In2 Sharing a good article…

on

Saw this article by Andrew McCarthy via RCP:

Which Islam will prevail in America.

Any way there have been several times I’ve said things similar to…

Yet, wittingly or not, when they champion this mosque and its sponsors, it is the agenda of an alien and authoritarian Islam that they champion — an Islam against which many American Muslims chafe.

and

The victims of this lethal charade include American Muslims. They, too, crave religious liberty and Western enlightenment. Our elites abandon them to the sharia-mongers.

and

On one side were patriotic American Muslims, without whom successful prosecution would have been impossible. Not only did they infiltrate the terror cells, they helped us shape the resulting evidence into a compelling narrative.

I get called a dhimmi,a pussy,a RINO,a moderate and a useful idiot.Well I am glad to see an intelligent approach being advocated via conservative/Right channels. I think Mr. McCarthy has hit a home run with this article and I highly recommend the read.

Advertisements

45 Comments

  1. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Good for you Alfie. Most of the the right does not understand that the US is a peripheral target to bin Laden . The folks at the NYC mosque – he hates them – they are moderates – the “mosque” is a community center where all faiths are welcome. Al Qaeda has killed far more Muslims than Christians. The Muslim religion is his target – he is secular not religious. Ever met a Muslim in the US? Probably born here. Their ancestors came her of the same reason that most did – for a better life.

  2. Natassia says:

    This is silly. I’m not going to try and label you as anything, since you seem to just be trying to think things through, but there is only one Islam. Simply put, there are varieties of Muslims who hold differing personal beliefs, interpretations, and levels of adherence to the ideology of Islam. There is only one shari’a. There is only one Qur’an. There is only one Sunnah. There is only one Prophet. There is only one Allah. And there is only one Islam.

    Don’t forget the words of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of the “secular” and “moderate Muslim” Turkey in response to a call for Turkey to represent a moderate Islam:

    “It is unacceptable for us to agree with such a definition. Turkey has never been a country to represent such a concept. Moreover, Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not.”

    Just as when Sean Hannity clings to the “radical” label as a security blanket when talking about imams who preach hatred against non-Muslims, conservatives and moderates only shoot themselves and conservatism in the foot by claiming that there are different versions of Islam.

    What better way to tell liberals that the problem is not really Islam but rather the conservative interpretation of it?

    Islam is the problem.

  3. jonolan says:

    Alfie, if by “Moderate Muslim” you mean ones who do not currently favor terrorism (Jihad as-sayf) as a means of achieving the Caliphate, then I can see your point in such a label. But, as Natassia rightly said, their is only one Islam and its adherents all seek the same thing because you cannot have the Qur’an without also having the Haddith and you can’t have Islam without also having Shari’a.

    Sadly, what America must strive to achieve is to foster an Islam that is debased and non-devout – moderate in its Islam – much as Christianity became watered down in the US. That’s a lot harder when the true believers murder apostates…

  4. Alfie says:

    Jonolan…I haven’t said “moderate Muslim” here at all but I think your closer is akin to what McCarthy is saying. The words above and the linked article are not from me..they are the thoughts of Andrew McCarthy,former federal prosecutor and no friend of jihad.

  5. Alfie says:

    BYD: True enough as far as that goes. I would hope you’d agree though that courtesy of the Saudi Arabian ARAMACO funded Wahabbists we have a ton of folks amongst us getting the call to do wrong. It is along these lines that one of my biggest bones of contention re the GZ mosque rests. If anyone thinks Rauf and Daisy can keep out the Wahabbis they are sadly mistaken.

  6. Alfie says:

    Natassia thank you for the comment and thank you for belaying the need to label me.
    I think you make an excellent point in bringing up Erdogan and Turkey. This requires an acceptance though that many in Turkey still successfully strive for the secular status.How that plays out is yet to be seen.
    As for the one Islam point. Mathematically this just doesn’t work but that requires a lot more than I’m diving into pre Sunday A.M. coffee.

  7. Natassia says:

    I guess I was just disappointed with McCarthy’s take on the whole thing as summed up by the title of his article: “Which Islam…?”

    This openly encourages the belief that there is some sort of alternative Islam out there that good Muslims follow but that the radicals/extremists/conservatives/fundamentals/pick-a-label have been actively pursuing and promoting around the globe.

    Just as there are different sects of Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism, Universalism, Mormonism, etc.) there are different sects of Islam (Sunni, Shia, Reformist, Submitter, etc.)

    But it is still one Islam with one set of scriptures, one prophet, and one core set of definitions (which groups like Reformists actively seek to redefine, kind of like the American Episcopalians with “marriage” and “sexual immorality.”)

  8. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Beliefs within Islam are so diverse that there is no way there is only “one Islam.”

    Shiites are encouraged to practice ijtihad. Sunnis are discouraged.
    Some Shiites think Islam is more political than other Shiites. Khomeini vs Sistani
    Shiites talk to their 12 Imams like they are saints. Sunnis won’t have any part of it.
    Sufis pray to gravestones. Shiites and Sunnis laugh at them (and more)

    It isn’t up to non-Muslims to decide what Islam is and isn’t or what it can and cannot become. It can be reformed in the future the same way Christianity has been reformed in the past. Enough just have to want it.

  9. Natassia says:

    Islam doesn’t hold beliefs. Muslims hold beliefs, which can be diverse. (Didn’t I say that already?) But there is still only one Qur’an, one prophet, one Allah, one Sunnah, one shari’a, and consequently one Islam.

    Sufis are Sunnis.

    Shia and Sunni are different sects of Islam, but they still hold the same basic tenets I listed above. They differ on their importance of certain Companions of Muhammad.

    Non-Muslims are not deciding what Islam is or isn’t. Muslims are. And yet non-Muslims, especially those in the liberal media and in our government, continue to try and explain what Islam is or isn’t. They refuse to acknowlege the legitimacy and teachings of the Saudi religious clerics, the Iranian ayatollahs, the Pakistani imams, and the Afghani mullahs.

    It cannot be improved in the way Christianity was because Christianity went through the same kind of “reformation” that Islam already experienced decades ago. Protestantism is to Christianity as Wahabbism is to Islam. Back-to-basics reformation… And yet it is the back-to-basics stuff that is so dangerous with Islam. You probably know it better as “fundamentalism.”

  10. Alfie says:

    I can somewhat see where Islam experienced a form of reformation per Natassia in its relatively recent revert to fundamentalism.
    but…
    There is ample evidence that Islam is ironically a very weak religion.It is openly at war with itself and through its many schools of jurists will not likely resolve it any time soon.
    Much like Huck said though there is an ability for Islam to experience changes secondary to consensus.
    Enough just have to want it.

  11. Natassia says:

    It is a weak religion in that it leaves its followers in a spiritual desert. That’s why underground Christian churches flourish in Islamic countries.

    The Ummah has been at war with itself ever since the death of Muhammad 1400 years ago. That’s because the entire religion was based on greed, lust, and narcissism…and so it continues to breed greed, lust, and narcissism (which is why so many Islamic governments are disgustingly corrupt.)

    Consensus is like the wind…it changes direction. Just because today’s generation may seek a liberal reformation of the practice of Islam doesn’t mean 40 year from now we won’t go through another Wahhabi trend.

    Can Nazism ever be fundamentally “reformed”? Think about it. To truly reform Nazism is to destroy Nazism–taking away its core beliefs: white supremacy and anti-Semitism.

    To truly reform Islam is to destroy it.

  12. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Islam doesn’t hold beliefs. Muslims hold beliefs…”

    I said beliefs within Islam. If you’re going to play semantics with my words please use them in the exact form.

    So Sufis are Sunnis. That doesn’t change the fact that when a Sufi goes dancing around a gravestone most other Muslims think he’s off his rocker.

    “Non-Muslims are not deciding what Islam is or isn’t.”

    When you make comments like this….

    “To truly reform Islam is to destroy it.”

    …then you are deciding what Islam is and isn’t, as well as what it can and can’t become.

  13. Natassia says:

    “Beliefs within the Ummah” would have been the correct form, if you really want to be pedantic about it. Islam is not a living, breathing organism that has beliefs within itself.

    And many Christians think Pentacostal “tongue-speakers” are off their rocker, but it doesn’t make them any less Protestant, or any less “Christian.”

    I am not deciding what Islam is, because I am merely considering what Muslims themselves have said Islam is: namely the definition provided by those modern-day and historical Islamic scholars and religious leaders who are considered the authorities of Islamic jurisprudence by most Muslims.

    To reform what all the Middle Eastern and Asian and African Islamic religious leaders say Islam is, is to destroy Islam because they define Islam the same way the Islamic leaders and scholars for centuries said it was, as well as the way they practiced it.

  14. Alfie says:

    Natassia in all fairness you seem to accept that the only definition and destiny of Islam is that of the fundamentalists.
    I think what Huck and I (and I apologize if I speak incorrectly for Huck here)are saying is that there are a number of other folks capable of impacting that whole thing.

  15. Natassia says:

    What is the definition of “fundamentalist”, Alfie?

    I certainly would consider Baptists to be fundamentalists, and I certainly think their interpretation of Christianity holds water, as does the interpretation of the Catholic Church (although their rituals are overly dogmatic and oftentimes unscriptural.)

    TRADITION is what matters when discussing the meanings of words, and the tradition of Islam holds more authority than the whims of today’s wannabe reformists. Obviously “reform” insinuates a change to the tradition, right?

    Reformists and Submitters and Qur’an-only Muslims have been trying to “reform” Islam for years. The only successful reformation of Islam was the Wahhabi/Salafi reformation that encouraged a return to…you guessed it, TRADITION.

  16. Alfie says:

    1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
    2.
    a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
    b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

    TRADITION is what matters when discussing the meanings of words, and the tradition of Islam holds more authority than the whims of today’s wannabe reformists.

    I’ll open with a couple of caveats. We are not going to agree. We are being done an injustice due to the nature of comment thread discussion.
    The tradition of Islam has a lot more to it than what you present,good and bad.Partly given it being so intrinsically attached to Muslim politics the tradition of Islam is not a static thing.This is backed up by the divisions within Islam. Although the ummah is a great card to play it is one with many faults. There is a lot of racism amongst muslims for example.History showing muslims having been eager proponents of nationalism is another.

  17. Natassia says:

    But is fundamentalism factually incorrect? Is it illogical? Is it a wrong interpretation?

    I’m more concerned with correctness about what Islam IS than with what I want Islam to be.

    As you said, Islam is instrinsically attached to Muslim politics because it IS Muslim politics. Have you ever read the history of Muhammad’s rise in power? Jihad is WHY the entire Middle East (and North Africa) is Islamic (save for the democratic oasis known as Israel).

    Racism is an integral part of Islamic tradition although it may never have been institutionalized by the scriptures themselves. However, slavery was institutionalized by Islam, and as with most things influenced by human nature, Arab slavers preferred to enslave those not considered “their own people.”

  18. Alfie says:

    Have you ever read the history of Muhammad’s rise in power?

    Yes I have but I’ve come to a different conclusion than many on either side of Muhammad & Islam. I find his story to be of a mere human intent on creating a powerful empire. I find that a majority of his earlier followers (caliphs) also desired empire. I find along the way the “religion” of Islam started to drip out of its manufactured container and turned into an actual religion.
    As noted before I find Islam a very weak religion.It is clearly a well crafted knock off of its Abrahamic forebears. Its prophet was purely human.Its early spread was all about empire,not Islamic evangelism.It makes people feel good to view it otherwise but in doing so people need to be blind of established practices of empire.One also has to fail to see the first millennia in its true context.
    As for the Islam and racism line. I was referring more to how at Hajj there is a lot of segregation.

  19. Natassia says:

    Alfie, I think the two are inseparable: Spread of the Islamic empire and Islamic proselytism. Both are incumbent upon Muslims. Although Muslims believe that they cannot force people to become Muslims, they are taught that Islamic law (shari’a and fiqh) is the BEST system to live under because it is divinely inspired. And they are also taught that neighboring non-Muslim nations who are not in a treaty with the Muslims should be brought under Islamic rule. Of course the subjugated people would not be forced to convert, however their non-Muslim status is equal to second-class citizenship or (dhimma).

    None of this is radical, extreme, or even strictly fundamental. This is how it always has been since the 8th century AD. There have been historically three methods of spreading Islam: dawah, hijra, and jihad. The first two are often labeled by critics as methods of “stealth jihad.”

    Arab racism against black Africans has been well-documented throughout history, and it continues today. It typically relates to the slave trade (which is still active in African Muslim nations.) And Malcolm X certainly didn’t experience segregation at Hajj…at least that’s not what he described. Perhaps you are referring to “culture segregation” rather than a racial one (Pakistanis segregating themselves with other Pakistanis, Indian Muslims with other Indians, etc.)

  20. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    I’m not overly impressed with the semantic games being played here.

    Anyway….

    Christianity grew to a point that it needed to be reformed and it grew to that point without any of the words of its text being changed. From there it was reformed, and still the words of the text were not changed. So what changed? People’s interpretation and understanding of the text.

    Whether you or anyone else wants to accept it or not, (mainly Shia) Islam does have a vehicle for change. It’s called ijtihad. It applies the words and ideas within Islamic texts to the modern day. All it would take to reform Islam is for enough Muslims to engage in ijtihad to the extent that Muslims begin to alter their understandings of their texts, and apply them in more modern terms. Terms that don’t include the savagery of the 8th century.

    It can be done. Will it? I can only hope. But it sure isn’t for you, me, or any other non-Muslim to say that it can’t or won’t.

    “As for the Islam and racism line. I was referring more to how at Hajj there is a lot of segregation.”

    I can’t speak to the Hajj, but members of my university’s Model Arab League team were invited by the Saudi government to tour the country for 2 weeks.

    That is…all members but the women and black guys.

    “save for the democratic oasis known as Israel”

    Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. Other examples would be Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, the UAE, and Yemen.

    And since you are so concerned about insignificant wordings, such as “beliefs within Islam,” you shouldn’t mind me pointing out that Israel isn’t actually a democracy, but rather a parliamentary representative republic.

  21. Natassia says:

    @ Hucking,
    You wrote: “Christianity grew to a point that it needed to be reformed and it grew to that point without any of the words of its text being changed. From there it was reformed, and still the words of the text were not changed. So what changed? People’s interpretation and understanding of the text.”

    I don’t generally like to play semantics, but I do like clarity, which is why I can sometimes be pedantic.

    And your word usage seems to insinuate that the growth of Christianity was the problem. Growth had nothing to do with it. The Church’s unholy marriage with the State was the problem.

    The interpretation of the Christian scriptures has not changed. Salvation is still attained in the typical manner: through repentence and belief in Jesus Christ as ones Savior.

    There’s never been a Christian concept of martyrdom through mayhem and murder (unless one was on the receiving end) whereas there has always been a Muslim concept of martyrdom through death while trying to kill infidels.

    You wrote: “I can’t speak to the Hajj, but members of my university’s Model Arab League team were invited by the Saudi government to tour the country for 2 weeks. That is…all members but the women and black guys.”

    Gender segregation is institutionalized in Islam. And didn’t I say Arab racism against blacks is prevalent? Arabs would still be enslaving and trading them around the globe if they could.

    Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, the UAE, and Yemen all have one thing in common: a Muslim-majority populace. So, they are democratic deserts, not oases. Besides, any democracy can democratically destroy itself. So far Israel is the only place a Jew can safely live without fear of persecution from his neighbors and even from his government.

    I didn’t call Israel a democracy, now did I?

    I said it was democratic. I suppose I could elaborate and say that it is a country represented by democratically-elected representatives. Would that be better?

    Moron.

  22. Alfie says:

    Muslim concept of martyrdom through death while trying to kill infidels.
    That’s not the whole truth of the concept,in fact i don’t know if it is even partially true.
    And how come a predominantly Jewish place is an oasis as long as it has elections but a predominantly Muslim one is a desert?

  23. Natassia says:

    “And how come a predominantly Jewish place is an oasis as long as it has elections but a predominantly Muslim one is a desert?”

    Because Jews don’t vote for shari’a. Also, just because Turkey’s government, for example, is secular, it doesn’t mean the society and culture as a whole is not hostile towards Jews. Islamic “fundamentalism” is on the rise in Turkey. And no one is surprised. This is an inevitable occurence anywhere there is a majority of Muslims in a given population.

    Definition of “shahid” from Wikipedia (not always a trusted source, but not bad for summary): (Arabic: شَهيد ‎ šahīd, plural: شُهَداء šuhadā, alternately latinised as shaheed) is an Arabic word meaning “witness”. It is a religious term in Islam, meaning “witness”, as stated, but most often “martyr.” It is used as a title for Muslims who have died fulfilling a religious commandment, or waging war for Islam.

    From the words of the prophet Muhammad himself:

    “The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah’s cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause.” (Sahih Bukhari 1:2:35)

    Is there any other way to logically interpret this than “Muslim martyr = crappy Muslim fighter”?

  24. Alfie says:

    Your earlier comment implies one must go out and find infidels as opposed to what jihad is usually,rightfully seen as a defensive action.As for crappy muslim fighter…it’s not about effectiveness it is about the will to do it,not unlike a Christian being willing to endure persecution.
    I also must say I do not find your “Jews don’t vote for sharia” an acceptable answer to the question.

  25. Natassia says:

    You are very mistaken if you think jihad is for defensive purposes only. Oftentimes Muhammad himself led aggressive expeditions not for the sake of defense but for the sake of acquiring booty and wiping out what could become a potential threat (like people who didn’t buy the lie that he was a prophet of God.)

    The conquest of the entire Arabian peninsula was not a defensive action. Muslim invasion and conquest of the entire Middle East had everything to do with bringing non-Muslim lands under Islamic control.

    Was the jihad waged against the Iberian peninsula defensive? Heck no.

    Was the jihad waged against the Franks defensive? Heck no.

    A Muslim soldier who is trying to kill an infidel (whether in aggression or defense) and dies is a martyr according to Islam. A Christian soldier who is trying to kill a non-Christian (regardless of the circumstances) and dies is never considered to be a martyr.

    Martyrdom in Christianity requires a passivity towards religious persecution that ends in death.

    And I’m not really concerned with your acceptance of my answers. 🙂

  26. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “And your word usage seems to insinuate that the growth of Christianity was the problem.”

    Then you are misinterpretting it.

    Christianity grew with time. In that time, it came to need reformation. And I didn’t call its need for reform a problem. That would be a judgement for Christians, which I am not.

    You see, unlike many other people (including yourself), I don’t make judgements about the religions of others.

    “The interpretation of the Christian scriptures has not changed. Salvation is still attained in the typical manner: through repentence and belief in Jesus Christ as ones Savior.”

    Last time I read that book, there was a lot more in it than just those things.

    “There’s never been a Christian concept of martyrdom through mayhem and murder (unless one was on the receiving end) whereas there has always been a Muslim concept of martyrdom through death while trying to kill infidels.”

    So what? This has nothing to do with a single thing I’ve said.

    “And didn’t I say Arab racism against blacks is prevalent?”

    Settle down. I wasn’t refuting your claim. I was adding to the discussion about it.

    “Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, the UAE, and Yemen all have one thing in common: a Muslim-majority populace. So, they are democratic deserts, not oases.”

    Please…..

    You made a generalized statement and it was proven wrong. Save the CYA for someone who’s buying. Which isn’t anyone here.

    “I said it was democratic. I suppose I could elaborate and say that it is a country represented by democratically-elected representatives. Would that be better?”

    Yes, it would be better. Unless you would like to stop being so critical of how other people word things.

    “So far Israel is the only place a Jew can safely live without fear of persecution from his neighbors and even from his government.”

    Again, none of that has a single thing to do with anything I’ve said. Nor does it have to do with the concept of democracy.

    Also, Jews seems to live pretty safely in the US. Don’t be so general if you’re going to be so anal about everything else.

    “Because Jews don’t vote for shari’a.”

    And you are making an assumption that all Muslims do.

    “Moron.”

    It sure didn’t take you long to follow in the footsteps of your Islamaphobic pal, Elric. Perhaps if your personal insults continue Alfie will see to it that you continue along his path…out the door.

  27. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Was the jihad waged against the Franks defensive?”

    It was defensive against the Franks who went on Crusade.

  28. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Alfie, why was my last comment not moderated but the one before it with no links is?

  29. Natassia says:

    @ Hucking

    Wrong again.

    The Battle of Tours was fought in 732.

    The First Crusade was not launched until 300 years later.

    Charles “the Hammer” Martel successfully stopped the Islamic jihad into Europe between Tours and Poitiers.

    Try picking up a history book some time…or at least Google your “facts” first before trying to use them.

  30. Alfie says:

    I didn’t say onlyI said

    …jihad is usually,rightfully seen as a defensive action

    That is especially true of the modern era.
    Nor did I go on a review of history or put forth my extensive views of “isms” of history which would a)undoubtedly help the conversation and b) bore the hell out of you.

  31. Alfie says:

    Natassia I think you overshot the runway a bit. I’m fairly confident Huck meant the Franks actions during the actual Crusades

  32. Natassia says:

    “rightfully”?

    Since when? Jihad has been “wrongful” since its very inception.

    Muhammad never had the right to conquer the entire Arabian peninsula in the first place.

    “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.” ~ Prophet Muhammad, as related by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib (Sahih Muslim 19:4366)

    And in the modern era, U.S. embassies, military, and civilians have been attacked by Islamic terrorists since the Iranian Revolution at least. And rightfully so, right?

    P.S. And discussions of “isms” never bore me.

  33. Natassia says:

    Alfie, he was being deliberately misleading then since the first jihad against the Franks was not in retaliation for the Crusades. And interestingly enough, the Crusades (at least the first ones) were launched in retaliation for 300 years of jihad.

  34. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “The Battle of Tours was fought in 732.”

    That’s right.

    But those Franks were not on Crusade, were they?

    Which is why I said…

    “It was defensive against the Franks who went on Crusade.”

    Please read and comprehend the entire comment before passing judgement.

    “Try picking up a history book some time…or at least Google your “facts” first before trying to use them.”

    I just graduated with a B.A. in History with an emphasis on Medieval Europe and the Middle East. So I’ve read plenty on the subject, thanks. Of course, as I mentioned above, what might really help is if you read the entire comment before passing judgements.

    Alfie, I’ve been making a real effort to stick with your new policy concerning personal insults. So with that… I’ll be back when some of your commenters learn to do the same.

  35. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “And interestingly enough, the Crusades (at least the first ones) were launched in retaliation for 300 years of jihad.”

    Now it’s you who needs to crack the books.

  36. Alfie says:

    Natassia said

    Muhammad never had the right to conquer the entire Arabian peninsula in the first place.

    What? Why?

  37. Natassia says:

    @ Hucking

    You see, unlike many other people (including yourself), I don’t make judgements about the religions of others.

    Why not? Is it a bad thing to make judgments about belief systems regardless of ones’ personal adherence to them? Seriously, would you have me mindcensor myself? Isn’t that making a judgment about me making judgments? Dear God, if we should never make judgments about belief systems…what would be the point of blogs like this?

    Last time I read that book, there was a lot more in it than just those things.

    The whole point of the Christian scriptures is to point to a way for salvation. Or rather I should say The Way: Jesus Christ. That’s the primary point of any religion, isn’t it? Salvation, nirvana, whatever. And the same goes for salvation in Islam. The interpretation of how to attain salvation has never changed, especially since it has been encapsulated in the scriptures with pretty clear language.

    “There’s never been a Christian concept of martyrdom through mayhem and murder (unless one was on the receiving end) whereas there has always been a Muslim concept of martyrdom through death while trying to kill infidels.”

    So what? This has nothing to do with a single thing I’ve said.

    Sure it does. We’re discussing the need for an Islamic reformation like Christianity, right? And yet it has already had one: Wahabbism, which clarifies what martyrdom is which is what leads Muslims to wage jihad in the first place. We’re discussing the fact that interpretations change, where I’m saying the core interpretations never really change with the mainstream adherents because those core interpretations are encapsulated in their scriptures…which don’t change unless the translations are deliberately manipulated later with time. I suppose a “positive” reformation of Islam would be possible if the original Qur’ans were all destroyed and new translations put out in their place.

    “So far Israel is the only place a Jew can safely live without fear of persecution from his neighbors and even from his government.”

    Again, none of that has a single thing to do with anything I’ve said. Nor does it have to do with the concept of democracy.

    No, it has to do with what I said: Israel being an oasis.

    Also, Jews seems to live pretty safely in the US. Don’t be so general if you’re going to be so anal about everything else.

    I was referring to the Middle East and surrounding Islamic nations, since that is what we’ve been talking about.

    “Because Jews don’t vote for shari’a.”

    And you are making an assumption that all Muslims do.

    Most do, especially those living in Islamic nations. (I never said they all do, although by supporting the mosques and supporting Islamic beliefs, they indirectly support shari’a.) And in “democratic” nations, majority still does matter…especially when it comes to democratically electing representatives to come up with laws. Have you seen the latest Pakistan poll for example? Nearly 80% of Pakistanis agree with stoning an adulterer to death (among other lovely shari’a dictates).

    P.S. Leave the threats to Alfie. If he wants to warn me, he can very well do so. lol

  38. Natassia says:

    @Alfie

    Why did Muhammad not have the right to conquer the entire peninsula?

    Because stealing and murder is wrong–which is what he did.

    Why are stealing and murder wrong?

    Because God said so. 🙂

  39. Alfie says:

    Okey-Dokey. Just so you know where I come from I don’t see conquest as a crime,it’s just a sick human reality and it has occurred all over the globe courtesy of all types of people.
    Also murder is indeed wrong but killing isn’t necessarily. 🙂

  40. Natassia says:

    @ Hucking

    But those weren’t the Franks I was talking about, now is it? Had the Muslims not waged jihad IN THE FIRST PLACE there would have been no “need” for another jihad later when the Franks retaliated for 300 years of Islamic invasion and conquest.

    And the reason the Franks went on their Crusade was because the Muslims were AGAIN launching another jihad, this time on the Byzantine Empire.

    It’s funny how people can act aggressively, and then when retaliated against, claim they are only fighting in self-defense.

  41. Natassia says:

    Alfie,

    “Crime”?

    Hmmm… I suppose it depends on who is judging by what law. 😉

    Just because something is a “sick human reality” (Christians call it “sin”), it doesn’t make it right. I guess that’s why I say Muhammad didn’t have a “right” to do what he did.

    Of course, here I’m making a judgment call based on my biased belief that humans actually have natural rights aside from what a man with a big gun tells them they have.

  42. Alfie says:

    So likewise the Americans had no right doing to the native Americans what we did.

  43. Natassia says:

    Oooo, now we stray onto a very interesting subject.

    Which Americans, which AmerIndians, and which actions are we talking about exactly?

    Organized responses and acts of aggression by the United States government? Or the skirmishes and fights between frontiersmen and AmerIndian warriors?

    I can perhaps make a judgment call on the part of the actions of the government, but free men alone in lawless territory? That’s gotta be done on a case-by-case basis.

  44. Alfie says:

    Just go with the big ones like the Trail of Tears.Also what right did the US have to pursue Manifest Destiny?

  45. Natassia says:

    Okay, the Trail of Tears.

    By what constitutionally-enumerated power did the federal government force thousands of people to walk to their death?

    Doesn’t look like the law was on their side.

    By what religious dictate did the federal government have the moral authority to force thousands of people to walk to their death?

    Just because the government COULD do something, it doesn’t mean they had the right to. In other words, the Trail of Tears was a horrifying and embarrassing legacy of the United States government.

    And who is claiming that the United States government had the right to pursue “Manifest Destiny”? And can you clarify what you mean exactly by the U.S. pursuing it?

Comments are closed.