10-09-2012, 13:36

A little longer clip with a little more on the black flag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjFSi1AZTq8

As for me, I don't have to make stuff up - I believe what they say - they mean it.

We need to be more empathetic.

Thanks for posting that vid Pete - and thank you to all who have shared substantial experience and insight over the years on this BB - into the continued threat of radical Islamists - right here at home.

I did a quick search of "Islam" on the BB to refresh my recollection of previous posts - I'm sure that similar searches will yield numerous threads (and attachments, links, etc.,) worthy of review.

I, too, take radical Islamists at their word. Thank you for that little reminder from right here at home.

ZonieDiver

10-09-2012, 13:51

We need to be more empathetic.

You do realize that empathy is not necessarily a bad trait for an SF soldier to have, don't you?

tonyz

10-09-2012, 13:58

You do realize that empathy is not necessarily a bad trait for an SF soldier to have, don't you?

Absolutely. And those nice folks in that video made me well aware of their feelings.

BKKMAN

10-09-2012, 18:11

More peace and tolerance...

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/09/14311107-peace-prize-winning-girl-shot-by-taliban-to-be-sent-abroad-for-treatment-pakistani-president-says?lite&ocid=msnhp

T-Rock

10-09-2012, 19:25

I think the more pertinent question might be "Why is Islam the only religion that cannot be criticized?"

It’s the Shariah…, no other religion is like Islam...

Shariah is the basis for every demand that a Muslim makes on our society. The easiest way to learn about Islam is through Shariah law. Under Shariah law:

* There is no freedom of religion.
* There is no freedom of speech.
* There is no freedom of thought.
* There is no freedom of artistic expression.
* There is no freedom of the press.
* There is no equality of peoples - a Kafir is never equal to a Muslim.
* There are no equal rights for women.
* A Kafir cannot bear arms.
* Kafir are Dhimmis, third class citizens.
* All governments must be ruled by Shariah law.
* Unlike common law, Shariah is not interpretive, nor can it be changed.
* Under Shariah there is no Golden Rule.
* There is no freedom to criticize Islam, Muhammad, or Allah.

Under Shariah law, it is a criminal offense to speak ill of Islam, Muhammed, or its scripture. To do so is blasphemy (KUFR) and it’s punishable by death:

Qur’an:

“…An agonizing torment awaits those who insult God’s Messenger…” (Sura 9:62).

“Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Messenger,..…..Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering” (Sura 33:57-61).

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief (KUFR/blasphemy) in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,..”(Sura 5:33)

"Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?"(Sura 6:93)

Hadith:

When Muhammad learned that one of his followers had stabbed and killed his slave for making derogatory remarks about Muhammad, he declared that "no retaliation is payable for her blood."(Abu Dawud 38:4348)

Muhammad asked his followers to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf for writing inflammatory poetry about Muhammad and Muslim women. (Sahih Bukhari 3:45:687, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:270, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:271, Sahih Bukhari 5:59:369, Sahih Muslim 19:4436, Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 97, etc..)

Muhammad asked his followers to kill Abu Afak for making negative remarks about Muhammad and Islam. (Ishaq:675)

Shariah

9.2 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “A lie about me is not the same as a lie about someone else: whoever intentionally lies about me shall take a place for himself in hell.” (Reliance of the Traveller. Pgs 658).

c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law-giver strictly forbids….”

(3) and unbelief (Kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and necessitate stating the Testification of Faith (Shahada)…

f1.3 Someone (who knows Islamic Jurisprudence) or denies something…which there is scholarly consensus…is executed for his unbelief…

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;

(3) to speak words that imply unbelief…

(19) To be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

(20) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24)

(Reliance of the Traveller. Pgs. 595-610)

Our leaders are Dhimmis for allowing the following to stand… John Brennan and General Martin E. Dempsey are Dhimmis...
> http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/default/files/files/Letter_to_John_Brennan_19_OCT_2011%20(3).pdf

PRB

10-09-2012, 20:45

A Muslim practitioner cannot practice Islam with the Quran alone...it is impossible. One must have the Sira and Haddith to 'practice' Islam.
The Bio of Muhammed and the examples of Muhammed written by his companions show proper Muslims how to conduct themselves.
It covers everything from how to defecate and pray, sex and money dispersal and everything under the Sun.
Muhammed is not a man of antiquity seen in the past tense.
He is the perfect man, everything he did was proper and right.
He is to be emulated.
All of Sharia comes from his interactions and explanations.
Read the above post again in that light.
Islam has no place in the modern western world in light of its construct, it does not allow for co existance unless the believers are in the minority. Dhimmitude is alive and well in every Islamic state as are all of the restrictions on women etc. (note the 14 year old Afghan girl just killed for her opinion).
Please, study any Islamic figh/jurisprudence and prove myself and the others here wrong.
Do so with Islamic fatwa based upon the above texts and I'll defer.

Pete

10-10-2012, 04:27

....... Dhimmitude is alive and well in every Islamic state as are all of the restrictions on women etc. (note the 14 year old Afghan girl just killed for her opinion)................

The Girl PRB was talking about. I think she's still alive. At least she survived the first operation. Good thing she was flown from Swat to Peshawar. That road sucks.

Bullet removed from Pakistan girl's body who was shot at by Taliban

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Bullet-removed-from-Pakistan-girls-body-who-was-shot-at-by-Taliban/articleshow/16749669.cms

"PESHAWAR: Pakistani surgeons removed a bullet on Wednesday from a 14-year-old girl shot by the Taliban for speaking out against the militants and promoting education for girls, doctors said.

Malala Yousufzai was in critical condition after gunmen shot her in the head and neck on Tuesday as she left school. Two other girls were also wounded.............."

The comments below the story would fit well in this thread.

Penn

10-10-2012, 05:22

This is an interesting item that is not on the MSN cycle. In fact the only way to get a feel of whats happening in the world today is to spent an inordinate amount of time online cruising news outlets and blogs.

It will be interesting to see what transpires, but I don't think the LTC will prevail against the appeasement factor.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-general-destroys-career-of-army-officer-to-appease-muslims

PRB

10-10-2012, 14:32

Glad to hear she survived.
When I was in Kandahar in '06 we were helping the local Governor with security for the city during the first elections. I spent quite a bit of time 'downtown' with the Gov, Police Chief etc.
There was an 'event' where a butcher had killed another mans wife after raping her....cut her up and put the parts in the desert.
In the court (Sharia) the butcher maintained that she was a whore and came to him and he was seduced...but after the act the rage of Allah came to him for her seduction and he killed her in the 'Name of God'.
Since no one could prove she was not a whore even tho no one else came fwd as a 'client' (being without an escort was proof enough of her lewdness) the court approved the 'blood money' of the butcher giving one of his daughters as payment to the victims husband.
He gave him an 11 year old 'wife'.
The Court consists of Mullah's...they refered to the Sira/Hadith for guidance and example.....what Muhammed did.
Justice was done.
The butcher had 4 more girls so I guess he can kill and rape at least 4 more 'whores'.
That is Sharia.

BKKMAN

10-10-2012, 18:13

An interesting article about Tunisia (98% Muslim)...got to get the children started early in the indoctrination program...

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14341908-easy-to-make-and-use-tunisian-magazine-teaches-children-how-to-build-a-molotov-cocktail?lite

PRB

10-10-2012, 19:31

You see the same in Palestine...childrens shows where the animal characters are attked and killed by Jews harvesting organs...not kidding.
Bring your Dad to school day where we dress up like suicide bombers.....and who do they dress up for suicide bombers for...for Allah and Muhammed because to die in the way of Allah is blessed...and THE ONLY GUARANTEED WAY OUTLINED IN THE QURAN OF GETTING TO PARADISE. Not one of the ways, all of the other ways are not listed...the only Quranic guarantee of Paradise is to DIE in the way of Allah as demonstrated by Muhammeds teachings.
Most religions say "Believe in me"
Allah says "Die for me".
One is a thought, an internalyzed thought hopefully demonstrated in action to your fellow man.
The other is a violent action executed upon a non believer.

Sigaba

10-10-2012, 19:32

(NTM - your statement appears to overlook Athena’s dual nature). FWIW, the Athena I had in mind does have a dual nature. She is an elemental force in warfare that couples puissance in arms with a willingness to play favorites by shaking the aegis to strike fear in the hearts of mortal men, and to answer the prayers of great kings by bestowing upon them god-like power so they might demonstrate arete in battle.

As she told Diomedes Lord of the Great War Cry in the Iliad of Homer:'Be of good courage now, Diomedes, to fight with the Trojans,
since I have put insider your chest the strength of your father
untremulous, such as the horseman Tydeus of the great shield
had; I have taken away the mist from your eyes, that before now
was there, so that you may well recognize the god and the mortal.'*

But notwithstanding her bestowing favor upon not only the Greeks but upon specific individuals, she also demonstrates the other aspect of her nature: restraint. So, just as she emboldens Diomedes to slaughter Trojans, she also sets limits.'Therefore now, if a god making trial of you comes hither
do you not do battle head on with the gods immortal,
not with the rest; but only if Aphrodite, Zeus' daughter,
comes to the fighting, her at least you may stab with the sharp bronze.'**
While there are many additional examples of Athena exercising a restraining force in violence, I think two cases are especially relevant to this present discussion.

The first is her intervention in The Eumenides, the concluding play of The Oresteia, when she casts the deciding vote that breaks the cycle of violence unleashed by the slaying of Agamemnon in the play of the same name. Although the Furies insist that Orestes should pay the price for matricide, she beseeches them.You have your power,
you are goddesses -- but not to turn
on the world of men and ravage it past cure.To be certain, she is again playing favorites. Not only does she favor Orestes, she is specifically concerned with the well being of the city-state bearing her name becoming engulfed in civil war. She tells the Furies.Here in our homeland never cast the stones
that whet our bloodlust. Never waste our youth,
inflaming them with the burning wine of strife.
Never pluck the heart of the battle cock
and plant it in our people -- intestine war
seething against themselves. Let our wars
rage on abroad, with all their force, to satisfy
our powerful lust for fame. But as for the bird
that fights at home -- my curse on civil war.***Years later, when Odysseus the Great Tactician makes his homecoming and he restores the honor of his home by slaughtering Penelope's suitors. Ithaka is on the brink of civil war. Athena at this point made appeals to Zeus:
"Father, son of Cronus, our high and mighty king,
now let me ask you a question . . .
tell me the secrets hidden in your mind.
Will you prolong the pain, the cruel fighting here
or hand down pacts of peace between both sides?"

"My child," Zeus who marshals the thunderheads replied,
"why do you pry and probe me so intently? Come now,
wasn't the plan your own? You conceived it yourself:
Odysseus should return and pay the traitors back.
Do as your hear desires --
but let me tell you how it should be done.
Now that royal Odysseus has taken his revenge,
let both sides seal their pacts that he shall reign for life,
and let us purge their memories of the bloody slaughter
of their brothers and their sons. Let them be friends,
devoted as in the old days. Let peace and wealth
come cresting through the land."^At this point, you and other careful readers might rightly point out that Athena makes a clear distinction between civil war and war against a foreign power. And you may also point out that, Athena sides with one force against the other, and has in mind an end state in which her side prevails over the other. Moreover, you could point out that the end states for which she strives in the Orestia and the Odyssey are far from satisfactory; in each case, mortal men are ultimately required to break with two important practices (obedience to the law and memory).

Yet, I would contend that equally important is her foresight that violence must be restrained before it engulfs all combatants to the point where war will not end until it is too late for everyone.

My $0.02.

__________________________________________
* The Iliad, book five, lines 124-128. All quotes from The Iliad of Homer use the Lattimore translation (1951) which I prefer over the Fagles translation (1990).
** Ibid., lines 129-132.
*** These quotes from The Eumenides by Aeschylus are from the Fagles translation (1975), lines 833-835, and 867-875. Again, I prefer Lattimore translation, but sometimes one must just go with what a public library has to offer.
^ This passage from The Odyssey of Homer uses the Fagles translation (1996), book twenty four, lines 521-538.

MR2

10-11-2012, 09:16

'Bout Time to deploy the boys...!!!

sinjefe

10-11-2012, 09:36

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/islams-insanities-all-just-a-hoax/

Interesting POV from Raymond Ibrahim. A conservative guy, to be sure, but his points are no less interesting.

T-Rock

10-11-2012, 12:34

“…to die in the way of Allah is blessed...and THE ONLY GUARANTEED WAY OUTLINED IN THE QURAN OF GETTING TO PARADISE. Not one of the ways, all of the other ways are not listed...the only Quranic guarantee of Paradise is to DIE in the way of Allah as demonstrated by Muhammeds teachings.”

Sura 61:10 & Sura 9:111:

You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph (61:10)

God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers for the Garden—they fight [q-t-l] in God’s way: they kill [q-t-l] and are killed [q-t-l]—this is a true promise given by Him .... Who could be more faithful to his promise than God? So be happy with the bargain you have made: that is the supreme triumph.(9:111)

Not only that…, according to the Hadith, a martyr can also intercede for 70 members of his or her family. The blood of the martyr not only assures Islamic salvation, it assures 70 members of his family salvation also…

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The intercession of a martyr will be accepted for seventy members of his family. (Abu-Dawud Book 14, Number 2516)

http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=14&translator=3&start=19&number=2513

Don’t bother looking for this Hadith at USC. It has been removed:
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/

The martyrs intercession explains this mothers joy… :rolleyes:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5Vi9oNs42hs

PRB

10-11-2012, 13:10

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/islams-insanities-all-just-a-hoax/

Interesting POV from Raymond Ibrahim. A conservative guy, to be sure, but his points are no less interesting.

On the money.....Westerner's don't want to believe the truth about Islam, it frightens them, so out of PC or fear they want to 'norm' the religion to a palatable cocktail.
The truth is we are afraid of the truth because it will force us to make decisions about a religion in a way we've never done before in this Country.
Islam is not a spiritual religion...it is an earthly political construct.

tonyz

10-13-2012, 17:57

The Girl PRB was talking about.

More information on the terrorist attack.

Mullah Fazlullah ordered assassination of Pakistani schoolgirl

By BILL ROGGIO
October 12, 2012 7:19 PM

Excerpts:

Mullah Fazlullah, the emir of the Swat branch of the Movement Taliban in Pakistan (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP), ordered the assassination of Malala Yousafzai, a young schoolgirl in Swat who has spoken out against the terror group. Malala and two other girls were shot while on a bus in Swat...

...Several hours later on the day of the attack, Ihsanullah Ihsan, the top spokesman for the Movement Taliban in Pakistan, took credit for the attempt to murder Malala, in an email received by The Long War Journal. The Oct. 9 email, titled "Important Clarification," is reproduced in full, and unedited, below [emphasis added]. Ihsan tries to justify the assassination by claiming that Malala opposed sharia, or Islamic law, and that accordingly her assassination was "obligatory" under Islamic law.

TTP successfully targeted Malala Yousafzai in Mingora, although she was young and a girl and TTP does not believe in attacking on women, but whom so ever leads campaign against Islam & Shariah is Ordered to be killed by Shariah.

When its a matter of Shariah, and someone tries to bring fitnah with his/her activities, and it involves in leading a campaign against shariah and tries to involve whole community in such campaign, and that personality become a symbol of anti shariah campaign, not just its allowed to kill such person but its Obligatory in Islam.

If anyone Argues about her so young age , then the Story of Hazrat Khizar in Quran that relates that Hazrat Khizar while Traveling with Prophet Musa (AS) killed a child, arguing about the reason of his killing he said that the parents of this child are Pious and in future he will cause bad name for them.

If anyone argues that she was female, then we can see the incident of killing of wife by a blind Companion of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.W) because she use to say insultive words for prophet.And prophet praised this act.

Its a clear command of shariah that any female, that by any means play role in war against mujahideen, should be killed. Malala Yousafzai was playing a vital role in bucking up the emotions of Murtad army and Government of Pakistan, and was inviting muslims to hate mujahideen.

Tehrik taliban's crime wasn't that they banned education for girls, instead our crime is that we tried to bring Education system for both boys and girls under shariah.We are deadly against co-education and secular education syestem, and shriah orders us to be against it.

If anyone thinks thinks that Malala is targeted because of education, that's absolutely wrong, and a propaganda of Media, Malala is targeted because of her pioneer role in preaching secularism and so called enlightened moderation. And whom so ever will commit so in future too will be targeted again by TTP.

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/10/mullah_fazlullah_ordered_assas.php#ixzz29E1ijPCa

orion5

10-13-2012, 23:11

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/10/mullah_fazlullah_ordered_assas.php#ixzz29E1ijPCa

TTP successfully targeted Malala Yousafzai in Mingora, although she was young and a girl and TTP does not believe in attacking on women, but whom so ever leads campaign against Islam & Shariah is Ordered to be killed by Shariah.

When its a matter of Shariah, and someone tries to bring fitnah with his/her activities, and it involves in leading a campaign against shariah and tries to involve whole community in such campaign, and that personality become a symbol of anti shariah campaign, not just its allowed to kill such person but its Obligatory in Islam.

Hmmmm...

TTP does not believe in attacking women.
TTP is ordered by Sharia to attack and kill women.
TTP is obliged by Islam to kill women.

So therefore, TTP, actually you DO believe in attacking women. :rolleyes:

tonyz

10-14-2012, 07:00

Hmmmm...

TTP does not believe in attacking women.
TTP is ordered by Sharia to attack and kill women.
TTP is obliged by Islam to kill women.

So therefore, TTP, actually you DO believe in attacking women. :rolleyes:

Another quote from Mullah Fazlullah...

"Its a clear command of shariah that any female, that by any means play role in war against mujahideen, should be killed."

T-Rock

10-20-2012, 01:36

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/islams-insanities-all-just-a-hoax/

So what should the objective Western reader do—who is stuck in the middle, does not read Arabic, and cannot independently verify anything—when confronted with absurd news emanating from the Islamic world?

Along with evaluating the evidence as best they can, I suggest they learn to connect-the-dots. The fact is, there is no end of bizarre anecdotes emanating from the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia’s highest Islamic authority until he died in 1999, Sheikh Bin Baz—hardly someone to be dismissed as being “far, far out on the nutty fringe”—insisted that the earth was flat and that all scientific evidence otherwise is a Western conspiracy.

In 2007, Egypt’s second highest Islamic authority, Sheikh Ali Gomaa—the same “moderate” Grand Mufti who deems all Christians “infidels”—decreed that drinking the urine of Muhammad was a great blessing. Likewise, a few weeks ago in Egypt it was revealed that there is now a clinic “healing” people by giving them camel urine to drink—because Muhammad once advised it.

^ Great article Sir…

Disagreeing with Islam and not submitting to Islam is not Islamophobia, it is only common sense.

Drinking Camels urine is insane.. :eek:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEXfxXrhbg
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5nv292dN4c

“…the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine)…”
(Sahih Bukhari 8:82:794)
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=82&translator=1&start=0&number=0

“…So Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to them: If you so like, you may go to the camels of Sadaqa and drink their milk and urine. They did so and were all right..”
(Sahih Muslim 16:4130)
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/016-smt.php

medic&commo

10-20-2012, 10:00

Curious about the possible medical benefit(s) of drinking camel urine, I researched and found that horse urine is prepared to produce a drug which is given to postmenopausal women & for a cure for headaches.
Perhaps there is indeed a benefit for drinking animal (camel) urine but still, 'yuck'.
m&c

T-Rock

10-20-2012, 19:02

Perhaps there is indeed a benefit for drinking animal (camel) urine but still, 'yuck'.

:D

The mice would beg to differ :D

Camel urine treatment was found to cause a significant cytotoxic effect in the bone marrow cells of mice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8771453

PRB

10-20-2012, 19:28

:D

The mice would beg to differ :D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8771453

Yeah but the Imam would say..."We are not Mice!"....You callin' Mo a Mouse!

Stobey

05-10-2013, 00:29

Love it!!! (Or kill them & wrap them in pigskin - Russian style!)

For more info on Islam & their enablers try Robert Spencer's website:

www.jihadwatch.org

Note: a number of very good sources about Islam were $hitcanned when those "in power" succumbed to the PCMC virus (which has been demonstrated not only to cause brain damage, but to affect the optic and auditory nerves as well!)

A short list:

Steven Coughlin
Steve Emerson
Robert Spencer
Matthew Dooley (we know)
Raymond Ibrahim
Walid Shoebat
Frank Gaffney

You get the general idea...

Stobey

05-10-2013, 01:31

Again, I believe that the moderate Muslims are the extremists, and a large portion of them would love nothing more than to see us fail (or be defeated) as a nation.

The real question is how do we change that.

Since there are many Muslims who are not, shall we say, "devout", and subscribe to all of what the sadistic, psychopathic, murdering, misogynistic pedophile said and did, might I suggest the following:

http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/ridicule-mockey-and-satire-best-weapons.html

and:

http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/harbitude-harbis-with-attitude.html

Obviously "the West" cannot set out to annihilate 1.5 billion muslims, many of whom hold no ill-will toward anyone (these would be those who do not practice their faith as prescribed by their "prophet" or the ulema (Islamic scholars)). What is more, is that many muslims do not even understand their faith, as they do not read/write Arabic and only "parrot" the verses of the Quran (in Arabic) without understanding their meaning. (Since the big Mo forbade the translation of the Quran into any other language. That IS strange. If your "religion" was so great wouldn't you want the entire world to be able to read about it for themselves? NOT! This was merely the way to force 7th century Arab language & culture on the rest of the world.)

The idea is to force those muslims who are literate to take a good hard look at their "religion", the Quran, the haddiths, the sunna - to really understand who and what their "prophet" was, what he did, and what he said. Look at the 1400 year history of Islam - its conquests, and what happened to those set upon by the Islamic hordes (and the life of those subjected to it: see Bat Ye'or about "dhimmitude").

With real information available on the internet and reliable translations of the Quran, haddiths, sunna, etc. available (not the sanitized versions meant for Western consumption) it might be possible to "wake" those still existing in the nightmare of Islam/Sharia and open their eyes to the reality of what they remain trapped in.

There are many converts from Islam who were not afraid to follow the truth - wherever it led them. Many of them are speaking out, even at the risk of their lives, for now they have become "apostates": Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali are just a few that I can name.

Just thought I would submit this idea as an answer to your question, TR.
(And thank you for your years of dedicated service to our country. May God bless and keep you!)

Susan